Re: PeterMac's theory of what really happened to Madeleine McCann.

by Liz Eagles 03.11.17 18:58

Mark Willis wrote:
aquila wrote:
Mark Willis wrote:Very interesting, April28th.
It reminds me that I should be wary of absolutely anything that derives from the Mcs themselves; everything they say is suspect.
Anything they proffer usually turns out to have an ulterior motive. Like too much information about the angle of the bedroom door left open. It's immediately suspicious to be so precise.
You know, I actually noticed the stars didn't line up the very first time I saw that. I didn't think much of that at the time - but I did notice.
I have never seen such a self-incriminating couple when on camera. Yet for all their evident inconsistencies and almost zero emotion Op Grange will not touch them.
The angle of the door is a corker.
Isn't it just? Over embellishment. Indicative of mendacity; that's just not my opinion.

The best corker was when Clarence Mitchell said that they (the Tapas lot) didn't have watches or mobile phones when they were doing 15, 20, 30, 40 (take your pick) minute checks on the children because for some reason leaving kids alone to go dine in a place where you can't actually see your kids is 'a British thing'.

Were the Tapas crew relying on a Portuguese clock in the Tapas Bar!!!!

by Mark Willis 03.11.17 19:20

aquila wrote:
Mark Willis wrote:
aquila wrote:
Mark Willis wrote:Very interesting, April28th.
It reminds me that I should be wary of absolutely anything that derives from the Mcs themselves; everything they say is suspect.
Anything they proffer usually turns out to have an ulterior motive. Like too much information about the angle of the bedroom door left open. It's immediately suspicious to be so precise.
You know, I actually noticed the stars didn't line up the very first time I saw that. I didn't think much of that at the time - but I did notice.
I have never seen such a self-incriminating couple when on camera. Yet for all their evident inconsistencies and almost zero emotion Op Grange will not touch them.
The angle of the door is a corker.
Isn't it just? Over embellishment. Indicative of mendacity; that's just not my opinion.
The best corker was when Clarence Mitchell said that they (the Tapas lot) didn't have watches or mobile phones when they were doing 15, 20, 30, 40 (take your pick) minute checks on the children because for some reason leaving kids alone to go dine in a place where you can't actually see your kids is 'a British thing'.

Were the Tapas crew relying on a Portuguese clock in the Tapas Bar!!!!

LOL! Mitchell had to retract (in part) the "watches" thing, later altering his earlier statement to "some of them had watches". The same way he did a u-turn regards the jemmied shutters.

by Liz Eagles 03.11.17 19:43

Mark Willis wrote:
aquila wrote:
Mark Willis wrote:
aquila wrote:
Mark Willis wrote:Very interesting, April28th.
It reminds me that I should be wary of absolutely anything that derives from the Mcs themselves; everything they say is suspect.
Anything they proffer usually turns out to have an ulterior motive. Like too much information about the angle of the bedroom door left open. It's immediately suspicious to be so precise.
You know, I actually noticed the stars didn't line up the very first time I saw that. I didn't think much of that at the time - but I did notice.
I have never seen such a self-incriminating couple when on camera. Yet for all their evident inconsistencies and almost zero emotion Op Grange will not touch them.
The angle of the door is a corker.
Isn't it just? Over embellishment. Indicative of mendacity; that's just not my opinion.
The best corker was when Clarence Mitchell said that they (the Tapas lot) didn't have watches or mobile phones when they were doing 15, 20, 30, 40 (take your pick) minute checks on the children because for some reason leaving kids alone to go dine in a place where you can't actually see your kids is 'a British thing'.

Were the Tapas crew relying on a Portuguese clock in the Tapas Bar!!!!
LOL! Mitchell had to retract (in part) the "watches" thing, later altering his earlier statement to "some of them had watches". The same way he did a u-turn regards the jemmied shutters.

The rogatory interview of Dianne Webster, where iirc she speaks of jammie dodger biscuits shows that she didn't actually bring her mobile phone to the rogatory interview and can't remember much.

by Mark Willis 03.11.17 19:47

aquila wrote:

The rogatory interview of Dianne Webster, where iirc she speaks of jammie dodger biscuits shows that she didn't actually bring her mobile phone and can't remember much.

What a strange pose she strikes. We really don't hear too much about her, do we? Was she "in on it" or oblivious and remains so? All I can surmise with the Tapas 7 is how inarticulate and hesitant they were, like they were desperately searching the memory crib sheet of manufactured events and timeline.
Jammie Dodgers. Sounds like Team McCann big grin

by Liz Eagles 03.11.17 19:58

Mark Willis wrote:
aquila wrote:

The rogatory interview of Dianne Webster, where iirc she speaks of jammie dodger biscuits shows that she didn't actually bring her mobile phone and can't remember much.
What a strange pose she strikes. We really don't hear too much about her, do we? Was she "in on it" or oblivious and remains so? All I can surmise with the Tapas 7 is how inarticulate and hesitant they were, like they were desperately searching the memory crib sheet of manufactured events and timeline.
Jammie Dodgers. Sounds like Team McCann

What a strange thing the rogatory interviews pose. Why would the telephones of the Tapas 9 not be seized in the first place and inspected well before a rogatory interview?.

Why would this woman turn up and seemingly forget to bring her mobile phone?

Perhaps Verdi can help out here to point out the part of rogatory interview I'm speaking of.

by Mark Willis 03.11.17 20:21

aquila wrote:
Mark Willis wrote:
aquila wrote:

The rogatory interview of Dianne Webster, where iirc she speaks of jammie dodger biscuits shows that she didn't actually bring her mobile phone and can't remember much.
What a strange pose she strikes. We really don't hear too much about her, do we? Was she "in on it" or oblivious and remains so? All I can surmise with the Tapas 7 is how inarticulate and hesitant they were, like they were desperately searching the memory crib sheet of manufactured events and timeline.
Jammie Dodgers. Sounds like Team McCann
What a strange thing the rogatory interviews pose. Why would the telephones of the Tapas 9 not be seized in the first place and inspected well before a rogatory interview?.

Why would this woman turn up and seemingly forget to bring her mobile phone?

Perhaps Verdi can help out here to point out the part of rogatory interview I'm speaking of.

Yes, their phones, ipads computers etc would ordinarily routinely be retrieved ASAP. Too many convenient "memory problems" and lame excuses allowed to be "let go".

by Guest 03.11.17 20:25

Mark Willis wrote:
Incidentally, I agree about the McIntelligence; some of the doctors I have known are, yes, qualified to the hilt, but have the common sense of your average banana.

Bit like your average Ambassador, sent by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to some far away banana republic, to represent the British government - over qualified civil servants who need a placement where intelligence is low on the list of priorities.

Give 'em a big shiny desk in a capacious luxurious office with all mod cons; a nice fat allowance to keep them sweet at the expense of the UK taxpayer; lackeys galore to cater for their every whim and fancy; just make sure they don't return to the UK and start looking for another job. Whilst the poor foreign country's citizens are starving to death.

I digress.

by Mark Willis 03.11.17 20:30

Verdi wrote:
Mark Willis wrote:
Incidentally, I agree about the McIntelligence; some of the doctors I have known are, yes, qualified to the hilt, but have the common sense of your average banana.
Bit like your average Ambassador, sent by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to some far away banana republic, to represent the British government - over qualified civil servants who need a placement where intelligence is low on the list of priorities.

Give 'em a big shiny desk in a capacious luxurious office with all mod cons; a nice fat allowance to keep them sweet at the expense of the UK taxpayer; lackeys galore to cater for their every whim and fancy; just make sure they don't return to the UK and start looking for another job. Whilst the poor foreign country's citizens are starving to death.

I digress.

No digression, Mr Verdi. That's exactly what I see, too. It's all "top-show" and no...well you know how that phrase goes.
All it allows is boxes to be ticked, as in, "We fulfilled our remit" or as we know it best, doing bugger all.

by Guest 03.11.17 20:44

JRP wrote:Who said Madeleine was a bad sleeper, it wouldn't be the parents would it? And when was the chart made, before the holiday or after?

I believe there are two separate elements here JRP, a) bad sleep pattern and b) getting up from her own bed during the night and climbing into bed with her parents - the latter being related to the kitchen star chart. Regard..

a) The terrible irony of those words brings bittersweet tears to my eyes when I think of them now. They have taken on a dark undertone, like the tinkling notes of a nursery rhyme in a horror film.
Happily, Madeleine grew out of her sleeplessness. When it came, the breakthrough was sudden. We all went to Italy in September [2003 according to Payne's rogatory] for David and Fiona’s wedding and one night, for no obvious reason, we put Madeleine down and she slept for a solid six hours. That was a real red-letter day.

b) For a few weeks around the end of 2006 and the beginning of 2007, Madeleine had gone through a phase of coming through to our room before morning. We’d generally been very disciplined about taking her straight back to her own bed. I’d helped her make a reward chart, still pinned on the kitchen wall today, on which we’d stuck a star for every night she stayed tucked up. When she’d earned enough stars she’d be allowed a special treat. (The PJ had seemed strangely interested in this chart when questioning me. Regardless of my explanation that it was about rewarding good behaviour, they’d insisted on referring to it as a ‘punishment chart’.)

madeleine by KATE MCCANN

As far as I'm aware, the one and only time this chart appeared in the public arena, was during the McCanns appearance on the Oprah Winfrey show in May (that month again). Knowing how Oprah Winfrey carefully selects her audience for every show, and how she works the audience to provoke the right reaction - I venture to suggest the kitchen chart was nothing but a prop for the Winfrey show.

by Guest 03.11.17 20:47

It is an interesting aside that it's introduced in the SECOND interview that Maddie came and slept in their bed on one night. Why was such an potentially important detail forensically not mentioned earlier if true?

ETA quote;

'GM May 10th - He cannot say exactly, but he thinks that on Monday or Tuesday MADELEINE had slept for some time in his bedroom with KATE as she [K] had told him that one or both twins had cried making much noise.'

Interesting that Gerry doesn't state where he was in this statement. By his rogatory it's;

'GM (arguido) – ‘When asked, he says that on one night, he cannot say which, Madeleine slept in his room in his bed. He thinks it might have been shortly after their arrival at the apartment. Madeleine came to his room saying that Amelie was crying and she couldn’t sleep. He thinks that he hadn’t heard crying before, and was alerted to this by Madeleine. He does not know if he or his wife comforted Amelie. That night Madeleine slept in his bed.’

KM (pre arguida) – ‘When asked about the fact her daughter had been crying on the night of the Tuesday for one hour and 15 minutes, between 10:30 and 11:45, she says it is not true. She says that on that night, after midnight, Madeleine went to their room and said that her sister Amelie was crying, and sleep with her and Gerry in their room. ‘

Why does Gerry not corroborate his own presence?

by Guest 03.11.17 21:01

Apropos of the sedation debacle at the risk of being repetitive, here's the rub..

Nine adults take a holiday together in the spring of 2007 - the McCanns, the Paynes, the O'Briens, the Oldfields - all with very young children and one mother/grandmother/mother-in-law.

Law of averages, does anyone really believe that any level headed, responsible, loving caring parent would leave their child/ren alone in a strange place, whilst they leave the premises at night for anything between one and three hours? The odd parent here and there might be a bit irresponsible and take the chance on odd occasions but a joint decision between eight parents and even more unlikely, one grandmother?

I don't buy it. I don't believe for a second that the children were left alone every night in the groups separate accommodation, it's inconceivable - you just wouldn't do it. Especially when there were three alternative arrangements possible a) stay in the apartment with the kids b) use the Warners babysitting service or c) the night creche offered by the Ocean Club.

No neglect = no abduction = no sedation. I believe the whole scenario was fabricated to reinforce the abduction storyline.

by JohnyT 03.11.17 21:56

Verdi wrote:Apropos of the sedation debacle at the risk of being repetitive, here's the rub..

Nine adults take a holiday together in the spring of 2007 - the McCanns, the Paynes, the O'Briens, the Oldfields - all with very young children and one mother/grandmother/mother-in-law.

Law of averages, does anyone really believe that any level headed, responsible, loving caring parent would leave their child/ren alone in a strange place, whilst they leave the premises at night for anything between one and three hours? The odd parent here and there might be a bit irresponsible and take the chance on odd occasions but a joint decision between eight parents and even more unlikely, one grandmother?

I don't buy it. I don't believe for a second that the children were left alone every night in the groups separate accommodation, it's inconceivable - you just wouldn't do it. Especially when there were three alternative arrangements possible a) stay in the apartment with the kids b) use the Warners babysitting service or c) the night creche offered by the Ocean Club.

No neglect = no abduction = no sedation. I believe the whole scenario was fabricated to reinforce the abduction storyline.

I prefer to say....."I call bulls**t"............
JohnyT

by Phoebe 03.11.17 23:44

If we accept that Madeleine died much earlier in the week, say, as early as Sunday night, then the situation of four sets of parents and a granny leaving the children alone every night never comes into play surely? What he suggests, as I understand it, is that on their second night there, Sunday, the children might have been left unsupervised long enough for Madeleine to have had an accident which was not noticed. I can see the logic of that. Suppose that on Sunday night, even if there had been a member of the 9 "on duty" earlier during dinner, they all got together for a quick, late drink, happy that the children were now deeply asleep. If the McCanns returned to bed without visually checking the children and did not find Madeleine until the next morning then peter Mac's theory makes sense and does not involve adults neglecting children night after night.

by Guest 04.11.17 0:01

Phoebe wrote:If we accept that Madeleine died much earlier in the week, say, as early as Sunday night, then the situation of four sets of parents and a granny leaving the children alone every night never comes into play surely?

Yes it does! PeterMac opines that Madeleine and the twins were sedated on the evening of Sunday 29th April and left alone long enough for Madeleine to have an accident and the twins sedated every night of that week.

Why sedate children if you're not going to leave them unattended? I don't believe they were left unattended nor do I believe they were sedated.

by Guest 04.11.17 0:10

aquila wrote:Perhaps Verdi can help out here to point out the part of rogatory interview I'm speaking of.

No Verdi cant!

a) I haven't a clue what you're talking about and b) members can check out the rogatory interviews for themselves, I'm not a lackey.

If as I think, you are referring to Dianne Webster, it's here..

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/DIANE-WEBSTER-2.htm

m1264

by Phoebe 04.11.17 0:16

If Madeleine died on the Sunday night as Peter Mac suggests then I very much doubt any of the other children were left alone at night afterwards. That fairy-tale of neglect during the rest of the week was to allow the possibility of abduction It does not take long for an accident to happen, a few minutes is all it can take to get out of bed and fall as he suggests. There are all too many tragic incidents of young children strangling themselves on blind cords in their own homes while parents were downstairs, unaware of what was happening. Sadly, a tragic accident, fall or otherwise can happen when children are out of view for a matter of mere minutes.

by Guest 04.11.17 0:23

Yes this is true, the dangers to children left unattended for even a minute are ever present but not sedated in the home environment - at least I sincerely hope not!

You are however missing the point. PeterMac's theory clearly refers to Madeleine and the twins being sedated on the night of Sunday 29th April and the twins sedated every night between the Sunday and Thursday.

I repeat - why sedate children if you don't intend to leave them alone?

No neglect = no abduction = no sedation.

by Phoebe 04.11.17 1:08

I can understand Peter Mac's claim of sedation on Sunday night, the children were in unfamiliar surroundings and perhaps over-tired, which, conversely, can make it difficult to fall asleep, especially if routine has been disrupted. Why he might suggest sedation on subsequent nights (after Madeleine had died) does not make sense, other than perhaps on the Thursday night because of a planned announcement. Perhaps he will clarify whether and why he thinks the twins continued to be sedated?
If he and Dr. Amaral are wrong about the sedation/accident what does that leave? Madeleine killed accidentally by a blow or slap? Not ruling it out, but would the rest of the group have sacrificed their reputations as they did with an elaborate abduction hoax to cover this up? They all strike me as selfish social climbers obsessed with appearance and status. Why would those who hadn't been involved in the assault martyr themselves for the McCanns or whoever else might be guilty?

by Guest 04.11.17 2:10

It leaves any number of alternatives. The most obvious being the absence of a body and the confidence displayed by the Mccanns that a body will never be located. Why would that be - I can only think on one thing that would necessitate such assurance.

Why would a responsible caring parent sedate a child just because it was over-excited or hyper-active? I would think the child would more likely be exhausted through excitement rather than in need of sedation but that's an aside.

So back to my point - again. The McCanns and their friends claimed to have left their children every night from Sunday 29th April through to Thursday 3rd May, alone in their respective apartments for between one and three + hours. Whether it was one night or five nights makes no difference - fact remains, under normal circumstances, there is no need to sedate a child if a parent is there with the child. It's called parenting, you have to take the knocks and keep smiling - you don't knock them out with drugs because they are an inconvenience.

Why are their friends complicit? Work from within not from without - whichever way you wish to look at the case, the friends are complicit. They adjoined themselves to the cover-up from the moment they put pen to paper and drew-up the fake timeline on the night of 3rd/4th May 2007. They declined to participate in a re-enactment of the night of Madeleine's disappearance as proposed by the PJ, they have maintained that pact of silence for ten and a half years. This simple fact can't be ignored with whys an wherefores.

Now why would they do that? Because maybe they were/are complicit in whatever led to Madeleine's fate? It would appear that way.

There is only one possibility I can see that could encompass the McCanns actions, the friends adherence, the onslaught of UK senior officials across the board and the long term campaign. A possibility that is pandemic and plugged as fast as every hole appears in it's structure.

by polyenne 04.11.17 6:46

Verdi, with all due respect, I’ll ask again. What do YOU think happened to Madeleine McCann ? As a long time researcher and being well-read on the subject, I’d be most interested in your take of the goings-on of that week.

by lemonbutter 04.11.17 8:21

Hello Verdi,

Would you mind clarifying just what you mean by:

There is only one possibility I can see that could encompass the McCanns actions, the friends adherence, the onslaught of UK senior officials across the board and the long term campaign. A possibility that is pandemic and plugged as fast as every hole appears in it's structure.

I respect your opinions and would appreciate knowing specifically what a pandemic possibility means.

Thank you.

by JRP 04.11.17 11:11

Government policy when somebody is arrested abroad is pretty clear, that the law of the country is to be respected, and there is very little our government can do to help you if you are guilty of a crime, apart from basic advice.
If you get caught smuggling drugs, even if you're an unwitting patsy, you are very much on your own.

I don't believe 4 governments (Blair, Brown, Camoron, May) would get so deeply involved for over a decade to assist 2 unheard of doctors evade justice if the reason was simply a child was drugged, who fell off a sofa, banged her head and died and her parents were too drunk to notice for a few hours.

And if you're going to say the medicine was illegal or blah blah Uncle Bob made them in his shed... So what! Do you really think Blair and Brown would swing into action, for legally or illegally administered sleeping medicines?

by Phoebe 04.11.17 11:16

Verdi, I am trying to read between the lines when you say there is but one scenario you can think of that would account for a blanket cover up of Madeleine's death. I infer that you mean that an autopsy would reveal that she had been a victim of long term sexual assault?

by JRP 04.11.17 11:45

Phoebe wrote:Verdi, I am trying to read between the lines when you say there is but one scenario you can think of that would account for a blanket cover up of Madeleine's death. I infer that you mean that an autopsy would reveal that she had been a victim of long term sexual assault?

Our successive governments will be tribal about most issues. NHS, police budgets, public spending, foreign policy, but they sing off the same sheet when child abuse issues are raised.
And funnily enough, the police don't look too hard for elite peadophiles and the BBC help with general disinformation, and newspapers only print stories about dead peadophiles.

I would say it's pandemic, in that elite peadophilia is a world wide issue, far beyond what we know or imagine we know.

by Guest 04.11.17 12:14

polyenne wrote:Verdi, with all due respect, I’ll ask again. What do YOU think happened to Madeleine McCann ? As a long time researcher and being well-read on the subject, I’d be most interested in your take of the goings-on of that week.

I don't have a definitive opinion on what happened to Madeleine McCann - if I were to proffer such it would be only speculation, something I'm not prepared to do.

In my view, it's impossible to draw any positive conclusion in the absence of fact. I only work on available material and instinct, so cannot fill in the blanks.

by Guest 04.11.17 12:33

JRP wrote:Government policy when somebody is arrested abroad is pretty clear, that the law of the country is to be respected, and there is very little our government can do to help you if you are guilty of a crime, apart from basic advice.
If you get caught smuggling drugs, even if you're an unwitting patsy, you are very much on your own.

I don't believe 4 governments (Blair, Brown, Camoron, May) would get so deeply involved for over a decade to assist 2 unheard of doctors evade justice if the reason was simply a child was drugged, who fell off a sofa, banged her head and died and her parents were too drunk to notice for a few hours.

And if you're going to say the medicine was illegal or blah blah Uncle Bob made them in his shed... So what! Do you really think Blair and Brown would swing into action, for legally or illegally administered sleeping medicines?

Thank you JRP, at last a voice of reason in a wilderness of misinformation. I've been driving home this simple point for years but you are the only one who has ever echoed my reasoning. Time and time again I've even posted-up the relevant extract from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office - Guide to Citizens Traveling Abroad, which clearly lays out the function of a embassy/consulate - what they can and can't do.

As I've tried endlessly to explain the broad function of an Ambassador, which people just refuse point blank to accept. The remit for an Embassy and Consulate is severely restricted, basically they are figure-heads representing the British government and it's citizens. They do not have the power to muscle in on a local police investigation - they (the consulate) are there to provide assistance and support to the individual, the British subject, that's where their function begins and ends.

Assistance to British citizens abroad is handled by the nearest consulate, if there is no consulate then the embassy is called upon but never never an Ambassador - they only get involved with representing British subjects when inter/national incidents that could destabilize the host countries safety and/or security occur. For example natural disasters, war, terrorism etc. Areas that do not include vanishing children.

In short, Ambassador John Buck should never have been sent to Praia da Luz to speak for the McCanns. He and his representatives in the form of the local consulate should never have been in consultation with the police about the investigation, other than determining the McCanns status as victims and/or suspects - then only to convey the information back to the McCanns.

The rest of your post is also spot on and back on topic thumbsup

.

Edited for clarification.

by Liz Eagles 04.11.17 12:39

Verdi wrote:
aquila wrote:Perhaps Verdi can help out here to point out the part of rogatory interview I'm speaking of.
No Verdi cant!

a) I haven't a clue what you're talking about and b) members can check out the rogatory interviews for themselves, I'm not a lackey.

If as I think, you are referring to Dianne Webster, it's here..

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/DIANE-WEBSTER-2.htm

Apologies Verdi, it was me being lazy.

by Guest 04.11.17 13:01

Phoebe wrote:Verdi, I am trying to read between the lines when you say there is but one scenario you can think of that would account for a blanket cover up of Madeleine's death. I infer that you mean that an autopsy would reveal that she had been a victim of long term sexual assault?

The horrendous global problem of child sex abuse is the only plausible explanation I can see for the extent of high powered influence in this case.

Just like Operation Grange, they use dead men for world focus rather than the living who are continuing to satiate their perverted lust unabated.

Sickening.

Still, the thread is about PeterMac's theory not mine, so back on topic please folks.

by Guest 04.11.17 15:21

lemonbutter wrote:Hello Verdi,

Would you mind clarifying just what you mean by:

There is only one possibility I can see that could encompass the McCanns actions, the friends adherence, the onslaught of UK senior officials across the board and the long term campaign. A possibility that is pandemic and plugged as fast as every hole appears in it's structure.

I respect your opinions and would appreciate knowing specifically what a pandemic possibility means.

Thank you.

Sorry lemonbutter, I didn't mean to ignore you. I think your question has been answered by my subsequent posts - at least I hope so.

by lemonbutter 04.11.17 15:40

Yes, thanks Verdi

Latest topics