The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™
Hello!

A very warm welcome to The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™ forum.

Please log in, or register to view all the forums, then settle in and help us get to the truth about what really happened to Madeleine Beth McCann. Please note that your username should be different from your email address!

When posting please be mindful that this forum is primarily about the death of a three year old girl.

Regards,

Jill Havern
Forum owner

How could the FAKE abduction be achieved in less than an hour - and WHY?

Page 1 of 2 1, 2  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

How could the FAKE abduction be achieved in less than an hour - and WHY?

Post by HiDeHo on 20.11.15 7:01

For those that believe Maddie died on Thursday night...How could the 'abduction' be faked THURSDAY night in a little over an hour? (or the previous couple of hours from 6pm)

Many know that after studying the timeline for the holiday I saw many discrepancies that started happening by Tuesday. This created the thought that something may have happened prior to Tuesday and the discrepancies occurred in the effort to cover up the truth.

Not wanting to rely on that information alone to suggest something happened before Tuesday, I decided to attempt to back up the possibility and check EVERY witness statement from those that saw Madeleine. I was looking for specific credible details that indicated a fair degree of PROOF that they saw Madeleine (and were not mistaken)

At that point I had NO idea what I would find and whether there was a credible sighting of her during the week. I would then have needed to find out the reason for the discrepancies, and recognise that I was wrong in believing something happened earlier.

I was shocked to find the ONLY credible, specific sighting of Maddie during that week was Sunday Lunchtime by the cleaner's daughter.

What I discovered CONFIRMED my thoughts, and is the basis of looking at all the subsequent 'happenings' during the week which answer many questions...and explains how it may have been able to achieve the 'simulated' abduction and maintain it over the years.

HOWEVER, I realise that many people believe something happened on THURSDAY evening and that leaves me with many questions to understand how the 'death' and the subsequent 'abduction' could have been achieved within basically an hour at the tapas restaurant...

1) Some may claim there COULD be something that was happening during the week that they would need to hide behind the discrepancies that we find.

What may explain the need for those discrepancies?

2) Also, I would REALLY love to see the 'theory' on the timeline of what could have happened if Maddie died that night and nothing was happening before that moment. ie What time was she found? Was Kate notified?

How was the decision made and everything sorted ready for 10pm alert?

3) Also, how does one grieve during that time? Knowing there was not an abduction, how could everyone grieve (certainly Kate) and show reactions that are suitable to an abduction?

4) One important thing is WHY would it have needed to be that time? It was a difficult situation to deal with WHY couldn't it have happened earlier with more time to deal with the situation and prepare? Why did it need to be sorted by 10pm?

Why not take a little more time and make it 11pm?

5) What was the rush to deal with it immediately? Why not take time to assess the situation... Make decisions and speak to everyone to explain those decisions. Take a day or so to grieve and put everything in place...

Was there a reason to rush or a deadline...?

6) Why could it NOT have happened earlier (before TUESDAY and they chose Thursday evening at 10pm as the ideal time (considering there was a tennis dinner on Friday night)

Is there a reason it could not have happened earlier?


I do not claim the possibility of it happening before Tuesday because I took the idea out of thin air...

The FACTS/logic 'tell' me that something was being covered up by Tuesday..and I have found no proof to dispute that possibility...and found no proof that Madeleine was seen during the holiday.

I would LOVE answers to any/all of those questions and explain a scenario that I have difficulty putting together...

Madeleine found dead, and within an hour approx, having everything in place, and ready to raise the alarm at 10pm. (even if found earlier in the evening...)



My belief that something happened before Tuesday was after much research and trying to find proof that Madeleine was seen during the week..

Title: BEFORE 5.30pm Thursday or AFTER - Opinion HiDeHo
http://forum2.aimoo.com/MadeleineMcCann/When-Did-Madeleine-Disappear-BEFORE-5-30pm-or-AFTER/BEFORE-5-30pm-Thursday-or-AFTER-Opinion-HiDeHo-1-857582.html


I would like to see a realistic and credible timeline from those that believe Maddie died and the faked abduction was achieved within less than an hour...
avatar
HiDeHo
Researcher/Moderator

Posts : 2450
Reputation : 634
Join date : 2010-05-07

Back to top Go down

Re: How could the FAKE abduction be achieved in less than an hour - and WHY?

Post by Tony Bennett on 20.11.15 7:36

@HiDeHo wrote:For those that believe Maddie died on Thursday night...How could the 'abduction' be faked THURSDAY night in a little over an hour? I was shocked to find the ONLY credible, specific sighting of Maddie during that week was Sunday lunchtime by the cleaner's daughter...Also, I would REALLY love to see the 'theory' on the timeline of what could have happened if Maddie died that night and nothing was happening before that moment...How was the decision made and everything sorted ready for 10pm alert?
thumbup As you know, I am in complete agreement.

I think that all who persist in arguing for a death after 6pm on Thursday should be sent all your material on this subject - and compelled to offer a decent reply to it. And with the very greatest of respect, I include of course Dr Goncalo Amaral, who had just five months to work on the case. We have had a further eight years and one month.

Supporters of the 'Madeleine died after 6pm' theory include Textusa, Pat Brown and Johanna Renstein (Unterdenteppichgekehrt), some of the best-known names in McCann-Land.

All of them believe that that there really was a 'high tea' at around 5.30pm on Thursday 3 May at which all five members of the McCann family and Catriona Brown were present- despite the number of wholly irreconcilable contradictions which you (and others) have unearthed. All three refuse to face the evidence that the 'Last Photo' could have been taken earlier in the week.

Textusa is the most robust in defence of this theory.

Her main reason appears to be this: "The abduction hoax was so botched that it must have been done in a great rush".

____________________


2007 (28 June) Dr Gerry McCann: “I have no doubt we will be able to sustain a high profile for Madeleine’s disappearance in the long-term”.

2017 (February) Dr Kate McCannthrust into a global bidding war…news giants battle to sign her up for the 10th anniversary…offered huge bids…bombarded with offers…30 sitting on the table…getting new bids every other day…one told Kate and Gerry: ‘Name your price!’
                        

avatar
Tony Bennett
Researcher/Moderator

Posts : 14331
Reputation : 2564
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 69
Location : Harlow, Essex

Back to top Go down

Re: How could the FAKE abduction be achieved in less than an hour - and WHY?

Post by HiDeHo on 20.11.15 7:52

I am uncomfortable with having names mentioned.  I respect anyone that puts time and effort into the case and respect they have different views to mine as we all come to our conclusions based on our own individual knowledge, but I do appreciate your input and support of my belief. (btw, I believe Johanna believes its Wednesday, but can't be sure)

My thoughts are that a lot of people that claim it all happened that night, haven't really sat down and worked out the logistics of finding your child dead and making all the arrangements and carrying it all out within an hour.

My purpose is to have people forget about... Well he found her and panicked and cleaned up and rushed down to the beach, back in time for Kate to alert...

What about grieving?

How and when did he alert Kate?

What about the others?

Finding her body, covering her and placing in bedroom..

Taking her out through the veranda doors and placing her in the garden?

Chatting with Jez...

There is NO WAY in my opinion that all of that and a lot more could have happened in a short space of time.  Less than an hour!

It is not realistic and if someone CAN explain how all of that could be achieved in a real time scenario I would very much like to know....
avatar
HiDeHo
Researcher/Moderator

Posts : 2450
Reputation : 634
Join date : 2010-05-07

Back to top Go down

Re: How could the FAKE abduction be achieved in less than an hour - and WHY?

Post by HiDeHo on 20.11.15 7:59

Regarding High Tea

One misconception is that Catriona claims to have seen Maddie...

She does not specifically state that Madeleine was there...Only the twins...

Catriona EARLY Statement:
Catriona only states the twins were at high tea:

'I also remember that Kate was present for High Tea accompanied by the twins between 5H and 5H30 in the afternoon.' 

ROGATORY statement Catriona does not specifically mention seeing Madeleine at high tea or specifically that they left at 5.30. Curiously she also says 'WENT' to get Madeleine as opposed to CAME)

'Kate went to get Madeleine from the Tapas Bar area and according to what I remember she was wearing sporting clothes and I assumed that she was practicing some form of athletics. It was around 15h25/18h00. I think that Gerry was playing tennis. '
avatar
HiDeHo
Researcher/Moderator

Posts : 2450
Reputation : 634
Join date : 2010-05-07

Back to top Go down

Re: How could the FAKE abduction be achieved in less than an hour - and WHY?

Post by Tony Bennett on 20.11.15 8:08

@HiDeHo wrote:I am uncomfortable with having names mentioned.  

REPLY: But all those I've named are very public in expressing their views - and should be able either to defend their views - or, one hopes, have the ability to revise their ideas in the light of the evidence   
 
btw, I believe Johanna believes it's Wednesday, but can't be sure...

REPLY: Maybe, but if so, she then thinks that a whole day later, Gerry McCann carried Madeleine's dead body around the streets of Praia da Luz at the very time the alarm was being raised 

I respect anyone that puts time and effort into the case and respect they have different views to mine as we all come to our conclusions based on our own individual knowledge

REPLY: I hear and know what you are saying. But in this case, as in any other case, there are truths, and there are untruths. To take a current topic being energetically discussed on CMOMM, was the 'Last Photo' photoshopped? - or not?

There is only ONE answer: 'Yes', or 'No'. Let's put it his way, I respect those who follow the best evidence 
 

____________________


2007 (28 June) Dr Gerry McCann: “I have no doubt we will be able to sustain a high profile for Madeleine’s disappearance in the long-term”.

2017 (February) Dr Kate McCannthrust into a global bidding war…news giants battle to sign her up for the 10th anniversary…offered huge bids…bombarded with offers…30 sitting on the table…getting new bids every other day…one told Kate and Gerry: ‘Name your price!’
                        

avatar
Tony Bennett
Researcher/Moderator

Posts : 14331
Reputation : 2564
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 69
Location : Harlow, Essex

Back to top Go down

Re: How could the FAKE abduction be achieved in less than an hour - and WHY?

Post by HiDeHo on 20.11.15 8:24

I understand you feel you would like to highlight other opinions.  For me,  I prefer to put my thoughts forward and receive responses according to my 'knowledge'.

I just prefer to not be compared to other people that I have respect for their rights to different opinions to mine.  It really does make me feel uncomfortable.

My goal is not to disprove others' opinions, but to show an alternative opinion and have others decide for themselves if it is credible.

I don't create theories to fit my beliefs.  I work with the facts from the files and if I draw a conclusion from those facts then I look to see if the other facts support that conclusion

I have no idea if all my thoughts are correct, but as long as I passionately believe in them, regardless of anything else, then I am accomplishing what I have set out to do...

Search for the truth.

Its all about Madeleine.  We are her voice Wink


A Voice for Madeleine - The Song

avatar
HiDeHo
Researcher/Moderator

Posts : 2450
Reputation : 634
Join date : 2010-05-07

Back to top Go down

Re: How could the FAKE abduction be achieved in less than an hour - and WHY?

Post by Tony Bennett on 20.11.15 8:49

@HiDeHo wrote:I understand you feel you would like to highlight other opinions.  

REPLY: Simply because it matters greatly which opinions are right - and which are wrong - but whichever way we go about it, we should all be able to sign up to this statement of yours..
 
"...what I have set out to do...is search for the truth. It's all about Madeleine".  

REPLY: But when you said:
  
"We are her voice"

REPLY: We can only dare to say that if we are aware that we have a duty, on the basis of the evidence, to reject wrong opinions, and adopt the right ones 

____________________


2007 (28 June) Dr Gerry McCann: “I have no doubt we will be able to sustain a high profile for Madeleine’s disappearance in the long-term”.

2017 (February) Dr Kate McCannthrust into a global bidding war…news giants battle to sign her up for the 10th anniversary…offered huge bids…bombarded with offers…30 sitting on the table…getting new bids every other day…one told Kate and Gerry: ‘Name your price!’
                        

avatar
Tony Bennett
Researcher/Moderator

Posts : 14331
Reputation : 2564
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 69
Location : Harlow, Essex

Back to top Go down

Re: How could the FAKE abduction be achieved in less than an hour - and WHY?

Post by Richard IV on 20.11.15 11:18

@ HiDeHo - "My goal is not to disprove others' opinions, but to show an alternative opinion and have others decide for themselves if it is credible."


Hooray for HiDeHo declaring that the mystery of missing Madeleine  is not a competition  which, at times, descends into a pointless war of words. That mode has never obtained a conclusive result which can be said to be RIGHT.


I can take on board HiDeHo`s and Peter Mac`s findings as they are without manipulation and do not try to discredit others.
avatar
Richard IV

Posts : 552
Reputation : 260
Join date : 2015-03-06

Back to top Go down

Re: How could the FAKE abduction be achieved in less than an hour - and WHY?

Post by jeanmonroe on 20.11.15 12:14

A 'fake', or even a 'real' abduction can be 'achieved' in MINUTES.

'In the car, darling, you're going to stay with your 'auntie, uncle', (in Amsterdam? Scotland?)............for a little while'

It's the 'scene' SETTING that would take some degree of 'planning'

And we all 'know' how well that 'went'!

'Smashed, jemmied shutter, 'whooshing' curtains, wide open window, clear line of sight of their kids, from the tapas, out of date 'photo's,' (given to 'searchers' and police), a (handy?) 'friend' seeing Madeleine being 'carried off' from FIFTY (50) METRES, nothing of 'value' taken, leaving twins alone, again, whilst going back to tapas, with an unknown, uncaught, child 'abductor' in the vicinity, etc.,'

Just a few 'elements' of, as a PJ police officer astutely observerd, 'a badly told STORY'!

jeanmonroe

Posts : 5558
Reputation : 1427
Join date : 2013-02-07

Back to top Go down

Re: How could the FAKE abduction be achieved in less than an hour - and WHY?

Post by Verdi on 20.11.15 12:44

@Richard IV wrote:@ HiDeHo - "My goal is not to disprove others' opinions, but to show an alternative opinion and have others decide for themselves if it is credible."


Hooray for HiDeHo declaring that the mystery of missing Madeleine  is not a competition  which, at times, descends into a pointless war of words. That mode has never obtained a conclusive result which can be said to be RIGHT.


I can take on board HiDeHo`s and Peter Mac`s findings as they are without manipulation and do not try to discredit others.
Indeed yes, they are honest unbiased observations presented to inspire thought and encourage discussion.  IF however a discrepancy is noticed and contested that sparks off discussion - either the reader agrees or disagrees (how profound is that for a precursor to the weekend).

Most of us proffer opinion on any given subject but surely the whole purpose of a forum such as this is to dispel rumour, inaccuracy and fairytale imaginings of the ill informed?  This is when discussion gets a bit lively and perhaps a little over zealous - not that I agree with your words manipulation and discrediting.  I see it more as trying to guide in the right direction - or educate on the finer points if you prefer.

If the forum continued on the basis of opinion only, without contest, what would be the point - what could possibly be achieved?  Isn't the whole purpose of the forum to uncover the truth (at least as far as possible) behind the disappearance of MBM by unraveling all the apparent mysteries that surround the case?  That can never be achieved if members are only permitted to post their individual thoughts without contest.

I think the ongoing discussion about the last photograph is a prime example of my point.  Just think what ridiculous ideas would be planted in the minds of guest readers and indeed other members, if some theories were permitted to pass unchallenged.  Besides, isn't it the whole purpose of an open moderately overseen forum to generate lively, sometimes heated debate?  If you shy away from confrontation maybe it's better to just avoid the subject creating heated debate.

____________________
The secret of life is honesty and fair dealing. If you can fake that, you've got it made" - Groucho Marx
avatar
Verdi
Researcher/Moderator

Posts : 4497
Reputation : 2730
Join date : 2015-02-02

Back to top Go down

Re: How could the FAKE abduction be achieved in less than an hour - and WHY?

Post by Tony Bennett on 20.11.15 13:03

@Verdi wrote:
IF...a discrepancy is noticed and contested that sparks off discussion - either the reader agrees or disagrees...surely the whole purpose of a forum such as this is to dispel rumour, inaccuracy and fairytale imaginings of the ill informed? If the forum continued on the basis of opinion only, without contest, what would be the point - what could possibly be achieved?  Isn't the whole purpose of the forum to uncover the truth...?
Thank you very much for those observations  @ Verdi

I wasn't going to respond to Richard IV's post - but as you have now spoken I will just say that he sees competition where there is none. 

Or rather, that he sees this as some sort of personal competition with others, instead of what as you rightly say, these discussions are all about, namely examining the evidence - and rejecting bad evidence and opinions and preferring good evidence and opinions.

Those who've known me and with whom I've worked over the past 8 years know that I have a collaborative approach and have worked successfully with many others on a number of lines of enquiry.     

Richard IV sees 'manipulation'. I am very sorry that he sees this.

He also referred to 'discrediting others'. I admit simply to trying to discredit bad or poorly evidenced opinions. I believe in challenging them. I always welcome serious engagement and debate in order to separate fact from fantasy     .

HideHo in a series of lengthy posts on this forum in the past month has advanced a considerable body of evidence from which she draws this essential conclusion:

Something serious must have happened to Madeleine by Monday.

Now, Dr Goncalo Amaral, Pat Brown and Johanna Renstein have a very different view. Two say that Madeleine died after 6pm on Thursday 3 May, Renstein I understand says it was on 2 May.

This means that all the following are possible:

1. All four of them are wrong, or
2. HideHo is right and Amaral, Brown and Renstein are wrong
3. HideHo is wrong and Amaral, Brown and Renstein are right.

What is not possible is that all four are right.

To point this out is by no means an attempt to 'discredit' anyone, whatever Richard IV might imagine.

It is a plain, unvarnished statement of a very important fact.

____________________


2007 (28 June) Dr Gerry McCann: “I have no doubt we will be able to sustain a high profile for Madeleine’s disappearance in the long-term”.

2017 (February) Dr Kate McCannthrust into a global bidding war…news giants battle to sign her up for the 10th anniversary…offered huge bids…bombarded with offers…30 sitting on the table…getting new bids every other day…one told Kate and Gerry: ‘Name your price!’
                        

avatar
Tony Bennett
Researcher/Moderator

Posts : 14331
Reputation : 2564
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 69
Location : Harlow, Essex

Back to top Go down

Re: How could the FAKE abduction be achieved in less than an hour - and WHY?

Post by roy rovers on 20.11.15 13:41

HiDeHo's observations are more important to counter the views of the vast majority of the population who think that for the reasons she gives why there couldn't have been a death and a plausible faked abduction in the time available then there must have been a real abduction. There could have been a plausible faked abduction if the death was earlier in the week.
avatar
roy rovers

Posts : 466
Reputation : 39
Join date : 2012-03-04

Back to top Go down

Re: How could the FAKE abduction be achieved in less than an hour - and WHY?

Post by HiDeHo on 20.11.15 14:42

@Tony Bennett wrote:

HideHo in a series of lengthy posts on this forum in the past month has advanced a considerable body of evidence from which she draws this essential conclusion:

Something serious must have happened to Madeleine by Monday.

Now, Dr Goncalo Amaral, Pat Brown and Johanna Renstein have a very different view. Two say that Madeleine died after 6pm on Thursday 3 May, Renstein I understand says it was on 2 May.

This means that all the following are possible:

1. All four of them are wrong, or
2. HideHo is right and Amaral, Brown and Renstein are wrong
3. HideHo is wrong and Amaral, Brown and Renstein are right.

What is not possible is that all four are right.

To point this out is by no means an attempt to 'discredit' anyone, whatever Richard IV might imagine.

It is a plain, unvarnished statement of a very important fact.


We are all basing our opinions on the knowledge/research that we have compiled over the years.

Goncalo made it very clear it was NOT his opinion, but that of the investigation.

His claim was based on the original early statements and the information that was amassed over the 4 months he was coordinator that we are NOT privy to, but with (likely) no knowledge of the more informative Rogatory interviews.

As I have mentioned before.... Pat is a professional and CANNOT take an overall view of the discrepancies and draw any conclusions from them.  Any or all of them may have an explanation and it would be unprofessional to base an opinion on something that is not fact.

Johanna did a HUGE amount of work on her theory.  I am not sure that she was aware of the discrepancies or the lack of proof in witness statements, but it is MY opinion that is based on the research and Johanna may not agree, and may have produced a theory that is close to the truth...

We DON'T KNOW who is right and who is wrong... We can only look at the alternative possibilities and allow individuals to draw their own conclusions based on the options and the research available.

EVERYTHING I claim can be linked to the original 'source', so please ask if needed.

I welcome different and alternative explanations, but as I mentioned before, I am very uncomfortable being aligned next to other credible researchers in a competitive manner and would prefer to have my views considered an option/alternative that can be compared to others but not to be used to discredit others' research and findings.

By all means...

Was it possible that the faked abduction accomplished Thursday night?

Was it likely that it was Wednesday that something happened...?

Is it possible to have been after Sunday and before Tuesday morning?

Its IMPORTANT to look at all the possibilities, but one thing to keep in mind is that you may, or may not have noticed that I never claim that Madeleine DIED earlier in the week....

What happened we don't know, but even with my research she may not have DIED until Wednesday or Thursday night...so we MUST keep an open mind on whether other opinions/theories COULD in fact have a credible basis when compared to each other

What I am looking for is an EXAMPLE of a timeline for that night to see whether it was possible REALISTICALLY to accomplish everything within that approximate one hour window of time.

I don't believe it is possible.  The physical effort, may be possible but the shock, grief, notification  and planning just does not seem a possibility for me...
avatar
HiDeHo
Researcher/Moderator

Posts : 2450
Reputation : 634
Join date : 2010-05-07

Back to top Go down

Re: How could the FAKE abduction be achieved in less than an hour - and WHY?

Post by Tony Bennett on 20.11.15 15:07

@HiDeHo wrote:
Goncalo made it very clear it was NOT his opinion, but that of the investigation.

REPLY: No, the quote you came up with said no such thing, as I showed. In the quote you mentioned, he was simply emphasising that the conclusions he reached were shared by his investigation team, and were not just his views alone.  Moreover, he has never said anything which indicates that he might have come to some wrong conclusions in his book. Not saying that he should have done, just observing that he has not

Pat is a professional and CANNOT take an overall view of the discrepancies and draw any conclusions from them.

REPLY: Come on! She has written a whole e-book about her theory.  I said publicly at the time she wrote it that she was far too certain about the alleged 'high tea' being an actual event. Consequently she just went along with Goncalo Amaral's theory of when Madeleine died (if she did). I think if I am correct that Pat has made up her mind on the issue and told all of us who are still looking into these things that we are wasting our time and should fall in line with all that she and Amaral have said on the issue.   

Johanna did a HUGE amount of work on her theory.  I am not sure that she was aware of the discrepancies or the lack of proof in witness statements

REPLY: Then now that she has been made aware of them through your work, it would be very good if she would consider your recent articles and let us all know if she wishes to revise her theory or not

We can only look at the alternative possibilities and allow individuals to draw their own conclusions based on the options and the research available

REPLY: I'm good with that statement, except that that should by no means rule out friendly challenges to others - based on the best available evidence - about their theories 

I welcome different and alternative explanations, but as I mentioned before, I am very uncomfortable being aligned next to other credible researchers in a competitive manner

REPLY: What we cannot now get away from is that there are competing theories about a very important factual issue indeed in this case.  I say: 'Let the truthful theory emerge from these competing theories'  

____________________


2007 (28 June) Dr Gerry McCann: “I have no doubt we will be able to sustain a high profile for Madeleine’s disappearance in the long-term”.

2017 (February) Dr Kate McCannthrust into a global bidding war…news giants battle to sign her up for the 10th anniversary…offered huge bids…bombarded with offers…30 sitting on the table…getting new bids every other day…one told Kate and Gerry: ‘Name your price!’
                        

avatar
Tony Bennett
Researcher/Moderator

Posts : 14331
Reputation : 2564
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 69
Location : Harlow, Essex

Back to top Go down

Re: How could the FAKE abduction be achieved in less than an hour - and WHY?

Post by Richard IV on 20.11.15 15:44

@ Verdi - I see it more as trying to guide in the right direction - or educate on the finer points if you prefer."


But your words alone express superiority and rightness. Not very attractive to persuasion is it. 


@ Verdi - "If you shy away from confrontation maybe it's better to just avoid the subject creating heated debate."


I always do as it achieves nothing, it persuades no one; in fact it has the opposite affect as far as I`m concerned as it merely highlights how desperate the confronter is to be seen as right so diminishing his/her credibility.
avatar
Richard IV

Posts : 552
Reputation : 260
Join date : 2015-03-06

Back to top Go down

Re: How could the FAKE abduction be achieved in less than an hour - and WHY?

Post by Joss on 20.11.15 16:51

@HiDeHo wrote:

We are all basing our opinions on the knowledge/research that we have compiled over the years.

Goncalo made it very clear it was NOT his opinion, but that of the investigation.

His claim was based on the original early statements and the information that was amassed over the 4 months he was coordinator that we are NOT privy to, but with (likely) no knowledge of the more informative Rogatory interviews.

As I have mentioned before.... Pat is a professional and CANNOT take an overall view of the discrepancies and draw any conclusions from them.  Any or all of them may have an explanation and it would be unprofessional to base an opinion on something that is not fact.

Johanna did a HUGE amount of work on her theory.  I am not sure that she was aware of the discrepancies or the lack of proof in witness statements, but it is MY opinion that is based on the research and Johanna may not agree, and may have produced a theory that is close to the truth...

We DON'T KNOW who is right and who is wrong... We can only look at the alternative possibilities and allow individuals to draw their own conclusions based on the options and the research available.

EVERYTHING I claim can be linked to the original 'source', so please ask if needed.

I welcome different and alternative explanations, but as I mentioned before, I am very uncomfortable being aligned next to other credible researchers in a competitive manner and would prefer to have my views considered an option/alternative that can be compared to others but not to be used to discredit others' research and findings.

By all means...

Was it possible that the faked abduction accomplished Thursday night?

Was it likely that it was Wednesday that something happened...?

Is it possible to have been after Sunday and before Tuesday morning?

Its IMPORTANT to look at all the possibilities, but one thing to keep in mind is that you may, or may not have noticed that I never claim that Madeleine DIED earlier in the week....

What happened we don't know, but even with my research she may not have DIED until Wednesday or Thursday night...so we MUST keep an open mind on whether other opinions/theories COULD in fact have a credible basis when compared to each other

What I am looking for is an EXAMPLE of a timeline for that night to see whether it was possible REALISTICALLY to accomplish everything within that approximate one hour window of time.

I don't believe it is possible.  The physical effort, may be possible but the shock, grief, notification  and planning just does not seem a possibility for me...
It could be possible if the time of whatever happened to Madeleine happened before 6pm. I go back to D. Payne's statement, (Alibi?) for K. McC about checking on Kate and the children around 6:30pm., and the discrepencies between the two with the time he was supposedly at the apartment and his over the top description of how the children looked all dressed in white looking angelic or whatever he exactly said to that effect. We also need to take into consideration that these people were doctors, being used to medical emergencies and dealing with problems very promptly in life or death situations. Doctors also get used to distancing themselves in a personal/emotional way from a situation if necessary and quick thinking in emergency situations too. I have followed other missing child cases and guilty people can fake emotions very well as far as grief, etc. goes. The thought of the huge legal implications of what they have done, ( possible life in prison), makes them very good actors/actresses.

____________________
avatar
Joss

Posts : 1943
Reputation : 176
Join date : 2011-09-19

Back to top Go down

Re: How could the FAKE abduction be achieved in less than an hour - and WHY?

Post by HiDeHo on 20.11.15 16:58

@Tony Bennett wrote:
@HiDeHo wrote:
Goncalo made it very clear it was NOT his opinion, but that of the investigation.

REPLY: No, the quote you came up with said no such thing, as I showed. In the quote you mentioned, he was simply emphasising that the conclusions he reached were shared by his investigation team, and were not just his views alone.  Moreover, he has never said anything which indicates that he might have come to some wrong conclusions in his book. Not saying that he should have done, just observing that he has not





Correio da Manaha - 24 July 2008 Thanks to Joana Morais for translation Exclusive Interview with Gonçalo Amaral: Cadaver was frozen or was kept in the cold wrote:As the case investigator, what is your thesis?

Gonçalo Amaral – The little girl died in the apartment. Everything is in the book, which is faithful to the investigation until September


---------------------------------------------------------------

Pat is a professional and CANNOT take an overall view of the discrepancies and draw any conclusions from them.

REPLY: Come on! She has written a whole e-book about her theory.  I said publicly at the time she wrote it that she was far too certain about the alleged 'high tea' being an actual event. Consequently she just went along with Goncalo Amaral's theory of when Madeleine died (if she did). I think if I am correct that Pat has made up her mind on the issue and told all of us who are still looking into these things that we are wasting our time and should fall in line with all that she and Amaral have said on the issue.  

Pat's theory is Pat's theory and she has every right to have that theory.  My time spent on the case does not include trying to prove others wrong, only when I have time, to try to understand why they believe them to be correct.

We all have opinions and I do not judge anyone on their opinions because I am not privy to the information that got them to that point.

I am a big supporter of your effort in this case (as you know) but that does not mean I agree with everything you claim.  Only that I have respect for what you have accomplished and the amount of research you put into everything because of your passion for the truth.

Regarding the mentioning and comparing of other names, it is not something I wish to be included in.  You and everyone else have a right to compare, but I will not be drawn in to personal attacks or judgements on others.

My time is spent ONLY on research and attempting to inform others and once it becomes personal the whole object of the discussion is lost.

You may disagree with me and that's OK, but my time NEEDS to be spent on information and facts that I can produce.  All other personal discussions, comparisons and attacks are not worthy of my time.



 

Johanna did a HUGE amount of work on her theory.  I am not sure that she was aware of the discrepancies or the lack of proof in witness statements

REPLY: Then now that she has been made aware of them through your work, it would be very good if she would consider your recent articles and let us all know if she wishes to revise her theory or not


NOONE yet knows the discrepancies.  They have never been discussed individually, except a few .  I find that all discussions end up in an overall discussion of their existence.  Never have they been addressed individually in total and I doubt very much that Johanna even knows o their existence and thats OK.

As long as I know and base my theories on the knowledge that is whats most important to me.



We can only look at the alternative possibilities and allow individuals to draw their own conclusions based on the options and the research available

REPLY: I'm good with that statement, except that that should by no means rule out friendly challenges to others - based on the best available evidence - about their theories 

I welcome different and alternative explanations, but as I mentioned before, I am very uncomfortable being aligned next to other credible researchers in a competitive manner

REPLY: What we cannot now get away from is that there are competing theories about a very important factual issue indeed in this case.  I say: 'Let the truthful theory emerge from these competing theories'  

I just avoid anything to do with naming others as, though I can monitor my own comments, it often leads to derailed threads focusing more on the person as opposed to their theories.

Maybe names can be used as a reference but I have no time or inclination to spend time discussing the person as opposed to just the theory.

I am very strict in HDH admin...Credibility is important to me

I don't allow badmouthing anyone or namecalling or ridicule (even towards the McCanns)

We stay file based only and if a theory is not based on the information in the files we don't discuss it. (discretion used)

Everyone is welcome to have an opinion as long as their agenda is not based on disruption.

I do not get involved in any personal disputes, regardless whether they are directed at me or others, hence I feel uncomfortable as mentioned earlier.

I just want to discuss the OP  smilie
avatar
HiDeHo
Researcher/Moderator

Posts : 2450
Reputation : 634
Join date : 2010-05-07

Back to top Go down

Re: How could the FAKE abduction be achieved in less than an hour - and WHY?

Post by Tony Bennett on 20.11.15 17:59

Which brings us right back to your OP and my opening response this morning to your OP, which was...

QUOTE

  As you know, I am in complete agreement.

---------------------

Peace

____________________


2007 (28 June) Dr Gerry McCann: “I have no doubt we will be able to sustain a high profile for Madeleine’s disappearance in the long-term”.

2017 (February) Dr Kate McCannthrust into a global bidding war…news giants battle to sign her up for the 10th anniversary…offered huge bids…bombarded with offers…30 sitting on the table…getting new bids every other day…one told Kate and Gerry: ‘Name your price!’
                        

avatar
Tony Bennett
Researcher/Moderator

Posts : 14331
Reputation : 2564
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 69
Location : Harlow, Essex

Back to top Go down

Re: How could the FAKE abduction be achieved in less than an hour - and WHY?

Post by j.rob on 20.11.15 18:01

@HiDeHo wrote:For those that believe Maddie died on Thursday night...How could the 'abduction' be faked THURSDAY night in a little over an hour? (or the previous couple of hours from 6pm)

I don't think it could have been. But something went wrong that night which meant that the McCanns and Tapas had to 'think on the hoof' and got some things wrong. The shutters weren't jemmied. There are conflicting reports on when the cry about a child missing went up. Some witnesses claim as early as 9.15pm, certainly well before 10pm. Kate claims 10pm.

Many know that after studying the timeline for the holiday I saw many discrepancies that started happening by Tuesday. This created the thought that something may have happened prior to Tuesday and the discrepancies occurred in the effort to cover up the truth.

I agree. I think that by Monday "something" bad had already happened to Madeleine.  This may be "the disaster" that Gerry speaks of. But I think that another "disaster" occurred on Thursday evening when the plan went even more wrong. 

Not wanting to rely on that information alone to suggest something happened before Tuesday, I decided to attempt to back up the possibility and check EVERY witness statement from those that saw Madeleine. I was looking for specific credible details that indicated a fair degree of PROOF that they saw Madeleine (and were not mistaken).

There is a distinct lack of information in Kate's book for what happened on Monday. Kate tells us that the apartment is cleaned on Monday and that she made her 'first foray' to Baptista on Monday evening. 'Foray' is an interesting use of word for a visit to a supermarket. Of all the exciting things that might have happened on Monday - tennis/sailing/yummy lunch etc - Kate can only think of one (supposedly mundane) detail - a trip to the supermarket for 'a few essentials'. Very odd. I think Baptista is a 'sensitive' area. This supermarket visit is significant, imo, and not just about buying a loaf of bread and a packet of cereal.

At that point I had NO idea what I would find and whether there was a credible sighting of her during the week. I would then have needed to find out the reason for the discrepancies, and recognise that I was wrong in believing something happened earlier.

I agree that there are no credible sightings of Madeleine McCann during that week. The photos are not convincing as we have no idea what she really looked like. 

I was shocked to find the ONLY credible, specific sighting of Maddie during that week was Sunday Lunchtime by the cleaner's daughter.

Assuming that the girl that the cleaner saw was Madeleine McCann! Not saying it wasn't but obviously the cleaner wouldn't know for sure.

What I discovered CONFIRMED my thoughts, and is the basis of looking at all the subsequent 'happenings' during the week which answer many questions...and explains how it may have been able to achieve the 'simulated' abduction and maintain it over the years.

Kate goes into detail for every day of the holiday apart from Monday. I think Monday was a *key* day and Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday were 'clean up' days prior to the faked (and bodged) abduction. 

HOWEVER, I realise that many people believe something happened on THURSDAY evening and that leaves me with many questions to understand how the 'death' and the subsequent 'abduction' could have been achieved within basically an hour at the tapas restaurant...

Something DID happen on Thursday evening! But I don't believe Madeleine was alive, well and happy right up to 6pm or 6.30pm. I don't believe she was at 'high tea' on Thursday evening. I think it is significant that on this evening only all the other Tapas and their children went to the beachside restaurant Paraiso. This was the only evening they went there. It is captured on cctv (which again I think is significant). And it is the only evening when the group went their separate ways in terms of dining both for the parents and children. A change in routine is always of interest. I think *something* happened to Madeleine earlier in the week. A three day clean up operation was instituted. But at the last minute on Thursday evening the plan for the faked abduction hit a major glitch. Leaving TM running around like headless chickens and Jane Tanner's flimsy Tanner-man concoction.

1) Some may claim there COULD be something that was happening during the week that they would need to hide behind the discrepancies that we find.

Madeleine had an accident earlier in the week. Or someone lashed out at her in anger. Or she was abused in one way or several ways. Or suffered a drug reaction or overdose. Or indeed a combination thereof. One does not necessarily exclude another. For instance a child who is abused/neglected is more likely to die in an accident. A child who is abused/neglected is more likely to cry/be inconsolable which might lead to someone losing their temper. I think the latter scenario is the most likely. 

What may explain the need for those discrepancies?

2) Also, I would REALLY love to see the 'theory' on the timeline of what could have happened if Maddie died that night and nothing was happening before that moment. ie What time was she found? Was Kate notified?

In one media interview Kate is asked if she looked for Madeleine that night. Kate's response is revealing, imo. Incredibly, given that they are supposed to have been on holiday, she says they had been very busy. In other words very busy and by Thursday were very tired. In her book she also writes how Gerry says they need to rest that night. This suggests to me that the previous few days had been  gruelling. And Kate also says: 'the first 48 hours you are non-functioning. If something had happened by Monday - maybe even on Saturday evening or Sunday - that would mean Kate was 'non-functioning' until Monday/Tuesday/Wednesday depending on when that something occurred. By Thursday Kate is functioning enough to carry out a performance of a staged, faked abduction. Albeit one that - imo - had been severely sabotaged by something or someone on Thursday evening.

How was the decision made and everything sorted ready for 10pm alert?

Early eye-witnesses report hearing commotion as early as 9.15pm. I think this is when the alarm was "supposed" to have been raised. But "a disaster" occurred at the last minute necessitating a later alarm at 10pm and last minute changes.

3) Also, how does one grieve during that time? Knowing there was not an abduction, how could everyone grieve (certainly Kate) and show reactions that are suitable to an abduction?

Both the McCanns look pretty dreadful at the time of the first press conference, imo, especially Kate. And she has very dark bruises on her hands and wrists suggestive of forcible restraint. I think Kate and Gerry are both guilty - but of different things. That's why they have stuck together. Kate is an ostrich, imo.

4) One important thing is WHY would it have needed to be that time? It was a difficult situation to deal with WHY couldn't it have happened earlier with more time to deal with the situation and prepare? Why did it need to be sorted by 10pm?

I think TM needed several days to sort things out. Maybe an abduction was supposed to have happened at the time of the Sagres visit earlier in the week but for some reason it went wrong or was sabotaged necessitating a later one? 

Why not take a little more time and make it 11pm?

I don't know - or even have it happen overnight while everyone was asleep? Maybe there was the need for 'an abductor' to be seen to plant the idea of the big bad bogey-man who steals children from their beds. Maybe because the 9.15pm time-frame got messed up but 'the abduction' needed to happen as soon as possible after this otherwise there is the absurdity of Tanner-man wandering around for hours. As it is Kate, in desperation imo, is obliged to 'morph' Tanner-man and Smith-man. Which I think is a failure. 

5) What was the rush to deal with it immediately? Why not take time to assess the situation... Make decisions and speak to everyone to explain those decisions. Take a day or so to grieve and put everything in place...

Was there a reason to rush or a deadline...?

See above. The 9.15pm time-frame (possibly connected with the Jez Wilkins encounter) got messed up but word was already out so 'the abduction' had to be soon. Maybe Kate's 'the f****** b******* have taken her' refers not to Madeleine not being there but to something else....or someone else (the sub theory?)

6) Why could it NOT have happened earlier (before TUESDAY and they chose Thursday evening at 10pm as the ideal time (considering there was a tennis dinner on Friday night)

Is there a reason it could not have happened earlier?

As per one of the posts above, is it possible that Sagres was supposed to have been the scene of an abduction? But this went wrong for some reason. By Monday night I am sure that a clean-up operation was in place.


I do not claim the possibility of it happening before Tuesday because I took the idea out of thin air...

The FACTS/logic 'tell' me that something was being covered up by Tuesday..and I have found no proof to dispute that possibility...and found no proof that Madeleine was seen during the holiday.

Yes. I put Monday as a key day.Whether she actually died on that day or whether her condition deteriorated or whether she had been abused and was inconsolable. Mrs Fenn's crying incident of Tuesday evening is compelling but of course it could have been one of the twins crying or even Kate. Or an unconsolable Madeleine. I think it is suspicious that the crying stops very abruptly. This suggests a certain scenario.

I would LOVE answers to any/all of those questions and explain a scenario that I have difficulty putting together...

Madeleine found dead, and within an hour approx, having everything in place, and ready to raise the alarm at 10pm. (even if found earlier in the evening...)

One of David Payne's police statements has a huge number of red flags that suggest to me at least that by the time of his alleged visit to apartment 5A at 6.30pm - or whenever it was supposed to be that Thursday early evening - Madeleine is already dead. All three children 'looking like Angels'. There is so much brain-leak in that statment I am convinced that David Payne has seen Madeleine's dead body by Thursday early evening. By this time 'dressed in white and looking like an Angel.'

My belief that something happened before Tuesday was after much research and trying to find proof that Madeleine was seen during the week..

As I have often said, healthy - or even not healthy - four year olds tend not to drop down dead. Death can be a long-drawn out process. *Something* or *several* untoward things may have happened earlier in the week which lead to a collective decision (although Kate does seem distraught on Thursday/Friday) to take a certain line of action which would lead to a certain outcome. After all, this was a group of doctors - one specifically trained in emergency medicine - who would know how to resuscitate a child if they had to. This is said in one or more of the rogatories. But, just because someone knows how to do something, it doesn't necessarily mean they will do it. They might chose not to, for all sorts of reasons. Not least it would  incriminate themselves of course.

Title: BEFORE 5.30pm Thursday or AFTER - Opinion HiDeHo
http://forum2.aimoo.com/MadeleineMcCann/When-Did-Madeleine-Disappear-BEFORE-5-30pm-or-AFTER/BEFORE-5-30pm-Thursday-or-AFTER-Opinion-HiDeHo-1-857582.html


I would like to see a realistic and credible timeline from those that believe Maddie died and the faked abduction was achieved within less than an hour...


I know there is huge debate about Smith-man but if someone or several people pulled out of a faked abduction plan at the last minute. Perhaps on the basis that they were prepared to go along with a faked abduction of a live child, but not of a dead child. Then it is conceivably possible that Gerry himself was forced to simulate an abduction. Or, I suppose, forced to carry a dead Madeleine. When someone else had refused to do this. Again, this would only be because there had been a last minute "disaster" as Gerry puts it or "the biggest cock-up" as Robert Murat puts it. Not saying that is what happened. This case is so strange.

j.rob

Posts : 2243
Reputation : 232
Join date : 2014-02-02

Back to top Go down

Re: How could the FAKE abduction be achieved in less than an hour - and WHY?

Post by HiDeHo on 20.11.15 18:19

@Tony Bennett wrote:Which brings us right back to your OP and my opening response this morning to your OP, which was...

QUOTE

  As you know, I am in complete agreement.

---------------------

Peace


Wonderful. Thanks  smilie
avatar
HiDeHo
Researcher/Moderator

Posts : 2450
Reputation : 634
Join date : 2010-05-07

Back to top Go down

Re: How could the FAKE abduction be achieved in less than an hour - and WHY?

Post by Tony Bennett on 20.11.15 18:37

@j.rob wrote:
I know there is huge debate about Smithman  - but if someone or several people pulled out of a faked abduction plan at the last minute... Perhaps on the basis that they were prepared to go along with a faked abduction of a live child, but not of a dead child....Then it is conceivably possible that Gerry himself was forced to simulate an abduction. Or, I suppose, forced to carry a dead Madeleine. When someone else had refused to do this. Again, this would only be because there had been a last minute "disaster" as Gerry puts it or "the biggest cock-up" as Robert Murat puts it. Not saying that is what happened. This case is so strange.
Hmmm, 'conceivably possible'.

Not meaning to be rude, @ j.rob, but this piece of speculation bears no relation whatsoever to the known facts of the case - and is about the most improbable and convoluted theory I've ever seen on this forum in its six years of existence.

HideHo has laid down a formidable challenge based on her recent articles, and I hope members here will engage with and debate her arguments.

I don't need to myself as I am in complete agreement with her analysis, save only that I think I would take back the day when things suddenly changed back to Monday, rather than Tuesday

____________________


2007 (28 June) Dr Gerry McCann: “I have no doubt we will be able to sustain a high profile for Madeleine’s disappearance in the long-term”.

2017 (February) Dr Kate McCannthrust into a global bidding war…news giants battle to sign her up for the 10th anniversary…offered huge bids…bombarded with offers…30 sitting on the table…getting new bids every other day…one told Kate and Gerry: ‘Name your price!’
                        

avatar
Tony Bennett
Researcher/Moderator

Posts : 14331
Reputation : 2564
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 69
Location : Harlow, Essex

Back to top Go down

The moment Cat Baker deceived Goncalo Amaral and his team and led them all up the garden path and back again

Post by Tony Bennett on 20.11.15 19:07

@HiDeHo wrote:Regarding High Tea

One misconception is that Catriona claims to have seen Maddie...

She does not specifically state that Madeleine was there...Only the twins...

Catriona EARLY Statement:
Catriona only states the twins were at high tea:

'I also remember that Kate was present for High Tea accompanied by the twins between 5H and 5H30 in the afternoon.' 

ROGATORY statement Catriona does not specifically mention seeing Madeleine at high tea or specifically that they left at 5.30. Curiously she also says 'WENT' to get Madeleine as opposed to CAME)

'Kate went to get Madeleine from the Tapas Bar area and according to what I remember she was wearing sporting clothes and I assumed that she was practising some form of athletics. It was around 15h25/18h00. I think that Gerry was playing tennis. '
All this is correct.

In between Cat Baker's first statement and her Rogatory Interview, however, the Daily Mail published an article by Dan Newling (25 September 2007) in which another nanny, Charlotte Pennington, is quoted as follows:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-483715/Kate-McCann-DID-scream-Theyve-taken-claims-new-nanny-witness.html#ixzz3fWz8XWvZ ]

QUOTE ARTICLE

She dismissed claims that the McCanns were not seen for six hours leading up to the disappearance. She said:  
"I was helping give the children high tea. The twins were there and Madeleine and both parents. It was supposed to finish at 5.30pm but because they were a big group and really social, it didn't finish until about 6pm. There was nothing out of the ordinary at all."
However, when she made her first statement, she never mentioned a thing about the 'high tea'.

So, in summary, we have:

1. Cat Baker original statement: "Kate was there with the twins, Madeleine not mentioned"
2. Charlotte Pennington original statement: No mention of high tea at all
3. Charlotte Pennington, Daily Mail, Sept 2007: "The twins were there and Madeleine and both parents"
4. Cat Baker Rogatory Interview, 2008: "Kate went to get Madeleine. She was wearing sporting clothes..."

It must be recorded that the faith of Dr Goncalo Amaral and his team in the truthfulness of Cat Baker's evidence was what led them to conclude that Madeleine was still alive when the alleged 'high tea' ended, at about 6pm. 

The team clearly did not accept as true, however, the wholly contradictory claims of Dr David Payne and Dr Kate McCann about an alleged meeting at Apartment G5A between them, sometime between 6.30pm and 7pm.

Hence the PJ investigation team concluding that Madeleine must have died after 6pm.   

If they had disbelieved Cat Baker, then where might their investigation have gone?

* Nuno Lourenco set the PJ on the wrong trail with his lies about Wojcheich Krokowski.
* There was Jane Tanner's mythical 'Tannerman'.
* And there was the Smiths' (arguably) mythical 'Smithman'.
* And on top of all that, Cat Baker apparently lying through her teeth about the 'high tea', thus closing down another promising avenue of enquiry for the PJ    



 

____________________


2007 (28 June) Dr Gerry McCann: “I have no doubt we will be able to sustain a high profile for Madeleine’s disappearance in the long-term”.

2017 (February) Dr Kate McCannthrust into a global bidding war…news giants battle to sign her up for the 10th anniversary…offered huge bids…bombarded with offers…30 sitting on the table…getting new bids every other day…one told Kate and Gerry: ‘Name your price!’
                        

avatar
Tony Bennett
Researcher/Moderator

Posts : 14331
Reputation : 2564
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 69
Location : Harlow, Essex

Back to top Go down

Re: How could the FAKE abduction be achieved in less than an hour - and WHY?

Post by HiDeHo on 20.11.15 19:49

@HiDeHo wrote:
@Tony Bennett wrote:Which brings us right back to your OP and my opening response this morning to your OP, which was...

QUOTE

  As you know, I am in complete agreement.

---------------------

Peace


Wonderful. Thanks  smilie

Tony, I want to apologise if my effort to establish where I stand regarding others' opinions and their right to them which, upon reflection,  may have come across as an effort to undermine your stance on it all.  That was never my intention.  I have always respected and supported you, and would never intentionally do or say anything that could be interpreted differently.


I am saddened to see negative things said about anyone, never mind someone like yourself who has put so much into this case.

Maybe some members don't remember what you have been put through over the years, but whether you like it or not, I am referring to a moment I will never forget...

You were due to go to court the following morning, (Feb 5th 2013) not knowing if you could be imprisoned (for stating the facts from the case) and I was desperately trying to complete a video I had compiled for you...

It was so emotional putting it together with 'Moment of Truth' as the music...


McCanns SILENCED Tony Bennett!!! (To PREVENT UK learning the TRUTH?)




We can disagree but I will always support you and your passionate effort to find the truth...

Now...Back to the OP  winkwink
avatar
HiDeHo
Researcher/Moderator

Posts : 2450
Reputation : 634
Join date : 2010-05-07

Back to top Go down

Re: How could the FAKE abduction be achieved in less than an hour - and WHY?

Post by Verdi on 20.11.15 19:56

@Richard IV wrote:@ Verdi - I see it more as trying to guide in the right direction - or educate on the finer points if you prefer."


But your words alone express superiority and rightness. Not very attractive to persuasion is it.

Not at all!  In my view, if an expert and/or professional in any given subject takes the time to assist with a broad understanding of their skill, then I think it a futile exercise to dispute what they say.  This is how I see things on threads such as the last photograph - that's to say, why continue looking for evidence of photoshopping (or whatever else one calls it) when it has been skillfully debunked by experts in the field?  Maybe that's because I'm not an expert in the field so I'm appreciative of the guidance provided by those that are.   So,  if members prefer to dispute the input of experts then I believe they also need to be guided in the right direction - or educated on the finer points.  Why make a mountain when all you have is a mole hill?

I've no idea what you mean by ''not very attractive to persuasion is it" so unable to comment.



@ Verdi - "If you shy away from confrontation maybe it's better to just avoid the subject creating heated debate."


I always do as it achieves nothing, it persuades no one; in fact it has the opposite affect as far as I`m concerned as it merely highlights how desperate the confronter is to be seen as right so diminishing his/her credibility.


Pleased to hear - opinion acknowledged!

Still, this is only detracting from the main topic of discussion.




____________________
The secret of life is honesty and fair dealing. If you can fake that, you've got it made" - Groucho Marx
avatar
Verdi
Researcher/Moderator

Posts : 4497
Reputation : 2730
Join date : 2015-02-02

Back to top Go down

Re: How could the FAKE abduction be achieved in less than an hour - and WHY?

Post by j.rob on 20.11.15 20:33

@Tony Bennett wrote:
@j.rob wrote:
I know there is huge debate about Smithman  - but if someone or several people pulled out of a faked abduction plan at the last minute... Perhaps on the basis that they were prepared to go along with a faked abduction of a live child, but not of a dead child....Then it is conceivably possible that Gerry himself was forced to simulate an abduction. Or, I suppose, forced to carry a dead Madeleine. When someone else had refused to do this. Again, this would only be because there had been a last minute "disaster" as Gerry puts it or "the biggest cock-up" as Robert Murat puts it. Not saying that is what happened. This case is so strange.
Hmmm, 'conceivably possible'.

Not meaning to be rude, @ j.rob, but this piece of speculation bears no relation whatsoever to the known facts of the case - and is about the most improbable and convoluted theory I've ever seen on this forum in its six years of existence.

HideHo has laid down a formidable challenge based on her recent articles, and I hope members here will engage with and debate her arguments.

I don't need to myself as I am in complete agreement with her analysis, save only that I think I would take back the day when things suddenly changed back to Monday, rather than Tuesday

The only new bit of speculation is the bolded bit above! 

The Smith-man theories have been heavily debated.

I have no idea whether Smith-man is real, not real, Gerry or anyone else.

But IF Smith-man was real the only way I could make sense of this would be that there had been a plan for an abduction but it went wrong. Forcing Gerry (or even someone else) to either simulate an abduction to lend credence to the abduction theory OR even forcing Gerry (or someone who looked like him) to carry away a child who was Madeleine (or who looked like Madeleine - just to cover all bases!) whether this child was alive/ill/sedated or even dead. 

That is the only way I can make any sense of this sighting - if real.

If the Smiths fabricated this sighting, then what was the motive? Were they 'lent on', offered financial incentives, perhaps were friends of Robert Murat? Or what? Perhaps a combination thereof but there HAS to be a motive.

I don't think it is especially crazy to advance a hypothesis that the Madeleine McCann case was supposed to be the UK version of some kind of Elizabeth Smart scenario. There is much that points to pre-planning, imo. But then why such a muddle and mess at the end?

Because it went wrong. Or was sabotaged. Or there was an unexpected event.

That is the only way that I, for one, can reconcile that there is evidence BOTH of pre-planning AND of last-minute panic. There is no way this case is JUST about covering up a tragic accident. 

And indeed the list of questions URGENTLY faxed by Detective Amaral to key eye-witness TV documentary producer Jez Wilkins who lives with his journalist partner Bridget Wilkins who used to work on Crimewatch is extremely interesting. As is the FACT that it is on record that Bridget Wilkins says that: "the Portuguese police never bothered to contact Jez."

What - how about the URGENT fax sent to Jez Wilkins via Leics police on his return to the UK? Does that not count, Bridget?

The most interesting question among many interesting questions, is this one, imo:

Namely if there is any indication of motive for anyone in the UK to kidnap the daughter of GERALD McCann? 

Regards

Coordinator of Criminal Investigation :

Goncalo Amaral.



http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JEREMY-WILKINS.htm

j.rob

Posts : 2243
Reputation : 232
Join date : 2014-02-02

Back to top Go down

Page 1 of 2 1, 2  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum