If Madeleine died in PdL and there was a cover-up, what was the motive?

Jill Havern wrote:What was the motive?

Many on the forum do not believe the official narrative that Madeleine was abducted between 9.15pm and 10.00pm on Thursday 3 May 2007.

Many believe that she died in her parents' apartment. Some say, along with Gonçalo Amaral, that she died after 5.30pm on the Thursday. Some say it was as early as Sunday that week. Others think it might have been any time between Sunday and Thursday evening.

But then comes the question: if she did die, why did the McCanns cover it up, especially if it was just an accident?

But then comes an even more difficult question: why did the Tapas 7 cover this up by going along with the abduction hoax?

Was Cat Baker involved in  the cover-up, if so, why?

Did any other creche workers or other Mark Warner/Ocean Club staff take part in this cover-up, if so why?

Was Alex Woolfall, Head of Risk at Bell Pottinger, involved in the cover-up, if so why?

Was the British government involved in the cover-up, if so why? And so on.

I'm opening this thread to see if any member has suggestions on the possible motives for covering up the truth. Was it self-interest? Is it because of the way Madeleine died?

Daedalus wrote:There doesn't need to be one shared motive for all of the interested parties: conspiracies / cover-ups often occur when multiple interests converge.

The McCann's personal motive's are obvious; the British security establishment may have ran interference in case the Portuguese investigation exposed (unconnected) politically sensitive paedophilia in the area; Blair/Brown may have thought it was a good story to have on the front pages whilst their transfer of power was taking place; the press wouldn't have got 13 years worth of mileage out of the case if the parents had been convicted early on; Portuguese/British/ EU relations during the Lisbon Treaty (this last one is particularly interesting given that the story has been resurrected after Britain has left the EU and that the investigation is now being driven by Germany). Etc, etc.

Not saying any of this is true, just saying that there may be many motives 

MTSTAR wrote:

Daedalus wrote:There doesn't need to be one shared motive for all of the interested parties: conspiracies / cover-ups often occur when multiple interests converge.

The McCann's personal motive's are obvious; the British security establishment may have ran interference in case the Portuguese investigation exposed (unconnected) politically sensitive paedophilia in the area; Blair/Brown may have thought it was a good story to have on the front pages whilst their transfer of power was taking place; the press wouldn't have got 13 years worth of mileage out of the case if the parents had been convicted early on; Portuguese/British/ EU relations during the Lisbon Treaty (this last one is particularly interesting given that the story has been resurrected after Britain has left the EU and that the investigation is now being driven by Germany). Etc, etc.

Not saying any of this is true, just saying that there may be many motives 

When Kate raised the alarm about Madeleine being missing she supposedly said two things. ‘They’ve taken her’ and ‘we’ve let her down’.  Those are very strange things to say when you’ve just realised your child is missing.   I know that doesn’t answer the motive but I can’t help thinking that something untoward was going on with regards to Madeleine.  
 Sorry if this is in the wrong place.

Justice_4_Maddie wrote:

MTSTAR wrote:

Daedalus wrote:There doesn't need to be one shared motive for all of the interested parties: conspiracies / cover-ups often occur when multiple interests converge.

The McCann's personal motive's are obvious; the British security establishment may have ran interference in case the Portuguese investigation exposed (unconnected) politically sensitive paedophilia in the area; Blair/Brown may have thought it was a good story to have on the front pages whilst their transfer of power was taking place; the press wouldn't have got 13 years worth of mileage out of the case if the parents had been convicted early on; Portuguese/British/ EU relations during the Lisbon Treaty (this last one is particularly interesting given that the story has been resurrected after Britain has left the EU and that the investigation is now being driven by Germany). Etc, etc.

Not saying any of this is true, just saying that there may be many motives 

When Kate raised the alarm about Madeleine being missing she supposedly said two things. ‘They’ve taken her’ and ‘we’ve let her down’.  Those are very strange things to say when you’ve just realised your child is missing.   I know that doesn’t answer the motive but I can’t help thinking that something untoward was going on with regards to Madeleine.  
 Sorry if this is in the wrong place.

to be honest I think those are perfectly normal things to say and think when you realise your child has gone missing because you left her alone whilst you had a dinner date with friends. imagine the fear and shock and guilt you'd feel if your child was gone because you left her alone 

Lance De Boils wrote:Trying to picture myself in Kate's position.
Reckon I'd phone Gerry first. (Oh, but he didn't have a phone.) 
I'd never leave the twins. 
But if I did, in innocent circumstances, I imagine I'd say something like" OMG she's not here! Madeleine's not here!" 
Followed by something like, "What do you mean she's not there?"

Tony Bennett wrote:

Jill Havern wrote:What was the motive?

Many on the forum do not believe the official narrative that Madeleine was abducted between 9.15pm and 10.00pm on Thursday 3 May 2007.

Many believe that she died in her parents' apartment. Some say, along with Gonçalo Amaral, that she died after 5.30pm on the Thursday. Some say it was as early as Sunday that week. Others think it might have been any time between Sunday and Thursday evening.

But then comes the question: if she did die, why did the McCanns cover it up, especially if it was just an accident?

But then comes an even more difficult question: why did the Tapas 7 cover this up by going along with the abduction hoax?

Was Cat Baker involved in  the cover-up, if so, why?

Did any other creche workers or other Mark Warner/Ocean Club staff take part in this cover-up, if so why?

Was Alex Woolfall, Head of Risk at Bell Pottinger, involved in the cover-up, if so why?

Was the British government involved in the cover-up, if so why? And so on.

I'm opening this thread to see if any member has suggestions on the possible motives for covering up the truth. Was it self-interest? Is it because of the way Madeleine died?

Goncalo Amaral said she probably died from an accident after 5.30pm Thursday. Doesn't explain the vast cover-up.

Some say she died from over-sedation i.e. chemical drugs. Still doesn't explain the vast cover-up.

Some say many of the guests were swingers. If that were the case, they might want to hide that. But would that alone trigger such a vast cover-up? I don't think so. 

Some look at the number of doctors present that week and suggest that Madeleine was part of a drugs trial gone wrong or that Madeleine being an IVF child was part of some eugenics/biological research. Still hard to see why e.g. the Tapas 7 rallied round, unless they too were involved in exactly the same activity.   

If one of the parents lost their cool with Madeleine and hit her and she suffered a fatal accident, would that trigger a vast cover-up involving the Tapas 7, creche workers, Mark Warner staff and the government and secret service agencies etc.? Doubtful.

Something else may be?

MTSTAR wrote:

Justice_4_Maddie wrote:

MTSTAR wrote:

Daedalus wrote:There doesn't need to be one shared motive for all of the interested parties: conspiracies / cover-ups often occur when multiple interests converge.

The McCann's personal motive's are obvious; the British security establishment may have ran interference in case the Portuguese investigation exposed (unconnected) politically sensitive paedophilia in the area; Blair/Brown may have thought it was a good story to have on the front pages whilst their transfer of power was taking place; the press wouldn't have got 13 years worth of mileage out of the case if the parents had been convicted early on; Portuguese/British/ EU relations during the Lisbon Treaty (this last one is particularly interesting given that the story has been resurrected after Britain has left the EU and that the investigation is now being driven by Germany). Etc, etc.

Not saying any of this is true, just saying that there may be many motives 

When Kate raised the alarm about Madeleine being missing she supposedly said two things. ‘They’ve taken her’ and ‘we’ve let her down’.  Those are very strange things to say when you’ve just realised your child is missing.   I know that doesn’t answer the motive but I can’t help thinking that something untoward was going on with regards to Madeleine.  
 Sorry if this is in the wrong place.

to be honest I think those are perfectly normal things to say and think when you realise your child has gone missing because you left her alone whilst you had a dinner date with friends. imagine the fear and shock and guilt you'd feel if your child was gone because you left her alone 

But who are the ‘they’ she refers to?

Justice_4_Madeleine wrote:I just think that's down to the initial panic and shock upon discovering your daughter has vanished. you'd have all sorts of things going through your head. its easy for us to sit back and look at terrible situations in the life of someone else and wonder why they didn't do or say such and such. I personally think its highly unlikely Kate and gerry had anything to do with it

Verdi wrote:

Justice_4_Madeleine wrote:I just think that's down to the initial panic and shock upon discovering your daughter has vanished. you'd have all sorts of things going through your head. its easy for us to sit back and look at terrible situations in the life of someone else and wonder why they didn't do or say such and such. I personally think its highly unlikely Kate and gerry had anything to do with it

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

Verdi wrote:

Tony Bennett wrote:

Jill Havern wrote:What was the motive?

Many on the forum do not believe the official narrative that Madeleine was abducted between 9.15pm and 10.00pm on Thursday 3 May 2007.

Many believe that she died in her parents' apartment. Some say, along with Gonçalo Amaral, that she died after 5.30pm on the Thursday. Some say it was as early as Sunday that week. Others think it might have been any time between Sunday and Thursday evening.

But then comes the question: if she did die, why did the McCanns cover it up, especially if it was just an accident?

But then comes an even more difficult question: why did the Tapas 7 cover this up by going along with the abduction hoax?

Was Cat Baker involved in  the cover-up, if so, why?

Did any other creche workers or other Mark Warner/Ocean Club staff take part in this cover-up, if so why?

Was Alex Woolfall, Head of Risk at Bell Pottinger, involved in the cover-up, if so why?

Was the British government involved in the cover-up, if so why? And so on.

I'm opening this thread to see if any member has suggestions on the possible motives for covering up the truth. Was it self-interest? Is it because of the way Madeleine died?

Goncalo Amaral said she probably died from an accident after 5.30pm Thursday. Doesn't explain the vast cover-up.

Some say she died from over-sedation i.e. chemical drugs. Still doesn't explain the vast cover-up.

Some say many of the guests were swingers. If that were the case, they might want to hide that. But would that alone trigger such a vast cover-up? I don't think so. 

Some look at the number of doctors present that week and suggest that Madeleine was part of a drugs trial gone wrong or that Madeleine being an IVF child was part of some eugenics/biological research. Still hard to see why e.g. the Tapas 7 rallied round, unless they too were involved in exactly the same activity.   

If one of the parents lost their cool with Madeleine and hit her and she suffered a fatal accident, would that trigger a vast cover-up involving the Tapas 7, creche workers, Mark Warner staff and the government and secret service agencies etc.? Doubtful.

Something else may be?

Posts of the year !

Let's get this show back on track.  

The German intervention has created nothing but a huge distraction, a nothingness to be cast asunder.  It's drawn a crowd of spectators old and new, dragging up past debunked rumour and supposition and speculation and crazy theorizing.  All these stones have long since been turned - time to move on to pastures new and continue the ultimate quest of CMOMM.

Justice in the name of Madeleine McCann!

Justice_4_Madeleine wrote:why do you think the German intervention will come to nothing Verdi? what do you think the concrete evidence they have is?

Justice_4_Maddie wrote:


to be honest I think those are perfectly normal things to say and think when you realise your child has gone missing because you left her alone whilst you had a dinner date with friends. imagine the fear and shock and guilt you'd feel if your child was gone because you left her alone 

Daedalus wrote:There doesn't need to be one shared motive for all of the interested parties: conspiracies / cover-ups often occur when multiple interests converge.

The McCann's personal motive's are obvious; the British security establishment may have ran interference in case the Portuguese investigation exposed (unconnected) politically sensitive paedophilia in the area; Blair/Brown may have thought it was a good story to have on the front pages whilst their transfer of power was taking place; the press wouldn't have got 13 years worth of mileage out of the case if the parents had been convicted early on; Portuguese/British/ EU relations during the Lisbon Treaty (this last one is particularly interesting given that the story has been resurrected after Britain has left the EU and that the investigation is now being driven by Germany). Etc, etc.

Not saying any of this is true, just saying that there may be many motives involved.

crispbee2000 wrote:

Justice_4_Maddie wrote:


to be honest I think those are perfectly normal things to say and think when you realise your child has gone missing because you left her alone whilst you had a dinner date with friends. imagine the fear and shock and guilt you'd feel if your child was gone because you left her alone 

Normal? Normal doesn't come into it. Within a short time of the alarm being raised Gerry is heard talking about Paedo gangs and Kate uses the "They've taken her" phrase. So shortly after 10p.m. they were aware of this being a dangerous place for children, yet at 8p.m. it was a safe place to leave 3 young children in an unlocked apartment? and at the stroke of 10p.m. it was safe for Kate to rush away from the twins with the window and shutter still open knowing that her oldest daughter had just been abducted and that the abductor could still be close by????? Let's get real.  Normal would be language ALL about the child and not about the scenario:

Where is she? Where is my baby? What's happened to her? Oh my God, please help, Madeleine, Madeleine, Where are you, where are you? 

That's normal.

I'd read some explanation of Kate's use of "they've" as being a scouser mannerism for any eventually (singular, multiple, or object related), but I've never seen it verified. I recall that Dianne Webster does confirms Kate's use of the term in a clumsy act of denial in one of her statements.

Verdi wrote:

Justice_4_Madeleine wrote:why do you think the German intervention will come to nothing Verdi? what do you think the concrete evidence they have is?

Because it's a load of bollocks.  

They don't have any concrete evidence, if they did they would proceed with a prosecution.

Do you read the daily reports?

Simple eh?