Re: Was Madeleine seen after Sunday?

by Verdi 16.04.16 15:41

@Realist 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. From what I can deduce from your comments, you are working only on your own prejudiced thoughts and totally disregarding the wealth of information at our disposal that counters most of what you think.

I see from your profile that you've been a member for well over a year, so I'm assuming that you have read all previous comments relating to your areas of interest. If the arguments previously expounded by members relative to the points you recently raised have failed to influence your fixed stance, then I really don't think there is anything I can add.

However, in the spirit of goodwill, I am quite willing to again go over specific points in nibble size bits as and when.

by Realist 19.04.16 14:06

Verdi wrote:@Realist 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.

There may well be a school of thought who would subscribe to my experiencing difficulty in responding to such a 'broad spectrum' of issues riddled with both wild speculation and unprecedented human behaviour patterns.

by Realist 19.04.16 14:13

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.

As to why they won't speak publicly about the incident, its simply not in their interests to do so. If they really had any relevant knowledge as to what transpired with Madeleine, they've had done so many yrs. ago, but it would have been to possibly a German magazine offering the greatest reward, not the British public and certainly not the police, unless of course it involved them spending a couple of hrs. banged up in a cell when they would undoubtably, scream like stuck pigs.

by j.rob 19.04.16 14:34

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.

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

by Realist 19.04.16 15:05

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

I'm sure, like all of us, they know that the McCann's daughter died at their hands, why, you'd have to be an under 5 subscriber to Rupert Murdoch's 'Sun' comic strip not to, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they know when, how she died, or where her body was disposed of.

A bookmaker wouldn't give odds of trillions to one on 7 so called 'straight' people withstanding police pressure and covering up a potential murder for a pair of casual acquaintances. They may well try to wrong foot 'em, providing it didn't directly implicate them, but to put their liberty at peril by entering into a criminal murder conspiracy would be unprecedented in the annals of human history

by j.rob 19.04.16 15:29

I'm sure, like all of us, they know that the McCann's daughter died at their hands, you'd have to be an under 5 subscriber to Rupert Murdoch's 'Sun' comic strip not to, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they know when, how she died, or where the body was disposed of.

A bookmaker wouldn't give odds of trillions to one on 7 so called 'straight' people withstanding police pressure and covering up a potential murder for a pair of casual acquaintances. They may well try to wrong foot 'em, providing it didn't directly implicate them, but to put their liberty at peril by entering into a criminal murder conspiracy would be unprecedented in the annals of human history

------

The Tapas rogatories are so full of inconsistencies, omissions, stumbles and umms and ahhhs, not to mention qualifiers, that I don't believe a word of them. Plus all their photos of that week are, conveniently imo, practically indecipherable.

I think that something had happened that week that already had the potential to put the liberty of at least some members of the group at stake, and it was decided there was no option but to cover up.

There is also a very strong culture in medicine in being less than truthful when mistakes happen. I have personally witnessed situations where doctors have lied blatantly on oath. It is not uncommon.

IMO there was *a disaster* that week but the show had to go on. Hence the botched time-lines, the unjemmied shutters and more besides.

I suspect that in the very early days TM were not sure if they would get away with it but it was not long before they were enjoying establishment support.

I suspect that if the truth of what had happened that week had got out it would have painted the medical profession in a very bad light. And that was to be avoided, among other reasons for the cover up.

Don't forget this was a large group of doctors - one of whose specialty was emergency medicine - just suppose that there had been a decision not to resuscitate, say, as to do so would lead to very awkward questions being asked and a can of worms being uncovered, that would be pretty scandalous.

A purely theoretical scenario of course. But I don't think it can be ruled out. Several of the Tapas rogatories make direct references to 'clobbering' ; 'accidentally banged on the head' and knowing how to resuscitate a child.

I personally think that a collective decision was made not to seek emergency treatment.

Maybe not the whole group 'in the know' of exactly what happened. But the fact that Jane Tanner is prepared to be adamant that she saw Madeleine's abductor spiriting her away, places her firmly in the loop. I would imagine this might be to protect Russell whose specialty happens to be emergency medicine, I do believe. Why else would she be prepared to come up with the Tannerman fairy tale which has more holes that a sieve?

Must have been a pretty big 'disaster' to have had to resort to such a flimsy, poorly-thought out story line, imo.

by Realist 19.04.16 15:44

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

Precisely and that is the reason the McCanns, or for that matter any other sane minded person would not enter into a criminal conspiracy ,or allow such people to have knowledge of a crime they had committed. As previously stated, I wouldn't trust people of the calibre of Jane Tanner with the knowledge that my NI contributions weren't up to date, never mind confide details of a serious crime I had committed.

Further, no group of sane minded people would enter into a criminal conspiracy to dispose of a body in an accidental death, even if it were due to incompetence. The penalties for incompetence are far less than criminal conspiracy. The bottom line is, whatever way one looks at this matter, one simply doesn't turn an accidental death into a potential murder conspiracy. The only logical reason why one would dispose of a body is to prevent the cause of death being determined by an autopsy.

by Grandad 19.04.16 16:28

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!

Sir Walter Scott, Scottish author & novelist (1771 - 1832)

by Grandad 19.04.16 16:44

One further thought -

We could perhaps use Dear old Williams razor to pare away at the necessity of some of the creche workers to have been involved in a grand conspiracy - Perhaps they were just incompetent; indifferent; duped - and in need of a Gorm shop!

by Realist 19.04.16 17:22

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!

Sir Walter Scott, Scottish author & novelist (1771 - 1832)

That's all very interesting, but if Madelaine became ill, or suffered a genuine accident, why would they have decided to deny her proper medical treatment at an appropriate hospital, particularly in the vein that she may have required immediate medical supplies that weren't available to them???

If a mechanic were on vacation, his car broke down and required some serious repair which included engine parts, would he sit by the roadside and order the parts from his country of residence, or would he call a local garage. smilie

by Grandad 19.04.16 18:52

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?

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.

As to your car breakdown analogy - reminds me of a story told many years ago - (as a true story of course) - of the man touring France in his Rolls Royce.

One night half way up the alps his half shaft breaks and he eventually has to put himself up in a local Hotel.

In the morning he phones RR who send out a new half shaft and a team to fit it.

Weeks later and back at home he realises he hasn't received a bill from RR for there exemplary service - so he phones them again when he is told that he must be mistaken - "because our half shafts dont break!"

Oh what a tangled web we weave when first we practise to deceive!

Sir Walter Scott, Scottish author & novelist (1771 - 1832)

by Realist 19.04.16 20:57

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.

by MayMuse 09.05.16 19:45

Or perhaps something was done to Madeleine which accidentally resulted in her death of which if uncovered would result in far more damning consequences for them and/or those higher up the "chain"??? ie. something which had to be "hidden" from the public of which could prove disastrous ( thinking along medical terms here) if revealed???
IMO Just thinking aloud!

by BarryTheHatchet 09.05.16 21:36

No body = no post mortem.

by Realist 09.05.16 22:54

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.

.

How much do you suppose a German magazine would pay for the person's story who supplied a replacement 'Maddie'? Why do you think that person hasn't bothered to cash in on their story over the past nine years?

Perhaps people who are in the business of supplying replacement children place loyalty above financial gain.

by **Tony Bennett** 09.05.16 23:17

Realist wrote:
It's 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.

And who could possibly argue with that?

Surely we have no further need to debate this issue?

Here, in black and white, most certainly, we have the proof we need that none of the Tapas 7 knew that anything was amiss until Kate McCann sounded the alarm. They all sat down in then Tapas restaurant that evening at about 8.30pm to 8.45pm knowing nothing about anything that might have happened to Madeleine.

Because now, both members and guests can rely on two rock hard certainties:

1. Realist's belief and

2. Realist's 'experience with human nature'.

Any evidence contrary to his belief and 'experience with human nature' is utterly worthless.

Let's make this even plainer.

Realist's belief and experience of human nature' inform him that:

A, Madeleine died after 6pm on 3 May
B. Madeleine died before 8pm on 3 May
C. The McCanns hid Madeleine's body before 8pm on 3 May, and
D. None of the Tapas 7 knew a thing about anything before Kate raised the alarm at about 10pm.

No more evidence is needed. No more research. No more analysis.

Realist has spoken

by Verdi 09.05.16 23:26

Tony Bennett wrote:
Realist wrote:
It's 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.
And who could possibly argue with that?

Surely we have no further need to debate this issue?

Here, in black and white, most certainly, we have the proof we need that none of the Tapas 7 knew that anything was amiss until Kate McCann sounded the alarm. They all sat down in then Tapas restaurant that evening at about 8.30pm to 8.45pm knowing nothing about anything that might have happened to Madeleine.

Because now, both members and guests can rely on two rock hard certainties:

1. Realist's belief and

2. Realist's 'experience with human nature'.

Any evidence contrary to his belief and 'experience with human nature' is utterly worthless.

Let's make this even plainer.

Realist's belief and experience of human nature' inform him that:

A, Madeleine died after 6pm on 3 May
B. Madeleine died before 8pm on 3 May
C. The McCanns hid Madeleine's body before 8pm on 3 May, and
D. None of the Tapas 7 knew a thing about anything before Kate raised the alarm at about 10pm.

No more evidence is needed. No more research. No more analysis.

Realist has spoken

.... and gone along with the subsequent masquerade because err err err - well just because, I suppose.

by MayMuse 09.05.16 23:27

Realist wrote:
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.

.
How much do you suppose a German magazine would pay for the person's story who supplied a replacement 'Maddie'? Why do you think that person hasn't bothered to cash in on their story over the past nine years?

Perhaps people who are in the business of supplying replacement children place loyalty above financial gain.

If this so called person knew that there was a "replacement" ( I am not saying it is true) ... What has loyalty or even finance got to do with it?
This would be a "secret" wouldn't it?
A "conspiracy" to hide facts?
If they sold their "story" or told etc.... they would implicate themselves, would they not?
So again, how/what would loyalty ( to whom) or finance ( gaining a few quid) have to do with it?
Could someone explain please, or have I misread the thread? spin

by Realist 09.05.16 23:58

Because now, both members and guests can rely on two rock hard certainties:

1. Realist's belief and

2. Realist's 'experience with human nature'.

Any evidence contrary to his belief and 'experience with human nature' is utterly worthless.

Let's make this even plainer.

Realist's belief and experience of human nature' inform him that:

A, Madeleine died after 6pm on 3 May
B. Madeleine died before 8pm on 3 May
C. The McCanns hid Madeleine's body before 8pm on 3 May, and
D. None of the Tapas 7 knew a thing about anything before Kate raised the alarm at about 10pm.

No more evidence is needed. No more research. No more analysis.

Realist has spoken

Whilst you, Tony, would have us believe that half of the NHS and inhabitants of Praia da Luz, the Warner camp staff, M15, Bell Pottinger, the Brish gov. uncle Tom Cobley an' all, not to mention doctored photographs, Maddie substitutes, forged creche documents were all part of the largest conspiracy known to mankind in order to protect a pair of low ranking doctors.

Further, that not one of these conspirators has succumbed to the temptation to make a fast buck by imparting their knowledge to the media. I guess they must be paying these useless, child carers looking for a free holiday in the sun some kind of wages nowadays, or maybe they're all permanently on the payroll of the McCanns, eh!

In effect, Tony, you are attempting to not only impart your pearls of wisdom upon us, but to manufacture the evidence to fit the suspect, as opposed to matching the suspect to the evidence. Its all a tad reminiscent of the bad ole days prior to the 1984 Police and Evidence Act., some might even conclude that you're vying for the lead role in a remake of 'Life on Mars.'

by Realist 10.05.16 0:06

MayMuse wrote:
Realist wrote:
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.

.
How much do you suppose a German magazine would pay for the person's story who supplied a replacement 'Maddie'? Why do you think that person hasn't bothered to cash in on their story over the past nine years?

Perhaps people who are in the business of supplying replacement children place loyalty above financial gain.
If this so called person knew that there was a "replacement" ( I am not saying it is true) ... What has loyalty or even finance got to do with it?
This would be a "secret" wouldn't it?
A "conspiracy" to hide facts?

Why would it be a secret, how would a person supplying a replacement child have known what the child was to be used for? Where would the conspiracy to hide facts come into the equation.

As for the financial aspect, don't you think the magazines would be interested in knowing that the McCanns had hired out a replacement for their daughter shortly before she went missing.

Don't worry your head about it any further, I'm merely making the point as to just how ridiculous the very conception of the McCanns hiring out a replacement child would be.

by MayMuse 10.05.16 0:10

Realist wrote:

Because now, both members and guests can rely on two rock hard certainties:

1. Realist's belief and

2. Realist's 'experience with human nature'.

Any evidence contrary to his belief and 'experience with human nature' is utterly worthless.

Let's make this even plainer.

Realist's belief and experience of human nature' inform him that:

A, Madeleine died after 6pm on 3 May
B. Madeleine died before 8pm on 3 May
C. The McCanns hid Madeleine's body before 8pm on 3 May, and
D. None of the Tapas 7 knew a thing about anything before Kate raised the alarm at about 10pm.

No more evidence is needed. No more research. No more analysis.

Realist has spoken
Whilst you, Tony, would have us believe that half of the NHS and inhabitants of Praia da Luz, the Warner camp staff, M15, Bell Pottinger, the Brish gov. etc. etc.etc were all involved in the largest conspiracy known to mankind in order to protect a pair of low ranking doctors. According to you, the contributors to this forum must be the only people on the face of the planet who aren't part of the conspiracy.

Further, that not one of these conspirators has succumbed to the temptation to make a fast buck by imparting their little bit of knowledge to the media. I guess they must be paying these useless, child carers looking for a free holiday in the sun some kind of wages nowadays, or maybe they're all permanently on the payroll of the MCCanns.

I jus' bet some of these robbers and drug dealers serving substantial sentences wish they had the McCann's staunch and loyal conspirators in their crew, as opposed to those dastardly rats queuing up to turn supergrass.

Oh wow... for what it's worth as a member here, I don't believe that the "protection" is just for low-ranking Doctors ( your words) I actually believe it is for some other " high ranker(s) ?"!? We all have our own thoughts of what may or may not have "gone down" and as yet I have not seen anyone other than a "few" ( Tony, Richard, Joana and a few more sorry forget names) who have stuck THEIR neck out to seek justice for Madeleine.
And for that I have the upmost respect, regardless of anyone else viewpoint. nah

by Realist 10.05.16 0:15

MayMuse wrote:

Oh wow... for what it's worth as a member here, I don't believe that the "protection" is just for low-ranking Doctors ( your words) I actually believe it is for some other " high ranker(s)

Such as whom and what would they need to be protected from?

by MayMuse 10.05.16 0:21

Realist wrote:
MayMuse wrote:
Realist wrote:
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.

.
How much do you suppose a German magazine would pay for the person's story who supplied a replacement 'Maddie'? Why do you think that person hasn't bothered to cash in on their story over the past nine years?

Perhaps people who are in the business of supplying replacement children place loyalty above financial gain.
If this so called person knew that there was a "replacement" ( I am not saying it is true) ... What has loyalty or even finance got to do with it?
This would be a "secret" wouldn't it?
A "conspiracy" to hide facts?
Why would it be a secret, how would a person supplying a replacement child have known what the child was to be used for? Where would the conspiracy to hide facts come into the equation.

As for the financial aspect, don't you think the magazines would be interested in knowing that the McCanns had hired out a replacement for their daughter shortly before she went missing.

Don't worry your head about it any further, I'm merely making the point as to just how ridiculous the very conception of the McCanns hiring out a replacement child would be.

Okay I won't worry my head about it (HA HA) BUT that is saying if there was or if they didn't know.... What if they DID know?

So would you say it is just as ridiculous to "theorise" ANYTHING on this case?
It is an assumption that Madeleine was "abducted" a "theory" purported by her parents.
one which has been "theorised" to death!?

by MayMuse 10.05.16 0:25

Realist wrote:
MayMuse wrote:

Oh wow... for what it's worth as a member here, I don't believe that the "protection" is just for low-ranking Doctors ( your words) I actually believe it is for some other " high ranker(s)
Such as whom and what would they need to be protected from?

It is not a case of protection from; Have a think about it, there are great threads/comments/videos etc on this forum which cover a multitude.
All in this together... grouphug