The bottom line.

by Realist 09.05.16 11:40

There are basically three camps in the case of the disappearance of Madeleine McCann. The first camp believing that she died at the hands of her parents prior to 6 pm on the 3^rd. Inst. May 2007. The second believing that she died at the hands of her parents between 6 pm and 8 30 pm on the 3^rd. Inst. May 2007.The third being of course that she was kidnapped by a third party between 9 pm and 10 pm on the 3^rd. Inst. May 2007

I am of the persuasion that she died between 6 pm and 8 30 pm on the 3^rd inst. May 2007, but, as Monsieur le Bennett so poignantly states, this theory is riddled with flaws, primarily because it doesn’t allow enough time to account for both the dog’s indications, or for the McCanns to have perpetrated the crime and disposed of the evidence etc.

The theory that she died sometime prior to 6 pm on the 3rd inst. May 2007 certainly allows enough time for Madeleine to have died and for her parents to have disposed of her body and concocted a kidnapping fable, but this too is fatally flawed in that it relies upon at least three or four Warner Camp employees of limited intelligence, no previous criminal experience with nothing to gain being involved in a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice at best and conspiracy to commit murder at worst. This also begs the question, would any of you have confided in the aforementioned that your daughter was dead and that you required them to create the allusion that she was still alive, not to mention that they would be required to withstand extreme police pressure and desist from selling their stories to the media. Its an awful big ask from the type of people another contributor has described as being 'useless, child carers looking for a free holiday in the sun.'

Then there is the third option of there having been a kidnapping by a third party between 9 pm and 10 pm on the 3rd. inst. May 2007 which is not only fatally flawed, but the timeline makes it an all but physical impossibility. So, what does all this prove, apart from the fact that all three are fatally flawed, it would appear that there are some vital facts missing, without which, it is very difficult to draw any definite type of conclusion as to how, or when the McCann's daughter died. The bottom line is, are the McCanns murderers and fraudsters, or are they thoroughly despicable and unpalatable people who have cashed in on their daughter's death.

by Guest 09.05.16 12:04

I am in the first camp but yes, it's difficult to understand how they would be able to involve (and they would have had to involve) so many people to cover their tracks with not one of them coming clean after all these years. Just what would make anyone agree to help cover up the death of a child , especially if it was an accident? Just what would make government officials insist that the investigation only covered the abduction theory and nothing else? Just what would make our government hinder the portuguese investigation from day one? The other thing that I can't get my head around is the fund. If there is one thing that would make someone talk , it's money. Is this what the fund was for? Hush money? Part of the wider agenda? It really is a head spinner.

by Nina 09.05.16 12:28

There is also the group/camp who believe that Madeleine died much earlier than the 3rd and that the 3rd was the day to bring it to the attention of the public and the police.

by Realist 09.05.16 12:41

I'd taken these into account, Nina, they would come in the prior to 6 pm May 3rd. category

by Realist 09.05.16 12:49

melisande wrote:. Is this what the fund was for? Hush money? Part of the wider agenda? It really is a head spinner.

If the people who formed part of a conspiracy were involved because of the pay off aspect, then surely these same money oriented people certainly wouldn't have been averse to selling their stories to the media for greater reward over the intervening yrs.

I also appreciate that civil servants working for the so called gov.secret services aren't the sharpest tools in the box, nevertheless, one would expect the cover up to have been more professional, if not slightly less obvious had this been the case.

by Nina 09.05.16 12:53

Realist wrote:
Nina wrote:There is also the group/camp who believe that Madeleine died much earlier than the 3rd and that the 3rd was the day to bring it to the attention of the public and the police.
I'd taken these into account, Nina, they would come in the prior to 6 pm May 3rd. category

Sorry, silly me. I thought you meant before 6pm on the 3rd rather than a day before the 3rd.I'll get me coat.

by Guest 09.05.16 18:48

Realist wrote:but this too is fatally flawed in that it relies upon at least three or four Warner Camp employees

Which employees are you referring to? Your debate would go well in [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.], which I'd definitely recommend reading through.
ETA - just noticed you found that thread in the past, I'll get my coat too big grin

by plebgate 12.05.16 9:28

Errr what about the people who believe Maddie died as the result of an accident, which is what the lead detective on the case stated?

You never seem to put that forward in your posts Realist. I wonder why?

by Claire25 12.05.16 10:04

plebgate wrote:Errr what about the people who believe Maddie died as the result of an accident, which is what the lead detective on the case stated?

You never seem to put that forward in your posts Realist. I wonder why?

+1

by pennylane 12.05.16 10:44

I believe Maddie and the twins were all sedated and left alone, and as a direct result Maddie had a fatal accident of which the parents would have been deemed 100% culpable.

Maddie died after 6:00 pm on 3rd May 2007 (imho).