Re: Was Madeleine seen after Sunday?

by Realist 10.05.16 13:14

dottyaussie wrote:

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.

I presume that anyone offering assistance would themselves be in the field of medicine. In that situation, surely the first thing they would do is call for an ambulance. This really is going over and beyond the bounds of all credibility.

by MayMuse 10.05.16 13:19

Realist wrote:
dottyaussie wrote:

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.
I presume that anyone offering assistance would themselves be in the field of medicine. In that situation, surely the first thing they would is call for an ambulance. This really is going over and beyond the bounds of all credibility.

Not if there was a need for a complete "cover-up"... Who says that anyone else ( if involved) would need to be in the "field of medicine"?
Let's face it, the "higher rankings" involved in this whole situation is beyond anything before ever witnessed in the UK in the case of a "missing" child.

by Grandad 10.05.16 14:22

The honest answer to your questions is – I just don’t know – nor incidentally does anyone else!

The ONLY people that really know exactly what happened – every step of it - are presumably the MCCdocs!

All the rest of us can do is wonder, puzzle and speculate – to try to think of other possibilities (what does Sherlock say about having eliminated the impossible what remains no matter how improbable has to be the answer)

Knowledge advances by speculation – proposing possibilities, coming up with ideas that seek to explain the hitherto unexplained – to see if they fit in with the already known and can assist! That was the reasoning behind my post.

Answers to 1 – 3

The twins were 2 at the time I think.

I remember my kids – and my grandkids at that age could be easily distracted – fobbed off – with almost any simple story – “M not feeling well so having a rest” would have done it.

For the same reason she could have been kept in 5a – or any other of the apartments – perhaps the Docs themselves moved around to provide ‘round the clock’ care.

Number 4 – YES ABSOLUTLY! – I mean by lack of Gorm – unaware, distracted, easily deceived – ergo ‘there’ but not ‘all there’ Perhaps a mere glimpse of a child in bed or the back of a blond child playing in another room – I can’t know of course - but it’s not difficult to see how a dopy nanny could come away convinced she saw a child that wasn’t there!

by Realist 10.05.16 14:49

MayMuse wrote:

Not if there was a need for a complete "cover-up"... Who says that anyone else ( if involved) would need to be in the "field of medicine"?
Let's face it, the "higher rankings" involved in this whole situation is beyond anything before ever witnessed in the UK in the case of a "missing" child

I stand to be corrected, but I think dottyaussie was intimating that someone else may have been recruited to aid in the recovery of the McCann's ailing daughter. Therefore it would be a reasonable assumption to conclude that such a person would possess a modicum of medical knowledge.

After all, if this were in fact the case, there wouldn't be much point in enlisting the aid of a plumber, builder et al, would there now. Also, without wishing to appear to be practicing the noble art of pedantry, this case of a 'missing' child wasn't witnessed in the UK, it in fact took place in Portugal. You know, Vasco da Gama, Eusebio an' all that stuff big grin

by sallypelt 10.05.16 14:51

Realist wrote:
MayMuse wrote:

Not if there was a need for a complete "cover-up"... Who says that anyone else ( if involved) would need to be in the "field of medicine"?
Let's face it, the "higher rankings" involved in this whole situation is beyond anything before ever witnessed in the UK in the case of a "missing" child
I stand to be corrected, but I think dottyaussie was intimating that someone else may have been recruited to aid in the recovery of the McCann's ailing daughter. Therefore it would be a reasonable assumption to conclude that such a person would possess a modicum of medical knowledge.

After all, if this were in fact the case, there wouldn't be much point in enlisting the aid of a plumber, builder et al, would there now. Also, without wishing to appear to be practicing the noble art of semantics, this case of a 'missing' child wasn't witnessed in the UK, it in fact took place in Portugal. You know, Vasco da Gama, Eusebio an' all that stuff

Wasn't Jenny Murat, Robert Murat's mum, once a nurse?

I'll get my coat!

by Liz Eagles 10.05.16 14:55

Realist wrote:
MayMuse wrote:

Not if there was a need for a complete "cover-up"... Who says that anyone else ( if involved) would need to be in the "field of medicine"?
Let's face it, the "higher rankings" involved in this whole situation is beyond anything before ever witnessed in the UK in the case of a "missing" child
I stand to be corrected, but I think dottyaussie was intimating that someone else may have been recruited to aid in the recovery of the McCann's ailing daughter. Therefore it would be a reasonable assumption to conclude that such a person would possess a modicum of medical knowledge.

After all, if this were in fact the case, there wouldn't be much point in enlisting the aid of a plumber, builder et al, would there now. Also, without wishing to appear to be practicing the noble art of semantics, this case of a 'missing' child wasn't witnessed in the UK, it in fact took place in Portugal. You know, Vasco da Gama, Eusebio an' all that stuff

It's very off-putting/pointless for genuine people on this forum to engage with master debators, the likes of which you appear to be Realist. Semantics is a strange place in which to dwell.

by Realist 10.05.16 15:00

Grandad wrote:- but it’s not difficult to see how a dopy nanny could come away convinced she saw a child that wasn’t there!

So dopey in fact, that some would have us believe, she was the central and most important figure in a major conspiracy involving perverting the course of justice and possibly murder.

by Realist 10.05.16 15:05

aquila wrote:

It's very off-putting/pointless for genuine people on this forum to engage with master debators, the likes of which you appear to be Realist. Semantics is a strange place in which to dwell.

Only kidding, JD, only kidding.

by Liz Eagles 10.05.16 15:07

JD???

by dottyaussie 10.05.16 15:10

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

No I was talking about it being joint venture. That someone assisted them in the situation they were in whatever that situation was.

by Grandad 10.05.16 15:29

I used the term 'joint venture' to describe the group of Doc friends who become embroiled in a nightmare that they have not envisaged at the outset.

There is no need of any other person to be involved - medically qualified or not. In fact specifically NOT - it seems to me that they would have been desperate to keep it to themselves and let KNOW ONE ELSE any idea what was happening - hence the early deception - later to turn into the second 'abduction' deception.

Just an injured child that the team of Docs decide to treat themselves - for reasons only known to them - but I have suggested possible reasons.

Once sucked into the nightmare, for whatever reason, the plan goes sour, and they are stuck - with each other - for ever!

What a fate!

Everything else - comes later!

by Guest 10.05.16 15:34

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

Well, you've certainly given a great deal of thought to your alternative contemplation but it hasn't really moved forward towards a realistic hypothosis has it? It's not 'impossible' to contemplate any alternative theory - wacky or plausible - but that alone doesn't make a theory any more likely. Very Cluedo'esque, thank goodness there wasn't a conservatory or billiard room at the Ocean Club to add to the mystery.

Apart from the few pertinents points already presented requesting your clarification, do you think one or more of the group had their Gladstone bag handy, containing emergency medication/equipment? Or perhaps adopted a hands-on holistic approach - like Kate McCann and her mate checking the twins breathing?

Where was a seriously injured Madeleine housed during the week whilst the parents and friends were out and about practicing sporting activities and in the evenings when they were at the Tapas restaurant?

How does you theory fit in with the undeniable top level support afforded to the McCanns within hours of Kate McCann raising the alarm on 3rd May 2007?

That's just for starters..

by **Tony Bennett** 10.05.16 15:38

Grandad wrote:Number 4 – YES ABSOLUTLY! – I mean by lack of Gorm – unaware, distracted, easily deceived – ergo ‘there’ but not ‘all there’. Perhaps a mere glimpse of a child in bed or the back of a blond child playing in another room – I can’t know of course - but it’s not difficult to see how a dopey nanny could come away convinced she saw a child that wasn’t there!

Thank you for your answers.

However, I can't make sense of your answer to Qu. 4.

Cat Baker met Madeleine and her parents on the Saturday AND had Madeleine in her care all of Sunday (there is even evidence she may have known the family well before May 2007).

Your theory was that ANOTHER CHILD was put forward as Madeleine for the next FOUR days (while she was very ill) and that she as 'too dopey...too gormless' to know otherwise.

If there was another child put forward as Madeleine, but who had a quite different name, how is it remotely conceivable that she did not immediately know this was not Madeleine and say (on the Monday): "Oh, where is Madeleine today?"

You wrote: "But it’s not difficult to see how a dopey nanny could come away convinced she saw a child that wasn’t there!"

With respect, it is not only difficult, but IMPOSSIBLE. There were only 7 children in Madeleine's crèche group. In sole charge of them for a week, she would know EXACTLY who was with her each day of that week

by Guest 10.05.16 15:39

@dottieaussie 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.

Very big Tick from me!

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

To see how they were getting on winkwink

and to discuss forthcoming rogatory interviews.

by MayMuse 10.05.16 15:41

sallypelt wrote:
Realist wrote:
MayMuse wrote:

Not if there was a need for a complete "cover-up"... Who says that anyone else ( if involved) would need to be in the "field of medicine"?
Let's face it, the "higher rankings" involved in this whole situation is beyond anything before ever witnessed in the UK in the case of a "missing" child
I stand to be corrected, but I think dottyaussie was intimating that someone else may have been recruited to aid in the recovery of the McCann's ailing daughter. Therefore it would be a reasonable assumption to conclude that such a person would possess a modicum of medical knowledge.

After all, if this were in fact the case, there wouldn't be much point in enlisting the aid of a plumber, builder et al, would there now. Also, without wishing to appear to be practicing the noble art of semantics, this case of a 'missing' child wasn't witnessed in the UK, it in fact took place in Portugal. You know, Vasco da Gama, Eusebio an' all that stuff
Wasn't Jenny Murat, Robert Murat's mum, once a nurse?

I'll get my coat!

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] You could be right there... You can take your coat off now, its a bit hot today anyway nod

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] I think Dottyaussie was saying that someone of a "higher" stat, is perhaps being "protected" in the whole shenanigans ?
The world and his wife know of "missing" Madeleine and the case, but it is a first for the UK ie. media, government intervention, £££, PR, etc.
If Madeleine was found deceased, you do not need anyone with any medical knowledge to "dispose", just the wherewithal IMO.
If Madeleine needed "medical" assistance due to an accident of some kind, there were plenty in the immediate group with "expertise" to assist.
Such as to say if one or more "attended" her, why would they wish to cover it up, or not call for an ambulance? Questions which all boil down to what is being discussed on many platforms. Why the need for Madeleines "body" to vanish if there was nothing of importance to be "hidden"?
We could go around in circles.
All in my opinion of course, & taking into account the intelligence of Eddie & Keela, the cadaver odour on family belongings etc! eek

by dottyaussie 10.05.16 15:45

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] yes that is what I was trying to say thank you smilie

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] put your coat down, I've just put the kettle on smilie

by Guest 10.05.16 15:48

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

No I was talking about it being joint venture. That someone assisted them in the situation they were in whatever that situation was.

You make a valid point which is so frequently overlooked - whatever happened to Madeleine McCann during that holiday, there must have been on-hand assistance to clear up the mess so to speak.

A three year old child doesn't just disappear, it wouldn't be possible for the McCanns alone to deal with the aftermath.

by dottyaussie 10.05.16 15:56

So if we discount GM KM Tapas 7 who was there at the time that would need that kind of high level assistance ??

by MayMuse 10.05.16 15:59

Indeed, and/or who had the "power" to bring in that kind of high level assistance?

by Grandad 10.05.16 17:15

Oh dear oh dear there you blow again Verdi.

I'm beginning to get the picture!

It's 'Realistics' role to be comically pedantic and yours to be childishly sarcastic - and you do it so well! (Of no value or use whatsoever) - but do please, for your sake, be aware - it reveals so much about you!

Perhaps at some time in the future you might eventually learn that sarcasm, like shouting, doesn't increase the power of your argument - just makes you look silly.

Go back and read my posts again, carefully, try to understand - don't just dismiss on the basis of your own inability to grasp the points being made.

I have explained that I am completely new to the site - I have ducked in and out for a year or so - but my knowledge of the details of this case are nowhere near as comprehensive as many.

I am just an old man with an idea that I thought may help and that I would share with others far more knowledgeable so that they could weave the notion - or parts of it into their own deductions - if they thought any of it had any merit - if not they are of course at liberty to disregard it all.

But does that deserve your own brand of poison?

Am I to understand that the site is in fact a closed group - a mutual admiration society exclusively for the longer term members and that newcomers and /or new ideas are unwelcome?

If so I will Buga orf and leave you to it!

by Grandad 10.05.16 17:25

Hi Tony,

I happily bow to your far far superior knowledge - I hadn't realised that CB had such complete and unchallengeable contact with M in the relevant week. If she did and she attests to the fact that M was alive and well on Wednesday - and if there is no other possibility (I wouldn't myself use the word 'IMPOSSIBLE') it does rather shoot my suggestion down in flames! Or at least that part of it!

by Liz Eagles 10.05.16 17:29

Grandad wrote:Oh dear oh dear there you blow again Verdi.

I'm beginning to get the picture!

It's 'Realistics' role to be comically pedantic and yours to be childishly sarcastic - and you do it so well! (Of no value or use whatsoever) - but do please, for your sake, be aware - it reveals so much about you!

Perhaps at some time in the future you might eventually learn that sarcasm, like shouting, doesn't increase the power of your argument - just makes you look silly.

Go back and read my posts again, carefully, try to understand - don't just dismiss on the basis of your own inability to grasp the points being made.

I have explained that I am completely new to the site - I have ducked in and out for a year or so - but my knowledge of the details of this case are nowhere near as comprehensive as many.

I am just an old man with an idea that I thought may help and that I would share with others far more knowledgeable so that they could weave the notion - or parts of it into their own deductions - if they thought any of it had any merit - if not they are of course at liberty to disregard it all.

But does that deserve your own brand of poison?

Am I to understand that the site is in fact a closed group - a mutual admiration society exclusively for the longer term members and that newcomers and /or new ideas are unwelcome?

If so I will Buga orf and leave you to it!

Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear.

How sad that this sort of behaviour occurs time after time after time on the forum.

I'd advise you to take your own advice in the last sentence of your post if you don't like the forum.

by NickE 10.05.16 18:19

MayMuse wrote:
dottyaussie wrote:
Verdi wrote:
dottyaussie wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

No I was talking about it being joint venture. That someone assisted them in the situation they were in whatever that situation was.
You make a valid point which is so frequently overlooked - whatever happened to Madeleine McCann during that holiday, there must have been on-hand assistance to clear up the mess so to speak.

So if we discount GM KM Tapas 7 who was there at the time that would need that kind of high level assistance ??
Indeed, and/or who had the "power" to bring in that kind of high level assistance?

If an MW employee has a part or something to do with what happened to Madeleine, Symington had links straight to the top senior figures into the British establishment.

by MayMuse 10.05.16 18:33

Symington is that the one who is the son of the owner of the complex? The one who looks uncannily like Murat?

by MayMuse 10.05.16 18:35

Knew I had read it somewhere... here is the link: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

by Guest 10.05.16 18:41

MayMuse wrote:Symington is that the one who is the son of the owner of the complex? The one who looks uncannily like Murat?

They are related.

by MayMuse 10.05.16 18:54

As in Murat & Symington related?
~~Or the OC owner David Symington is the father of Angus Symington?~~
I thought is was only suggested, (Murat related) is there any proof?

by **Tony Bennett** 10.05.16 19:15

Grandad wrote:Hi Tony,

I happily bow to your far far superior knowledge - I hadn't realised that CB had such complete and unchallengeable contact with M in the relevant week. If she did and she attests to the fact that M was alive and well on Wednesday - and if there is no other possibility (I wouldn't myself use the word 'IMPOSSIBLE') it does rather shoot my suggestion down in flames! Or at least that part of it!

Thank you.

On the face of it, your suggestion about what happened to Madeleine that week seemed to have merit. It seemed to answer many points. But there are a number of known facts which go against it.

Just a small point about the forum. The forum has a very serious purpose - to find out what happened to Madeleine McCann. And we continue to make progress.

But that has been achieved, in part, due to poor theories being robustly challenged. It may seem a tad harsh at times. But we are hear to discuss hypotheses backed by evidence and good arguments.

Do stay around and help us with this task - in any small way that you can

by dottyaussie 10.05.16 19:28

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] have a look at this thread John Major and the Symington Family. It talks about who is related to who including Murat and how people are involved

I've just read it and all I can say is WOW!!

by MayMuse 10.05.16 20:39

dottyaussie wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] have a look at this thread John Major and the Symington Family. It talks about who is related to who including Murat and how people are involved

I've just read it and all I can say is WOW!!

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] Thank you, I have keyed in search but nothing comes up & for the FOI...where can I find the links to it would you know?