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

Lance De Boils wrote:I'd go with that too BlueBag.
I could come up with some ideas, but only supposition, guesswork and my imagination, so no point in putting all that here.

I’m going with Madeleine’s medical history and / or the fact that she was probably given something to get her to sleep which an autopsy would have revealed

MTSTAR wrote:

I’m going with Madeleine’s medical history and / or the fact that she was probably given something to get her to sleep which an autopsy would have revealed

But does that answer why, from Prime Ministers downwards to the secret services, the police, top PR men, the mainstream and so many other people, have moved heaven and earth to promote and maintain the abduction narrative?

I don't think it does

Tony Bennett wrote:

MTSTAR wrote:

I’m going with Madeleine’s medical history and / or the fact that she was probably given something to get her to sleep which an autopsy would have revealed

But does that answer why, from Prime Ministers downwards to the secret services, the police, top PR men, the mainstream and so many other people, have moved heaven and earth to promote and maintain the abduction narrative?

I don't think it does

You’re right. It must go deeper but for the life of me I can’t think why they received all this help.

MTSTAR wrote:

Tony Bennett wrote:

MTSTAR wrote:

I’m going with Madeleine’s medical history and / or the fact that she was probably given something to get her to sleep which an autopsy would have revealed

But does that answer why, from Prime Ministers downwards to the secret services, the police, top PR men, the mainstream and so many other people, have moved heaven and earth to promote and maintain the abduction narrative?

I don't think it does

You’re right. It must go deeper but for the life of me I can’t think why they received all this help.

Maybe a conference or experiment on IVF treatment.  There were a lot of doctors and pharmaceutical people in PDL that week.  John McCann, Gerry's brother,was a medical rep for AstraZeneca, a pharmaceutical company, he went on indefinite leave to administer the McCanns' Fund.  How did he not know that Madeleine could have been found the next day?

I personally question the real purpose of the trip.

Lance De Boils wrote:I personally question the real purpose of the trip.

This is an interesting point.

We have a video, believed to have been uploaded by the Paynes, in which we hear David Payne jovially telling Gerry McCann: "Cheer up! You're on holiday". To which Gerry McCann replies "F___ off. I'm not here to enjoy myself".

The body language is fascinating.

Kate is cuddling the two happy twins. Gerry is moody and angry in the corner, yards away from Kate and the twins.

Poor little Maddie seems wanted by neither, just swinging her legs.

We next see Gerry late afternoon, about 5pm to 6pm at an educated guess, twirling Madeleine about him in gay abandon. He seems happy and engaged.

Next, though, we see him the day after, broody- and moody-looking again, in his sunglasses (which he apparently brought two days afterwards), by the pool.

Taken together, this does hint at an ulterior motive for this trip

Lance De Boils wrote:I personally question the real purpose of the trip.

Baring in mind that some of the Tapas 9 barely knew each other.  Jane Tanner didn't seem to like Gerry McCann and made it quite clear in her interview shown on TV so why would you go on a week's holiday with people you barely know or don't even like unless it was for business purposes or some other reason.

Verdi wrote:  

Verdi, are you having a breakdown, is it something we've said?  

Was it me or naughty Tony?

What I cannot get my head around is why there were no many people there, not just the Tapas bunch, who were either doctors or somehow knew the McCanns and their friends but there was mention of any children over the age of 5. Were there any older children or teenagers?

I will attempt to explain how I see this highly complex situation. There is now, no one definitive motive for concealment of the truth. Instead what we saw here in the first instance was an act of self protectionism in the extreme. What started as a cover-up in the ownership of two parents, as they sought to extricate themselves from a situation, rapidly evolved over time to have not one, but many inextricably interconnected motives. The motives grew exponentially from the off. Evidence of this can be seen from the simultaneous and seamless Tapas group involvement and their protectionist motives for themselves, the wider group, and the McCanns. As the case gathered momentum in the public eye and speculation grew about what it had the unsubstantiated potential to reveal, and the implications those unsubstantiated disclosures might have has only served to fuel and generate wider motives for concealment. Because of this, we continue to chase our tails ad infinitum examining the latest new 'non' evidence of an abductor in whomever's hope that one day we might fall prey to the narrative.

sharonl wrote:What I cannot get my head around is why there were no many people there, not just the Tapas bunch, who were either doctors or somehow knew the McCanns and their friends but there was mention of any children over the age of 5. Were there any older children or teenagers?  

Perhaps it was because big schools i.e. older than toddlers, infants were still open so it was low season for parents to take toddlers etc away.  That's the only reason I can think of.

miffy8 wrote:I will attempt to explain how I see this highly complex situation. There is now, no one definitive motive for concealment of the truth. Instead what we saw here in the first instance was an act of self protectionism in the extreme. What started as a cover-up in the ownership of two parents, as they sought to extricate themselves from a situation, rapidly evolved over time to have not one, but many inextricably interconnected motives. The motives grew exponentially from the off. Evidence of this can be seen from the simultaneous and seamless Tapas group involvement and their protectionist motives for themselves, the wider group, and the McCanns. As the case gathered momentum in the public eye and speculation grew about what it had the unsubstantiated potential to reveal, and the implications those unsubstantiated disclosures might have has only served to fuel and generate wider motives for concealment. Because of this, we continue to chase our tails ad infinitum examining the latest new 'non' evidence of an abductor in whomever's hope that one day we might fall prey to the narrative.

Against your view, [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.], we have:

1 Robert Murat being summoned urgently to Praia da Luz on Monday (if not Sunday night)

2 And then lying through his teeth to the PJ about what he was doing in the days before Madeleine was reported missing and then trying to screw up the investigation from within

3 Jim Gamble of CEOP setting up a dummy Madeleine page on the Monday

4 The near-panic booking of the Tapas restaurant by a member of the Tapas 7 on Sunday night

5 A plot by Nuno Lourenco - clearly co-ordinated with Jane Tanner's 'Tannerman' sighting - to frame Wojchiech Krokowski

6 The Directors of Bell Pottinger's subsidiary company, Resonate, sent over there early that week. 

These events tend to contradict the idea of a gradually unfolding plan.

Moves were being made as early as Sunday night. Gamble was seemingly involved from the 'off', later demanding everybody's holiday photos.

Something very dramatic surely occurred Sunday.

Oh dear, I didn't do a very good job of attempting to explain myself did I. I take on board all what you say Tony, but I was looking at the case more holistically and thinking that as more insalubrious aspects unfolded and became more apparent an ever increasing circle would have a vested interest in a cover-up on such a scale as suggested. And we now find ourselves in a situation where damage limitation defies all logic.

I've listened to this video so many times, still I can't hear Gerry McCann saying .... 'I'm not here to f.....g enjoy myself'.



I fear this is a classic case of hearing what you want to hear - in short, a forum myth.

Even if he did say it, so what?  It certainly doesn't instantly conjure imaginings of anything sinister.

Tony Bennett wrote:Taken together, this does hint at an ulterior motive for this trip

Sorry Tony, I disagree 100%.

To elaborate..

1 Robert Murat being summoned urgently to Praia da Luz on Monday (if not Sunday night)

There is no evidence to suggest Robert Murat was summoned urgently to Praia da Luz.

2 And then lying through his teeth to the PJ about what he was doing in the days before Madeleine was reported missing and then trying to screw up the investigation from within

A slight exaggeration with no supporting evidence.

3 Jim Gamble of CEOP setting up a dummy Madeleine page on the Monday

Very debatable.

4 The near-panic booking of the Tapas restaurant by a member of the Tapas 7 on Sunday night

No indication of near panic.

5 A plot by Nuno Lourenco - clearly co-ordinated with Jane Tanner's 'Tannerman' sighting - to frame Wojchiech Krokowski

No comment.

6 The Directors of Bell Pottinger's subsidiary company, Resonate, sent over there early that week.

Resonate were reportedly present on legitimate business in connection with the administration of the Ocean Club .

miffy8 wrote:Oh dear, I didn't do a very good job of attempting to explain myself did I. I take on board all what you say Tony, but I was looking at the case more holistically and thinking that as more insalubrious aspects unfolded and became more apparent an ever increasing circle would have a vested interest in a cover-up on such a scale as suggested. And we now find ourselves in a situation where damage limitation defies all logic.

Broadly speaking I'm inclined to agree with you, with the exception of your reference to 'damage limitation'. An expression I detest, bandied about for years to vaguely placate the McCanns precarious position. It's an expression commonly used in the Public Relations industry, when referring to anyone with celebrity status.

You know as well as I, the McCanns are not celebrities - although I quite understand their desire so to be .

David Payne's account of the holiday arrangement seems all simple and above board to me - even for David Payne.  I can't see a single reason to suggest the holiday was booked for anything but a joint family holiday for a group of friends/acquaintances.  Logic dictates, you wouldn't take a family holiday if anything sinister was a forethought.  The Ocean Club was a low class tourist resort offering facilities for a family holiday, not designed for any specific persuasion or deviance.

What transpired between the group during that holiday is another matter altogether.  Whatever, I believe it to have been confined to the group alone until something tragic happened sometime between the time of arrival on Saturday 28th April and Thursday 3rd May 2007, the day Madeleine was reported missing.

The mystery lies solely within the group until tragedy struck. There is nothing solid, or even flimsy, to suggest otherwise.

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

cookiemuncher wrote:

Verdi wrote:  

Verdi, are you having a breakdown, is it something we've said?  

Was it me or naughty Tony?

Take yer pick !

Over the years, as this story has endlessly rumbled on, my mind is continuously drawn back the vast array of "odd" characters and coincidences (if indeed they are co-incidences) - from the guest lists to the self-styled experts and private investigators (most of whom were complete fakes and criminals), to the horrible list of lots at that weird fundraising auction,  to the sham that is OG and on and on. 

When you look at all the characters who make up the cast of this case it's mind boggling - I cannot accept it's all innocent, and I think there was some sort of covert "professional" reason for the PdL trip and possibly some sordid aspect in the mix. 

The £12m quid the home office have thrown at this, is in my opinion, a drop in the ocean compared to whatever "project" of a medical/pharmaceutical nature was underway and paedophile connections via Freud, Wyre Gaspar statements, et al. Encrypted computers, dodgy digital "art",  convicted paedo drifters,. 

This one -week out of season holiday in a rather average resort would not be a typical choice given that the weather was a bit rubbish and many could afford better.

Praia de Luz it would seem is a magnet for sex offenders, thieves and liars.



The background to Weinberger is very interesting.

Whatever the reason for the initial cover up we can speculate over all day long. What i find most interesting in this particular area is that 13 years 5 prime ministers multiple chief constables and investigators on op. grange the cover up is still as strong today as it was in 2007! The MSM nor met ever question the abduction theory there has to be a very strong reason for that position to hold so unequivocally for so long.

Verdi wrote:I've listened to this video so many times, still I can't hear Gerry McCann saying .... 'I'm not here to f.....g enjoy myself'.

I fear this is a classic case of hearing what you want to hear - in short, a forum myth.

Even if he did say it, so what?  It certainly doesn't instantly conjure imaginings of anything sinister.

I agree.

It was a throw away comment.

Maybe he just changed some nappies.

Why would a group of middle class professionals chose a 'low class' as you put it, establishment for a holiday? Do you know in what capacity Cat Baker knew the McCann's prior to the trip? I wonder if she could have recommended the OC's albeit basic facilities (no cctv simply furnished etc, but expounding the virtues of its great kid's club/creche facilities. If there were a lot of Doctor's in the PDL that week for some sort of medical convention then the Gaspar's would have said so wouldn't they? As they would have surely known about it. When JM seemed to say something about it not being a holiday you can easily see how holidaying with young kids in tow is hard work and maybe he was just voicing that?

It's a bit unfair to paint Luz as a magnet for sex offenders, paedophiles, thieves and liars.  Such people are found everywhere, who knows what goes on next door.

So, Clement Freud spent time there, Cliff Richard had a villa not so far away - even sex offenders have to live somewhere, just because two or three or four or more such people live in a specific area doesn't equate to it being a haven to attract.  Popular tourist destinations attract opportunists, that's a matter of fact.  Easy prey and easy to get lost in the crowd.  Any package tour company will advise to be very safety conscious when going on holiday, wherever the destination - for that reason alone I'm astonished the McCanns had the audacity to pretend they left their three very young children alone every night with an unlocked door!  Heavens, you wouldn't do it at home!

Same applies to the repeated claim that the Ocean Club and environs was full of medics during the same week as the McCann group.  Just because one or two or three guests (not including the McCann group) said to have been doctors, happened to be staying at the same time, doesn't conjure thoughts of a medical or pharmaceutical convention - with paedophile connections?  Where did that spring from?

The Algarve has always been a popular destination for professionals.  It's magnificent coast attracting lovers of water sports and it's extensive golfing provisions.  It's easy access from other parts of Europe - I can quite understand why the group chose the destination.

Fact remains, it was the McCanns who introduced the possible paedophile connection, they used it heavily to promote their abduction storyline.  If you're going to feign the abduction of a three year old child,, the most obvious target would be paedophile or child sex trafficker.  That is what the McCanns used as the key to their ongoing campaign .... their 'search'.  The notion comes from them alone, they created their own Frankenstein that can never be buried.

Clement Freud I believe to be a dead herring.  By all accounts he wasn't into very young children, this genre of pervert doesn't generally hop about across the broad spectrum of child to adulthood, they have a specific liking age wise, and that's what they stick to.  I strongly believe the brief introduction was engineered by Clarence Mitchell.  He is very likely to have such connections through his varied career path - the McCanns are not likely to have mixed in such circles.

Verdi wrote:I've listened to this video so many times, still I can't hear Gerry McCann saying .... 'I'm not here to f.....g enjoy myself'.



I fear this is a classic case of hearing what you want to hear - in short, a forum myth.

Even if he did say it, so what?  It certainly doesn't instantly conjure imaginings of anything sinister.

That's because he says "Fuck Off"   [pause] [and then very quickly and clipped] "I  [clip] here to enjoy myself".

Well that's what I plainly hear. For me he could be saying "I'm here to enjoy myself", but more likely that the "'m not" is lost.

Still doesn't prove anything, but it is curious, like so much of their actions.