Re: Was Madeleine seen after Sunday?

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

by Realist 10.05.16 0:38

MayMuse wrote:

All in this together...

----- but all in what, MayMuse.

by MayMuse 10.05.16 0:40

Realist wrote:
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.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] Therefore like you said so yourself...The only logical reason why one would dispose of a body is to prevent the cause of death being determined by an autopsy...

So what could be determined by an autopsy?
Past "abuse", or something that was possibly done to Madeleine which would prove it was no accident?
or something else?

Purely my thoughts on the matter.

by MayMuse 10.05.16 0:52

Realist wrote:
MayMuse wrote:

All in this together...
----- but all in what, MayMuse.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] That is the "million-dollar" question isn't it?

The "what" is what frustrates the hell out of those seeking the truth for Madeleine.
The "what" is the "lies" that have & are being told to hide the actual truth of what happened that week.

The "what" once known will lead to the "when", to the "how" and then the "why"?
For behind all of this, there has been a "purpose" ... Whether what happened to Madeleine was the initial purpose, on purpose? may not ever be known, but it is not without trying by some very genuine & good people.

Another purpose has been to "shut down" anyone who dares to speak on the case, those who use their own "head" which of course is filled with their own "opinion". Tut tut, that just will not do...will it?
nah

by Realist 10.05.16 0:58

MayMuse wrote:

So what could be determined by an autopsy?
Past "abuse", or something that was possibly done to Madeleine which would prove it was no accident?
or something else?

You're really digging me out at this early hour, MayMuse. Past abuse never even crossed my mind, I was thinking more in terms of evidence of violence being the direct cause of death.

by MayMuse 10.05.16 1:05

I don't think that one person here likes to think about any form of, lets call it "interference" with Madeleine. Unfortunately it does go on & there have been many "exposes" over the years especially in the UK!?! It is however, something that could reasonably be considered along with perhaps another form of "violence" towards a child ( shudders)...in determination of what would cause anyone to hide a "corpse"?
Something to have a think about...maybe? IMHO
For now I bid you goodnight/morning winkwink

by Realist 10.05.16 4:08

THE PLOT THICKENS.

Gerry. Hi Cat, how’s it going.

Cat. I’m cool, Gerry, how are you.

Gerry. I’m okay, but Kate and I have a bit of a problem.

Cat. Sorry to hear that, Gerry, anything I can help with.

Gerry. Well there is actually, but it involves a small favour.

Cat. Sure, Gerry, how can I help.

Gerry, Well, Cat, its a bit er awkward, but the bottom line is, we’d appreciate it if you could ghost Maddie into the Creche for a couple of days, you know the sort of thing, alter the records, pretend she’s spent the day with you, stuff like that.

Cat. You mean play a game.

Gerry. Well not exactly, you see we’ve killed maddie and we need to pretend she’s still alive until we can dispose of her body and concoct some kind of kidnapping story for the police.

Cat. Cripes, I don’t know about that, wouldn’t I get in trouble with the police.

Gerry. Don’t worry about that, Cat, I’ve contacted the spooks at M15 and they are going to take care of everything, there’s some very important people involved in this.

Cat. But won’t the police want to question me, whatever shall I say.

Gerry Not a problem, Cat, just tell them that the last time you saw Maddie was at 6 pm on Thurs, when we picked her up from the Creche.

Cat. But that’s 3 days away, today is only Monday.

Gerry. Yes I know, but we need the extra time to make the final preparations, besides, we’re leaving on the weekend anyway.

Cat. Well, Gerry, I suppose its alright if you say so.

Gerry, Don’t worry , Cat, you’ll be okay, we’ll look after you.

Cat. Really, Gerry, and you promise I’ll be able to come and visit you at your mansion in Rothley.

Gerry, Of course, Cat, but we’ll have to wait a few months for things to cool down, because Kate has made arrangements for all her friends in the media to attend.

Cat. Gee, Gerry, I’m all excited now.

Gerry, Well, Cat, I’ve got to run along and get on with the final preparations with all my doctor friends so toodle pips for now.

Cat, Toodle pips, Gerry, I hope it all goes well for you, give my regards to Kate.

Gerry. Will do, Cat. BTW don't mention this to any of your friends, its to be our secret.

Cat. Don't worry, Gerry, cross my heart and hope to die.

by **Tony Bennett** 10.05.16 7:28

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'. [SNIPPED]

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. It's 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.'

It is a sign of losing an argument when you resort to a series of misrepresentations about your opponent's position.

The accusation of 'manufacturing the evidence to fit a suspect' might persuade some forum administrators to give you a warning for attacking another member.

Most members and guests here will I think be able to answer your way-over-the-top attack without me having to waste time responding point by point to your post.

Keep being guided by your 'beliefs' and 'experinecne with human nature' and at least we will all understand exactly where you're coming from.

It wasn't me who alerted to the scent of human cadaverine in 17 places associated with the McCanns nor me who produced overwhelming evidence that the 'Last Photo' was taken on the Sunday, not Thursday.

However, I do admit it was me who found no fewer than 20 contradictions between the accounts of David Payne and Kate McCann about an alleged visit by Payne to the McCanns' apartment at about 6.30pm on 3 May.

Payne, you say, knew nothing about anything happening to Madeleine before 10.00pm on 3 May. How strange then that he should subsequently take part in what most people here would regard as an attempt to deceive people into believing that Madeleine was alive at 6.30pm that night.

by Roidininki 10.05.16 10:10

Realist wrote:
MayMuse wrote:

So what could be determined by an autopsy?
Past "abuse", or something that was possibly done to Madeleine which would prove it was no accident?
or something else?

You're really digging me out at this early hour, MayMuse. Past abuse never even crossed my mind, I was thinking more in terms of evidence of violence being the direct cause of death.

As I said earlier , a taking hold around the neck and shaking would leave bruises .

by dottyaussie 10.05.16 10:48

Realist wrote:THE PLOT THICKENS.

Gerry, Well, Cat, its a bit er awkward, but the bottom line is, we’d appreciate it if you could ghost Maddie into the Creche for a couple of days, you know the sort of thing, alter the records, pretend she’s spent the day with you, stuff like that.

Cat. You mean play a game.

Gerry. Well not exactly, you see we’ve killed maddie and we need to pretend she’s still alive until we can dispose of her body and concoct some kind of kidnapping story for the police.

Cat. Cripes, I don’t know about that, wouldn’t I get in trouble with the police.

Gerry. Don’t worry about that, Cat, I’ve contacted the spooks at M15 and they are going to take care of everything, there’s some very important people involved in this.

Cat. But won’t the police want to question me, whatever shall I say.

Gerry Not a problem, Cat, just tell them that the last time you saw Maddie was at 6 pm on Thurs, when we picked her up from the Creche.

Cat. But that’s 3 days away, today is only Monday.

Gerry. Yes I know, but we need the extra time to make the final preparations, besides, we’re leaving on the weekend anyway.

Cat. Well, Gerry, I suppose its alright if you say so.

Gerry, Don’t worry , Cat, you’ll be okay, we’ll look after you.

Cat. Really, Gerry, and you promise I’ll be able to come and visit you at your mansion in Rothley.

Gerry, Of course, Cat, but we’ll have to wait a few months for things to cool down, because Kate has made arrangements for all her friends in the media to attend.

Quite a believable conversation IMO and you would have to be really naive to believe these kind of conversations didn't take place in all kind of cover-ups.

Why did they invite her to Rothley if she was not involved in some way. They never invited the twins nannies.

by Realist 10.05.16 10:58

Tony Bennett wrote:

The accusation of 'manufacturing the evidence to fit a suspect' might persuade some forum administrators to give you a warning for attacking another member.

Well, you cast the first stone

Payne, you say, knew nothing about anything happening to Madeleine before 10.00pm on 3 May. How strange then that he should subsequently take part in what most people here would regard as an attempt to deceive people into believing that Madeleine was alive at 6.30pm that night.

I don't think I've ever mentioned the name Payne in any of my postings. I don't consider him to bear any relevance to this case other than he was there at the time. I will however concede that I don't believe the McCann's acquaintances had made plans in advance regarding Maddie going missing.

If this were the case, why would they have needed to sit up all night preparing time checks on improvised writing material etc. Surely had they known what was going to transpire, they would have prepared for the event well in advance.

by NickE 10.05.16 11:01

dottyaussie wrote:
Realist wrote:THE PLOT THICKENS.

Gerry, Well, Cat, its a bit er awkward, but the bottom line is, we’d appreciate it if you could ghost Maddie into the Creche for a couple of days, you know the sort of thing, alter the records, pretend she’s spent the day with you, stuff like that.

Cat. You mean play a game.

Gerry. Well not exactly, you see we’ve killed maddie and we need to pretend she’s still alive until we can dispose of her body and concoct some kind of kidnapping story for the police.

Cat. Cripes, I don’t know about that, wouldn’t I get in trouble with the police.

Gerry. Don’t worry about that, Cat, I’ve contacted the spooks at M15 and they are going to take care of everything, there’s some very important people involved in this.

Cat. But won’t the police want to question me, whatever shall I say.

Gerry Not a problem, Cat, just tell them that the last time you saw Maddie was at 6 pm on Thurs, when we picked her up from the Creche.

Cat. But that’s 3 days away, today is only Monday.

Gerry. Yes I know, but we need the extra time to make the final preparations, besides, we’re leaving on the weekend anyway.

Cat. Well, Gerry, I suppose its alright if you say so.

Gerry, Don’t worry , Cat, you’ll be okay, we’ll look after you.

Cat. Really, Gerry, and you promise I’ll be able to come and visit you at your mansion in Rothley.

Gerry, Of course, Cat, but we’ll have to wait a few months for things to cool down, because Kate has made arrangements for all her friends in the media to attend.

Quite a believable conversation IMO and you would have to be really naive to believe these kind of conversations didn't take place in all kind of cover-ups.

Why did they invite her to Rothley if she was not involved in some way. They never invited the twins nannies.

Do we know if Baker was babysitting in the apartment on Sunday?
No we don't.

by Realist 10.05.16 11:04

dottyaussie wrote:

Quite a believable conversation IMO and you would have to be really naive to believe these kind of conversations didn't take place in all kind of cover-ups.

You forgot to include a large grin, dottyaussie, without which, some might be excused for thinking you were being serious

by sar 10.05.16 11:39

[Sings à la Football Chant] "Are you a defence lawyer, are your a defence lawyer, are you a defence lawyer in disguise! Are you a defence lawyer?"

by dottyaussie 10.05.16 12:02

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Nope didn't forget the huge grin. I was actually being serious yes

by Realist 10.05.16 12:02

sar wrote:[Sings à la Football Chant] "Are you a defence lawyer, are your a defence lawyer, are you a defence lawyer in disguise! Are you a defence lawyer?"

Actually, no I'm not, Sar although I have assisted others with preparing their appeals. The basic difference between Tony and myself is that I am prepared to concede there are flaws with my hypothesis, whereas Tony, isn't, despite there being equal flaws, albeit of a different nature.

By the same token, the McCann's hypothesis is also flawed, perhaps more so, even to the extent that some may view it as an almost physical impossibility. The aforementioned leads me to believe there are vital pieces of the jigsaw that are missing in this case.

by Verdi 10.05.16 12:27

Yes, there is a very vital missing piece of the jigsaw - a child by the name of Madeleine McCann.

I ponder why so many people think it strengthens their case by claiming academic and/or professional achievement - apart from any absence of proof, what does it achieve other than creating even more confusion by conflicting interpretation of any given subject matter. Members of this forum for example, go to the trouble of seeking accredited sources to clarify technical points of interest but no, that's not good enough - still the amateurs in every topical issue think they know better than the experts.

So, if one can get back up off the flaw - Was Madeleine seen after Sunday?

by **Tony Bennett** 10.05.16 12:36

Realist wrote:
The basic difference between Tony and myself is that I am prepared to concede there are flaws with my hypothesis, whereas Tony isn't...

Literally breathtaking superiority...

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

By the way, your last sentence was a bit confusing, so let me re-phrase it so that we can all understand it:

"The McCanns' hypothesis is also flawed, to the extent that some may view it as an almost physical impossibility - but I don't believe it to be physically impossible".

by Realist 10.05.16 12:44

Tony Bennett wrote:

- but I don't believe it to be physically impossible".

That's why I specifically used the word 'some.'

by Grandad 10.05.16 12:50

Sadly it seems that this thread has now descended into pointless bickering.

Notwithstanding that my first post about a month or so ago was received with rudeness and dismissal. I still think the points I was trying to make had merit and could, given a little clearer thought and understanding of them, help give a slightly different way of looking at the mystery and thus enable some hitherto irreconcilable elements to be seen in a different light.

At the risk of being accused again of ‘jesting’ – I will try to explain my thinking more clearly.

1.      It is not impossible to contemplate that something happened to M early in the holiday – say Sunday/Monday, that leaves her grievously injured – BUT NOT DEAD! (Fall off the sofa – Clobbered – Overdosed – etc etc)

2.      The MccDocs CANNOT call in the authorities to care for her because if they did – something they would rather stay hidden would be revealed (Injury – Sedation – Abuse past or present - etc etc)

3.      Perhaps not fully realising the severity of her injury initially & perhaps sure of their own superiority and infallibility as ‘English’ Docs (of several relevant specialisms) over the local quacks - (and of course urged by the desire to keep hidden any ‘difficult’ evidence that may otherwise be spotted by afore mentioned local quacks – they decide to treat her themselves – at that point they have calculated that they have best part of a week to get her fit enough to travel home at the end of the week – and I assume, for the sake of this notion, that they were at that point certain that they could achieve that.

At this point A JOINT VENTURE is formed – NOT to cover up a murder or to dispose of a corpse – but to treat her and SAVE HER LIFE!

4.      In this situation and thus from necessity they must arrange for everything to appear normal. Tennis, Tapas, jogging and M & the twins going to the Crèche – In reality it’s not M of course but a child who looks very much like her – DPs daughter perhaps? – NOTE – in this scenario, or one like it, it is NOT necessary for CB or anyone else to be ‘involved’ in a conspiracy – just that they are indifferent, incompetent and gormless! They don’t notice because they don’t care and in any event their noses are glued to their phones texting their equally gormless boyfriends – impossible to imagine?

5.      Once embarked on a plan like this there would be no turning back – for any of them! They have to go on – regardless. If it goes well and she recovers and is fit enough to travel home with them at the end of the week – sighs of relieve all round – but if she doesn’t and dies after a few days what can they do then?

Own up?

6.      In this scenario, or something like it, I imagine hours of agony! “What do we do now?” Imagine the repercussions if they can’t come up with a plan! Prison – loss of jobs – loss of other children to social services and child ‘care’ homes in England! The stigma! It’s difficult to imagine a more horrendous prospect –

7.      IF – I repeat IF - something like this is what happened I suggest that there is NO OTHER PLAN they could come up with other than – to dispose of the corpse and invent an abduction. If that were the case they would need to quickly think about timings, concoct a story of them in the tapas all as happy as Larry and regularly checking the children of course – until Ks overacting to trigger the play - AND to add credibility what better idea than someone (MccG?) walks a child around the streets (DPs daughter again?)

WITH THE INTENTION OF BEING SEEN.

So that witnesses to this (Smiths?) can in truth testify to the sighting and thus add credibility to the abduction story.

8.      It’s easy now to imagine how this nightmare would/could have played out for them over the next hours/ days – Perhaps the initial idea is to somehow get her home – in the blue bag? But perhaps the maelstrom of what happens when the ‘abduction’ button is pressed prevents that – so hiding place and then church, coffin cremation or – freezer – Scenic and local disposal – or perhaps even then, repatriation by some circuitous route.

But back to the 3^rd.

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 joint venture - 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 be the eventual ongoing to this day reason!

Let me be clear – I am NOT suggesting that this scenario in its entirety is the likely answer – only that parts of it – or at least some element of the lateral thinking employed may help to explain some of the hitherto inexplicable elements of this sad mad case.

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)

by **Tony Bennett** 10.05.16 13:02

Grandad wrote:At the risk of being accused again of ‘jesting’ – I will try to explain my thinking more clearly.

1.      It is not impossible to contemplate that something happened to M early in the holiday – say Sunday/Monday, that leaves her grievously injured – BUT NOT DEAD! (Fall off the sofa – Clobbered – Overdosed – etc etc) [SNIPPED]

3.      Perhaps not fully realising the severity of her injury initially & perhaps sure of their own superiority and infallibility as ‘English’ Docs (of several relevant specialisms) over the local quacks - (and of course urged by the desire to keep hidden any ‘difficult’ evidence that may otherwise be spotted by afore mentioned local quacks – they decide to treat her themselves – at that point they have calculated that they have best part of a week to get her fit enough to travel home at the end of the week – and I assume, for the sake of this notion, that they were at that point certain that they could achieve that.

At this point A JOINT VENTURE is formed – NOT to cover up a murder or to dispose of a corpse – but to treat her and SAVE HER LIFE!

4.      In this situation and thus from necessity they must arrange for everything to appear normal. Tennis, Tapas, jogging and M & the twins going to the Crèche – In reality it’s not M of course but a child who looks very much like her – DPs daughter perhaps? – NOTE – in this scenario, or one like it, it is NOT necessary for CB or anyone else to be ‘involved’ in a conspiracy – just that they are indifferent, incompetent and gormless!

I've considered your theory and there are a great many things you would have to account for. Can you please help us with these questions? >>>

1. What would the twins be told about Madeleine if she was seriously ill?

2. Would she be kept, seriously ill, in the same apartment with the McCanns?

3. Where was Madeleine on the Wednesday morning (2nd) when the cleaner saw the Mcanns there, but no other child?

4. Can Cat Baker being 'gormless' possibly explain why she gave evidence that Madeleine was alive and playing happily in the crèche every day when she knew fine well, having met the McCanns and Madeleine on both Saturday and Sunday, exactly who she was?

Thanks in advance for your answers

by dottyaussie 10.05.16 13:06

Grandad wrote:

At this point A JOINT VENTURE is formed – NOT to cover up a murder or to dispose of a corpse – but to treat her and SAVE HER LIFE!

And if someone else OTHER than the McCanns or the Tapas crew assisted in the original problem, who then became part of this JOINT VENTURE, then maybe the involvement of Govt/MIS/Embassy was for THAT person or THOSE persons and not the McCanns.