*NEW* - IS THERE A GOVERNMENT COVER-UP? And if so, why? - POLL ADDED (was: Why are they being protected?)

I often wonder if the whole Madeleine saga is a game of two halves. In 2007 the Labour Gov. were taking a bashing, losing badly to the S.N.P. in Scotland and to the Tories and Greens etc. elsewhere in the local elections. Knowing how media savvy Blair was, I believe he was all too eager to exploit the opportunity of positive press headlines by being seen as caring, jumping in to "support our Brits abroad" in the case of these respectable family people, mostly government employees (N.H.S) who were suffering the "abduction" of a sweetly photogenic, 3 year old girl. Initially, there were no suspicions reaching the media, (courtesy of the very astute McCann machine) that this was anything other than what it claimed to be. Public sympathy for the McCanns was at its height. Once Clarence hitched his wagon to the McCann version of events, firstly at Blair's behest, latterly, off his own bat, he was never going to be on anything other than the winning side. The McCanns also had contacts which they used exceptionally well to get celebrities, sports stars, politicians etc. on board. When the first doubts surfaced, the press, including the red-tops, seemed free to accuse the parents. The government went quiet, and the Mccanns fled back to the U.K. Then things changed. Half a million to keep the McCanns on the front pages for a year meant the story never took a back seat. The government were caught on the horns of a dilemma. Clarence was still too close to them and was mouthing off at every turn. To withdraw support at this stage would have left egg on too many high-ranking faces. The McCanns were keeping the story international with the Maddie road show and an about turn became impossible. The powers that be must have sighed in relief when they began successfully suing all round them.Operation Grange, I often think was set up with the brief to whitewash everything in sight and having committed to it, how do they wind it down. What will the public accept? The Tories are caught as they never expressed a contrary view and when the chips were down continued with Operation Grange. In the second half of this game the ploy seems to be to stifle dissent by using the compliant media (especially after Levenson) to push one version of the story and discredit  everyone who disagrees.

I voted no cover up and I regret that now. I have no idea why there has been a cover up but having spent quite a bit of time looking into the ongoing Scotland Yard investigation into this case, I now realize that they have systematically worked their way through every potential soft-target social deviant on the planet -  whilst stubbornly refusing to even entertain the possibility that it could be the parents.  What's more all the evidence points that way so the only rational explanation is that there has to be a cover up as no cock-up could be this collosal. Not sure why yet.



-------

A Mod writes:

Thank you for your honesty. I'm afraid we can't change your vote. You wrote: "I now realize that they have systematically worked their way through every potential soft-target social deviant on the planet - whilst stubbornly refusing to even entertain the possibility that it could be the parents". A touch over the top perhaps, but also pretty close - Mod

I do not know the reasons for it but the McCanns have been raised high by the BBC, they have been granted millions to pursue their abduction assertion using the supposedly best police force in the world, a head of state has intervened on their behalf, another head of state has given them an audience and a shed of more money. Something somewhere must be so secret that all these lies are believable and acted upon. This somehow reminds me that the British people are being treated like the Americans, IE "Pretty Dumb". Ball is on the other foot now.

If we believe that there was an ongoing conspiracy that week that was to have climaxed in a faked abduction, then a cloak of secrecy was already in place before the accident.

After the accident by following through with the abduction scene, albeit with many clangers, the accident was pulled under this secrecy cloak by those on the ground at PDL. If the UK government were involved in the conspiracy they were trapped.

When the UK heavy team arrived early the next morning they may still have been genuinely acting out the fake abduction follow-up with mass publicity.

The GNR and the PJ quickly realised that the abduction claims did not stack up, as did some of the UK police liason officers. Only after the dogs had done their work would most of the UK agencies start to realise that they had been duped by the perpetrators.

Rob Royston wrote:If we believe that there was an ongoing conspiracy that week that was to have climaxed in a faked abduction, then a cloak of secrecy was already in place before the accident.

After the accident by following through with the abduction scene, albeit with many clangers, the accident was pulled under this secrecy cloak by those on the ground at PDL. If the UK government were involved in the conspiracy they were trapped.

When the UK heavy team arrived early the next morning they may still have been genuinely acting out the fake abduction follow-up with mass publicity.

The GNR and the PJ quickly realised that the abduction claims did not stack up, as did some of the UK police liason officers. Only after the dogs had done their work would most of the UK agencies start to realise that they had been duped by the perpetrators.

I'm struggling to understand your drift Rob Royston.  If I understand you correctly, why would there have been 'a cloak of secrecy in place before the accident' (assuming you're referring to Madeleine's fate)?

Who was the UK heavy team that arrived early the next morning?

Apart from that, as I understand it an initiative was launched in the UK within hours of Madeleine's reported disappearance, through the auspices of government officials, police and media representatives - this is just not normal.  Within hours/days officials were flying out to Portugal to aid a couple of insignificant middle englanders, who carelessly mislaid one of their children - a child that could have been found at any moment, indeed before the GNR/PJ even found their feet, so to speak.

For a British ambassador to be commissioned to personally attend to the alleged victims of such an occurence is frankly unheard of - it just doesn't happen.  Even the nearest Consul aren't required to drop everything and rush hot foot to assist a British citizen in circumstances such as this - it just doesn't happen.  They went far beyond the call of duty so you have to ask why.

There were no known extenuating circumstances to explain the onslaught of UK officialdom from Friday 4th May 2007.  I venture to suggest they weren't hoodwinked into believing the McCannn story - they were instrumental in it's creation !!!

Verdi wrote:

Rob Royston wrote:If we believe that there was an ongoing conspiracy that week that was to have climaxed in a faked abduction, then a cloak of secrecy was already in place before the accident.

After the accident by following through with the abduction scene, albeit with many clangers, the accident was pulled under this secrecy cloak by those on the ground at PDL. If the UK government were involved in the conspiracy they were trapped.

When the UK heavy team arrived early the next morning they may still have been genuinely acting out the fake abduction follow-up with mass publicity.

The GNR and the PJ quickly realised that the abduction claims did not stack up, as did some of the UK police liason officers. Only after the dogs had done their work would most of the UK agencies start to realise that they had been duped by the perpetrators.

I'm struggling to understand your drift Rob Royston.  If I understand you correctly, why would there have been 'a cloak of secrecy in place before the accident' (assuming you're referring to Madeleine's fate)?

Who was the UK heavy team that arrived early the next morning?

Apart from that, as I understand it an initiative was launched in the UK within hours of Madeleine's reported disappearance, through the auspices of government officials, police and media representatives - this is just not normal.  Within hours/days officials were flying out to Portugal to aid a couple of insignificant middle englanders, who carelessly mislaid one of their children - a child that could have been found at any moment, indeed before the GNR/PJ even found their feet, so to speak.

For a British ambassador to be commissioned to personally attend to the alleged victims of such an occurence is frankly unheard of - it just doesn't happen.  Even the nearest Consul aren't required to drop everything and rush hot foot to assist a British citizen in circumstances such as this - it just doesn't happen.  They went far beyond the call of duty so you have to ask why.

There were no known extenuating circumstances to explain the onslaught of UK officialdom from Friday 4th May 2007.  I venture to suggest they weren't hoodwinked into believing the McCannn story - they were instrumental in it's creation !!!

The title of the thread asks if there was a Government cover-up and if so, why?

My opening paragraph suggests that, if there were Government quangos and other agencies engaged in a conspiracy that involved a set up false abduction where a child was to be "abducted" and then found after a period of frenzied media onslaught, then there had to have been a great deal of secrecy in place already.

I'm suggesting that the UK heavy team, the media and the government reps, arrived quickly to begin this onslaught because the "abduction" had been planned to happen already. When those on the ground at PDL had continued with the abduction "scene" after the accident / death, they brought the death under the protective cloak of Government secrecy. 

For the Government to open up the investigation, they would need to expose their own agencies underhanded activities. Preventing that was far more important to them than justice for Madeleine.

If Madeleiene had died and government authorities were involved in planning a way for body to disappear to avoid autopsy and investigation re. the circumstances, I cannot believe they would have picked the "abduction" method. Far easier to arrange a beach trip resulting in a tragic accident and the body lost at sea and not found. Organize dripping wet, distraught parents who had gone in to try to save her and plant independent "witnesses" to back up the story and job done. No surprise when the body is not found, no expense of British police (other than perhaps a diving team having to go over to help) lots of sympathy for the parents rather than accusations of deliberate neglect and no 12 million spent since on Grange. To me, everything that has occurred speaks of cover-up AFTER the McCanns, of their own initiative, cried "abduction".

Phoebe wrote:To me, everything that has occurred speaks of cover-up AFTER the McCanns, of their own initiative, cried "abduction".

I agree that the "abduction" could have been at the McCann Team's own initiative and there is definitely a Government cover-up, but you have not addressed the second question, "Why is there a Government Cover-Up"?

That's what makes me think that they were all already involved in something underhand with a faked abduction planned. By completing the "abduction" scene Team McCann pulled the Government agencies in with them.

I've said elsewhere that I believe the government became involved because of the McC's impressively clever use of the media and a network of influential friends and politicians. The fact that; the dogs were permitted to be sent from England; that their findings were damning for the McCs and that this was, at first, widely and luridly allowed to be reported in the media; that Lee Rainbow, Mark Harrison and Martin Grime, were initially permitted to agree with the P.J. that the parents had questions to answer; all makes me feel that, in the early stages, the British authorities believed the parents and wanted to show internationally, their caring, supportive side to Brits abroad in trouble. When they discovered they had been hoodwinked they couldn't backtrack without looking foolish and favours were called in. Official support for the McCs then continued and grew to the extent that Brown pushed to have G.A. taken off the case. This is what I  gleaned from G.A's writings on the affair.

I remember when John McCann said that favours were being called in.

It had to be more than just favours to get this level of support,

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

Everyone turned up too quickly for there not to have been some pre-planning for an "abduction".

Again, why choose an abduction to cover up what happened? There are much easier, credible ways to have "disappeared" Madeleine without so much fuss and attention. J.M also points out on her blog that "It was Tony Blair and Gordon Brown who were behind the instructions given to U.K ambassador John Buck and to British consul Bill Henderson to make sure Gerry and Kate McCann were given all possible assistance". That makes sense to me. Both had very publicly hitched their wagons to the McCanns and both were too arrogant and politically paranoid about image to allow themselves to be proven poor judges of character and circumstance. It would also have been embarrassing to have several government employees in the health service shown up in the international media glare as liars. The diplomatic service alerted its early concerns re the veracity of the Tapas 9. That dispatch would never have happened if the dip. service had been primed in advance. In my opinion that is.

Phoebe wrote:Again, why choose an abduction to cover up what happened? There are much easier, credible ways to have "disappeared" Madeleine without so much fuss and attention. J.M also points out on her blog that "It was Tony Blair and Gordon Brown who were behind the instructions given to U.K ambassador John Buck and to British consul Bill Henderson to make sure Gerry and Kate McCann were given all possible assistance". That makes sense to me. Both had very publicly hitched their wagons to the McCanns and both were too arrogant and politically paranoid about image to allow themselves to be proven poor judges of character and circumstance. It would also have been embarrassing to have several government employees in the health service shown up in the international media glare as liars. The diplomatic service alerted its early concerns re the veracity of the Tapas 9. That dispatch would never have happened if the dip. service had been primed in advance. In my opinion that is.

The "abduction" was not a cover-up, it was planned to happen. The fact that it was played out despite the death of the "abductee" would convince those not in on the "disaster" that it was the genuine "false abduction".
The Team McCann "abduction" had so many errors in its performance that the police and the diplomats suspected the involvement of the parents in the disappearance at an early stage. If they had completed all their actions as planned, and as some of their relatives reported, then the abduction story might have held up.
There was no reason why the diplomats and the consul would need to be primed in advance. They were sent in to support the parents. That alone would have made them curious as to why they were there. Once they begun hearing the contradictory stories from the parents and their friends they obviously realised something was not right and asked London if they really should continue with their support.

Roy R. I'm having trouble following your thinking. Are you suggesting that Madeleine's parents planned to fake her abduction on that holiday for some reason, but she died, and they decided to abduct her corpse anyway? Why on earth would they plan a genuine "false abduction" as you call it?

Phoebe wrote:Roy R. I'm having trouble following your thinking. Are you suggesting that Madeleine's parents planned to fake her abduction on that holiday for some reason, but she died, and they decided to abduct her corpse anyway? Why on earth would they plan a genuine "false abduction" as you call it?

Hi Phoebe, the name is Rob, not Roy,

I believe that a lot of the people in the resort that week were government or other linked agency actors and I believe that Madeleine was to be abducted in some politically inspired scam. Whether she was abducted or if something happened to her before this was possible is beyond my understanding but the British Secret Services were active on the ground according to the Portuguese Police.



My beliefs are my own, based on what I have read about this case and on my interpretation of other events that I have learned of or observed over the years.
A lot of government people spend as much time feathering their own and their benefactors nests as they do on state business. 
Every time a new law is passed someone is making money out of it. Setting up false fears that they can then offer protection from is a well known method of making gangsters rich. Many politicians  are "owned" by gangsters.

I chose number 2. I.m now 50/50 as to whether its just all one huge psy-op. Not saying she didnt exist but the media, most of all print media, have used the case to prop up their dying bottom-line. As proved by Tracey K, every single bloody day it seems! I do think there is a cover up, but can only choose one choice in poll. I was out on sat night and ended up at a party speaking to a rookie cop, aged 22 and decided to ask him his opinion. First of all he said I.m not a spokesman for the government you know, i said of course i know that, i just want your opinion as a policeman. He replied that he was only 12 when it happened so it doesnt really matter to him, i then asked him what would happen to me if he was called to my house and found i,d gone out leaving my kids alone etc and then cadaver dogs found scent in my house(he had no clue about the dogs, i told him to look into it). Well, he said, you would immediately be arrested and questioned. So what the bloody hell do Grange think they're trying to do all this time, if even a rookie who doesnt even remember MBM thinks that? Its beyond ridiculous now, it really is

Option 6 for me.
I don't even have 1% doubt. 
It is the only reason for me the Government and security agencies would cover this up. And if it involves VIPs from a very friendly country which could seriously affect relations (as, in my view, I believe to be the case), then even more reason for the cover up.
As for the swinging, I'm open to that possibility - maybe among the group in addition to the child abuse, but that was not the reason for the death. After all, if you are involved in such activities, what's a little swinging?
The death came about either directly or indirectly (again, in my view) from pre-arranged child abuse from a third party or parties.

The circumstantial truth is not being told, this is an absolute fact.
None of the people who are present and involved are telling the truth , this is an absolute fact.
The UK Police forces that would have been responsible for investigating the incident have said nothing, this is an absolute fact.
The BBC at the behest of the government ran 2 dedicated crimewatch episodes steering the public towards the abduction assertion, this is an absolute fact.
Lots more but from the above it is an absolute certainty that there is high level government involvement, reasons why are unknown.

I'm with suzy & phoebe. It was a sequence of events that took upon a life of its own - not some high level conspiracy, just a modern day phenomenon.

The McCanns put their version of the case out there to the UK media very early and, as a couple of photogenic professionals, were immediately given massive sympathy and support from the public. That prompted the populist Labour Government to jump on the bandwagon and in a very public show of support, they offered every assistance to the poor parents.

It fooled a lot of people at the time, with various celebrities and even the Pope getting involved - all tripping over themselves to be associated with the search for such a cute little infant.

Very early on the Portuguese police were ridiculed for their bumbling inefficiency and were blamed for the failure to find the culprits and that also went down well with a section of the xenophobic press & public. It was all fantastically newsworthy - even more so when the parents were implicated and for a while, the press turned on them. But there was not quite enough evidence to make the charges stick and as has been said above, by now the Portuguese had had their fill of the bad publicity and decided it was a British problem so the McCanns came home and the case was shelved.

The McCanns sued the papers who had to shell out massive compensation and they became untouchable. But the whole mystery was and continues to be hugely lucrative for the tabloids and faced with trying to keep on the inside of the story while being aware of the litigious alternative, they opted to follow the circus.

Operation Grange is just another example of how untouchable they have become. Theresa May & Cameron were pressured by the Sun into launching OG but the Met knew there was insufficient evidence to re-run the accusations that the parents were involved and have been scared off pursuing that route. It would have been professional suicide for the police leading the investigation to try and pin it on them without incontrovertible evidence - look what happened to Goncalo.

For me there was no planned cover-up - it's more likely that Madeleine died in an accident caused by the parents and they have got away with it. I am open to the idea that there was some sex involved either through swinging or abuse and that explains why the tapas 7 were spinning the same story.

But it defies belief that a top-level conspiracy would come up with such a ham-fisted cover up that has run for years and cost so much money. They would have buried the case before it ever became public knowledge.

I voted for the "swingers" in the poll and would have gone for the paedophile button except I don't think it was involving the establishment, it was just the group (maybe wider than 7) in the resort at the time.

Clarence Mitchell could be said to be a modern day phenomenon and he's part of the conspiracy!

The establishment wheels were in motion, long before the UK media got their act together.  Press coverage of any event, major or minor, is always a shambles during the early hours/days.  It's not unusual for the media to extensively cover breaking news, the McCann affair was no exception at that stage in the eyes of the world.

The unprecedented arrival of the British ambassador within hours of Madeleine's disappearance;  the subsequent prompt arrival of various representatives of UK organizations and legal pundits;  the secondment of a government media monitoring guru;  the support of a host of wealthy benefactors etc. doesn't to my mind suggest anything other than a high level cover-up.

Surely nobody can believe that Operation Grange was/is a legitimate inquiry/investigation into the disappearance of a three year old child?  There was/is nothing, nothing to indicate that they are a legitimate force - an illegitimate farce maybe!

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

Government agencies involved from Day One.

I believe this is a huge cover-up, led by the Blair/Brown conservative, New Labour government, carried on through the Camoron led Con-Dem alliance and which is still going on today in Maggie May's reign.

The remit of operation grange was set by the Con-Dem government to look into the abduction, the Mc's welcomed it, not surprisingly as nobody would be looking at their role in Maddies demise. So surely that should tell you that successive governments, our police, both Leicester and Scotland Yard, and our media, have been colluding to shield the duo from any prosecution.

I know some think there isn't any governmental/establishment help, and it's all the duo's doing with all their wealth, but who had Amoral removed? I don't think the McDoctors had the power to do that; that move came from higher up the food chain.

I don't know what happened to Madeleine on that holiday because the waters are so muddy, I don't think anyone can say exactly what happened, apart from those who were there. 
We all have theories, which deviate one way or another. But, here we have two pretty ordinary people, on holiday with some unremarkable friends, one child is "missing", probably dead, according to a British EDRV (Eddie), and nobody can question their flimsy, wavering, floundering, back-fitting story. 

I would ask, what hold do they have over somebody very important which warrants this level of protection. 

Scotland Yard are prepared to look like the Keystone Cops to protect this pair and their companions, years of building a reputation as among the worlds best police force, tossed aside looking for a two headed Smithman and re-interviewing bungling burglars stupid enough to enter through a door and leave by a widow.

And you still don't think there is a monumental cover up? C'mon! 

JRP wrote:
The remit of operation grange was set by the Con-Dem government to look into the abduction, the Mc's welcomed it, not surprisingly as nobody would be looking at their role in Maddies demise. So surely that should tell you that successive governments, our police, both Leicester and Scotland Yard, and our media, have been colluding to shield the duo from any prosecution.

I know some think there isn't any governmental/establishment help, and it's all the duo's doing with all their wealth, but who had Amoral removed? I don't think the McDoctors had the power to do that; that move came from higher up the food chain.

Well said!  As you rightly point out, it's not just the Blair/Brown regime under scrutiny here, it's every successive government right up to present day Theresa May - indeed she's played a crucial role in the continuation of this facade.  Like ignoring the content of Get'emGoncalo's exemplary letter!

I just can't understand why some people can't see the wood for the trees.  I can see any number of alternative escape routes for the McCanns and their friends had Madeleine's fate been a straightforward accident, by that I mean an accident that wouldn't necessitate concealment of a corpse.  I've seen it said many a time, the McCann etc. risked their careers had they openly admitted neglect (they did by the way) and/or admitted responsibility for a tragic accident - that is nonsense!  No way would they be kicked out of the medical profession for such a reason - let's face it, they are under suspicion to this very day for their child's fate.  Professor Gerald McCann is safely ensconced in his profession, his wife is a named ambassador for a missing people charity - and that's under a cloud of suspicion?

At the risk of being repetative..

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

Woof! Woof! and thrice Woof!

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

Government agencies involved from Day One.

Perfect!  That deserves pride of place on the forum!

I love the Murdoch portrayed as octopus.

, areas

Verdi wrote:

JRP wrote:
The remit of operation grange was set by the Con-Dem government to look into the abduction, the Mc's welcomed it, not surprisingly as nobody would be looking at their role in Maddies demise. So surely that should tell you that successive governments, our police, both Leicester and Scotland Yard, and our media, have been colluding to shield the duo from any prosecution.

I know some think there isn't any governmental/establishment help, and it's all the duo's doing with all their wealth, but who had Amoral removed? I don't think the McDoctors had the power to do that; that move came from higher up the food chain.

Well said!  As you rightly point out, it's not just the Blair/Brown regime under scrutiny here, it's every successive government right up to present day Theresa May - indeed she's played a crucial role in the continuation of this facade.  Like ignoring the content of Get'emGoncalo's exemplary letter!

I just can't understand why some people can't see the wood for the trees.  I can see any number of alternative escape routes for the McCanns and their friends had Madeleine's fate been a straightforward accident, by that I mean an accident that wouldn't necessitate concealment of a corpse.  I've seen it said many a time, the McCann etc. risked their careers had they openly admitted neglect (they did by the way) and/or admitted responsibility for a tragic accident - that is nonsense!  No way would they be kicked out of the medical profession for such a reason - let's face it, they are under suspicion to this very day for their child's fate.  Professor Gerald McCann is safely ensconced in his profession, his wife is a named ambassador for a missing people charity - and that's under a cloud of suspicion?

At the risk of being repetative..

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

Woof! Woof! and thrice Woof!

Hi Verdi
If they as suspected had been giving their children prescription medecine and one of them died as a result then they may have faced a manslaughter charge. That in most countries carries a custodial sentence so they would have been struck off. I just cannot see how even the Medical profession have not railed against them. Why indeed have all those parents with a pact of silence to cover up their lies not had their children placed on an at risk register. The live in different areas and from my own experience Social Services who are responsible for watching out for vulnerable children at risk work at county level. I remeber overhearing a conversation in a Social Services office in 2008 and a few harsh words were said about the McCann style of parenting. Social Services tend not to be frightened of lawyers. There has to be something very big going on in the background to hold control of the agencies from the Top level of Government(s) down.

Surely it must be considered that if there were a  lengthy delay while the McCanns and friends dithered over what to do (in the scenario of say, accidental overdose) this would make it even more important to conceal the body. Time of death would easily be established at autopsy and a delay in reporting any accident, together with drugs in the system or marks of a slapping(or both) would raise questions as to how accidental such a death might have been. Think of the reputational damage this would do to doctors.

Pure speculation.  There is no evidence or intelligence to suggest that Madeleine died as a result of a drug overdose - so no, it mustn't be considered.

I repeat my words.. 


"I can see any number of alternative escape routes for the McCanns and their friends had Madeleine's fate been a straightforward accident, by that I mean an accident that wouldn't necessitate concealment of a corpse."

Verdi wrote:Pure speculation.  There is no evidence or intelligence to suggest that Madeleine died as a result of a drug overdose - so no, it mustn't be considered.

I repeat my words.. 


"I can see any number of alternative escape routes for the McCanns and their friends had Madeleine's fate been a straightforward accident, by that I mean an accident that wouldn't necessitate concealment of a corpse."

It is speculation, but then so is everything other than the dogs' alerts that a body had been in 5A and that Madeleine is no longer around. I do not claim it is so, only that this can't be disproved. If I had given medicine to my 3 year old which might have been a factor in her death eg. something not approved for under 6s like Dozol, Teedex, Calpol Night, Phenegran etc. I might be able to plead ignorance but it would be devastating for a medic. Worse still if it were a controlled drug not prescribed by her own G.P. Not that I am wedded to any theory, medication, physical, sexual abuse or a violent attack. We can only speculate on these.

Can't be disproved?  That like trying to prove a negative - you can't, you can however prove a positive!

I prefer to think of the many pointers identified by years of research and analysis undertaken by a number of dedicated CMoMM members and close associates, as critical thinking and/or reasoned argument - most definitely NOT foundless speculation.

A teaser just to add to your line of thinking.  Let's suppose Madeleine died as a result of drug ingestion -  what would be the most logical way forward for the parent/s? 

a)   To claim their child found a bag of medication they had and helped herself, tragically died and then eventually move on with their lives?

 or

b)  To fake an abduction, dispose of a corpse, lie to the police and the world, hide their secret for the remainder of their days living under a cloud of suspicion?

I know what I would do.

NB:  'You' can only speculate on these - not 'we' can only speculate on these!