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

by Guest 07.11.20 17:09

Not me, for one.

by **Tony Bennett** 08.11.20 16:42

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?

I can't remember if that has ever been suggested by anone on CMOMM.

To run through some of the possibilities, IF she died:

accident

over-sedated without intent

someone lost their temper with her and she died as the direct or indirect result of a blow

she was being cared for by someone else when she died, and was assaulted by that person.

None of those involve "killing their own flesh and blood"

.

by **PeterMac** 09.11.20 6:22

Quite so.
From the start everyone has been subtly and very cleverly diverted from the main question,
and directed to search down a series of alleys which lead nowhere, but are not 'blind' in that they have no end.

As I posted elsewhere, and now revise-

The question is NOT
"Which paedophile abducted Madeleine between 2115 and 2118 on Thursday 3/5/7 ?"
Nor yet "How did the parents kill her ?"

The question is
WHAT HAPPENED TO MADELEINE BETH MCCANN ?

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

by Silentscope 09.11.20 9:01

Assuming that some person (whoever it was) found Madeleines body in 5A and removed it. For whatever reason...

Where was she most likely taken?

Only there can the “searching” be ended.

by **Tony Bennett** 09.11.20 11:47

Silentscope wrote:Assuming that some person (whoever it was) found Madeleines body in 5A and removed it. For whatever reason...

Where was she most likely taken?

Only there can the “searching” be ended.

The cadaver scent and bodily fluids probably being that of Madeleine's corpse in the McCanns' hired car is surely a starting point for investigation.

Remember Gerry's relative Michael Wright candidly admitted there was a terrible smell in it.

And neighbours of the McCanns' villa reported seeing the boot of the hatchback open all night for days on end...obviously to get rid of the smell.

There is a very valuable thread on the hired car (or maybe two actually) somewhere on the forum. Well worth reading.

Jill or Verdi will find them for us

by **sharonl** 09.11.20 20:19

Do you mean this one Tony? [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

by **Tony Bennett** 09.11.20 22:17

sharonl wrote:Do you mean this one Tony? [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

That's one of them.

I think there is another.

ETA:

Here is another thread: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

There are others if you search under 'hire'

by Silentscope 10.11.20 10:16

I think most members will agree on the following chain of events.

1. Body found behind the Sofa.
2. Placed in the Bedroom cupboard whilst cleaning up.
3. Short laying up in the Garden area.
4. Unknown first hiding place.
5. Hire car used to transport to a more “Dog proof” location.

If the body was refrigerated as suspected where would somebody with limited knowledge of the area take it? Which route would they take?
Which places lend themselves to the situation to best hide her?

Think like the driver. Where are you going to go?

To someone you trust, to no-one and no-where familiar, or in plain sight? To somewhere you could find her again, or where you could yourself forget and never be forced to reveal?

by crusader 10.11.20 11:24

In Gerry McCann's blog by Pamalam on 4th September, Gerry wrote,
Went to a friends house for dinner, twins played with the other kids in the paddling pool and had banana splits.

So the McCann's did know people in Portugal. In Pat Cameron's statement she said a friend lent them a car when they arrived in Portugal on May 5th.

It would be interesting to know if the PJ know about this vehicle that the Cameron's used and if a search was made of the friend's property.

If the PJ don't know about these people, why not?

by Milo 10.11.20 14:03

In Gerry's Sept 4 blog, he does what the McCanns often do -- gives details about unimportant things. Like banana splits. Never happened. So why the need to cover themselves for that evening? It reminds me of the details of the ice-cream on the beach story to get us to believe that Madeleine was alive and with them in the days before the "abduction". As you say, Crusader, who are these friends? Do they exist?

by Guest 10.11.20 14:41

They also have a tendency to be quite revelatory, well at least Kate does.
When she says 'they've taken her,' I'm inclined to think that there was someone else involved who assisted to hide the body once it was removed from the apartment and placed in the first and temporary hiding place. It would make sense then that this person might be a friend and have knowledge of the area and also have access to a car.

by Verdi 10.11.20 15:05

Apart from the valid thought that the 4th September 2007 visit mightn't be true, in fairness they had been in Portugal for four months at that stage. Stands to reason they made friends - the Hubbards for example, very friendly indeed and of course the Algarve is a popular destination for the British traveller.

Add to that, if you believe what you are told, the McCanns had family and friends coming and going throughout their stay between early May and early September 2007. They must have been accommodated somewhere in the region.

Without knowing who when where and why, it's really a moot point - if indeed it's true.

Asides, the specialist dogs Eddie and Keela alerted to the Renault Scenic hired by the McCanns - a day or two before they departed for their European jolly and that celebrious visit to His Paypalness.

Gerry McCann's blog, thankfully recorded for posterity by pamalam at gerrymccannsblog, is a treasure trove worthy of interest in itself. What's more, much of it runs counter to Kate McCann's version of the truth in her autobiographical novel - not that much of it, if anything, is trustworty.

What larks Pip!

by Verdi 10.11.20 15:43

Tony Bennett wrote:
sharonl wrote:Do you mean this one Tony? [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

That's one of them.

I think there is another.

ETA:

Here is another thread: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

There are others if you search under 'hire'

Sorry Tony, not having much luck other than what Sharon's already posted As you say, there a number of old threads relating in some way to the hired car but I can't find anything substantial. I had it in mind that you, or the MMRG, had written a piece in the dark distant past - perhaps I'm wrong.

At present, this is about the most indepth meaningful discussion I can locate..

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

Could you please check-out the link you provided ^^^, there seems to be a problem. Ta!

ETA: Maybe this is what I referring to - even if not, it's worthy of another look..

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

by Verdi 17.11.20 15:20

Posts relating to the Renault Scenic hired car have been moved here..

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

by Franco99 27.11.20 20:53

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] by [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] on 07.07.20 16:43 wrote:

"Converged Interests".
I can only make sense of 2 unconnected incidents:
1. accidental death and no appetite for autopsy
2. another incident at OC that would either expose a., an important undercover agent working an international level investigation or b., cause political embarrassment at high level.

I agree entirely.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]. The death - whether accidental or otherwise - obviously
couldn't be subjected to a post mortem or autopsy which would
produce awkward, unexplainable evidence. Hence the need for
the body to disappear. And if the death was an accident, why would government bring out its big guns to save a couple of
unknown GPs being embarrassed because of a child's death?

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]. The death 'causing political embarrassment at a high level' stands
out a mile as being the only likely reason why the UK establishment
has sat so comprehensively on any sensible investigation of this poor
child's death. Because of their obstructive actions, it would seem certain that very high level members of the UK establishment must therefore have been involved in this from the beginning.

No doubt its far too late now but it might have been interesting to have
been able to peruse flight passenger names to have seen if anyone in the higher levels of our society had flown to or from PdL at around the same time as the McCanns were there.

by Symmetry 05.12.20 16:18

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?

Hello,

Based on the PJ files it appears the abduction was a hoax, because the procedure for check-up is silly and Kate's description of events on the night of 3 May 2007 is physically impossible. Both indicate the abduction was quickly invented to attract media attention, just to ensure secrecy across the tapas-9 group.

It is a fact that specially trained dogs gave alerts to blood and smell of cadaver in Apt. 5A, which carefully allows to assume there is death associated with that place, unless the evidence was intentionally placed there.

What happened? It is very hard to say because the Police files are general. Detailed questions are not asked and there is lack of strong evidence to support claims.

Nonetheless, let's assume the last person to see Madeleine alive was Jeremy W. on Tuesday afternoon, when he visited the creche with Gerry.
This would lead to scenario when an accident had happened on Tuesday evening and parents haven't noticed this till Wednesday morning. Since Tapas-9 group know very well each other children, it's rather impossible to hide anything. This would explain the need to take different course of action instead of calling 112 and to involve at least one more person in the hoax.

by Verdi 05.12.20 20:44

Symmetry wrote:
Hello,

Based on the PJ files it appears the abduction was a hoax, because the procedure for check-up is silly and Kate's description of events on the night of 3 May 2007 is physically impossible. Both indicate the abduction was quickly invented to attract media attention, just to ensure secrecy across the tapas-9 group.

It is a fact that specially trained dogs gave alerts to blood and smell of cadaver in Apt. 5A, which carefully allows to assume there is death associated with that place, unless the evidence was intentionally placed there.

What happened? It is very hard to say because the Police files are general. Detailed questions are not asked and there is lack of strong evidence to support claims.

Nonetheless, let's assume the last person to see Madeleine alive was Jeremy W. on Tuesday afternoon, when he visited the creche with Gerry.
This would lead to scenario when an accident had happened on Tuesday evening and parents haven't noticed this till Wednesday morning. Since Tapas-9 group know very well each other children, it's rather impossible to hide anything. This would explain the need to take different course of action instead of calling 112 and to involve at least one more person in the hoax.

to CMOMM and thanks for your comments.

Have you watched Richard D Hall's videos and read forum member PeterMac's e-book? Both very informative in their own right.

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

Also, I don't know how familiar you are with CMOMM, if you are a fresher you will find a wealth of information here alone which will help guide you through the intricacies of this convoluting case.

If you need any help navigating the forum, just ask. This might help you on your way..

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

Keep posting!