Government officials well in excess of the norm were immediately despatched to Praia Da Luz on hearing of Madeleines’ disappearance

sequested wrote:It was a dummy run for the Covid scandemic - to see how many lies the gullible World population would swallow !!

Well most people have fallen for this Bullshit, and had the Jab.

Astra wrote:

sequested wrote:It was a dummy run for the Covid scandemic - to see how many lies the gullible World population would swallow !!

Well most people have fallen for this Bullshit, and had the Jab.

As much as your drawing attention to this important thread is appreciated, can I please ask that give reason for bumping past posts by way of your own commentary.

I also ask that you stay on topic.  If you have anything to say about the COVID-19 pandemic/epidemic please do so here:

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

Thanks

There are several things that seem to contradict each other about this case, so I think we have to accept that whatever the truth is is likely to be fairly improbable, once we've eliminated the impossible or absurdly improbable.

If we take the view that a stranger kidnap is absurdly improbable, for all the reasons about the window, the shutters, the dogs, etc etc, I think we also have to accept that at least nine people voluntarily going along with a cover-up because they were guilty of a shared criminal or taboo activity that would come out (child sex abuse, sedation, anything) is also absurdly improbable. Somebody would crack - it's just how people are.

So what are we left with, which would also would explain the unprecedented 'national security' interest and British interference in the investigation without ever finding a body or even a credible lead? Only really that Madeleine died either at the hands of someone who should have been protecting her or that they found her dead, and the tapas 9 and others were given NO CHOICE but to go along with the abduction hoax for all this time. What is the only thing that could really ensure such a large group of people decide to take a secret to the grave? Really only a credible threat coming from high up that they or their families would come to a bad end if they didn't do and say exactly what was asked of them. They don't have to all be a paedophiles, all sedators, etc. Only one person has to know information so sensitive (about whatever subject) that this person could persuade high level British officials to assist with the fake abduction and to threaten the others. This person (most likely to be one of the parents) doesn't even have to have been doing something extremely sinister to Madeleine. It is enough that when she died at their hand/hand of their spouse/when they 'found her', whatever happened or the presence of the body would be enough for them to lose their career, for them or their spouse to be sent to prison, or for them to lose their other children to care. Weighing this up, all they would have to do would be to speak to their 'handler' who told/worked with them on whatever secret sensitive information they know, and threaten to release the information unless their handler used their connections to make sure British services covered everything up, including threatening the tapas 9 with dire consequences if any of them ever spoke about what they knew.

Gerry challenged people to find Madeleine's body, implying that they never will. Why was he so sure of this, as stranger abductions often end with a body being found? Because he knows that Madeleine's body was probably cremated even before Kate raised the alarm. It might well have even been something mundane and sad that caused Madeleine's death, but whatever it was, the risks to the person who killed her/found her of her body being found were too great, so they decided to use their insurance policy and bring in the big guns to clean up and then create the largest abduction hoax the world has ever seen. I can't make sense of it any other way.

And thank you again Hobgoblin for bringing this important thread back on top.




Your commentary has much food for thought.

That one person has certainly got a lot to answer to hasn't she or he and would appear to have much clout in the upper echelons of society.

Is this your personal view of the case 15 years down the line or do you have interesting inside knowledge you covertly hint?

Even now, this case is so interesting isn't it.

Just my personal view because I can't see how it could have happened any other way, accounting for the ramping up of the British 'people in high places' presence even before the 3rd, accounting for all the reasons why a stranger abduction couldn't have happened, and accounting for the mixed-up detailed convoluted stories of all the different parties while they are all clearly not planning on divulging the truth any time soon.

I'm afraid I don't have any inside information or expertise, but this is probably one of the unsolved things I would most like to know the truth about because it is so bizarre, convoluted and haunting - it's really something that you need Poirot to decipher to have any hope of getting to the truth.

My gut feeling is that the death itself was probably sad and mundane rather than sinister or satanic, as most sudden/unnatural deaths are sad and simple (an accident, a fit of rage, etc).

The more improbable elements involving 'the powers that be' would then only come into play because of one person's reasons that the body could never be found and his (probably rather than her) realisation that he had enough sensitive information to leverage to make sure that not only could this be achieved, but an entire alternative narrative crafted and made global.

The sensitive information the person knew could be anything from paedophilia in high places, to medical research or military secrets. His need for the body not to be discovered could range from protecting his spouse (fit of rage hypothesis), to not wanting sexual abuse or routine sedation (drugged accident hypothesis) to be discovered.

One thing I see in Kate's face is that her pain is real, even if she also seems to wear it as a mask sometimes. This to me comes across as someone who is suffering, but not for the exact reasons they would have you believe. Gerry is more controlled and controlling. He is suffering too but he knows he has to hold it together. This suggests he would be the planning, pragmatic one dispassionate enough to make plans and salvage what he could in horrible circumstances. Children need their mother/father, we can't have them growing up in care, they're all we have left, you/I wouldn't last in prison, I think I can get someone to sort something out, etc. It could have spiralled beyond even what he initially wanted/asked for help with - once the story went global there wasn't much choice but to keep building on the rather unsteady house of cards, which is where all the contradictions and unexpected actions come in.

Hemoglobin wrote:There are several things that seem to contradict each other about this case, so I think we have to accept that whatever the truth is is likely to be fairly improbable, once we've eliminated the impossible or absurdly improbable.

If we take the view that a stranger kidnap is absurdly improbable, for all the reasons about the window, the shutters, the dogs, etc etc, I think we also have to accept that at least nine people voluntarily going along with a cover-up because they were guilty of a shared criminal or taboo activity that would come out (child sex abuse, sedation, anything) is also absurdly improbable. Somebody would crack - it's just how people are.

So what are we left with, which would also would explain the unprecedented 'national security' interest and British interference in the investigation without ever finding a body or even a credible lead? Only really that Madeleine died either at the hands of someone who should have been protecting her or that they found her dead, and the tapas 9 and others were given NO CHOICE but to go along with the abduction hoax for all this time. What is the only thing that could really ensure such a large group of people decide to take a secret to the grave? Really only a credible threat coming from high up that they or their families would come to a bad end if they didn't do and say exactly what was asked of them. They don't have to all be a paedophiles, all sedators, etc. Only one person has to know information so sensitive (about whatever subject) that this person could persuade high level British officials to assist with the fake abduction and to threaten the others. This person (most likely to be one of the parents) doesn't even have to have been doing something extremely sinister to Madeleine. It is enough that when she died at their hand/hand of their spouse/when they 'found her', whatever happened or the presence of the body would be enough for them to lose their career, for them or their spouse to be sent to prison, or for them to lose their other children to care. Weighing this up, all they would have to do would be to speak to their 'handler' who told/worked with them on whatever secret sensitive information they know, and threaten to release the information unless their handler used their connections to make sure British services covered everything up, including threatening the tapas 9 with dire consequences if any of them ever spoke about what they knew.

Gerry challenged people to find Madeleine's body, implying that they never will. Why was he so sure of this, as stranger abductions often end with a body being found? Because he knows that Madeleine's body was probably cremated even before Kate raised the alarm. It might well have even been something mundane and sad that caused Madeleine's death, but whatever it was, the risks to the person who killed her/found her of her body being found were too great, so they decided to use their insurance policy and bring in the big guns to clean up and then create the largest abduction hoax the world has ever seen. I can't make sense of it any other way.

I just want to make clear that everything I wrote is my theory of what happened and I didn't intend to actually accuse Gerry or anyone else. Specifically I'm not actually saying he knew they'd never find her body  but suggesting a reason why he might have said what he said. Cremation seems the most efficient way to ensure a body can never been discovered. although that could also have happened after a period of storage in a secret place.

Understood!

And thank you, as a new member, being able so quickly to understand how the forum works. Clearly you are no new recruit to the world of internet fora.



Don't hold back ....

On the other hand, the abduction theory does become more plausible in some ways if you consider that two abductors could have carried it out together with one inside passing Madeleine through the window to one outside:

- Explains window not being big enough for an adult to fit through.

- Explains shutters can only open from the inside.

- Explains no disturbance to window sill.

- Explains sightings holding child with head in left arm, having been passed from someone else picking her up with head in right arm.

- Only the person inside needed to be wearing gloves so as not to leave prints. Could also hide in wardrobe.

- Patio doors could clearly open from outside as Kate and Gerry opened them to check on the children. Even if not, it's easy to create a handle with a plastic sucker on glass and wipe away the mark it leaves with gloves.

- Person inside can open front door to get out without having to unlock anything if the door is only locked with a yale lock.

- Two can plan and keep lookout better than one. As soon as person outside sees the window open they can emerge from hiding in the car park area for the person inside to give them Madeleine.

- Person inside could have easily climbed over the stair gates without leaving a trace.

Does not explain the total absence of any evidence to support the McCann defence mechanism.

Read the original PJ file documentation before expounding speculative hypothesis.

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

Enjoy!

I'll read it but I think it's only fair that we're allowed to mention abduction hypotheses as well, if they could make sense of some of the things that people say are impossible (like climbing through the window).

Mmmmm ....

OK, presentation of alternative hypothesis is not a problem providing there is evidence to support the hypothesis.

Unfortunately in the case of Madeleine McCann's disappearance those alternative hypothesis are not supported by evidence.

If you, or anyone else, can provide evidence to support an alternative hypothesis then bring it on!

Without evidence it's really worthless.

But the way I'm describing it means there might be no evidence for abductors to have left behind. I just posited it because some (not all) of the 'abduction is impossible' statements rely on things that can be explained by the presence of two abductors, such as an adult not being able to fit through the window, no lichen disturbance on the window sill and the shutters only capable of being opened from the inside. Evidence against abduction as we know includes the dogs alerting, the blood behind the sofa, the inconsistent statements, refusal to answer questions, washing clothes and cuddle cat, muddled sightings, etc etc. But remember all the Tapas 9 were also probably plastered so that could explain the inconsistency to an extent.

the largest problem with any form of abduction-theory is very simple to explain.

1. it means none of the tapas9 have something to hide, so from that there is no good reason why they all lied in the manners they did. but from there, we have to accept also what they say as true.

2. the full story of the tapas 9, if seen as truthful, leaves no time for such a happening.

Good evening all and one hand,

I don’t think that’s the case of people telling lies or generally trying to be misleading for the most part by 96 percent of the group it was a case of there drinking every night and most likely drunk every night the time lines overlapped because of this. Also I want to point out if this was a well planned abduction and they were been watched it would have been called off may 3rd because there was no structured routine because of all the cross checking between the group. Also let’s face facts the evidence suggests by cadaver dog she died in apartment 5a. Let’s just for argument sake say she disturbed a burglar I could understand that they may have killed her as she was potentially a witness. But then to put kitty kat back on bed to make it look like abduction then leave with a dead body through window on own or even with someone waiting outside I tell you what that doesn’t sound like a well quick in out organised plan to me. Plus there were no alerts in Madeline bedroom sorry for long response guys loool.

Kind regards
Chessmaster

OK Chessmaster (CM?) so you're back again with a whole lot more of the same.  I give the benefit of doubt by momentarily indulging your persistence - accepting your contribution to the forum as honourable and nothing nefarious

Perhaps you would be so kind as to help by likewise indulging me in an attempt at common ground.  As present you have the decency to navigate the forum to target threads you think a useful platform but alas, your commentary doesn't really complement otherwise important subject matter.  From what you say, you are not very informed on the case of Madeleine McCann - meaning your comments are a bit airy-fairy thus lacking constructive substance.

I'm not too happy about you using threads past and present, important and inconsequential, to post half-hearted factually inaccurate opinion.

As you know, I've already given you space on the new members sub-forum to air your views, that's what it's there for.  You however have taken the initiative to ignore my attempts to keep the forum in order which is slightly annoying  as I'm sure you are aware.

If you're looking for a niche all of your own to attract attention and dominate the forum, this I can easily arrange by initiating a thread just for you.  Alternatively you could revert to the thread previously initiated for that very same purpose.  Or of course you could post your comments on the new members sub-forum previously mentioned.  Or of course you could add something worthy of rekindling old threads.

Please let me know so we can proceed with unity.  As it stands you are randomly disrupting forum continuity, something I prefer to avoid.

Thanks.

ETA:  Aha, so you log out directly my response is published rather than addressing the issues raised.



No matter, no pressure - I await your indulgence but please be assured, if you fail to cooperate your posts will be automatically moved to a destination of my choice.

Bumping for new readers