New Madeleine McCann book will claim missing tot is already dead

That's true, I'm not convinced that was what it was though.
Madeleine could have been killed at home at any time, Staging an abduction whilst on holiday abroad seems far fetched to me.

But that's what they did.

Anybody there? Well that was queer, the forum went all foreign.
Anyway, good point, I'm still thinking Madeleine had an accident, but why they hid her body is a mystery, unless it was for those reasons.

I think the original theory, that she had been sedated, is probably the most  likely. A drowsy, drugged Madeline wandered about the apartment and fell.  It would emerge that Madeleine and the twins were regularly dosed up to make them sleep. Perhaps this is the reason Kate McCann made up the story of Madeleine asking why nobody went to them when she and Sean were crying, to demonstrate that  if they had been drugged, how could they have woken. Nobody with an ounce of decency would then go out at night again. Even if Madeleine had said 'Where you?' Kate McCann shouldn't have revealed it.  She made her and the professor look worse.

crusader wrote:Anybody there? Well that was queer, the forum went all foreign.
Anyway, good point, I'm still thinking Madeleine had an accident, but why they hid her body is a mystery, unless it was for those reasons.

In my humble opinion, if Maddie had an accident - or even if she'd really been abducted - then there's no way on earth the parents would act like this after just a few days

I know what you mean, if it was an abduction there is no way they would or could act that way.
That's why I'm convinced they knew exactly what had happened to her and they knew no paedophile had her.

Those smiles and the ones on leaving the church on Madeleines birthday are genuine smiles they reach the eyes which a faked put on smile never does ! Though how they could even think of putting on a fake smile for the cameras after the alleged " abduction " of their daughter defeats me ! 

 One thing that still puzzles me to this day is during the 48 questions , number 41 - Asked whether or not it is true that in England she was thinking to deliver Madeleine into the custody ( guardianship ) of a family member , she did not respond . 
Where were the PJ going with this particular question , what prompted them to ask it ? 

Another one is from Kate herself - " I know what happened wasn't due to the fact of leaving them sleeping , I know it happened under other circumstances " 

What was " it " that happened , and what were the " other circumstances " ? 

As the much missed Hobs  said " words once spoken cannot be unspoken "

If they knew that Madeleine was not with a paedophile, why did K. McCann make that revolting remark about her in the bewk?

Jill Havern Post#123 wrote:

Silentscope wrote:The biggest worry I have  is something that Mark T Hoffman said.
'Madeleine had to die because she was old enough to talk, she could explain to someone what had happened to her.'

Blimey, I haven't seen that quote before.

I've always thought that - she was due to start school that year.

Have you got a link?

SUSPECT’S CHILLING HISTORY


Between 1995 and 2017, Brueckner drifted between Germany and the Portuguese coastal town of Praia da Luz.
The small-time drug dealer lived chillingly close to where he committed the grim rape of an elderly woman in 2005 — and recorded it.
“This is not just rape. This is one of the most brutal ways of rape, which are possible,” Mr Hoffman said.
According to police files, he beat her with a metal rod and it was only last year that DNA evidence led to Brueckner’s conviction.
Mr Hoffman, who has also studied Brueckner’s sordid criminal past, said Maddie was potentially just as much of a target for Brueckner as his elderly victim.
“It’s really important to understand that many child molesters are not paedophiles. So for them, it’s not about the young age itself, it’s about weakness, it’s about vulnerability, and it’s about feeling some sense of power. So they like to attack ‘easy victims’,” he said.
In the disturbing audio, which aired on 60 Minutes, Brueckner claims to have said if the “evidence is destroyed”, he will “document exactly how they will be tortured”.
“He’s very, very clear about his fantasy, about abducting children and torturing them and using them for a couple of days. So these are very clear words,” Mr Hofman
Mr Hoffman said he believes that if Brueckner abducted Maddie, it’s also likely he killed her.
“And killing is likely for different reasons. Number one, it’s likely because it’s part of the fantasy, but number two, it also just could have practical reasons not to be arrested for this crime, because she was old enough to talk,” he told Hayes.

Full Video Link: https://youtu.be/Pvqu9Wd388c?feature=shared

Hofman seems to have missed the Dogs Alerts in Apartment 5A as well as the lack of evidence of a Break in.
Only minor details!

A couple of bits that may be of interest …. I cant remember where I saw it but someone was speculating that if Maddie had died during the evening, when the parents came back and found the room quiet, they may have crept off to bed quickly, not wanting to awaken the children. Then next morning finding her. How do you explain a childs corpse that is maybe 10 hours old by the time you find it?

For those who believe Maddie died on Sunday, there may be an explanation for a child being heard crying on Tuesday. In Goncalo's book he says :

It is known that the sudden withdrawal of sedatives can cause sleep problems. If Kates journal is to be believed,the twins suffered from problems of that nature during the days following their sisters disappearance.

If Maddie died Sunday, you can understand the parents being frightened of sedating the twins Monday night,,,,,, Still with sedatives in their system, they slept ok but by Tuesday night their sleeping was disturbed. Maybe it was Amelie that the neighbour heard crying on Tuesday night and Amelie that asked her parents on Wednesday morning why they didnt come when she and her brother were crying? Just a thought,

^ #132 - why wasn't Kate McCann arrested after saying 'I know what happened wasn't due to the fact of leaving them sleeping'? That's a direct admission of knowledge. (Along with everything else they said and did).

We only have Kate's word that Madeleine said what she did about the crying.
It's just another lie in my opinion, to prove that Madeleine was still alive on the 3rd May.

Yes, that's what I think; she said it to prove that the children weren't sedated, or they wouldn't have woken, also to prove that Madeleine was alive on the 3rd. It only proved that she's a liar, and as for her mothering...

crusader wrote:That's true, I'm not convinced that was what it was though.
Madeleine could have been killed at home at any time, Staging an abduction whilst on holiday abroad seems far fetched to me.

If she died at home the body would have been examined and any abuse detected that is why the body had to disappear and abduction was the only option.

Reading today's posts has got me thinking about little Madeleine and her last hours.  I really hope she didn't suffer, but she probably did endure some trauma.  Bless her.

I'm still not convinced sexual abuse was the reason, but That is just my opinion, I'm not trying to convince anyone else.

I do think Madeline was sexualised by her parents as we have seen by the inappropriate photo's released by them.

Cake Lover wrote:Yes, that's what I think; she said it to prove that the children weren't sedated, or they wouldn't have woken, also to prove that Madeleine was alive on the 3rd. It only proved that she's a liar, and as for her mothering...

Allegedly Maddie asked her mother " where were you when Sean and I were crying " referring to Wednesday night ! According to Fiona Payne in her rogatory statement Kate told her about the " crying " while at dinner in the Tapas bar on Thursday night , asking if Fiona thought it was alright to leave them again ! Not mentioned before ! Rachael was in their apartment next door and heard nothing . If the " checks " were done on Wednesday as they were on Thursday then someone would have heard two children crying as they went past , not one but two children crying would have been heard by someone surely ? But according to Kate when asking Maddie about it " she moved on " !!!  Remember the curled lip and shrug on that comment ! Backfilling to prove Maddie was alive and well on the morning of 3rd May .  Kate isn't a stupid woman , she's clever and manipulative and knows how to play  her role of " loving mother " . Neither is she under Gerrys control as many think , she has a temper and gets her own way by hook  or crook !  Imho of course

I don't believe Madeleine said any such thing; but then I don't believe anything The McCann gang said. There may be a grain of truth in some statements, but they have been embellished, had segments removed, and some of the main players have been moved around. I think there was one remark we can depend upon - 'We have a pact'. I agree about Kate McCann; she's Liverpudlian, and tough.

If, as the foreign detective believes, Madeleine died on the 2nd May, Mrs Fenn was right about hearing crying on the night of 1st .
Madelene could have said what she did on the 2nd May and Kate conveniently changed it to the 3rd.
That's if the whole thing is not made up, I still believe Mrs Fenn heard Madeleine crying though on the 1st.

How does the following Theory sound based on the Sedative Theory?

Madeleine was Dead. Reasons unknown. A cover Story was arranged.

The Twins could not wake up that night because they too were old enough to talk. Someone did not want innocent children to say anything to the Police which might destroy their plans?

Comments welcome.

Well, we know the twins could talk because Amalie was reported as saying when they were putting Madeleine's pyjamas on her, " Maddie's Jammies, where is Maddie".
As to whether they knew what had happened or could tell anyone is another matter.
I'm not sure they would understand what was happening around them, would they take any notice?

The twins could talk, yes, but they were just two years old so would not be questioned by the police, that's not appropriate or ethical.

I don't think there was anything for them to say; they went to bed, Madeleine went to bed, and in the morning she was gone. At two years old, they  may  not have thought that to be unusual; we will never know what they were told. Then their parents went globe trotting. That is just jaw droppingly insensitive, imo.

I'm more than ever convinced something happened to Madeleine on the Tuesday or Wednesday.
1. Quiz night was on Tuesday and that was the night Kate said she slept in the children's bedroom.
2. Mrs Fenn heard crying on the Tuesday night.
3. Cleaner cleaned 5a 2nd Wednesday, she said 1crib in Main bedroom, 1 crib in children's room, spare bed not used.
I'm going to look what else happened on the Tuesday and Wednesday.

The Foreign Detective will, I hope, have an explanation as to who buried Madeleine in his suggested location, and how they carried this out unseen.

MY FIRST READ THROUGH:

First.
It is a BIG BOOK.   24 x 16 x 4.5.  [Clarke’s is a conventional B format paper back 20 x 13 x 2]
It has 850 pages [Clarke’s - 273]
It is heavy, at 1.55 kg.   [Clarke's - 300g]
The cover and the paper are of a higher specification than normal
The glue for the binding is very thick.

Confession:
It is so heavy and so thick and so stiff I confess I chopped my copy into three volumes.
The second part of the book is conveniently the final 250 pages, and the first two thirds divide neatly at page 274
It takes some doing.   Sharp Swiss army knife and several passes through the thick glue and the glossy card cover, but it is worth the effort and the sacrifice for you then have a THREE volume Dissertation, [each one longer than Clarke’s] that you can open, hold in comfort and read.

The contents pages lay out his approach.

He adopts the method of ‘argumentum ad absurdum’ a form of questioning so beloved of Socrates and other philosophers since.
Start by accepting unquestioningly what the ‘witnesses’ say and see where the logic takes you.

I used it in my chapter 5 for example
GM said he was in the apartment, saw M and left at 2113
JT said she saw the “abductor’ carrying M at 2115
THEREFORE everything necessary had to happen between those two times.
And since there very clearly is not enough time, the argumentum is absurdum

The response can be two fold.   The protagonist may realise the absurdity and admit error, 
OR, as in this case, may seek to change, or add details, to include for example the even more absurd suggestion of the abductor’s already being in the apartment hiding behind a door.  The fact that the door in question opens flush against the wall being conveniently not mentioned.

Socrates might have asked a supplementary question but here there is no need. The whole thing has been exposed as untrue.

Berndt Stellander relentlessly pursues and dissects each important part in the McCanns’ and Tapas’ statements in the first half kilo of the book (274 pages) exposing the absurdities and contradictions between and among them.

Of course much of this has been done before, but piecemeal. This is a whole ‘volume’ – longer than Clarke’s entire book – dedicated to this one issue.  It is comprehensive and compelling, however familiar many of us are with the examples he chooses.

In the second half kilo (328 pages) Stellander addresses the issue of when the death occurred. 
Most people by now realise that “during the evening of Thursday 3rd” is not possible for the reasons we all know which he sets out again.

Many researchers have come to their own more or less tentative conclusions about the order of events during the week.    Stellander builds on them and weaves in various of the more coherent statements to arrive at WEDNESDAY [edited] 2nd May.   Some may not agree, but his logic seems good. 

He then commits to paper his theory of what the sequence was from that point, the sequestration of the body, and the subsequent burial in its final resting place, giving dates.

He goes into details about why he believes the grave is where it is, using for the most part Kate’s statements, diary, and interviews.      He interprets them as ‘leakage’ in line with ‘statement analysis’ and then shows where the widely reported, publicised and photographed runs up the hill in the matching outfits, complete with carefully timings fit into the deception.


Then the final half kilo. Worth its weight in gold, if only for the account of his nocturnal activities, his searches, his lying in wait under bushes and in a small cave for nights on end.

He starts by predicting their return around the anniversary, publicised by Kate in her book and many women’s magazines and the gutter press.  And he was correct.

He sets up “Trail cams”, and tells the story of his struggles to make them work and not ‘alert’ to blades of grass moving with the breeze.
He then details a series of anonymous emails he sends to the McCanns, alerting them to the possibility that the ‘site’ had been discovered.
On cue they walk into the frame and are caught on camera.  NOT in running kit.  

And so on

I shall stop here, so as not to ruin the surprises to come.
The photos are not included in the book, but are promised on two websites, which are under construction.

The chosen locations however, are included.

Throughout the book he expresses sympathy for the parents,  not only for the accidental death of their first born child, but for the impossible and grave situation they all, including the Tapas 7, and many others are trapped due to what he calls ‘a Sudden Impulse’.
Gerry.  “Sometimes people do things for reasons that even they cannot understand”
“An act of madness and accident or a sudden impulse could lead to consequences that people may never have imagined or intended”
“faced with such a situation we believe any human soul ultimately suffer torment and feelings of guilt and fear”

He has great sympathy towards Kate, who he believes, as many of us do, has been torn apart and racked by guilt, having lost her child and her profession.  Almost everything she has said after 3/5/7 reveals a desire to tell the truth, to speak out, “to shout it from the roof tops”. 
As Stellander points out, even in the forward of her own book she tells us she cannot tell the whole truth,  Just a “version of it”.

Kate; Book p.2 “On the whole Jerry and I have managed to dig deep and remain focused although the temptation to shout the truth from the rooftops has always been there. There have been many times when I have struggled to keep myself together and to understand how such injustices of been allowed to go unchallenged over and over again. I have had to keep saying to myself: I know the truth, we know the truth, and God knows the truth.  And one day the truth will out.  [but not today nor in this book! PM. ] Publishing the truth is fraught with risks for our family. It leaves us open to more criticism for a start.”

His wish is that the revelations in this book allow them - all - to confess, and to atone for what they have done.

FOOTNOTE:
It is of course purely coincidental that Stellander’s announcement that the Book launch was to be on 2/5/24, his anniversary date, and that the McCanns for the first time in 17 years decided not to attend the Service in Rothley to mark their anniversary date, but instead went on ‘holiday’ to a “secret resort"
Tracy Kandohla :  “Mr Brian Kennedy - Maddie’s great uncle, [“Fund mostly for Legal expenses,”]  -said … “Kate and Gerry have gone away, they didn't tell me where and I didn’t ask, and it is a bit of a clash. But they work very hard and they needed a break very much.”

Pure coincidence, Obviously.

Sympathy for the McCann's? I have sympathy only for Madeleine.

The McCanns would enjoy more Sympathy if they had just been truthful in the first place. 

The Question remains- WHY did they all feel they had to lie?

By allowing through their Silence all these ‘Suspects’’ through the Years to be the Focus of Operations Grange they have wasted Millions of the British Taxpayers money.

Now they seem to be content to waste the German taxpayers money too?

There is no Evidence that an Abduction ever took place.

Wolters cannot even face Brückner in an Interview room.

Who do the McCanns think they are kidding any more?