Re: What happened to Madeleine? - A poll to assess recent evidence

by **Tony Bennett** 17.03.16 1:20

HelenMeg wrote:An interesting thread and good to read everyone's interpretation of different events and how they have arrived at their beliefs.

Another small thing leading me to my own belief is that the only time I have seen raw grief out of KM is when she had to stand next to GM on
4th May (I think 4th May) as he read a statement to the press. She wears the grey T shirt and she looks wild and slightly out of control. Like she needs to be kept firmly in grip.
She appears (to me) slightly defiant and just 'raw'. It looks to me like she is still coming to terms with what happened and 'they' need to control her so that she conforms to the 'abduction' scenario.
For me , this fits in with 'accident' on 3rd, more than 'accident' earlier in the week. I think there are persuasive arguments in either direction
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Goodness, I have seen real, deep, powerful, uncontrollable, unconsolable grief and distress on many occasions, face to face and on the TV etc., but this performance (yes, it was on 4th May) doesn't to me look anything like it.

Yet I have many times seen unbridled joy and happiness many times since, on the very same face.

I can only once remember seeing real distress and tearfulness on Kate McCann's face, and that was on a TV interview where the interviewer dwelt rather too long for Kate's comfort on the claim that Madeleine and Sean had been crying the night before she was allegedly abducted. And kept on asking her questions about it.

Kate broke down, on the one and only occasion I have seen this happen to her, she began to be very tearful and distressed, and then said something very disturbing indeed, saying that in different circumstances she would have shaken Madeleine and demanded to know: "What do you mean? What do you mean you were crying last night?"

This was accompanied by Kate McCann physically demonstrating to the interviewer how she would have got hold of her and shaken her. It looked on TV like she was shaking a rag doll.

I was absolutely stupefied when I first saw this. I thought to myself: "How could any parent walking this earth actually think of interrogating a young infant like this, as if she had just committed some deeply sinful act, of demanding answers from her and shaking her violently like that?"

I shall never forget my reaction when I first saw that. I can't now find the clip. Does anyone here know where to find it?

by Mariita 17.03.16 1:43

Yes, that interview was terrible - what a strange thing to do and say
Can't link right now, but it's on youtube type "Kate and Gerry McCann analysis of NVC "One Year On"

by MRNOODLES 17.03.16 2:09

garfy wrote:
[i think also someone forgot to gemmie the window no matter how you plan something always goes wrong]

Or wasn't able to perhaps, because when they went to do the deed. Gerry was gassing in the street?

by Guest 17.03.16 2:42

Mariita wrote:Yes, that interview was terrible - what a strange thing to do and say
Can't link right now, but it's on youtube type "Kate and Gerry McCann analysis of NVC "One Year On"

Is this it?

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

Would be more helpful if there is footage of the actual interview, rather than this analysis which, for me, is distorted by a rather poor rendition of John Hurt playing John Merrick. It is however interesting to observe their body language - if it wasn't so serious, their words and actions could be a take from a comedy sketch show.

Do you know when and where this interview took place?

ETA: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] - sorry, you beat me to it! smilie

by Mariita 17.03.16 3:45

Thankyou Get'em Gonçalo for adding the link thumbup

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] No problems! It really is a special clip, what a performance...

by **Jill Havern** 17.03.16 3:58

Mariita wrote:Thankyou Get'em Gonçalo for adding the link

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] No problems! It really is a special clip, what a performance...

She also did the same shaking demonstration on the Oprah Winfrey show.

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

by Mariita 17.03.16 4:30

Get'emGonçalo wrote:
Mariita wrote:Thankyou Get'em Gonçalo for adding the link

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] No problems! It really is a special clip, what a performance...
She also did the same shaking demonstration on the Oprah Winfrey show.

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

She had to do something with her arms and hands as Cuddle Cat had escaped from her lap by 2009...

by **Jill Havern** 17.03.16 4:38

Mariita wrote:
Get'emGonçalo wrote:
Mariita wrote:Thankyou Get'em Gonçalo for adding the link

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] No problems! It really is a special clip, what a performance...
She also did the same shaking demonstration on the Oprah Winfrey show.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
She had to do something with her arms and hands as Cuddle Cat had escaped from her lap by 2009...

What about Gerry's crotch? She always had her hand there like something was about to fall off.

by hentie 17.03.16 4:40

Get'emGonçalo wrote:
Mariita wrote:
Get'emGonçalo wrote:
Mariita wrote:Thankyou Get'em Gonçalo for adding the link

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] No problems! It really is a special clip, what a performance...
She also did the same shaking demonstration on the Oprah Winfrey show.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
She had to do something with her arms and hands as Cuddle Cat had escaped from her lap by 2009...
What about Gerry's crotch? She always had her hand there like something was about to fall off.

Maybe he's in need of control....bit like the joystick of a plane big grin

by **Jill Havern** 17.03.16 4:45

hentie wrote:
Get'emGonçalo wrote:
Mariita wrote:
Get'emGonçalo wrote:
Mariita wrote:Thankyou Get'em Gonçalo for adding the link

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] No problems! It really is a special clip, what a performance...
She also did the same shaking demonstration on the Oprah Winfrey show.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
She had to do something with her arms and hands as Cuddle Cat had escaped from her lap by 2009...
What about Gerry's crotch? She always had her hand there like something was about to fall off.
Maybe he's in need of control....bit like the joystick of a plane

by **Nina** 17.03.16 5:20

Get'emGonçalo wrote:
hentie wrote:
Get'emGonçalo wrote:
Mariita wrote:
Get'emGonçalo wrote:
Mariita wrote:Thankyou Get'em Gonçalo for adding the link

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] No problems! It really is a special clip, what a performance...
She also did the same shaking demonstration on the Oprah Winfrey show.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
She had to do something with her arms and hands as Cuddle Cat had escaped from her lap by 2009...
What about Gerry's crotch? She always had her hand there like something was about to fall off.
Maybe he's in need of control....bit like the joystick of a plane

:puke:

by Guest 17.03.16 7:19

Ever so slightly off piste but I think this is worthy of another airing..

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

Dr Christian Ludke - Criminal Psychologist

Interviewer: You have since early on warned that behaviour of [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] is pointing towards them being involved, what had made you feel that way?

Ludke: In the latest years I have often been in contact with parents who had lost their child due to a crime. They are under massive shock, were helpless, were insecure, withdrawing themselves. They have an inner struggle, blaming themselves for possibly not have looked enough after their child.

Interviewer: Was it different with the McCanns?

Ludke: They live completely different, often harmonic. Already after a few days they went jogging, as if that was a normal thing to do, they always came together. These parents took matters into their own hands instead of leaving matters in the hands of the police. They distanced themselves from their two other children by going on a European tour, that to me is very strange.

Interviewer: Maybe it was an accident?

Ludke: No. In such a case, after the first shock they would have trusted the [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]. Both parents are doctors, in case of an accident they would have tried to get help. It is even more unrealistic that of all people two doctors would leave 3 children alone in a strange environment, even more at night. I have many doctors as patients. As professionals they know all that can happen to children, and as parents they are overly protective.

Interviewer: What could have been the motive, to disappear their own daughter?

Ludke: There are parents who have little to no emotional binding with a child. Often such a child is considered a burden, that is treated in a brutal or perverse way. The most known is the Munchhausen-by proxy-Syndrome: The mother hurts the child until it is almost not alive anymore and then calls for the police because she herself has a huge wish for attention.

Interviewer: Do you think it is possible that Madeleine’s parents have killed [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]together and hidden her?

Ludke: I believe both have perpetrator knowledge.

Interviewer: You mean, the McCanns have planned the death of their daughter?

Ludke: Yes, it is possible that they have planned the act for a long time, at least in must have been in their minds often and they must have spoken about it together. Otherwise they would now be contradicting each others.

Interviewer: When parents are guilty of killing their child, do they block that out of their minds?

Ludke: not likely. Both are very much conscious, give interviews, travel. It is for them easier to lie than to tell the truth.
One can rule out a psychoses. Many things are pointing towards mentally disturbed. The children of the McCanns were conceived artificially, that can lead to problems in parenthood. Maybe a lack of self esteem that is not often talked about. Maybe the child had to die for a problem that had been going on for many years.

Interviewer: But the McCanns seem perfect and loving parents.

Ludke: That image to the outside world can be due to a guilt mechanism when on a media campaign, and to distract from the real problem.

Interviewer: Why do they not go back to Great Britain?

Ludke: That also speaks against them, when someone looses a child they want to be with loved ones in a trusted surrounding. When they continue to stay on that resort, there were something terrible happened the worse that can happen to a parent, being loosing a child, that points towards a permanent survival instinct, images of what happened must pop up when being there. That the McCanns do not return home, where they also can have memories of happy times with their children can be a way out, to not be de-connected with what they have done.

Interviewer: The world thinks it is impossible that these parents can be guilty.

Ludke: the [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] are probably been taken on by the McCanns. Very soon they have been thinking of themselves instead of of the child. De parents were treated like the Beckhams. In his [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] the father writes almost daily about that and irrelevant/banal things, which shirt he was wearing, what the weather is like. That isn’t a father that is worried. Statistically 70 percent of all the violence against children is caused by the parents, family members or friends. That has unfortunately not been looked into. The Portuguese police was treated very unfairly when pointing towards that.

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

by Guest 17.03.16 9:51

Having again watched the illustrious double acts appearance on the Oprah Winfrey show, I'm reminded of the McCanns audacious arrogance, flying in the face of all reason. For a start, who or what the flippin' heck prompted them to agree to appear - Madeleine did not disappear in the US, there has never been any indication either by the official investigation/s or any other source to suggest she might have been taken to the US. So why exactly did they take the road show across the pond to flaunt their all time best golden raspberry award performance?

If ever there was proof required that this whole charade is nothing but a soap opera of epic proportions, this appearance on Oprah Winfrey is it. Gerry McCann displaying his impatience and supercilious sneer before a world audience to perfection and the missus so adept at that rigid painted look of woe, I think she's permanently stuck like it. They've been play acting for so long it's become second nature.

Even still promoting the broken shutter and open window fabrication? When you break it all down, they really are quite unbelievable - literally and metaphorically. How anyone could ever have been taken in by their deceit I will never understand.

by **Tony Bennett** 17.03.16 10:31

Verdi wrote:...and the missus so adept at that rigid painted look of woe, I think she's permanently stuck like it.

There has, though, been the occasional exception...

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

...that proves the rule

by Guest 17.03.16 10:39

Tony Bennett wrote:
Verdi wrote:...and the missus so adept at that rigid painted look of woe, I think she's permanently stuck like it.
There has, though, been the occasional exception...

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

...that proves the rule

An act of ventriloquism..

by Guest 17.03.16 10:50

Alas, absence of photographs can never be looked on as evidence of a crime but for me it sure sets off a few alarm bells. A good indication that something was amiss after taking the photograph by the pool (commonly known as the last photograph - which in retrospect probably was only not the recorded date and time).

Looking for something specific in KM's autobiography 'madeleine - mini me', I came across her story about Madeleine arriving at the Tapas one afternoon with the rest of the creche children and sammy snake - but no photograph? She emphasizes how she rushed to get her camera to capture Madeleine on the tennis court clutching tennis ball and the last photograph allegedly taken on 3rd May, yet all these other charming scenes featuring Madeleine and/or the twins - nothing!

It's just not natural parent behaviour.

by Guest 17.03.16 23:13

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

by sar 17.03.16 23:28

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

+1 Verdi

by Guest 18.03.16 0:37

Verdi wrote:
April28th wrote:I went for 30th, I find Fatima da Silva's account accurate as it was given on the 8th of May, and describes accurately what Madeleine was wearing in the 'last photo', which she couldn't have gotten from the photo itself as it wasn't yet doing the rounds.

As to the Payne discrepancy, I think that it, as with the Oldfield 'check' was retrofitted to the story to cover any chance of their dna being found inside the apartment (for whatever reason..).
An indication but hardly conclusive. I offer you the following for further consideration..

Fatima Maria Serafim da Silva Espada - witness statment 8th May 2007

As regards the clothes she was wearing she only remembers a skirt but cannot recall its description.

madeleine by Kate McCann

She was wearing an outfit I’d bought especially for her holiday: a peach-coloured smock top from Gap and some white broderie-anglaise shorts from Monsoon ...

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

Hardly an accurate description of Madeleine's appearance is it? Nor does her statement fit in with Gerry McCann's claim that his wife, during the daytime, always left with the children by the patio door which he locked from the inside and then left by the front door. The witness claims to have seen KM + 3 trotting off to the Paynes abode with their lunch, shortly followed by Gerry McCann.

As for your comment about DNA - I don't think anything can be deduced by the presence of any of the groups DNA in the McCann apartment. They were on holiday as a group, only to be expected that they would leave a scent wherever they trod.

This clip also backs up what I said further up the page in response to you, Verdi. Even Gerry and Kate (Kate by proxy not correcting it) describe a 'dress' when describing the last photo. You're quite correct in quoting it was a smock top and shorts, but I'd wager Gerry (like myself) just described it as a dress not knowing the correct term. And from Fatima's perspective, she could've either seen it as a dress because of her height, or it got described as a dress in translation.

Either way, this was the only day she wore anything even resembling a dress, so I take it as accurate personally.

by Google.Gaspar.Statements 18.03.16 0:45

Thank you for posting that video clip April28th, I hadn't seen it before.

If that's supposed to be Gerry, Madeleine and Kate then where were the twins?

by Guest 18.03.16 2:43

Google.Gaspar.Statements wrote:Thank you for posting that video clip April28th, I hadn't seen it before.

If that's supposed to be Gerry, Madeleine and Kate then where were the twins?

You mean to say you've never watched the Crimewatch 2013 Madeleine McCann Special, produced in collaboration with Operation Grange and featuring their very own concoction of a holiday re-enactment? Shame on you - this is unmissable light entertainment..

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

Around 9 minutes in you can see the poolside fun and more. Enjoy!

by Guest 18.03.16 3:11

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote: This clip also backs up what I said further up the page in response to you, Verdi. Even Gerry and Kate (Kate by proxy not correcting it) describe a 'dress' when describing the last photo. You're quite correct in quoting it was a smock top and shorts, but I'd wager Gerry (like myself) just described it as a dress not knowing the correct term. And from Fatima's perspective, she could've either seen it as a dress because of her height, or it got described as a dress in translation.

Either way, this was the only day she wore anything even resembling a dress, so I take it as accurate personally.

Before the subject takes on a new life of it's own, I should clarify that my original post was disputing your claim that the cleaner 'accurately' described what Madeleine was wearing. If you recall, I posted up an extract from both the cleaners statement and KM's description taken from her autobiography, which shows clearly that the cleaner did not even fully describe what Madeleine was wearing - let alone accurately.

I'm very interested to learn how you know that the day the cleaner allegedly saw Madeleine with her family was the only occasion that Madeleine wore anything even resembling a dress. Granted the only three photographs showing Madeleine during that week she is wearing 1. a pink trouser and top ensemble 2. a pair of shorts and t-shirt and 3. the smock top with broderie anglais shorts taken at the swimming pool but I've never seen any information anywhere indicating the content of her wardrobe packed for the holiday. As most likely the case of the errant pyjamas, I strongly suspect that the luggage contained more than three outfits for a three, nearly four, year old child.

The difficulty with this case right from the beginning has been the veracity (or not if you prefer) of the McCanns word and that of their friends. As I see it, everything they have ever muttered should be taken with a sack load of salt, without evidence of something tangible to back-up their story - so far I've never seen that evidence. Mr. Amaral was faced with the same problem, he was initially ill-informed which led to wrong conclusions as regards the direction of the investigation. Of course had he been allowed to continue as the nvestigation evolved it would have taken on a whole new perspective - as was beginning to emerge when Eddie and Keela were deployed. Mr. Amaral was removed from the case and so it ended..

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

by Guest 18.03.16 7:13

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] Oh I understood where you were coming from, hope I wasn't seeming to misrepresent what you said. I'm of the belief that if there was a dress worn on a different day, we would've seen it in some fashion back then. And because of this belief and lack of credible sightings after Fatima's, I believe she died on that day or the early hours of the next. And that's why I attribute the 'last photo' to being literally that, and why I excuse the misappropriation of the word 'dress', for the reasons I've outlined.

I can absolutely see your point and don't mean to dismiss you in any way. We just have a difference of interpretation here, mainly borne of different conclusions about the true last day. If I were to believe there was another day then I'd perhaps allow for an outfit we never saw, but in the absense of such evidence I go with what I see. :)

by Guest 18.03.16 7:32

April28th wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] Oh I understood where you were coming from, hope I wasn't seeming to misrepresent what you said. I'm of the belief that if there was a dress worn on a different day, we would've seen it in some fashion back then. And because of this belief and lack of credible sightings after Fatima's, I believe she died on that day or the early hours of the next. And that's why I attribute the 'last photo' to being literally that, and why I excuse the misappropriation of the word 'dress', for the reasons I've outlined.

I can absolutely see your point and don't mean to dismiss you in any way. We just have a difference of interpretation here, mainly borne of different conclusions about the true last day. If I were to believe there was another day then I'd perhaps allow for an outfit we never saw, but in the absense of such evidence I go with what I see. :)

No problem, we agree on the important points that's the main thing which from where I'm standing, with or without the cleaner's statement, remain intact.

by **Tony Bennett** 28.03.16 20:33

April28th wrote:
This clip also backs up what I said further up the page...Verdi. Even Gerry and Kate (Kate by proxy not correcting it) describe a 'dress' when describing the last photo. You're quite correct in quoting it was a smock top and shorts, but I'd wager Gerry (like myself) just described it as a dress not knowing the correct term. And from Fatima's perspective, she could've either seen it as a dress because of her height, or it got described as a dress in translation.

Either way, this was the only day she wore anything even resembling a dress, so I take it as accurate personally.

This clip is indeed important as confirmation of the cleaning lady's (Fatima's) detailed evidence of an event on lunch-time, Sunday 29th, when Madeleine was clearly alive. She describes it very accurately. Nothing vague at all about it.

But after that, as HideHo has clearly shown in her article last year, statements about Madeleine being seen alive boil down to uncorroborated statements by the parents or their friends, or vague statements by others with little or no checkable details provided.

Indeed, the reconstruction of the events of 3 May 2007 on the BBC Crimewatch McCann Special are revealing in other ways, such as the clip of Gerry playing tennis and Madeleine going around picking up the tennis balls, which does not seem to be confirmed by any of the statements surrounding the tennis balls photo.

They should have included a clip of Kate rushing back to the flat to hunt for the camera she forgot to take with her that day

by **HiDeHo** 28.03.16 20:52

Lets ask a question... Why would they release a younger Maddie photo..?

There could be a few reasons but this is one possible reason....

IF the photo was taken Sunday would they want to risk people remembering Maddie looking like that 'days ago' when they wanted people to think it was taken that day?

If people were told she looked like that earlier that day... (and she wasn't around) how many would say, 'no, I didnt see her today looking like that in that outfit but I remember seeing her a few days ago'

That would jeopardise an effort to claim the photo was taken on Thursday (IF that was the case)

Why would they risk people saying, 'I don't remember seeing her'. It seems apparent that other children resembled the younger pic. A safer bet?

by tinkier 29.03.16 0:02

HiDeHo wrote:Lets ask a question... Why would they release a younger Maddie photo..?

There could be a few reasons but this is one possible reason....

IF the photo was taken Sunday would they want to risk people remembering Maddie looking like that 'days ago' when they wanted people to think it was taken that day?

If people were told she looked like that earlier that day... (and she wasn't around) how many would say, 'no, I didnt see her today looking like that in that outfit but I remember seeing her a few days ago'

That would jeopardise an effort to claim the photo was taken on Thursday (IF that was the case)

Why would they risk people saying, 'I don't remember seeing her'. It seems apparent that other children resembled the younger pic. A safer bet?

I always remember the article written by Bridget O'Donnell http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2007/dec/14/ukcrime.madeleinemccann Bridget stated.…"We would joke about the fact there were 10 blonde three-year-old girls in the group". So yes I would agree, a safer bet to put out a younger looking photo if more of the group of 10 little blonde three-year-olds looked a little younger than MBM. Confusion is good!

by **Nina** 29.03.16 0:06

tinkier wrote:
HiDeHo wrote:Lets ask a question... Why would they release a younger Maddie photo..?

There could be a few reasons but this is one possible reason....

IF the photo was taken Sunday would they want to risk people remembering Maddie looking like that 'days ago' when they wanted people to think it was taken that day?

If people were told she looked like that earlier that day... (and she wasn't around) how many would say, 'no, I didnt see her today looking like that in that outfit but I remember seeing her a few days ago'

That would jeopardise an effort to claim the photo was taken on Thursday (IF that was the case)

Why would they risk people saying, 'I don't remember seeing her'. It seems apparent that other children resembled the younger pic. A safer bet?
I always remember the article written by Bridget O'Donnell http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2007/dec/14/ukcrime.madeleinemccann Bridget stated.…"We would joke about the fact there were 10 blonde three-year-old girls in the group". So yes I would agree, a safer bet to put out a younger looking photo if more of the group of 10 little blonde three-year-olds looked a little younger than MBM. Confusion is good!