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

In my reading of Peter Mac's theory,to me,he is putting forward his hypothesis of how she died,not why there was involvement of the UK government,MI 5 etc.
His theory of her cause of death is plausible,though the blood patterns on the curtains and the wall are IMO inconsistent with the fall he describes.

Verdi wrote: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

A reason to sedate a child for pedopohile reasons

ROSA wrote:A reason to sedate a child for pedopohile reasons

Even I, wearing my customary cynicism, don't believe for a moment that three siblings were being sexually abused simultaneously.

The implication here is, the three McCann children were regularly sedated during the holiday to allow the parents to leave them unattended whilst they went for dinner.  That is the point I contend.

I don't believe the children were left alone every night.  No neglect = no abduction = no sedation.

Verdi wrote:

ROSA wrote:A reason to sedate a child for pedopohile reasons

Even I, wearing my customary cynicism, don't believe for a moment that three siblings were being sexually abused simultaneously.

The implication here is, the three McCann children were regularly sedated during the holiday to allow the parents to leave them unattended whilst they went for dinner.  That is the point I contend.

I don't believe the children were left alone every night.  No neglect = no abduction = no sedation.

Even I, wearing my customary cynicism, don't believe for a moment that three siblings were being sexually abused simultaneously.
I never said the twins were but I think Maddie was

The conspiracy is hatched with the entire group. After the dreadful event of the Sunday night they all pull together and ensure nothing else could ever happen like that to the other children . . . and begin to work out the strategy. This includes all the children being looked after by one adult every evening.

I'm sorry, but this part simply doesn't hang together. Are we to believe that Kate and Gerry corralled the whole party together and blithely announced that Maddie was dead now and they need help in covering it up and 'ensure nothing else could happen like that to the other children'?
Even the most staunch and stoical friends would not countenance such a macabre request, with a dead child being plonked in to a tennis bag and secreted in a freezer. And how would they be so sure that the friends would all simply play along, despite the fact that they all have kids of their own?
Or am I reading this wrong?

Sundance, would you be so good as to identify who made the above quote and where.

As stand alone it doesn't mean anything. Thanks

You're touching crucial points here: abnormal diplomatic involvement, what was behind Madeleine's death, and why is all the group committed with McCanns.

There's something escaping our best imagination that is the key to all this mystery.

There's no doubt Madeleine died. There's no other explanation for British dog's surgical behaviour.

Let's suppose McCanns are on holiday and her daughter dies, either naturally of from an accident.

Why wouldn't parents simply call police? The investigation would be quite simple and they wouldn't even be asked about every detail about their holiday from day 1. The investigation would hardly run far beyond the circumstances of death.

Can you find a single case in all criminal records where a body was hidden by sound people in case of natural or accidental death?

The only hypothesis left is murder or an unintentional death during criminal action.

For diplomatic involvement, I can't believe a murderer will ever find many friends.

For the rest of the group, either they were unaware of what happened, participated in it or knew about it.

Verdi wrote:Sundance,  would you be so good as to identify who made the above quote and where.

As stand alone it doesn't mean anything.  Thanks

Yes, it's the author of this thread, taken directly from his hypothesis. Apologies, but I'm on my mobile. 
The point being, how did the McCann's manage to coerce a whole table full of friends and acquaintances to aid and abet a criminal offence, and why would they automatically believe it was an accident?
It doesn't make any sense whatsoever

Sundance wrote:

Verdi wrote:Sundance,  would you be so good as to identify who made the above quote and where.

As stand alone it doesn't mean anything.  Thanks

Yes, it's the author of this thread, taken directly from his hypothesis. Apologies, but I'm on my mobile. 
The point being, how did the McCann's manage to coerce a whole table full of friends and acquaintances to aid and abet a criminal offence, and why would they automatically believe it was an accident?
It doesn't make any sense whatsoever

On this one specific point I am in full agreement with @ Sundance.

It doesn't make sense.

No-one is a greater admirer of Petermac's extraordinary research efforts than I am, but one of the weaknesses of his theory ["Madeleine had a fatal accident during Sunday night/Monday morning which the McCanns didn't discover until they woke up Monday morning"] is just that: Why on earth would their seven friends cover this up? - and at huge risk to their careers?

Another weakness of Petermac's theory is that it doesn't account at all for the massive deluge of British government officials, Embassy staff, police officers, security and secret services agents, psychological and criminal profilers e.g. from CEOP and MI5, PR officials and lawyers etc. etc. descending on Praia da Luz within days or even, in some cases, hours of the alert being given that Madeleine was missing.

Nor does theory help to explain the sudden change of plans on the Sunday night - the rush, and demand - insistence, even - that they MUST have their own table in the Tapas restaurant for the whole of the rest of the week, the switch to having breakfast and lunch in their own apartment instead of mixing with the others, leaving and entering the apartment by different doors for the rest of the week etc. etc.

Therefore it not surprising that some people - admittedly without any hard evidence - consider that [if Madeleine died Sunday evening/Monday morning] her death may have been caused deliberately. By whom is another issue.

It has also been argued that the Tapas 7 were content to make up all sorts of stories about what happened that week because they already KNEW that they had cover in place right up to the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom.

If you look back to @ aquila's post upthread on 2 November 2017, she was already thinking along these lines...

Sundance wrote:

Verdi wrote:Sundance,  would you be so good as to identify who made the above quote and where.

As stand alone it doesn't mean anything.  Thanks

Yes, it's the author of this thread, taken directly from his hypothesis. Apologies, but I'm on my mobile. 
The point being, how did the McCann's manage to coerce a whole table full of friends and acquaintances to aid and abet a criminal offence, and why would they automatically believe it was an accident?
It doesn't make any sense whatsoever

Ah thank you Sundance, I see it now.   In context which makes all the difference.

I'm in full agreement with you, as can be seen by my reply to the original post.  The extensive theory is based on supposition and Kate McCanns autobiographical novel, it makes no allowances for the many variables identified and fully discussed on CMoMM over past years.

I agree with Sundance and Tony. Also, no one is questioning anyone's efforts to solve this, and every effort is welcome. I think everybody is missing some critical point, Amaral included, who I praise so much as you know.

That's one of the greatest mysteries, we're talking about 7 people (or 6 if you consider Dianna Webster, Fiona's mother, an outsider). This plus Catriona if Madeleine disappeared on April 29th.

Everybody is clearly aware that they are committing a criminal offense and on top of any consciousness problems, they know that they will be jailed if something goes wrong.

Unless that group had a criminal commitment before, and that was an unintentional death that would denunciate the entire group.

Concealing a body doesn't only hide a death, it also hides its cause.

The diplomatic dimension, fast and at highest level (PM), is also abnormal and not understandable.

Imagine a building with 8 apartments where everybody knows each other and have good relations. Now imagine someone's 3-year-old daughter dies suddenly at home. Can you imagine the parents telling neighbours they'll get rid of the body, simulate an abduction, and ask them to keep silent. Do you believe this would ever work?

Can you find a single case for me in all criminal records where someone who died of natural cause or accident had the corpse hidden by sound people?

PLL wrote:Can you find a single case for me in all criminal records where someone who died of natural cause or accident had the corpse hidden by sound people?

If it were the case that either (A) inadequate provision for the safety of a minor or (B) the administration of sedation to a minor or (C)  both A and B, were contributory factors in Madeleine's death (as Peter Mac suggests) then the death could not be deemed "accidental". Therefore, the parents would have had a good reason to hide the corpse. Put simply, the McCanns covered up her death (even if it had been unintended) for fear of their culpability being exposed and the inevitable consequences such exposure would have for their reputations and careers.

PLL wrote:Also, no one is questioning anyone's efforts to solve this, and every effort is welcome.

Sincere thanks for your advising on how you think the forum should be administered, it's truly appreciated and will of course be taken on board by team admin.

I do however believe you are finding difficulty with grasping the true purpose of CMoMM, quite understandable considering the language difficulty and your being a new member, only a couple of days to be precise.

It's important for the forum to keep things in order for the benefit of all members and guest readers alike so please don't be afraid to ask for guidance on any aspect, team admin are at your disposal.

Many thanks for your comment, Verdi.

I can't but think the purpose of the forum is finding what happened to Madeleine McCann, and that's why I'm here.

I don't always agree with everything you write, as you know, and the same applies to my writings, as I know.

Tony thought I was a native English speaker disguised as Portuguese person and you say I have language dificulty.  Not everybody is in agreement here.

Thanks again for your offering of guidance. It's always good to feel a warm welcome by important members.

Phoebe wrote: (A) inadequate provision for the safety of a minor or (B) the administration of sedation to a minor or (C)  both A and B, were contributory factors in Madeleine's death (as Peter Mac suggests) then the death could not be deemed "accidental". Therefore, the parents would have had a good reason to hide the corpse..

(A) would hardly be questioned. Investigation would be centered mostly on circumstances. Father or mother could simply be home, even if not looking at her every second. Inadequate safety only was questioned, and couldn't be denied, because there was a disappearance.

(B) not that easy to accept. It's Amaral hypothesis, but let's think about its caveats.

- They think it would be intravenous, as a syringe was found in the apartment (my comment: why not use drops for instance?). In this case she either died immediately or later. I think they would start sedating Madeleine, the oldest one, and only then sedate twins (thus she wouldn't see that). So if she died immediately, would they sedate twins next? If she died later, would they feel safe about their twins? If she died, why couldn't they also die? They would even risk one of the twins die after GNR, and later PJ, came.

- The dogs found blood odour on a spot where cadaver odour was found. Dying from sedation hardly explains that.

Sedating Madeleine as a cause of death hardly explains why they got commitment from the entire Tapas group (unless perhaps they all sedated children with syringes).

Anyway, if they sedated children every night intravenously, wouldn't people in OC notice those children had arms pricked?

PLL wrote:
Anyway, if they sedated children every night intravenously, wouldn't people in OC notice those children had arms pricked?

Maybe they didn't inject them in the arms - maybe they injected in the thigh where the pricks wouldn't be seen.

PLL wrote:

Phoebe wrote: (A) inadequate provision for the safety of a minor or (B) the administration of sedation to a minor or (C)  both A and B, were contributory factors in Madeleine's death (as Peter Mac suggests) then the death could not be deemed "accidental". Therefore, the parents would have had a good reason to hide the corpse..

(A) would hardly be questioned. Investigation would be centered mostly on circumstances. Father or mother could simply be home, even if not looking at her every second. Inadequate safety only was questioned, and couldn't be denied, because there was a disappearance.

(B) not that easy to accept. It's Amaral hypothesis, but let's think about its caveats.

- They think it would be intravenous, as a syringe was found in the apartment (my comment: why not use drops for instance?). In this case she either died immediately or later. I think they would start sedating Madeleine, the oldest one, and only then sedate twins (thus she wouldn't see that). So if she died immediately, would they sedate twins next? If she died later, would they feel safe about their twins? If she died, why couldn't they also die? They would even risk one of the twins die after GNR, and later PJ, came.

- The dogs found blood odour on a spot where cadaver odour was found. Dying from sedation hardly explains that.

Sedating Madeleine as a cause of death hardly explains why they got commitment from the entire Tapas group (unless perhaps they all sedated children with syringes).

Anyway, if they sedated children every night intravenously, wouldn't people in OC notice those children had arms pricked?

If Madeleine came to harm and parental supervision was demonstrably lacking -eg- (1) they could be placed elsewhere at time of death as established by autopsy ; (2) there was an inordinate delay in finding her body and reporting the death; (3) she had obviously died outdoors, eg. as a result of a fall over the railings when looking for her absent parents at night, (4) failure to take appropriate medical action following illness or accident which had occurred some time before death  - any of these hypothetical situations would result in the parents being deemed guilty of reckless endangerment. The McCanns were medics, and as such, would receive an unsympathetic reaction to any attempt to excuse how any of the aforementioned examples of negligence of their child could have resulted in her death without incurring serious reputational damage.

AFAIK the stories about a syringe found in the apartment are complete myth. Secondly, there is absolutely no need for sedation to be administered by injection. Oral administration is completely effective. In any case, it is a moot point since no body, with or without hypodermic punctures has been found!

With regard to your statement -

"The dogs found blood odour on a spot where cadaver odour was found. Dying from sedation hardly explains that".

the reality is boths dog reacted to a spot behind the couch. This does NOT necessarily mean that a body was there. Eddie, as a cadaver dog, would ALSO have reacted to traces of old blood. It is ONLY Keela who was restricted to reacting to one substance ie. human blood. That Madeleine actually died behind the sofa is a likely hypothesis put forward by Dr. Amaral, but no more than that. In any case, sedation and blood are not mutually exclusive as you suggest. Dr. Amaral's hypothesis  was that Madeleine, groggy form sedation, may have fallen from the sofa when trying to look out of the window. A groggy sedated child who suffers a fall is no less likely to bleed than an alert child who falls without having been sedated!

PLL wrote:They think it would be intravenous, as a syringe was found in the apartment (my comment: why not use drops for instance?).

Would that be the hyo-thetical syringe reported by the UK tabloids per chance?

https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t13561p425-media-mayhem-mccann-media-nonsense-of-the-day#390312

I'm not aware of any mention of this syringe included in the forensic evidence harvested as detailed in the Portuguese process files - perhaps you could provide the link to where this can be found?

In my view the clue is here in these few words taken from Kate McCann's book, 'madeleine'..

"Had Madeleine been given some kind of sedative to keep her quiet?  Had the twins too?"

It's all a load of twaddle to confound the investigation, to reinforce the abduction scenario.  Apart from anything else, if Madeleine 'disappeared' earlier in the week as is now the prevailing thought - why would the twins be sedated on the night of Thursday 3rd May 2007?

Posted by algarveresident on August 31, 2007

Claims that medication found in McCanns apartment

REPORTS IN Portuguese national newspaper Correio da Manhã claim that Judicial Police officers found a syringe with tranquilizer medication on a bedside table in the McCanns apartment, where Madeleine went missing. However, there is no indication when this is alleged to have been found.

The Resident spoke to Olegário Sousa, spokesperson for the investigation, who said that he could not confirm nor comment on press reports.

It has been widely reported that Gerry McCann stormed off a television set during an interview with Spanish television, after the host asked him about the blood that was allegedly found in the apartment. He left Kate on the stage on her own but returned later to complete the interview in a calmer state.Sousa said that they were “are all waiting for news” on the test results of the DNA evidence that was taken to Birmingham, England, adding that patience was important at this stage.
....................

The Tapas 9's behaviour on the the night of the "abduction" has always seemed odd to me, if one accepts that the events were carefully planned and all were fully cognisant of what was afoot. 
It would have been obvious to them that, once it was announced that Madeleine had been taken, suspicion was bound to fall on those who knew that Madeleine was alone and vulnerable during that period. Indeed, save for Jane Tanner "witnessing the abduction" not only Gerry but also Russell and Matt had elected to bat off a very on a sticky wicket re. coming under suspicion. Both Gerry and Russell were absent from the table for quite some time during the "Window of opportunity" allegedly selected. Then Matt admitted having actually entered the apartment during the crucial period. Three men, who knew where the child was and that she was unprotected, absent without alibis, during the time she disappears!
 I have often wondered why they did not, instead, arrange to claim that the women of the group were performing the checks. Nothing is more natural than mothers walking across to check on their sleeping babies and society would find it harder to suspect Jane or Rachel of having done something to Madeleine while absent from the table (sexist I know, but true). Women are regarded as less likely to prey on the children of others than men, and would be deemed physically less capable of sprinting off carrying an almost four year old child, (alive or dead) and successfully secreting her). 
Their plan has always troubled me in this respect, especially if they were being given external advice or assistance with the planning!

It wasn't like that though was it - the group allegedly took it in turns to check on their respective children and sometimes check on their friends children - depending which version you read.

Kate McCann was about to check at 9 something o'clock but one of the men volunteered to look in on their children - Kate McCann then later went off on her own to check sometime around 10:00pm.

Jane Tanner was flip-flopping around the streets ferrying plates of food to-and-fro and whatever else.

Rachel Oldfield was timorously walking to-and-fro (for she was afeared of the dark) swathed in a sort of a windproof-y fleece-y type of thing (for she was afeared of the cold).

Maybe, if indeed any of this is a truthful account of events - which I seriously doubt, they were reverting to their cave-man instincts by protecting their womenfolk .  I can easily picture Gerry McCann beating his chest with his fists ....
'me Tarzan - you Jane' !!!

Jill, you’re right about tight hypothesis.

Phoebe and Verdi, you’re right about syringe and I remove it.

Phoebe:

- An autopsy establishing parents were elsewhere?
- How much delay are you talking about?
- How could police prove she was looking for her parents?
- Doctors can’t always resuscitate people and to date no one has ever been jailed or ostracized by public for failing that.
- Sedation and blood are not mutually exclusive because dying behind sofa is just one of Amaral’s hypothesis? There was blood in apartment and sedation is not an explanation for that, irrespective of place where death took place.
- Groggy from sedation and trying to look out of windows? Isn’t that too much hyperactivity for a sedated child?

I've given this 'conspiracy' amongst the Tapas attendees a bit more thought.
There's a few issues, notwithstanding the basic human element whereby if Kate or Gerry had accidentally or purposely killed their daughter and the subsequent normal reaction of either of them, and the actual act of McCann coercion of the group:

- When did this happen, with all of them in attendance, despite not knowing how they would react?
- How did they hatch the plan to bring the others in to the cover up and ask for assistance and at which point? In the room? When?
- How did they explain the absence of MM in the interim (however long that was) to everyone, creche staff and Tapas friends?

So, as I explained in my previous post, there's no way one or other of the parents (Gerry or Kate) would even remotely consider covering for the other if they weren't both equally culpable somehow - which points to sedation.
Additionally, having given it some thought, the only way all or part of the group would agree to conspire would be if they were also somehow culpable, maybe by also having their own children sedated. But this is problematic, as when some of them were supposed to have been checking, they wouldn't be checking to see of they were still asleep, they'd be checking to see if they were still alive! It doesn't fit.
They can't all be sociopaths; one or two might be, but they can't all be lacking in empathy regarding being asked to cover about a dead child and going about their business as usual.
Consider how you would act yourself. As a minimum you would pack up right there and then and get the hell out of Dodge, but more likely you would perhaps slink off and go straight to the police.

I was deeply engrossed in Peter's book and most of it hung together quite nicely. But by being so forensic, I believe the human instinctual reactions have been overlooked - exactly how would be people react in certain situations, particularly given that we are potentially talking about a dead child.

*Edit: And imagine the plight of Matthew Oldfield, if they were conspiring, then he would have been chosen to be the last person to see MM alive, which just about no sane person would agree to, irrespective of if they were in some way implicated. This also doesn't sit right. It's more likely that some of the tapas group were used as patsies - being used as corroboration of a narrative by checking / confirming checks, etc.

Sundance wrote:They can't all be sociopaths; one or two might be, but they can't all be lacking in empathy regarding being asked to cover about a dead child and going about their business as usual.

Whatever scenario you care to consider, fact remains the McCanns and their group of friends have conspired together to cover-up the disappearance of Madeleine McCann.

Verdi wrote:

Sundance wrote:They can't all be sociopaths; one or two might be, but they can't all be lacking in empathy regarding being asked to cover about a dead child and going about their business as usual.

Whatever scenario you care to consider, fact remains the McCanns and their group of friends have conspired together to cover-up the disappearance of Madeleine McCann.

That's the problem - I can't find a scenario that fits the facts and basic human reaction one would expect. They can't all in unison have agreed to cover up for a dead kid, then merrily carry on drinking and playing tennis, knowing there's a dead child in a tennis bag or a freezer - normal people don't all react that way. And if we are to believe it, then why? All people do things for their own ends, so what's to gain? To keep a pair of negligent parents as friends?

That’s the thing - it isn’t about them (the Tapas 9). It’s waaaaay bigger than that. Madeleine, poor wee girl, got caught up in something very seedy. Whether she was unfortunately directly involved or was an unintended consequence of an action by others is but one question.
If the real reason for the cover up is ever found, it’ll still be nigh on impossible to work back to ascertain who was culpable in her disappearance/death. I do believe they think they’re very safe.

PLL wrote:Jill, you’re right about tight hypothesis.

Phoebe and Verdi, you’re right about syringe and I remove it.

Phoebe:

- An autopsy establishing parents were elsewhere?
- How much delay are you talking about?
- How could police prove she was looking for her parents?
- Doctors can’t always resuscitate people and to date no one has ever been jailed or ostracized by public for failing that.
- Sedation and blood are not mutually exclusive because dying behind sofa is just one of Amaral’s hypothesis? There was blood in apartment and sedation is not an explanation for that, irrespective of place where death took place.
- Groggy from sedation and trying to look out of windows? Isn’t that too much hyperactivity for a sedated child?

(1) An autopsy would establish time of death. If it could have shown that the time of death was, say, 8 p.m. and the Tapas staff could confirm that all of the adults were at the Tapas bar then yes, the autopsy would have established that the death occurred while the parents were demonstrably elsewhere.
(2) Some, (I believe Peter Mac among them) have suggested that Madeleine had died by accident while her parents were out wining and dining and that on their return they did not visually check on the children, believing all was well as there was no crying or other evidence of them being awake. On the following morning they found the body of their child. At this stage she would have been dead for around 11 hours. Again, an autopsy would establish time of death and they would have had some explaining to do about this delay.
(3) Being sedated does not stop bleeding! Dr. Amaral hypothesised that Madeleine may have fallen from the sofa when trying to see out of the window. He also believes she had been sedated. If I have taken something to help me sleep and subsequently fall and cut myself - I will bleed - it's simple fact!
(4) I not sure you understand the term sedation. We are not talking about anaesthesia here, merely a soporific to induce slumber! Imagine an adult taking something such as "Panadol Night" (paracetamol and diphenhydramine hydrochloride) it will induce sleep but hardly puts one into a coma unless an overdose is taken or there is an abnormal reaction to the drug. Of course the child could have awakened and moved around!
(5) The police could not prove that she was looking for her parents. I b=suggested no such thing. However, if she had died out of doors as the result of a fall then, again,  a post-mortem might discover this eg. dirt or debris in a wound etc.
(6) I have no idea where you got the notion that doctors would be blamed for an unsuccessful rescuscitation  attempt - the point I was making was that, as medics, they would have been expected to especially appreciate the risks of endangering children through neglect.

Phoebe wrote:


(4) I not sure you understand the term sedation. We are not talking about anaesthesia here, merely a soporific to induce slumber! Imagine an adult taking something such as "Panadol Night" (paracetamol and diphenhydramine hydrochloride) it will induce sleep but hardly puts one into a coma unless an overdose is taken or there is an abnormal reaction to the drug. Of course the child could have awakened and moved around!

Yet the twins slept through the pandemonium of the search for a missing child, even to the point of being passed from pillar to post and transported to another apartment. Seems to be more than just prescription sedation.

@Sundance.  Given that this thread is about Peter Mac's theory of what happened, it should be remembered that the suggestion is that Madeleine did not meet her demise on the night of May 3rd but on a previous night. Therefore, whatever the level of slumber of the twins on that particular night, it bears no relation to whether or not they had been previously sedated, nor to what extent. 
Personally, I do not believe the twins were given any sleeping aid on other nights. They were two years and two months old and experiencing a holiday during which they were "on the go" from early morning until bedtime without any naps. They, unlike Madeleine, had no alleged history of being poor sleepers. By May 3rd they had endured 6 days of this regime. Poor mites! A spoonful of Calpol Night or similar  mild paediatric soporific on May 3rd would have ensured they slept heavily!