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.

(Please note: if you register with the sole intention of disrupting or spamming, please don't expect to be a member for too long.)

Many thanks,

Jill Havern
Forum owner

Back to Basics

Page 1 of 2 1, 2  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Back to Basics

Post by john h on 15.02.17 12:49

I am fairly new to all of this, and am torn between the explanatory power and evidence that seems to point towards the child dying early in the week, as in Hill's film, and the seemingly inexplicable involvement that would involve on the part of the other doctors, and the nannies. I find the dark suggestions of paedophile rings and government involvement really implausible, and I confess to not really understanding as yet how Murat is in the frame really. 

But keeping things simple. 

What interests me here, as a way of resolving this is the simple hypothesis suggested by someone on this forum that the child had an accident, or perhaps choked on something, or ran away - perhaps on the Sunday - night while in the care of one of the nannies, according to a loose arrangement that would have implicated the holiday company and the nanny. What followed was something I have also seen suggested elsewhere: a tragic attempt at resuscitation on the part of one of the other doctors, more used to casualty situation. The involvement of the McCann's in this, in sedating or chastising their child (or perhaps she was sedated and fell down the steps, but in the 'care' of the nanny), or in leaving medication out which M took while the nanny was not looking or present etc, or botching the initial resuscitation, or administering anaesthetic, etc etc  might be a part of this. Obviously the factors of being drunk, not having appropriate instruments, etc would all be further parts of this nightmare. 

Or else, regarding the holiday company. Didn't they offer a baby listening service, and might this not have failed in this case, if M had run off or had an accident that was undetected before the parents discovered it. 

I note that I read somewhere that Dr O B had a breakdown after the trip - which makes me at least feel really sorry for him. 

I know that many of you might roll your eyes at this, and think I have no clue about the detail - but can someone tell me simply: is this all unlikely for some reason?

One thing that it suggests also, is that the McC's are covering for others as well as them covering for them...
avatar
john h

Posts : 13
Reputation : 3
Join date : 2017-02-13

Back to top Go down

Re: Back to Basics

Post by ChippyM on 15.02.17 13:37

I do think it's plausible that being doctors, some of them might have been involved with a resuscitation or trying to monitor after an overdose etc. It would account for the 'pact'.
   Personally I can't seem to rule out the abuse angle though, it could have happened as well.

It's been said that Martin Brunt initially reported that forensics found the spray formation of the dna indicated a broken neck or trachectomy....I don't know if this was accurate or whether it was a report based on rumours. Maybe it was what the police thought but the forensic final reports showed partial DNA matches and didn't confirm it conclusively.

ChippyM

Posts : 1263
Reputation : 410
Join date : 2013-06-15

Back to top Go down

Re: Back to Basics

Post by john h on 15.02.17 13:40

@ChippyM wrote:I do think it's plausible that being doctors, some of them might have been involved with a resuscitation or trying to monitor after an overdose etc. It would account for the 'pact'.
   Personally I can't seem to rule out the abuse angle though, it could have happened as well.

It's been said that Martin Brunt initially reported that forensics found the spray formation of the dna indicated a broken neck or trachectomy....I don't know if this was accurate or whether it was a report based on rumours. Maybe it was what the police thought but the forensic final reports showed partial DNA matches and didn't confirm it conclusively.
Yes it was the tracheotomy idea that was in my mind, a procedure very difficult with very small children I believe... i am not a medical doctor, but could it be that other methods used to resuscitate or clear the wind pipe exacerbated things?
avatar
john h

Posts : 13
Reputation : 3
Join date : 2017-02-13

Back to top Go down

Re: Back to Basics

Post by JRP on 15.02.17 14:18

@john h wrote:I am fairly new to all of this, and am torn between the explanatory power and evidence that seems to point towards the child dying early in the week, as in Hill's film, and the seemingly inexplicable involvement that would involve on the part of the other doctors, and the nannies. I find the dark suggestions of paedophile rings and government involvement really implausible, and I confess to not really understanding as yet how Murat is in the frame really. 

But keeping things simple. 

What interests me here, as a way of resolving this is the simple hypothesis suggested by someone on this forum that the child had an accident, or perhaps choked on something, or ran away - perhaps on the Sunday - night while in the care of one of the nannies, according to a loose arrangement that would have implicated the holiday company and the nanny. What followed was something I have also seen suggested elsewhere: a tragic attempt at resuscitation on the part of one of the other doctors, more used to casualty situation. The involvement of the McCann's in this, in sedating or chastising their child (or perhaps she was sedated and fell down the steps, but in the 'care' of the nanny), or botching the initial resuscitation, or administered anaesthetic, etc etc  might be a part of this. 

Or else, regarding the holiday company. Didn't they offer a baby listening service, and might this not have failed in this case, if M had run off or had an accident that was undetected before the parents discovered it. 

I note that I read somewhere that Dr O B had a breakdown after the trip - which makes me at least feel really sorry for him. 

I know that many of you might roll your eyes at this, and think I have no clue about the detail - but can someone tell me simply: is this all unlikely for some reason?

One thing that it suggests also, is that the McC's are covering for others as well as them covering for them...

When in 2011, our present PM Theresa May, then Home Secretary under David Cameron set up Operation Grange, a remit was set where the operation would only look at the abduction.
Going back to basics in my mind, would be to set in motion an operation which looks at every possibility of what happened to Madeleine.
So, why are the parents and the other members of the holiday party immune from being part of the scope of Operation Grange? The Government could have quite easily made a remit to cover every aspect in a review of this case, but deliberately made a decision which protected the McCanns... why?

JRP

Posts : 439
Reputation : 386
Join date : 2016-03-07
Age : 59
Location : UK

Back to top Go down

Re: Back to Basics

Post by john h on 15.02.17 15:11

It is a good question, and I think it is a really bad decision not to investigate the whole case. 

Clearly, in part abetted by attack dog lawyers, the McCann's have stabilised the media in their favour. We live in a very ideological age, and the McCann's have taken on huge ideological value through the  narrative of  photogenic Brits v incompetent Portuguese/predatory European paedophiles...  Politicians want to appear as caring, and there are simple tabloid gains in being seen to support the mccains as exemplary 'aspirational' British meritocratic types, etc. I would say (as well as to support the papers who endlessly peddle the stories and support the politicians - hence the Private Eye item on this forum!). I don't see the need to push for any other conspiracy (and believe me I am all too happy to regard our democracy as a sham).

So that was why I tried to come up with the simplest solution that might also include the nannies: something like sedation/vomiting/choking/moving M up the stairs to her own apartment and sofa/ botched tracheotomy/cover up.
avatar
john h

Posts : 13
Reputation : 3
Join date : 2017-02-13

Back to top Go down

Re: Back to Basics

Post by Verdi on 15.02.17 15:20

This thread has been titled Back to Basics by the originator - but it's not back to basics is it?  Seems to me to be a re-hash of past speculation based on nothing but the words of the McCanns and their friends with a heavy dose of filling in the gaps with vivid imagination.

The accident hypothesis, ny sedation or other occurence,has very recently reared it'shead again on 'hobs theory:  What I believe may have happened to Madeleine McCann' - it's here @ Hobs #157for anyone interested in excellent reasoning as to why the sedation/accident theory is most unlikely..

https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t11615p150-hobs-theory-what-i-believe-may-have-happened-to-madeleine-mccann

____________________
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 : 5612
Reputation : 3262
Join date : 2015-02-02

Back to top Go down

Re: Back to Basics

Post by ChippyM on 15.02.17 15:34

Why would an accident or sedation (or both) be the result of a 'vivid imagination'. It's got to be one of the possibilities if Madeliene died in 5A. 
   Amaral's theory was based on an accident occuring, questions were also asked about giving the children medication. It's my impression that he would stick to the most plausible theory based on what he thinks he has proof of and then hope to fill in the details by further questioning.
 Yes it was the McCanns and Fiona Payne who mentioned fears of sedation but this could be them hedging their bets in case the kids were tested, they wanted to associate it with the 'abductor' JT saw and give a possible explanation for it,  part of the abduction staging.

ChippyM

Posts : 1263
Reputation : 410
Join date : 2013-06-15

Back to top Go down

Re: Back to Basics

Post by john h on 15.02.17 15:38

Thanks for this. 

I suppose what interested me was that this case can bring about all kinds of attention to detail, yet whichever way you take it one does have to fill in the gaps and imagine some larger scenario. Even Richard Hall moves from meticulous detailing and solid reasoning to larger extrapolations about political involvement and so on that can seem a stretch, and of a different order from collating witness statements, and making time-lines etc. The Portuguese detective made his own kind of extrapolation, but it doesn't seem one that everyone agrees with. 

I would take issue with one thing though, Verdi, with respect. I don't see myself as citing what the McCann's themselves or their friends have said here. What I tried to do was to come up with the most reduced explanation or scenario I could that was compatible with the nannies and other doctors becoming involved in a cover up. I agree with the reasoning in the other thread that sedation or an accident on its own might not be sufficient for a cover up, and could be explained away. So maybe violence by a parent, maybe a botched/failed surgical attempt to save her. 

I will go back and have a read through that thread again though: I did look at it, but maybe there are things in it that suggest, as you say, that this particular approach of trying to reduce the variables is deficient. 

Thanks!
avatar
john h

Posts : 13
Reputation : 3
Join date : 2017-02-13

Back to top Go down

Re: Back to Basics

Post by john h on 15.02.17 15:39

@Verdi wrote:This thread has been titled Back to Basics by the originator - but it's not back to basics is it?  Seems to me to be a re-hash of past speculation based on nothing but the words of the McCanns and their friends with a heavy dose of filling in the gaps with vivid imagination.

The accident hypothesis, ny sedation or other occurence,has very recently reared it'shead again on 'hobs theory:  What I believe may have happened to Madeleine McCann' - it's here @ Hobs #157for anyone interested in excellent reasoning as to why the sedation/accident theory is most unlikely..

https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t11615p150-hobs-theory-what-i-believe-may-have-happened-to-madeleine-mccann
Thanks for this, Verdi. 

I suppose what interested me was that this case can bring about all kinds of attention to detail, yet whichever way you take it one does have to fill in the gaps and imagine some larger scenario. Even Richard Hall moves from meticulous detailing and solid reasoning to larger extrapolations about political involvement and so on that can seem a stretch, and of a different order from collating witness statements, and making time-lines etc. The Portuguese detective made his own kind of extrapolation, but it doesn't seem one that everyone agrees with. 

I would take issue with one thing though, Verdi, with respect. I don't see myself as citing what the McCann's themselves or their friends have said here. What I tried to do was to come up with the most reduced explanation or scenario I could that was compatible with the nannies and other doctors becoming involved in a cover up. I agree with the reasoning in the other thread that sedation or an accident on its own might not be sufficient for a cover up, and could be explained away. So maybe violence by a parent, maybe a botched/failed surgical attempt to save her. 

I will go back and have a read through that thread again though: I did look at it, but maybe there are things in it that suggest, as you say, that this particular approach of trying to reduce the variables is deficient. 

Thanks!
avatar
john h

Posts : 13
Reputation : 3
Join date : 2017-02-13

Back to top Go down

Re: Back to Basics

Post by Verdi on 15.02.17 15:46

@ChippyM wrote:Why would an accident or sedation (or both) be the result of a 'vivid imagination'.
It's not the accident/sedation hypothesis I refer to here per se.  My comment about 'vivid imagination' was appertaining to the many alternative scenarios contained in the OP and similar foundless speculaltion voiced over the past years.

Mr. Amaral's observations in the summer of 2007 and the general subject of medication/sedation/accidental death, I have extensively commented on in the past on various threads - as have other members.

____________________
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 : 5612
Reputation : 3262
Join date : 2015-02-02

Back to top Go down

Re: Back to Basics

Post by ChippyM on 15.02.17 16:53

D
@Verdi wrote:
@ChippyM wrote:Why would an accident or sedation (or both) be the result of a 'vivid imagination'.
It's not the accident/sedation hypothesis I refer to here per se.  My comment about 'vivid imagination' was appertaining to the many alternative scenarios contained in the OP and similar foundless speculaltion voiced over the past years.

Mr. Amaral's observations in the summer of 2007 and the general subject of medication/sedation/accidental death, I have extensively commented on in the past on various threads - as have other members.
OK, I see but in the other thread (hob's theory), you have totally ruled out that sedation/drugging taking place based on not trusting anything said in the statements.
    I'm not sure I can follow that thinking 100% because while most of the events seem fabricated, some elements could be true. I don't think there's any way to know for sure until more questioning takes place, or more evidence comes to light.

ChippyM

Posts : 1263
Reputation : 410
Join date : 2013-06-15

Back to top Go down

Re: Back to Basics

Post by JohnyT on 15.02.17 20:27

...but would 'trying' to revive their daughter by the  doctors etc. warrant a cover up if they failed?
JohnyT

JohnyT

Posts : 191
Reputation : 89
Join date : 2014-06-01

Back to top Go down

Re: Back to Basics

Post by Verdi on 15.02.17 21:10

Right, so let's really take this back to basics by stripping it of all superfluous deception and speculation - call it what you will.

According to the holiday organiser, David Payne, Warners offer a baby listening service at most of their resorts.  During the holiday booking process he learned that Warners did not offer a baby listening service at the Ocean Club resort at Praia da Luz - they did however offer a baby-sitting service at an additional cost and a complimentary night creche service.  Interesting to note here that the Paynes took a high tech baby monitor with them but despite being aware of the night childcare services before departure from the UK - the McCanns didn't.  In fact only one other of the couples claim to have take a baby monitor with them but it wasn't very effective. 
 
The McCanns and their friends allegedly declined the available services and opted for their own baby listening service.  The reasoning offered by the McCanns for this decision was:

a) they didn't want to leave their children with strangers - the strangers being the same staff that run the daycare facilities where the McCanns left their children every day - allegedly. 

b) they didn't want to use the creche service because it would disrupt the children's routine - they were on holiday, their routine was already disrupted. 

c) they elected to operate their own listening service because that's what Warners do at other resorts and it felt so safe !!!

In ordinary circumstances there is absolutely no logic to this arrangement - they even had other options like staying in the apartments every night with their children or taking it in turns to baby-sit.  Then you have grandmother Dianne Webster, she wasn't part of the 'so into each other' group - she was just there.  This raised the question as to why she was invited to join the group on their holiday but that's for another day.

As I say, there is no logic to this arrangement but .... if something happened to Madeleine early in the week, Sunday or Monday for example, their claimed arrangement starts to make sense.  In short, it would explain why they didn't use the night childcare facilities offered by Warners but instead invented their own listening service.
 
Moving on to sedation of the children.  Madeleine yes, a possibility and another reason why a body must be secreted, drugs are commonly used to pacify a child in cases of abuse.  The twins no, there is no reason to presume they were sedated.  If the children were never left unsupervised at night, which I don't believe they were, why sedate them?   If it be true that Madeleine was abducted from her bed by a stranger, as soon as Kate McCann raised the alarm and they all trouped back to apartment 5a, the most sensible course of action would be for one of the group to take the twins to another apartment - most definitely not to leave them in the bedroom where they claim Madeleine was taken from.  The friends were on the scene, Dianne Webster was on the scene, some of the childcare workers were on the scene, Warners staff were on the scene - all before the police were called and/or arrived.   Collectively, would they all overlook the twins alone in that room?

I venture to suggest that the whole story is fabricated from beginning to end and carefully planned, throughout the week, to stage the abduction theory.  Anything else is just embellishment.

____________________
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 : 5612
Reputation : 3262
Join date : 2015-02-02

Back to top Go down

Re: Back to Basics

Post by Tony Bennett on 15.02.17 21:15

@john h wrote:
@Verdi wrote:This thread [SNIPPED]  
Thanks for this, Verdi. 

I suppose what interested me was that this case can bring about all kinds of attention to detail, yet whichever way you take it one does have to fill in the gaps and imagine some larger scenario. Even Richard Hall moves from meticulous detailing and solid reasoning to larger extrapolations about political involvement and so on that can seem a stretch, and of a different order from collating witness statements, and making time-lines etc.
Thank you @ john h for your contributions - and welcome.

It's true that Richard Hall moves from analysing many facts to looking at 'political invovlement' as you say.

But how can we limit ourselves to thinking that what happened to Madeleine was just 'an accident' or perhaps 'over-sedation' when we consider the amazing extent of the 'political involvemt' in the very first week, never mind the next 10 years - and, by now, five solid years of Operation Grange getting nowhere?

How can we explain ALL of this...

==================


THE PEOPLE WHO RUSHED OUT TO PRAIA DA LUZ AFTER 3 MAY 2007 AND BY FRIDAY 11 MAY 2007  

This summarises a list of those known to have rushed out to Praia da Luz after 3 May 2007 (or on the case of Resonate and Robert Murat, BEFORE then). Dates of arrival given where known, all before Thursday May 10 unless otherwise stated: 

Government officials 

Robert Henderson – British Consul for the Algarve – immediate (persuaded Portuguese Police to allow the McCanns to wash clothes before seizing them) 

John Buck – British Ambassador to Portugal (Lisbon), arrived immediately

Angela Morado – British Proconsul, arrived immediately   

Liz Dow, British Consul rom the Embassy in Lisbon, arrived immediately

Andy Bowes, British Embassy Press Officer, arrived immediately   

Sheree Dodd, Foreign and Commonwealth Office

Other staff from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office   

British Police Officers

Glen Power, British Police Liaison Officer for Portugal, arrived 5 May

An ‘Analyst’ (unnamed)  from the National Policing Improvements Agency, arrived 4 May

Detective Chief Superintendent Bob Small, Leicestershire Police

Two other police ‘family liaison’ officers from Leicestershire Police  

Government security and secret service personnel

Staff from MI5 (unnamed)

Staff from Child Exploitation and OnLine Protection Service (unnamed – Kate McCann in her book describes them As ‘Forensic Psychologists’), arrived 4 May
More staff from CEOP, the ‘Director of the Forensic Psychology Unit’ AND a CEOP ‘social worker’ (arrived 6 May)
Staff from Special Branch (unnamed)
‘Criminal profilers’ (unnamed - attached to unnamed government security departments)    
Government-funded private security firms 
                                                                         
Kenneth Farrow from Control Risks Group

Michael Keenan from Control Risks Group

Staff from government-supported private crisis psychology group

Alan Pike, Head of Yorkshire-based Centre for Crisis Psychology (CCP) (arrived 4 May)

Martin Alderton, Colleague of Alan Pike from CCP  (arrived 5 May)

Public Relations Consultants

Michael Frolich, Head of Resonate, subsidiary of international PR company Bell Pottinger (already there by Monday 30 April)

Tricia Moon, Deputy Director of Resonate, (already there by Monday 30 April)

Alex Woolfall, Head of Risk for international PR company Bell Pottinger, arrived 4 May (helped to edit Gerry McCann’s photos before putting them on a disc for the PJ)

Lawyers

Staff from the recently-formed International Family Law Group (IFLG):

Michael Nicholls, barrister, arrived 11 May

Accompanied by a ‘paralegal’ from Leicestershire, arrived 11 May

There are references to other government lawyers having arrived   

Top staff from Mark Warner (company that organised the holiday)

David Hopkins, Managing Director of Mark Warner

One of his senior colleagues

Interpreters

Robert Murat became the initial main interpreter for the Portuguese Police on 4 May. He  had already flown out from England on 1 May. He was recommended by British Consul Robert Henderson

Religious Organisations

Rev. Haynes and Susan Hubbard mysteriously arrived in Praia da Luz from Canada on Sunday 6 May, to take up an appointment as the Anglican Minister in Praia da Luz. The Hubbards rapidly became very close friends of the Mccanns 
 
Others

‘Hugh’ – Kate in her book says he would only identify himself as ‘Hugh’, he was brought in by Control Risks Group and said he was ‘a former intelligence officer, now a kidnap negotiator and counsellor’. He attended meeting with the lawyers from IFLG

OTHER APPOINTMENTS

Clarence Mitchell, Head of the government’s Media Monitoring Unit: According to the reply to a Freedom of Information request, he was appointed on Sunday 6 May to head up the government’s PR support for the McCanns, but he did not travel to Portugal until 22 May 2007

The government set up a very high-powered liaison committee on Tuesday 8 May under the Chairmanship of Matt Baggott, Leicestershire Police Chief Constable. It consisted of representatives from a wide variety of government departments and agencies. The government has refused to answer FoIAct questions about who those agencies were.

Government Ministers Gordon Brown (Chancellor of the Exchequer) and Margaret Beckett (Foreign Secretary) spoke to Gerry McCann in the first week. Tony Blair, Prime Minister, did so later.

Literally hundreds of international journalists were also there in that first week.      

=========================   


I think Richard Hall's next film is called: "Madeleine - Why the Cover-Up?'  Perhaps he will provide some answers?

____________________

 Daily Mail journalist Daniel Bates wrote: “Kate and Gerry McCann have released a new picture of their daughter Madeleine as they prepare to commemorate tomorrow’s third anniversary of her disappearance. The photo shows her when she was three after a raid on the dressing-up box. She has a pink bow in her hair and a gold bead necklace and is wearing blue eyeshadow. It was taken weeks before the fateful family holiday to the Portuguese resort of Praia da Luz when Madeleine vanished”

avatar
Tony Bennett

Posts : 14655
Reputation : 2791
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 69
Location : Shropshire

Back to top Go down

Re: Back to Basics

Post by JohnyT on 15.02.17 21:34

....................yep....usually grandma's are taken along for the purpose of baby sitting.......
JohnyT

JohnyT

Posts : 191
Reputation : 89
Join date : 2014-06-01

Back to top Go down

Re: Back to Basics

Post by The Rooster on 15.02.17 22:38

Welcome john h. You may draw your own thoughts on this most tragic of cases freely and well done. An empirical approach is a good model to adopt. 

Verdi you are not empirical in your approach but you are self indulgent at the expense of modesty and others.



APPEAL/WARNING BY MODS

We will let this and other personal, ad hominem, comments stand, BUT any more will be removed. The forum has conducted its debates with courtesy during the past year which has coincided with a great growth in membership and much-increased viewing figures. We won't allow this progress to be derailed by petty insults so please concentrate on the arguments - thank you - Mod.

____________________
F J Leghorn
"DOO-Dah! DOO-Dah-Day!"
avatar
The Rooster

Posts : 419
Reputation : 88
Join date : 2011-04-12
Age : 70
Location : Virginia

Back to top Go down

Re: Back to Basics

Post by suzyjohnson on 16.02.17 1:16

@JohnyT wrote:...but would 'trying' to revive their daughter by the  doctors etc. warrant a cover up if they failed?
JohnyT

I was just thinking about this ........ who could blame a group of doctors for an attempt to save a life?  

Under ordinary circumstances perhaps not, but supposing the medical intervention should not have been attempted in the first place because the doctors were intoxicated?

____________________


suzyjohnson

Posts : 1192
Reputation : 261
Join date : 2013-03-03

Back to top Go down

Re: Back to Basics

Post by Grande Finale on 16.02.17 3:27

@Verdi wrote:
I venture to suggest that the whole story is fabricated from beginning to end and carefully planned, throughout the week, to stage the abduction theory.  Anything else is just embellishment.
@Verdi

"In some circumstances it can be safely assumed that if a certain event had occurred, evidence of it could be discovered by qualified investigators. In such circumstances it is perfectly reasonable to take the absence of proof of its occurrence as positive proof of its non-occurrence."
Irving Copi, Introduction to Logic (1953), p. 95
avatar
Grande Finale

Posts : 138
Reputation : 61
Join date : 2013-02-02

Back to top Go down

Re: Back to Basics

Post by Hobs on 16.02.17 3:41

@john h wrote:I am fairly new to all of this, and am torn between the explanatory power and evidence that seems to point towards the child dying early in the week, as in Hill's film, and the seemingly inexplicable involvement that would involve on the part of the other doctors, and the nannies. I find the dark suggestions of paedophile rings and government involvement really implausible, and I confess to not really understanding as yet how Murat is in the frame really. 

But keeping things simple. 

What interests me here, as a way of resolving this is the simple hypothesis suggested by someone on this forum that the child had an accident, or perhaps choked on something, or ran away - perhaps on the Sunday - night while in the care of one of the nannies, according to a loose arrangement that would have implicated the holiday company and the nanny. What followed was something I have also seen suggested elsewhere: a tragic attempt at resuscitation on the part of one of the other doctors, more used to casualty situation. The involvement of the McCann's in this, in sedating or chastising their child (or perhaps she was sedated and fell down the steps, but in the 'care' of the nanny), or in leaving medication out which M took while the nanny was not looking or present etc, or botching the initial resuscitation, or administering anaesthetic, etc etc  might be a part of this. Obviously the factors of being drunk, not having appropriate instruments, etc would all be further parts of this nightmare. 

Or else, regarding the holiday company. Didn't they offer a baby listening service, and might this not have failed in this case, if M had run off or had an accident that was undetected before the parents discovered it. 

I note that I read somewhere that Dr O B had a breakdown after the trip - which makes me at least feel really sorry for him. 

I know that many of you might roll your eyes at this, and think I have no clue about the detail - but can someone tell me simply: is this all unlikely for some reason?

One thing that it suggests also, is that the McC's are covering for others as well as them covering for them...

What interests me here, as a way of resolving this is the simple hypothesis suggested by someone on this forum that the child had an accident, or perhaps choked on something, or ran away - perhaps on the Sunday - night while in the care of one of the nannies, according to a loose arrangement that would have implicated the holiday company and the nanny. What followed was something I have also seen suggested elsewhere: a tragic attempt at resuscitation on the part of one of the other doctors, more used to casualty situation. The involvement of the McCann's in this, in sedating or chastising their child (or perhaps she was sedated and fell down the steps, but in the 'care' of the nanny), or in leaving medication out which M took while the nanny was not looking or present etc, or botching the initial resuscitation, or administering anaesthetic, etc etc  might be a part of this. Obviously the factors of being drunk, not having appropriate instruments, etc would all be further parts of this nightmare.


This falls at the first hurdle namely

that the child had an accident, or perhaps choked on something, or ran away - perhaps on the Sunday - night while in the care of one of the nannies, according to a loose arrangement that would have implicated the holiday company and the nanny.

Had anything happened to Maddie whilst in the care of one of the Mark Warner nannies whether officially or 'off the books' so to speak, why would the mccanns then cover it up?
If Maddie had been found in situ, they would have started CPR and called 911 since the mccanns (and chums) would have had done nothing wrong.

The blame would have been laid squarely at the feet of the nanny since Maddie died in her care and by default Mark Warner as well for hiring her.
The mccanns being as litigious as they are would have sued the nanny and Mark Warner for a 6 figure sum.

Had the autopsy revealed sedation, regardless of if the nanny had done it or not, she would have been blamed.
She sedated the children because she wanted an easy quiet night/ she was a bad nanny/ she was a child abuser etc, after all we have seen those nanny cams.

She may have had sedatives on her person such as sleeping pills and Maddie found them and ate them thinking they were candy, again the nanny gets the blame
Had the sedation proved to be for a longer period say a week, again the nanny gets the blame, or nannies plural who were giving their charges sedatives in the creche to keep their charges nice and quiet.
It would also explain kate's comments about Maddie being very tired and needing carried.

The mccanns and chums are absolved and the nanny and Mark Warner take the fall.
The mccanns (and maybe the cums) get a bucket load of cash and walk away Scot free.
Since it would have been the nanny and by default Mark Warner at fault, there would have been no need for the mccanns to cover up a dead Maddie and then subsequently moved and disposed of her.

If Maddie had disappeared whilst in the care of a nanny and blood and body fluids found in the apartment, again the nanny would have had time to think about where to hide Maddie and then move her body.

That the mccanns and chums have told us there was no nanny and they were all checking their own children, they are accepting they are involved to whatever degree in Maddie's death, disposal and subsequent cover up.

That they got rid of Maddie's body tells me they had a reason to.
That reason was to prevent an autopsy which would have revealed not only the cause of death, the time and also any signs of abuse or that the death was non accidental.
It would also have revealed what would appear to be long term sedation which for the mccanns would have meant the loss of their licences and their children.
Sedation that the mccanns parents have told us about (I bet that went down well in Rothley towers)

Maddie died at the hands of her parents or others in the tapas group.
I would go for the hands of the mccanns, probably kate, since if it was at the hands of one of the tapas 7, they would have blamed them and not covered Maddie's death up.
If they had no involvement why would they cover up the death?

If they were involved in things of a dubious nature such as musical beds, drugs or something else, again at best they would face censure but probably not face charges if drugs were involved although the GMC would have something to say.
Musical beds is not a crime and these days is barely worth a mention in the media.
No involvement in the death and disposal of Maddie and one of the chums did it, no need to cover it up.

That the mccanns went through all the hassle of concealing Maddie's death, disposing of her body, filing a false police report and the subsequent financial fraud etc indicates that they are deeply involved, likely responsible for Maddie's death.
They may have had help with the subsequent disposal in some way although Maddie's remains were in the hire car at some point, long enough for fluids to leak.
She could have been in there for a couple of minutes or a couple of hours or maybe longer, we don't know and the dogs could not have given us a specific time.

Now, If the mccanns killed Maddie by accident or otherwise, concealed and disposed of her body and lied to the police etc, why why the tapas chums lie about it if they were not involved?

They would be as shocked as us if they learned Maddie had died in the apartment at the hands of the mccanns, either accidentally or otherwise.
They would have nothing to hide and would speak the truth, they would be innocent of any involvement or knowledge.

That the tapas chums lied indicates they have guilty knowledge or involvement.

If they have guilty knowledge, what does that knowledge concern?
Again musical beds and drugs would not cause nor give them reason to keep silent for the last 10 years.
Why face possible serious charges regarding the death, disposal, filing a false police report etc if you were bumping fuzzies with someone you weren't married to?
It's not a criminal offense, just mildly embarrassing, the same with drugs, possible charges and censure from the GMC.

So, what we have left is the death, disposal and subsequent cover up of Maddie.
We have confusing and contradictory statements from the mccanns and tapas chums. We have a refusal to do a police reconstruction, in that the mccanns would have been compelled to partake so by getting the tatap chums to set impossible restrictions and demands or simply refusing to take part, the mccanns are excused since there could be no reconstruction in the first place.

Something is so incriminating that all the tapas chums plus the mccanns are implicated.
We are told that it was only the men checking on the mccann children.
We are told an adult was missing from the table each night in the guise of being sick or looking after a sick child.
We are told that gerry and payne had a disturbing conversation regarding Maddie.
We are told payne likes to bathe other peoples children.

Is it possible that it is the men involved, their female partners are aware of certain predilections and are staying silent in order to protect their male partners?
If the women say anything then it is game over and their other halves are facing serious jail time and they themselves also face jail time for obstruction of justice, perverting the course of justice, aiding and abetting an offender and all will lose their children.

There is one very large dirty secret that if revealed or even hinted it will bring the whole pack of cards crashing down.

It would explain a lot regarding the language and behavior of the group from the get go.

If anyone else could have been blamed the mccanns would have done so.

There wasn't anyone so they had to claim neglect.
The children may well have been left alone that Thursday night in order for there to be time for the alleged abductor to do his dastardly deed.

No neglect = no abduction.
No abduction = Awkward questions regarding what did the mccanns and chums do to Maddie and then after her death?







____________________
The little unremembered acts of kindness and love are the best parts of a person's life.
avatar
Hobs

Posts : 835
Reputation : 484
Join date : 2012-10-20
Age : 53
Location : uk

http://tania-cadogan.blogspot.co.uk/

Back to top Go down

Re: Back to Basics

Post by Basil with a brush on 16.02.17 4:18

Hear Hear 'Hobs'

Sorry, but I just couldn't write out as much as yourself without it sounded far too similar.

Here is my abbreviated, personalised version of course, as I've added a name.

1. Sexual abuse with meds.
2. Somebody excelled themselves with the above.
3. Mr Payne


All that is driving me insane though, is HOW they made that poor child disappear and where is she now? Because finding her...finds so much more.

____________________
The lying didn't end it, the insult to my intelligence did.
avatar
Basil with a brush

Posts : 58
Reputation : 72
Join date : 2017-01-26

Back to top Go down

Re: Back to Basics

Post by The Rooster on 16.02.17 6:44

The pact DP referred to has stood solid for 10years with little commentary from most of the members. I clearly hear Hobs sound deductions and am amazed at how cracks have not appeared. Probably because of the aweful truth of events. However, one small change in "what I perceive as a tenuous equilibrium could bring the pact down" Jane Tanner is a very weak link in my opinion. She has set her self up for a fall. Maybe the disappearance of tanner man by the police in such a crude fashion eludes to some sort of collaboration between JT and the MET Police! Anyway stripping out the smokescreens allows for a clearer view.

This case is solveable if the Met Police bring the Tapas pact in and question them. The whole house of cards would come tumbling down I am sure of that. The inconsistencies in stories would be incredible.  Pull them all in for questioning and then let's move on. I think Hobs deductions will be be well founded upon in the final analysis. Back to basics.

Finally, I hear what you say moderators, apologies for reacting in the way I did to one of the posters.

____________________
F J Leghorn
"DOO-Dah! DOO-Dah-Day!"
avatar
The Rooster

Posts : 419
Reputation : 88
Join date : 2011-04-12
Age : 70
Location : Virginia

Back to top Go down

Re: Back to Basics

Post by john h on 16.02.17 9:45

Dear All, 

Thanks for all your comments, and this is just my attempt to respond to it all.

From what I see, everyone on this forum seems to share some convictions, of which 1-5 are pretty much universally  held:

1) The abduction was a poor fiction.
2) Some or all of the friends were complicit in 1)
3) The evidence of the dogs is decisive.
4) From 4, M almost certainly died in the apartment where her corpse was detected.
5) Her corpse was in the hire car a few weeks later.
6) M v possibly died much earlier in the holiday, and the consensus seems to be for the Sunday night/Mon morning
7) The level of political involvement in supporting the McCanns from the start has  been extraordinary.
8) It is possible to extend 7 and say that now, and possibly from the first that support involved not so much a presumption of their innocence as a determination to support the appearance of that, come what may.
9) Richard Hall is correct in suggesting two things: a) a huge, politically invested money-making, conspiracy to conceal the truth b) media distortion as an effect of this

If 6-9 are true, then there are two further questions:

10) If 6 is true, it is necessary to account for the creche sheets through a) incompetence b) complicity on the part of a nanny who spent time with the McCs (as I understand) prior to giving her statement.
11) If 2 is true, what is the involvement of the friends. I think also, for what it is worth that 6 seems more or less to necessitate 2, since there could be no cover up over that period without the friends. 



Others suggest too:

12) that there was possibly evidence of sexual abuse, but I struggle with this idea because whereas it is so likely that several doctors would go on holiday together (medics stick together like glue, and can be very self-congratulatory while 'letting their hair down'), but this makes the possibility of their complicity (the women as well) in covering up this kind of thing really hard to accept. Maybe there were just two of them, but would the rest then cover up? The women seem to me like rather innocuous, if self-regarding, upwardly mobile Bodum/Waitrose mums, and I can't really see the solidarity for that as feasible. That is just my view. So below I suggest that the complicity would more plausibly derive from the implication of more than one doctor in the eventual death and from their shared investment in preserving professional status, life-style, public image, and from a kind of solidarity with other doctors. 

13) that there was a high level cover up from the start. But if so it is hard to square it with the fact that the corpse seemed to have been detected in the hire car weeks later. Surely the combined forces of MI5 and MI6 would do a better job than to leave perhaps the central person in the case to remove the corpse weeks later? But Tony's list of people is amazing, and I suppose I put it down to the fact that from the start this was all about spin and PR and ideology. Add in the Portuguese angle and the whole thing is v politicised. Owen Jones's contrast of this case with Shannon Matthews in Chavs is interesting in that respect. To this I would add too that if the government was involved, they also did a bad job with derailing the investigation for all their efforts, and for a long time both the british police and the media actively pursued the mccains as suspects. The sniffer dogs were also British police also etc etc 

So hence my initial post which was an attempt to square how the nannies and the doctors might both feel compelled to cover up. I agree I was joining up dots, but that seems to go with the territory here, and I was looking for a simple explanation. I think Hobs is right to reject some of what Verdi called my vivid imaginings, but it all bolls down, if I can take a leaf from Basil with a Brush's method, to a few key ideas:

A) M was over-medicated (possibly in the care of a nanny who was negligent). Possibly she was bruised or had an accident. 
B) They botched a resuscitation/emergency tracheotomy (possibly while drunk)
C) They hatched their plan for the week

Of course, this is all hypothesis, but so is everything else, and that is what is so compelling about the case isn't it. To add one more thought. This next bit I confess is just speculation, but I am trying to work out how it might have unfolded so as to make sense of some of the facts. As parents, they would probably have had a revulsion at not giving M a proper burial, so I would think that might have been uppermost in their minds - so what would they have done about that - and the arrangement might have been provisional (taking a day at a time) until that could have been arranged. So C might have been weak or work in progress initially... I personally would read whatever the events were in the days following as being about that need to find a proper burial though,  in a kind of primary way. Over this period, the group pressure to comply and C might also have strengthened. Solidarity might also have strengthened if death took a day or so. If the child had taken a day or two to die also, it would make it more plausible why all of them felt involved, because each could feel that they might have intervened earlier...

Of course by May 3 the choices were very polarised for the group. 

One has so many facts, and more all the time it seems, and much the truth must be in plain sight. But how to read it?
avatar
john h

Posts : 13
Reputation : 3
Join date : 2017-02-13

Back to top Go down

Re: Back to Basics

Post by Get'emGonçalo on 16.02.17 10:08

Good post john h thumbsup
avatar
Get'emGonçalo


Posts : 9347
Reputation : 4698
Join date : 2009-11-25
Location : parallel universe

http://gerrymccan-abuseofpower-humanrights.blogspot.co.uk/

Back to top Go down

Re: Back to Basics

Post by Tony Bennett on 16.02.17 22:27

@ john h wrote:

"Others suggest too:
12) that there was possibly evidence of sexual abuse, but I struggle with this idea because whereas it is so likely that several doctors would go on holiday together (medics stick together like glue, and can be very self-congratulatory while 'letting their hair down'), but this makes the possibility of their complicity (the women as well) in covering up this kind of thing really hard to accept. Maybe there were just two of them, but would the rest then cover up?"

REPLY:     Perhaps it would be helpful to list why so many on this forum have brought up the subject of child sexual abuse in connection with the reported disappearance of Madeleine McCann. I'll be brief in each case as there is so much more information about all the points below on the forum:

1. Gerry McCann claiming within an hour or two of Madeleine's reported disappearnce that she had been 'taken by paedophiles'
2. The evidence of two General Practitioner doctors, Dr Katharina and Dr Arul Gaspar, who heard Dr Payne discussing child sexual abuse with Gerry McCann on two or possibly three occasions
3. The inexplicable delay of 6 months in Leics Police reporting this to the Portuguese police, and then only after Goncalo Amaral was removed from the investigation 
4. The strange and repeated insistence of Jim Gamble, formerly Head of the Child Exploitation and Online Protecion Centre, that Madeleine had been abducted by paedophiles 
5. The McCanns' friendship with the late Sir Clement Freud, now exposed as a serial paedophile
6. The McCanns' friendship with the sex- and witchcraft-obsessed Dr Ray Wyre of the Gracewell Clinic for sex offenders, Ray Wyre's name also appearing on the Elm Guest House list, the place used for an elite paedophile ring that was abusing boys
7.  Ray Wyre having been commissioned to write two articles, for the Times and the Daily Telegraph, in the week after Madeleine was reported missing, both insisting that Madeleine had been abducted by paedophiles and that the McCanns were totally innocent
8. The McCanns' two-year-long campaign to frame paedophile Raymond Hewlett for Madeleine's abduction
9. Kate McCann's reference to Madeleine's genitalia having been mutilated, on page 129 of her book, 'madeleine', and 
10. The McCann Team's employment of Madeira lawyer Marcos Aragao Corriea, who repeatedly insisted that he 'knew' that Madeleine had been abducted, raped and then murdered.

And in addition to those points, one wonders what - apart from some kind of link to an elite paedophile ring - could possibly justify the government's and security services' monumental involvement in this case, which I documented upthread

____________________

 Daily Mail journalist Daniel Bates wrote: “Kate and Gerry McCann have released a new picture of their daughter Madeleine as they prepare to commemorate tomorrow’s third anniversary of her disappearance. The photo shows her when she was three after a raid on the dressing-up box. She has a pink bow in her hair and a gold bead necklace and is wearing blue eyeshadow. It was taken weeks before the fateful family holiday to the Portuguese resort of Praia da Luz when Madeleine vanished”

avatar
Tony Bennett

Posts : 14655
Reputation : 2791
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 69
Location : Shropshire

Back to top Go down

Re: Back to Basics

Post by aquila on 16.02.17 22:44

/
@Tony Bennett wrote:@ john h wrote:

"Others suggest too:
12) that there was possibly evidence of sexual abuse, but I struggle with this idea because whereas it is so likely that several doctors would go on holiday together (medics stick together like glue, and can be very self-congratulatory while 'letting their hair down'), but this makes the possibility of their complicity (the women as well) in covering up this kind of thing really hard to accept. Maybe there were just two of them, but would the rest then cover up?"

REPLY:     Perhaps it would be helpful to list why so many on this forum have brought up the subject of child sexual abuse in connection with the reported disappearance of Madeleine McCann. I'll be brief in each case as there is so much more information about all the points below on the forum:

1. Gerry McCann claiming within an hour or two of Madeleine's reported disappearnce that she had been 'taken by paedophiles'
2. The evidence of two General Practitioner doctors, Dr Katharina and Dr Arul Gaspar, who heard Dr Payne discussing child sexual abuse with Gerry McCann on two or possibly three occasions
3. The inexplicable delay of 6 months in Leics Police reporting this to the Portuguese police, and then only after Goncalo Amaral was removed from the investigation 
4. The strange and repeated insistence of Jim Gamble, formerly Head of the Child Exploitation and Online Protecion Centre, that Madeleine had been abducted by paedophiles 
5. The McCanns' friendship with the late Sir Clement Freud, now exposed as a serial paedophile
6. The McCanns' friendship with the sex- and witchcraft-obsessed Dr Ray Wyre of the Gracewell Clinic for sex offenders, Ray Wyre's name also appearing on the Elm Guest House list, the place used for an elite paedophile ring that was abusing boys
7.  Ray Wyre having been commissioned to write two articles, for the Times and the Daily Telegraph, in the week after Madeleine was reported missing, both insisting that Madeleine had been abducted by paedophiles and that the McCanns were totally innocent
8. The McCanns' two-year-long campaign to frame paedophile Raymond Hewlett for Madeleine's abduction
9. Kate McCann's reference to Madeleine's genitalia having been mutilated, on page 129 of her book, 'madeleine', and 
10. The McCann Team's employment of Madeira lawyer Marcos Aragao Corriea, who repeatedly insisted that he 'knew' that Madeleine had been abducted, raped and then murdered.

And in addition to those points, one wonders what - apart from some kind of link to an elite paedophile ring - could possibly justify the government's and security services' monumental involvement in this case, which I documented upthread
I firmly believe paedophilia to be the root cause of the disappearance of Madeleine McCann. Nothing else could or would warrant such political interference.
avatar
aquila

Posts : 8448
Reputation : 1552
Join date : 2011-09-03

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