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

by Verdi 20.10.20 1:57

Oakley wrote:If it was an accident why would the McCann's hide this?

An autopsy would be done on the body if Maddie was found deceased.

1. Parents could be charged with negligence? lose their jobs as doctors
2. Possible drugs in Maddie system overdose? manslaughter lose their jobs as doctors
3. Possible abuse signs on Maddie? child abuse charges or worse manslaughter
4. Parent loses temper and pushes Maddie or worse? manslaughter or murder
5. Someone else killed Maddie and left her in apartment 5A making it look like an accident?

to CMOMM Oakley!

It's late in the day so no need to elaborate - it's nicely packaged in your short sentence .... 'An autopsy would be done on the body if Maddie was found'. That says it all!

yes

by **PeterMac** 20.10.20 8:25

"Find the body and prove that we killed her". McCann, G.

by Guest 20.10.20 10:13

You could argue that it depends on the context in which it was said. Context is everything.

by Silentscope 29.10.20 17:17

In order to put the above statement into context, assuming that Madeleine McCann HAS died, there must be only two questions that matter after asking WHATEVER HAPPENED TO HER? and getting an answer...

1. Was it an unforeseen incident or accident?

2. Or was it NOT?

by Guest 29.10.20 18:02

Silentscope wrote:In order to put the above statement into context, assuming that Madeleine McCann HAS died, there must be only two questions that matter after asking WHATEVER HAPPENED TO HER? and getting an answer...

1. Was it an unforeseen incident or accident?

2. Or was it NOT?

No, the next question is "how did she die?"

by **Tony Bennett** 29.10.20 18:08

pauloalexandre wrote:
Silentscope wrote:In order to put the above statement into context, assuming that Madeleine McCann HAS died, there must be only two questions that matter after asking WHATEVER HAPPENED TO HER? and getting an answer...

1. Was it an unforeseen incident or accident?

2. Or was it NOT?
No, the next question is "how did she die?"

Well, like the police manuals say...where...when...how, which includes: accident? deliberate? negligent?

Which is what Coroners and Coroner's Courts are asked to determine:

Accidental Death?

Homicide?

Gross negligence/Manslaughter?

Open verdict if none or any of the above

by Lance De Boils 29.10.20 18:12

I'd say How? Where? And who knew? are the top questions.
And depending on those answers, possibly, why Maddie? Was there a choice?

by Silentscope 29.10.20 18:23

In Germany there are two sorts of Crime.

Unterlassungsdelikt (not doing something you should have done)

Strafdelikt ( the Suspect is actively involved and does something)

Which results in a Crime (Straftatbestand) becoming fulfilled.

The English law must be simular I would expect. If a body can be found the remains may still yet give us all some answers.

The actual cause of Death may still even now be discovered.

by Verdi 29.10.20 20:45

Madeleine McCann disappeared whilst on Portuguese soil - not England nor Germany.

It's Portuguese law that must be considered, unless of course the 'disappearance' is connected in some way with an international crime syndicate or the British for example, are investigating the Find Madeleine Fund. Entirely separate of course but nonetheless interwoven.

Team McCann appear to be overly confident that a body will never be found - I agree with them on that point.

There is no such thing as the perfect crime but there is such a thing as a perfect cover-up of a crime.

Ask Gerry and Kate McCann - they know, they were there.

by Guest 29.10.20 21:30

Regardless of what law is involved here, you must always follow the evidence and see where it leads you. If there isn't enough evidence to determine what exactly happened, it's best to stick to what you know, rather than being distracted by speculation or false leads (the PJ would know).

So with that said, the question posed by this title of this thread is not answerable, given the available evidence. I could come up with lots of reasons for the protection of the McCanns, but that would be diverting attention away from what I do know.

by Guest 29.10.20 22:05

The notion of a cover-up is also largely speculative too.

by **sharonl** 29.10.20 23:04

miffy8 wrote:The notion of a cover-up is also largely speculative too.

You don't need to be a genius to work out that there has been a coverup, there is far too much information about to deny that.

1. Gerry having the privilege & the ability to make calls to Gordon Brown
2. The number of high profile people arriving in PDL almost immediately.
3. Tony Blair forfeiting the head of his media monitoring unit so that he can speak for the McCanns & control what comes out in the press
4. Gordon Brown meeting with Jose Socrates to remove Goncalo Amaral and get the case archived
5. Kate claiming that she managed to increase political pressure
6. Magaret Hodges nephew claiming to have photographed Madeleine in PDL but could not produce the photographs
7. Kate McCann meeting with Theresa May
8. Evidence being withheld by the British authorities
9. An expensive review being set up at SY that isn't allowed to look at the official line of investigation.
10. UK Government and police supporting the McCanns even after they were made suspects.
11. Sudden and drastic changes in the opinions of people like Martin Brunt, Sandra Felguerias etc.
12. The search for a patsy.
13. The nonsense from Netflix, Crimewatch, Dispatches, Winfrey, Summers and Swan etc.
14. Using the media to manipulate public perception
15. Employing people to monitor social networking sites
16. Getting away with setting up a bogus PI company.

Thats just for starters and if that doesn't sound like a coverup, I don't know what does.

by Verdi 30.10.20 0:10

miffy8 wrote:The notion of a cover-up is also largely speculative too.

Speculative eek

you cannot be serious! Are you having a laugh?

Take yourself back to 3/4th May 2007 and follow the trail of evidence from there right up to this very day.

No speculation - despite all the evidence to hand, Gerry and Kate McCann are walking free. Since fleeing Portugal when faced with an awkward development, they have never been even questioned, let alone investigated.

Work from there forward, not from here backward.

Seriously miffy8, if you think a cover-up is only speculation you need to brush-up on the detail. It's all here on CMOMM if you dare to eyes

!

by Guest 30.10.20 0:38

miffy8 wrote:The notion of a cover-up is also largely speculative too.

How is it speculative? It's happening right before our eyes!

Why do you think British newspapers have referred to Madeleine's disappearance as an "abduction", despite having zero evidence to describe it as such?

Why... because they want the public to make that assumption, so that they don't look at the evidence.

The same thing happened with the initial Portuguese investigation - all those stories about burglars, pedophiles and whatnot were there to take the focus away from the evidence. The Wojciech Krokowski story always comes to my mind, and is a prime example of how the PJ were fooled into believing he had anything to do with Madeleine's "abduction" (there's that word again!).

There are many other aspects to this case which demonstrate that there is a cover-up, but the one I mentioned above stands out as the most obvious one.

by Verdi 30.10.20 1:09

At the very beginning of this thread, less we forget..

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

Amen Mr Bennett hat

amen!

by Guest 30.10.20 10:01

I am sticking to the evidence. What we know so far is that The McCann family solely occupied apartment 5a. One of their family members is missing. The blood and cadaver dogs alerted to death inside the confines of that place. Nobody else has ever died there. The child is still missing. The conclusion we can arrive at is that the missing child is that person and therefore no 'live' abduction took place.

by Guest 30.10.20 10:18

miffy8 wrote:I am sticking to the evidence. What we know so far is that The McCann family solely occupied apartment 5a. One of their family members is missing. The blood and cadaver dogs alerted to death inside the confines of that place. Nobody else has ever died there. The child is still missing. The conclusion we can arrive at is that the missing child is that person and therefore no 'live' abduction took place.

Are you suggesting CMOMM does not stick to the evidence?

by Guest 30.10.20 10:57

No, I am not. But I am trying to keep clear in my mind the things that I feel cannot be argued. The dog's evidence for one. Sniffer dogs don't lie. I am not saying that there hasn't been a cover-up either but what I am saying is that the theories as to why are many. You always say yourself to stick to what you know and don't get distracted by speculation, so I am.

by Verdi 30.10.20 12:23

miffy8 wrote:The notion of a cover-up is also largely speculative too.

Your words miffy8, your words!

The 'notion of a cover-up' [sic] is not little or largely speculative. The evidence is there for all to see, if only they would eyes

!

by ROSA 05.11.20 5:13

I think she died due to her parents and the activities of that group the motive being there was something wrong with Maddie no normal person would cover up the death of their child unless there is something to hide abuse of some kind or something else .Considering the group was also involved with the cover up something bad was going on and Maddie's body could not be viewed by the Police.

by **Tony Bennett** 07.11.20 11:25

ROSA wrote:I think she died due to her parents and the activities of that group, the motive being there was something wrong with Maddie. No normal person would cover up the death of their child unless there is something to hide abuse of some kind or something else - considering the group was also involved with the cover-up, something bad was going on and Maddie's body could not be viewed by the Police.

Or, to put this a slightly different way: if, as some evidence seems to suggest, Madeleine not only died in G5A that week but may be did so up to 4 days beforehand, the reason for her death must have been FOUL PLAY whether through deliberate action ('homicide') or wilful or reckless neglect ('manslaughter').

The extreme over-the-top intervention of multiple government agencies must mean that the very interests of the government, or of some of its leading members and their allies, would be in serious jeopardy if the truth about her (alleged) death ever came out.

This could include e.g. a physical attack on her, or over-sedation using drugs. Violence is suggested by the probable presence of Madeleine's body fluids under the tiles in the sitting-room and evidence that there had been a 'clean-up' operation.

by Guest 07.11.20 14:46

You might cover up a death if you think your very promising career (now a professor) would promptly grind to a halt. Maybe GM's skills were too in demand to lose him? That, coupled with the shame that he might have thought he would bring to the NHS, one of the most venerated institutions to come out of the UK, as a then doctor Brit abroad being accused of negligence might have been the driver for covering it up. Sometimes people are protected or spared in some way if they have something valuable to offer, a talent or highly demanded skill for instance so maybe this is why a potentially innocent accident is being covered up. Lager louts, not aspiring medical professionals children have child negligence levelled at them. It's taboo and unthinkable. It's a socio-economic situation.

by Verdi 07.11.20 15:25

Negligence = Abduction. No negligence = No abduction.

If Madeleine McCann died as a result of an accident there would be no need for a cover-up or the services of a string of high profile lawyers or the support of a multi-millionaire entrepreneur to guide you through troubled waters.

Accidents happen all the time, particularly with children. You certainly wouldn't lose your career if innocent of any involvement.

This case goes a lot deeper - that's why thirteen and half years down the line it remains insoluble.

eyes

by Guest 07.11.20 15:43

Please explain to me why in heaven's name anyone would spend years of their life training to be a medic to save the lives of strangers to then kill their own flesh and blood? And that of which that wasn't conceived without intervention to boot. IVF is not undertaken lightly.

by **sharonl** 07.11.20 16:55

miffy8 wrote:Please explain to me why in heaven's name anyone would spend years of their life training to be a medic to save the lives of strangers to then kill their own flesh and blood? And that of which that wasn't conceived without intervention to boot. IVF is not undertaken lightly.

Who said that they killed her?