Was Madeleine seen after Sunday?

joyce1938 wrote:I really can not imagine ,any good friend or otherwise covering an accident that may lead to death.joyce1938

Realist wrote:

joyce1938 wrote:I really can not imagine ,any good friend or otherwise covering an accident that may lead to death.joyce1938

Neither can I, particularly people with professional careers who had so much to lose. Its palpably absurd to opine that any sane minded person would confide with a group of virtual strangers that their daughter had unlawfully died and that they required their assistance to cover up the crime.

People of the calibre of Freddie Foreman enter into conspiracies to dispose of bodies, not run of the mill doctors. I wouldn't trust my doctor with the knowledge that I had knocked over a bubble gum machine in the 1960's, never mind killed a child, whether it be deliberately, or accidentally. Why the entire conception is positively pythonesque.

Its simply beyond the pale for the McCanns to have even remotely supposed that not only seven comparative strangers would withstand police scrutiny, but half a dozen others who were totally unconnected would also come along for the ride. There would be more chance of winning the lottery 52 times per yr. than this occurring.

No-one but the McCanns know exactly what transpired with their daughter and no-one but the McCanns know where the body is buried.  Think about it, if you had dispensed with your offspring, would you want half the NHS and Praia da Luz being party to the intimate facts. As previously stated, whatever transpired with the McCann's daughter occurred long before the time purported, but to state that all these people are either lying on behalf of the McCanns , or mistaken is not only speculative, its pure fantasy. Of course  the Tapas 7 are lying, but they're lying for their own agendas, not to cover for the McCanns, that's why their stories don't tally up.

So why did they?

Cmaryholmes wrote:, it most likely wasn't an accident but something much more sinister. This would explain the secrecy, wouldn't it?

Realist wrote:

So why did they?

Because initially they thought they were covering for potential child neglect in the case of their own children. When it became apparent that something far more serious had occurred, it was too late to change course, the die had been cast.

I don't recall any mention of potential child neglect by the PJ, as far as I'm aware this issue was created by and has been propagated by the public who prefer the easy route in defence of the McCanns and their friends.

What did the group of friends think happened to Madeleine prior to being aware that something more serious had happened?  What was this something more serious?  When did it become apparent that something more serious occurred - on the night of 3rd/4th May 2007 when they perfected the timeline and Jane Tanner saw a stranger that didn't look like a tourist,  carrying a half naked child into the night?

Too late to change course, yet you consider it impossible for a group of friends to cover-up a serious crime?  Isn't that a bit of a contradiction?

They were then left in the unenviable position of having to tell more lies to substantiate their original ones. As we all know, the more the lies, the more improbable and implausible they become. That's why, particularly in the USA, lawyers invariably advise against defendants giving evidence on their own behalf.

If what you believe be true, they were most definitely not left in the unenviable position of having to tell more lies to substantiate their original ones. 
All they needed to do was to tell the truth - surely preferable to telling more lies to cover their previous lies.  Anyway, by all intents and purposes, they were regularly checking on their children every evening, so where does the neglect enter into it?  If something happened to a McCann child how could they be implicated if 100% innocent?  Don't understand what defendants giving evidence on their own behalf has to do with anything.

In this case, it doesn't really matter, because not only will no-one ever stand trial, but perhaps most poignantly, neither the McCanns or their acquaintances ever be called upon to give evidence. That's why the objective of the police is and always has been to frame a stooge/fall guy who is deceased. If they were ever to indict a living person and a trial ensued, that's when everything would fall apart, because the McCanns and their acquaintances would be required to give evidence. This is the only circumstance where the aforementioned could be subpoenaed to give evidence and subjected to cross examination which is of course, why it will never happen.

Isn't this a bit a' about face?  No-one will ever stand trial nor will the McCanns or their friends ever be called upon to give evidence so the police are going to frame a fall-guy?  I totally agree that this case will never be heard in a court of law but why would the police want a fall-guy, dead or living, to prevent something that's not going to happen anyway.  Don't you think it's more likely a reason to close the case?

Realist wrote:

Cmaryholmes wrote:, it most likely wasn't an accident but something much more sinister. This would explain the secrecy, wouldn't it?

In the vein that the McCann's version as to how their daughter disappeared is a physical impossibility,  it is a violent presumption that whatever happened to their daughter wasn't an accident, that's where Goncalo Amaral's hypothesis falls apart. After all, even the most intellectually challenged in our midst wouldn't deem it a viable proposition to turn an accidental death into a criminal matter.

Disregarding the first sentence which makes absolutely no sense, I think you'll find that Dr. Amaral's and his team of investigators were following the line of removal and concealment of a corpse - that's where accidental death turns into a criminal matter.

As for the McCann's acquaintances having  a 'Damascus experience,' do you really suppose that our Gerry would be so confident when stating 'There's no evidence,' if he knew that people such as Jane Tanner et al had the goods on him, surely not.  Let's 'ave it right, would you be confident in the knowledge that your fate lay in the hands of the aforementioned. Personally, I'd feel vulnerable if she knew my NI contributions weren't up to date.

If one or more of the group of friends were implicated in any way whatsoever with the fate of Madeleine then yes, Gerry and Kate McCann would have no choice.  Gerry McCann is confident there is no evidence because he knows there is no evidence and he knows they are protected - so does his wife and friends.

Verdi wrote:

I don't recall any mention of potential child neglect by the PJ, as far as I'm aware this issue was created by and has been propagated by the public who prefer the easy route in defence of the McCanns and their friends.

There didn't have to be any mention of child neglect from the PJ, as I understand the Portuguese  stance on leaving children alone, it isn't as rigorous and hysterical as is the status quo in the UK, or USA. The McCann's acquaintances probably weren't aware of this at the time and considered it wouldn't be advantageous to their career prospects to be seen leaving their children alone whilst they were out drinking. That is why all the spurious check lists were concocted. They couldn't then subsequently claim that these were all lies and that their children were left virtually unattended, could they now. You'll note that Dr. Oldfield was only prepared to state that he saw the twins and not Madelaine in the apt. after he realised she had gone missing. That's because he didn't know when she had gone missing, hence no corroboration of the McCann's story there. 

What did the group of friends think happened to Madeleine prior to being aware that something more serious had happened?  What was this something more serious?  When did it become apparent that something more serious occurred - on the night of 3rd/4th May 2007 when they perfected the timeline and Jane Tanner saw a stranger that didn't look like a tourist,  carrying a half naked child into the night?

Too late to change course, yet you consider it impossible for a group of friends to cover-up a serious crime?  Isn't that a bit of a contradiction?


I wouldn't think that they were initially aware that anything serious had occurred any more than anyone else and that there would have been the passing of a considerable number of hours before they realised that something more serious had transpired. Everyone else on the scene would have naturally thought she had wandered off etc. why at that time would they think otherwise, only the McCanns were certain she had permanently disappeared. Remember Kate McCann's alleged initial response 'They've taken her.' During the first hrs. the McCann's acquaintances were concocting stories to cover up the lack of concern for their children, not a missing person, or murder enquiry.

If what you believe be true, they were most definitely not left in the unenviable position of having to tell more lies to substantiate their original ones. 
All they needed to do was to tell the truth - surely preferable to telling more lies to cover their previous lies.  Anyway, by all intents and purposes, they were regularly checking on their children every evening, so where does the neglect enter into it?  If something happened to a McCann child how could they be implicated if 100% innocent?  Don't understand what defendants giving evidence on their own behalf has to do with anything.

I don't believe they were regularly checking on their children, hence their initial lies and as previously stated, they could hardly at a subsequent stage turn around and state that it was all lies, unless they were themselves put under pressure by the authorities to do so, which they never were, never have been, or ever will be.


Isn't this a bit a' about face?  No-one will ever stand trial nor will the McCanns or their friends ever be called upon to give evidence so the police are going to frame a fall-guy?  I totally agree that this case will never be heard in a court of law but why would the police want a fall-guy, dead or living, to prevent something that's not going to happen anyway.  Don't you think it's more likely a reason to close the case?

Then why were the British police chasing up dead 'Tractor' men and cancer ridden German paedophiles? Of course they are looking to close the case which rather begs the question, why open it in the first instance, particularly in the vein that it isn't even within their jurisdiction.

Verdi wrote:

Disregarding the first sentence which makes absolutely no sense, I think you'll find that Dr. Amaral's and his team of investigators were following the line of removal and concealment of a corpse - that's where accidental death turns into a criminal matter.

I would have thought that my first sentence was both logical and clarification personified, but maybe not to all. For this, I profusely apologise. Dr. Amaral's hypothesis was indeed that  Madelaine McCann's 'disappearance' was an accident and that her parents had removed and concealed the body, but put colloquially, this is pissed pub science, because why would any sane minded person feel the need to turn an accidental death into a potential murder enquiry. It jus' don't work like that.


If one or more of the group of friends were implicated in any way whatsoever with the fate of Madeleine then yes, Gerry and Kate McCann would have no choice.  Gerry McCann is confident there is no evidence because he knows there is no evidence and he knows they are protected - so does his wife and friends.

I'm afraid that in this instance, I am the one who is a tad confused, because you appear to be stating that some, or all of the McCann's acquaintances may have been directly involved with whatever fate befell Madelaine.  Are you stating that the McCann's may be shielding one or more of their acquaintances because they accidentally killed their daughter, surely not. Further, that is why they are safe in the knowledge that no-one will (for want of a better phrase) 'stick them up' After all, would you risk prosecution for aiding and abetting an acquaintance who had accidentally killed your son, or daughter. Now that really is going from the sublime to the ridiculous.

Even if one or more acquaintances were directly involved, where would that leave the others who weren't, why should they put themselves in the firing line, after all, none of them were that close. If you were sharing a vacation with relative strangers, would you agree to enter into a criminal conspiracy with one or more of them where you had no involvement , or anything to gain other than grief and potential  prosecution??? 

As for the McCanns and their acquaintances being protected, protected by whom? They were all low level doctors, not presidential candidates. The only protection the McCanns are being afforded is that there isn't any tangible evidence against them and the reason for this being, no-one else was, or is directly involved with what transpired with their daughter.

''When your friends become your foe, around the world your secrets go,'' or perhaps more poignantly, ''Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down the life of his friend to save himself.''

Cmaryholmes wrote:The Mccann's acquaintances/ friends all gathered in their apartment on the night of Madeleine's disappearance and didn't they attend a meeting in Rothley later on in the year ? I am sure that no one knows as much as Gerry , but surely , they all know more than we do ( to paraphrase Kate ). Their  motivation not to reveal what they know must be very great indeed.

Verdi wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] today 12:38 pm and 1:51 pm

Sorry, my brain hurts!  I can't begin to respond to such a broad spectrum of issues riddled with so much contradiction. 

Cmaryholmes wrote:But why has not a single one of them spoken publicly about it ? Collusion, maybe....intimidation, maybe.

Realist wrote:

Cmaryholmes wrote:But why has not a single one of them spoken publicly about it ? Collusion, maybe....intimidation, maybe.

I stated the McCann's acquaintances know more than we, Cmary, but with the proviso that only because they know the McCanns and were vacating with them at the time. Its my belief and experience with human nature that their knowledge is confined to what transpired after Kate McCann pronounced her daughter had 'been taken,' as opposed to being party to any of the proceedings prior to that.

j.rob wrote:



I think there are a great many pointers that some (if not all) members of the group knew what happened to Madeleine that week.

In the photo taken of some members of the group (on Friday 4th May 2007?) when they were going in for police questioning, they look incredibly guilty and sheepish.

Kate looks anguished on Friday 4th May 2007 and has whopping bruises on her forearms and wrist which are suggestive of heavy restraint by another person, imo.

Matt Oldfield in his rogatory flags up having noticed the name of the road they had been searching on as it was called Cemetery Road. Why would the word 'Cemetery' mean anything unless the subject of death had been on his mind at the time of searching?

Kate uses the language of death at the time of the abduction, imo: 'She's been taken' could easily be a euphemism for 'taken by death'. 'We have let her down' I think is also doctor-speak for death. 

Portuguese police are astonished to see both Kate and Gerry on their hands and knees prostrated as if Arabs in prayer and wailing. Again, I think this is suggestive that Madeleine is dead. Kate asks for a priest that fateful night which would suggest a death has occurred.

Kate describes in her book how on the very night of the alleged abduction: "Back in the apartment the cold, black night enveloped us all for what seemed like an eternity. Dianne and I sat there just staring at each other, still as statues. 'It's so dark,' she said again and again. 'I want the light to come'. I felt exactly the same way. Gerry was stretched out on a camp bed.....he kept saying: 'Kate, we need to rest. He managed to drift off...."

The early hours after someone has gone missing are vital in terms of finding them. The behaviour above which comes right out of the horse's mouth, so to speak, is completely inconsistent with the behaviour of parents (and a friend of theirs) who are trying to find a missing child.

However it IS consistent with parents - and a friend of theirs - who know that a child is dead, imo. Kate uses the language of death. 

I had often assumed that Dianne was 'out of the loop' but the description above - if accurate - would seem to suggest that Dianne too knows the situation is hopeless.

IMO

j.rob wrote: Why else would she be prepared to come up with the Tannerman fairy tale which has more holes that a sieve?

Grandad wrote:Hi Realist,

Notwithstanding the rudeness that my 1st ever post was dismissed with last Saturday, (I notice yours on the same day received much the same the treatment!) I reiterate the two main points I was trying to make that I think offers a suggestion of why the 'group' of Doctors MAY have found it necessay to maintain a pact of Omerta since 2007 - 

My speculation (and without proof it can’t be more than speculation) is that perhaps something happens early in the holiday that leaves her grievously injured – but NOT immediately dead - and, lets further speculate, that whatever the injury and the cause of it, they are reluctant to call for an ambulance.

So – in these circumstances what are a group of doctors – of various specialisms to do?

Say that, for whatever reason they decide to treat her themselves instead of calling the relevant authorities. 
Perhaps the treatment requires equipment or other medical supplies (blood for example) that they don’t have with them - but they are able to send for it from home by calling someone who will drop everything and fly it out the next day?

Perhaps the treatment was invasive and would have been immediately obvious to anyone else.

Let’s say they worked to save her but in the end fail and she dies. During the (perhaps) days of treatment they would have had to ‘cover’ the fact that she was not visible, perhaps contriving to use one of the other children as a substitute at critical moments. They would have needed to appear as if everything was ‘normal’ – so they would need to be seen in the Tapas bar and playing tennis – and jogging. But throughout all this time the group - i.e. the ‘medical team’ would have been working to save her - plus working to make life appear normal and cleaning up any evidence of an ‘accident’ (or incident). As the days passed they must also have been trying to find a way to get her back home – and that plan would have to have been enacted by the end of the holiday. Perhaps arrangements had been made to achieve that – a recovery team with a boat or private plane? (Wealthy contacts – or even ‘government’ help.) But then she died – perhaps in the end unexpectedly.

How then to cover that new situation? Own up to the events of the past days – with all the predictable effects of doing so?

And here in this moment is born the ‘abduction’ story.

Planning for the deception is quickly done by the group using the covers from MBMs book – twice – the first draft of a plan and then a revised/refined second draft. And then the plan, hastily concocted, swings into action.

Perhaps the recovery plan was modified at perhaps very very short notice – the recovery team now had to remove a corpse instead of what seemed, until that moment, a seriously injured but stable patient. Frantic phone calls would have been made to do so. Or perhaps the recovery team is cancelled and they remove the corpse themselves by hiding it somewhere away from 5a and then later hire a car to drive it away to a final disposal site.

One of the men carry a sleeping child through the streets – with the intention of being seen and Kate acts out the ‘discovery’ of ‘missing’ MBM. The police are called and witness the overly theatrical display of grief/shock /trauma of G&K - a frantic search ensues by the police and many locals – but significantly not by G&K who instead man the phones – talking to family at home - and the UK press to establish the ‘abduction’ story?

What their hasty plan hasn’t allowed for of course is the investigation – the questions – the cross referencing of statements etc. etc. etc. and so inevitably we see contradictions, answers given that don’t fit – and then realising the problem – answers refused.

And once embarked on this they can’t stop – they have to ‘stay with it’ – to carry on deceiving. The other members of the group can’t now ‘tell the truth’ because they themselves have been party to the: treat her themselves, try to get her home by the end of the week and then the concoction/invention of the ‘abduction’ when she dies plan.


In short – accident – disappearance – dies – disposal doesn’t have to happen at the same time!


Nor does the original reason for deception have to have been the eventual ongoing to this day reason!


I will also add this further observation - if there is/was a 'VIP' that needed protection because they were members of the 'group' of what - 'swingers?' or worse - and horrible to contemplate - 'swingers that included their children' 

The 'VIP' need not have been there during the week of the holiday - membership of the 'group' and thus possible/probable exposure of such would be enough to generate a high level cover up!
  
 
Oh what a tangled web we weave when first we practise to deceive!

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.], Scottish author & novelist (1771 - 1832) 

Grandad wrote:This is the gist of my 2nd post -


I can think of many scenarios why these people could have been faced with a situation where they couldn't used the local hospital!

It rather depends on what happened to her – and the circumstances of that and also perhaps – what evidence a medical examination of her might have revealed – I think all the following have appeared in the thinking of other on this site before thus –

Perhaps regular sedation – or an unintended ‘double dose’ (they both gave her a dose not realising the other had already done so.)
Perhaps (sedated or not) she fell from (& behind the sofa) cracking her skull; breaking her neck or any other injury or combination of injuries.)
Perhaps Ma & Pa came back late from the evenings fun & games a bit (or a lot) plastered – collapsed asleep without checking the children & she lay bleeding behind the sofa all night.

If they found her the next morning – perhaps barely alive --- what else could they do?

None of these examples are matters that couldn't easily be explained and certainly wouldn't warrant disposal of her body.

If the Gasper statements are considered - perhaps there was evidence of abuse that could not be allowed to be found.
Any of these or many other possibilities (perhaps they didn't come home at all that night – if the swinging suggestions have any truth) – or a combination of more than one could easily explain why they would not – in fact could not - do what most of us would do in different circumstances.

There's never been any tangible evidence of either of the above, note I use the word tangible. Heaven forbid anyone should pull the short straw and end up with Jane Tanner.

whodunit wrote:


Riskier than what, is the question. If they needed time, time to establish alibis, time to rid the environment of evidence, time to put distance between themselves and 'the event' then using a replacement 'Maddie' for a few days in a strange place where nobody knew them is certainly less of a risk than the alternative. 

.