What do YOU think happened to Madeleine?

Hiya, haven't been around much what with Christmas and moving so have only just seen this, its a brilliant round up of all the discrepancies between them all.
My theory is that Amaral is right in there being death and concealment of death but no way could she have died when Gerry was speaking to Jez, this was planned for a good while to get it right, and the window of time to arrange and execute it all is not big enough, under an hour. I believe there was an accident or perhaps a over zealous slap very probably from Kate that resulted in the death of Madeleine, I believe the ensuing cover up was not just to cover the demise of Madeleine but possibly something more sinister like long term sexual abuse that would have come out should there have been an inquest, I think if it had been just an accident they would have been able to cover it, God knows they have enough allies to have done this, but because it happened in another country and they could not cover up the autopsy they had to make sure Madeleine was never found.

HideHo, I think you deserve a few more replies to your very penetrating question. If this was a seminar, it would be a great opening gambit to go round the table and ask each person in turn to say what they think really happened.

We are all aware of Goncalo Amaral's book and the thesis he puts forward and the reasons for that thesis.

To be frank, I cannot give my opinion on 'my theory' because I am still bound by an undertaking sealed by the High Court on 25 November 2009 not to do or say certain things. However, libel lawyers did advise me that there is no law, libel law or otherwise, in this country that stops people questioning a statement or a claim made by someone else, so long as there is a reasonable and reasoned basis for doing so. And perhaps particularly so when we know for certain how many times in the past certain parents have told the world their child has been abducted when in fact something very different has happened.

And, if I may say so, charting all the discrepancies between the statements of the 'Tapas 9' and analysing their changes of story etc., as you have so admirably and comprehensively done with your website and various charts, is one of the best ways of developing a database on which one can build a good working hypothesis or working assumption about what really happened. That provides us with a core of circumstantial evidence.

Running parallel to that is the painstaking work 'kikoratan' (and a few others helping him) have done on the 'phone records and creche signatures and records - and that I would class as useful forensic work.

I think without running the risk of being taken back to the High Court for breach of an undertaking I can make the following observations:

1. The massive list of contradictions and changes of story suggest that not all of the 'Tapas 9' have been telling the truth about the events of that week in Praia da Luz. That alone is a very important finding.

2. 'kikoratan's analysis of the 'phone records etc. suggests to us a number of new lines of enquiry which were not open to Goncalo Amaral before Gordon Brown had him removed from the investigation - and should now be pursued. Quite apart from his detailed analysis of strange groups of 'phone calls and when they were made, and of deleted calls etc., there is one outstanding finding he has come up with which is an 'open secret' so I can mention it here: namely Robert Murat and Dr Gerald McCann both switching their mobile 'phones off within 6 minutes of each other mid-afternoon on Wednesday 2 May, and then not switching them back on again, once more within 6 minutes of each other, until around 11pm the night Madeleine was reported missing. Coupled with Dr Gerald McCann's embarrassed: "I'm not going to comment on that" when asked by a TV interviewer if he knew Robert Murat, I would certainly suggest that THAT finding would be one the PJ should pursue.

By re-interviewing both men.

I wish I knew what I think! The more time passes, the less clear I am on anything.

IF Madeleine was abducted, then there is no way they are being truthful about the checks because the window of opportunity is far too slim.
If the dogs were right, I still can't figure how they could possibly cover that fact in a strange land and with so little time.
Sometimes I wish I believed in UFOs because then I could find a theory that would account for all the evidence or lack thereof!



Some of the inconsistencies bother me but not most of them - it would be far more suspicious if everyone said exactly the same thing about every minute of the holiday... People remember things differently and I accept that while on holiday people don't keep track fo time so can get muddled with days even.

Lester Lass wrote:I wish I knew what I think! The more time passes, the less clear I am on anything.

IF Madeleine was abducted, then there is no way they are being truthful about the checks because the window of opportunity is far too slim.
If the dogs were right, I still can't figure how they could possibly cover that fact in a strange land and with so little time.Sometimes I wish I believed in UFOs because then I could find a theory that would account for all the evidence or lack thereof!



Some of the inconsistencies bother me but not most of them - it would be far more suspicious if everyone said exactly the same thing about every minute of the holiday... People remember things differently and I accept that while on holiday people don't keep track fo time so can get muddled with days even.

What's a strange land got to do with it. The dogs smell cadaver scent full stop, no matter where. Time has nothing to do with it.

As for the discrepencies in their recollections, I suggest you read the article posted up today by Dr Martin Smith Early Doors.

Lester Lass wrote:I wish I knew what I think! The more time passes, the less clear I am on anything.

IF Madeleine was abducted, then there is no way they are being truthful about the checks because the window of opportunity is far too slim.
If the dogs were right, I still can't figure how they could possibly cover that fact in a strange land and with so little time.
Sometimes I wish I believed in UFOs because then I could find a theory that would account for all the evidence or lack thereof!



Some of the inconsistencies bother me but not most of them - it would be far more suspicious if everyone said exactly the same thing about every minute of the holiday... People remember things differently and I accept that while on holiday people don't keep track fo time so can get muddled with days even.

''Some of the inconsistencies bother me but not most of them ''

Would you care to expound a little here? Pray tell which inconsistencies have bothered you. Are you happy with the description of the swarthy man with long but short hair who was carrying a child with pink pyjamas on according to Tanner? Or do you believe Payne who says Madeleine was wearing white angelic pyjamas? Do you thik they had a buggy on the holiday or not? Do you think they went out to dinner without their watches, when we note that they do indeed wear watches all the time?

Lester Lass ''If the dogs were right, I still can't figure how they could possibly cover that fact in a strange land and with so little time/''

If one were to fly you to Paris or Rome this evening, and light up a cigar after dinner, would you not note the aroma as being cigar smoke? A scent is a scent. A cadaver smells the same whichever country it is in. These dogs rummage through rubble to find dead bodies. Sometimes, as in the cases of Haut de la Garenne and Madeleine McCann, the dogs will say where a dead body has lain, although the body has been removed.

Watch out for this little cheeky chappie below, Lester Lass. He is worse than oneself for jumping on the banishment button Not that you have anything to worry about at this stage at all. One is currently passing this warning to all and sundry at regular intervals, to prevent them from being banished from here.

I think she died way before 3rd May. There is no way that the "abduction" was cobbled together on the night of the 3rd. It is obvious from the photo they released straight away, to the ambiguos photos later released that they were trying to blur everyones image of Madeleine. That way if anyone had seen in PDL her during the brief period she was alive on holiday, they could never be 100% sure it was definitely her.
I also don't think her death was the result of an accidental fall and I believe her parents and their friends are lying when they say they left the children on their own every single night. I think neglect was their alibi.

Lester Lass wrote: Sometimes I wish I believed in UFOs because then I could find a theory that would account for all the evidence or lack thereof!

How in God's name would believing in the existence of UFOs possibly enable you to find a theory that would count for all the evidence or lack thereof?

Out of a whole Portuguese police service, one would suspect that there must be at least 10% of its officers who understand that we cannot identify every flying object in outer space. Yet they have never come up with where Madeleine's remains are either. Nor have the whole British police service. So stop being so hard on yourself

One would suspect that your days may be numbered here Lester Lass, unless you are having a larrrf of course. In which case, one will thoroughly embrace your postings and we can have a bit of a hoot together

Uh oh! Look who's here. And he has brought his friend with him. We had better be careful what we say now

I would like to thank you HideHo for all the painstaking and meticulous work you have done. It is fascinating to see that on the MCF forum many posters ( with the exception of one or two) now are coming to the conclusion that Madeleine must have died before the evening of 3rd May - thanks to the threads that you have initiated there.

I`ve wondered for a while whether there might be a medical reason underpinning Madeleine`s fate. We know that the PJ were refused access to her medical records. Perhaps the reason the Mccanns had to dispose her body and prevent an autopsy taking place was because this might have uncovered some underlying, serious and potentially very damaging long term condition. This might have led the investigation to conclude that Madeleine`s death was deliberate. Even if this was not the case and it was the result of an accident, then the manner of her death or injuries sustained might lead them to the same conclusion. We have touched on this in another thread.

An alternative scenario might be to discount any preexisting medical condition but still have a scenario where Madeleine`s injuries might prompt a conclusion of deliberate intent to injure or kill ( whether this was true or not)

And there is the unanswered question relating to handing over Madeleine to the care of a relative ( and I don`t believe that this was the PJ`s confusion re the Ward of Court issue as has been suggested in the past)

Thank you for the nice comments.

I don't want to change peoples opinions just because the prevalent theory possibly supports something happening to Madeleine prior to Thursday evening.

I attempt to compile as much of the information available in a format to make comparisons as easy as possible.

Only with knowledge can one form an opinion that is worthy of the respect of others, regardless of whether it conforms to the majority opinion or whether it stands alone.

To form an opinion based on what others have decided or spoken about is the type of mentality that blindly believes the first thing they are told and subsequently defends their opinion regardless of future information that contradicts their opinion.

These people are unable to ever admit to being wrong.

The McCanns played their 'cards' well.

I don't believe the crys of 'abduction' were used as a defence against the police that night so much as to 'brainwash' the public into believing it was an abduction before any other theory registered in people's minds.

'Tell a lie often enough and people will believe you.'

The vast majority of people, once believing in the 'abduction' would have a hard time admitting they made a mistake, especially if they were prevented from seeing details that could prove otherwise.

The McCanns had it all wrapped up.

The police were forced to keep the details secret so for the first year, apart from a few leaks, the McCanns could keep a reasonable control over the media reports, then along came Goncalo Amaral and Tony and the release of the files and it's not so easy for them now, and, we are all very patient, so it will not get any easier....

However, I have always believed that the sudden conscious effort to inform everyone, including the media, of the abduction, regardless of the validity, was a contrived effort and therefore one of the first reasons I believed that something happened to Madeleine prior to Thursday night.

It was all carefully thought out, in my opinion.

I am one of the few 'non believers' in the Smith sighting, regardless of it having the importance it seems to deserve.

There seems to be an overwhelming belief, mainly because Goncalo Amaral gives it importance as well as other issues but, although I may be wrong, I continue to disbelieve a probability of Gerry walking through the streets holding his dead daughter.

I just cannot come to terms with that and until I can see a link with an earlier death I do not enter into discussions about the sighting. I cannot claim an opinion based on knowledge, but in this case I base it on my belief that this case may be a lot more simple (relatively) than most seem to think.

I am willing to admit to being incorrect should we ever find out the truth.

Being right is not as important as keeping the case alive for a little girl that needs us.

My thoughts follow a very basic scenario interrupted and confused by Government (and other) intervention that would elicit too much scrutiny of the individual should they admit to being wrong. No-one is willing to go on the chopping block and have personal details exposed and scrutinised, which would surely happen if anyone admitted to making the wrong choices initially.

The easiest thing to do has been to quietly remove themselves from the situation, or keep the McCanns at arms length, or, just continue blindly believing as they dont have the time or courage or motivation to dispute it.

The T9 went on holiday, they started with a normal holiday of responsible adults.

The BBC Whistleblower program had, only a couple of weeks earlier, investigated Mark Warner in Greece and came up with some issues that needed addressing.

Madeleine's disappearance coincided with the changes and probably appeared to be responsible for them but from what I understand, the baby listening service had only just been discontinued.

Travelers complained that it was advertised for Portugal in the brochures but was not available when they arrived in May 2007.

The listening service was something the McCanns expected. They also did not realise the resort was spread out so when they arrived they realised that babysitting was an issue to them and I believe they handled it 'relatively' responsibly in some form.

Someone was away from the table almost (if not) every day.

Once something happened to Madeleine (because of the discrepancies I believe earlier in the week) the T7 were, at some point, informed. Whether she died immediately or became sick and died later, we don't know but I do believe the possibility of Gerry's power of persuasion and whether they helped assist in rescusitation or were persuaded to not alert anyone until a plan was decided we don't know.

They had no knowledge about what was about to happen and how their lives would be affected.

Hindsight was not something afforded to them.

Once 'in' on the secret, there was no turning back.

Madeleine died and the plan needed to be put into place.

What would have been a holiday of shared activities between them all may have become a holiday of hiding the truth and compensating for the grief that Kate would no doubt have had difficulty hiding.

What has been judged as keeping themselves separate to the others was probably a front to enable them to grieve and prepare for the plan.

One of the major issues that prevents people from believing an earlier demise is the difficulty in denying Madeleine being seen during the week, especially by the nannies, and ultimately Catriona as well as her being registered every day.

Because Catriona made a visit to Rothley in November (apart from a variety of contradictions) I see no proof that Madeleine was at the creche every day.

The room was used by many of the nannies with the Sharks as well as the Lobsters all in the same room and with an earlier picture of Madeleine used in the search, (also conntrived and planned IMO) many of the nannies were mistaken about seeing Madeleine.

I have scrutinised ALL the statements that claim to have seen her and the ONLY statement I can find that places Madeleine (IMO) in the Ocean Club that week was when seen by the cleaner's daughter on Sunday lunchtime, outside their apartment, on their way to Payne's for lunch.

As for the creche records, do we know if the nannies ever checked the signatures or were they just filled out as a record to contact the parents if needed?

Any discrepanacy or missed times, filled in later by Cat may have been more to do with the tightening up because of the Whistleblowers investigation.

The records were removed by the police on Friday and at that point, there was no issue that the creche was involved in Madeleine's disappearance but they would have known their reputation was on the line and maybe Catriona was trying to ensure her job.

Maybe the records were filled out every day and Gerry and Kate claimed Madleine was there and Catriona, maybe, second guessed herself as to which child was which. We don't know but it could be possible if Gerry was very intimidating.

The nannies were removed the following week to go to Greece, but this may not have had anything to do with Madeleine's disappearance but more to fill in the spots of the nannies in Greece that were found to not have the credentials and checks they were advertised as having.

I believe the meeting at the tapas on Wednesday night was to discuss last minute plans for the following night.

I was important enough that the waiters were supposed to finish their shift at midnight and the T9 (or some of them) kept them waiting for nearly and hour later!

Thursday was not, (IMO) about checking on the children it was, maybe about setting up the scenario for the abduction, maybe sedating the twins so they would not hear as the shutters were undergoing an attempt at 'jemmying'.

Their claims of checking throughout the week was not the truth, they needed to claim the children were left alone to enable the possibility of abduction.

I believe it was only Dianne Webster that didn't know most of the story.

Madeleine's death had to be kept secret for one BIG reason.

Whether the Gaspars' statement is a clue, whether it was imperative to not submit her body for an autopsy, or both, or some other major reason, we dont know....

One day we will...

(All my opinion of course!)

HiDeHo

Having read through both your scenarios I think you have done meticulous work in trying to sort out from the information that is available so far. Thank you for your hard work!

It is very difficult to ascertain what is truth and what is not as you say.

As I don't have as much information available and I find it tedious reading through all the statements and not having a good memory either it makes it doubly hard for me to try and understand what happened during this "I'm not here to enjoy myself" family holiday/get together/other.

I err towards it not being a "family holiday" at all. It was something "other".

I think DP and Murat are involved and it could be that Kate "discovered" Madeleine dead on her check (the only check/return to apartment) on the night of the 3rd. There is also the possibility that Kate calling her name could mean she couldn't find her. The apartment was locked. The reason they declared it was unlocked was only because the "jemmied shutter" didn't work. Madeleine could have fallen behind the sofa from a blow from whoever had "been with" Madeleine that night (remember that televised plea from Kate to "whoever has been with"). I don't think the twins were in the apartment but if they were they were drugged on purpose. That would cover the Maddie, Maddie and possibly not Daddy, Daddy. This would account for the hurried "time-line" and the tearing up of the Book belonging to Maddeleine - in their haste they forgot the photocopy paper on the top shelf of the wardrobe (actions speak louder than words). Or was this there for another reason ? I think all the nonsense about what they did or didn't do on the holiday is covering what they were "really doing" and that's why it's all jumbled up and nothing fits and is irrelevant.

There is some reason why GA believes Madeleine was still alive late afternoon of the 3rd and I think he would know for sure.

I agree about the blue holdall - it was definitely in the apartment as we have photo's of the wretched thing!

It's possible that DW didn't shift because she was inebriated and didn't actually know what all the fuss was about. It could have been her night off from "babysitting" and took advantage of the wine whilst another Tapas7 took over ?

I know for sure it was not an "abduction" - one of the statements - could have been MO - said Kate arrived back at the Tapas shouting Madeleine had gone etc and then they walked back to the apartment. Even if she had fallen down the steps from wandering from the apartment would have made them return a lot quicker than walking.

They did have photo's available immediately - this was odd. I think I read it in the statement of one of the MW staff, a lady, who was given them.

I have accepted the buggy/no buggy thing - it's possible they either went out and purchased one with Gerry's non-existent card or borrowed one from someone. Although who would take two toddlers and a 3 year old on holiday without one!

Angelique

I have no doubt whatsoever that she died a number of days prior to her supposed 'abduction' - that the time in between death and 'abduction' was spent preparing, hiding, cleaning, deleting, fabricating - an illusion of her attending creche was created... we can roughly see time of death from when her parents first started to act 'abnormally.'

Its so simple really but maybe its better for the government to let it lie. But we can live in hope.

What do I think happened to Madeleine?

I do not know, I wish I did. I would like to believe that the little lass was still alive, although I do not. Primarily, due to length of time elapse since her disappearance, Eddie and Keela's reactions and the absence of strong leads and sightings presented to the PJ and McCanns PI's.

I cannot say with any degree of certainty that the McCanns were involved, although I lean this way the majority of the time...although infrequently I doubt their involvement. Abduction occuring in the context presented by the McCanns is highly unlikely, but not an impossibility. The scenario that the Madeleine died in the apartment at sometime prior to the evening of the 3rd May and her corpse was, at some later point in time, concealed by her parents appears more plausible. To speculate on how the she died, I would say accidental and that this most likely occured in the McCanns absence. I do not rule out the use of sedatives, it certainly would explain the need to conceal the girl's corpse. Furthermore, the issue clearly is a hot spot as far as the McCanns are concerned. Madeleine's sleeping habits always have been surrounded in uncertainty. For example, Madeleine was a poor sleeper, her star chart at home demonstrated this; Mrs. Fenn reported a child, whom she assumed to be Madeleine crying on the night of the 1st May; the McCanns claimed that Madeleine woke up one night of the holiday and climbed into bed with them, they also reported that on the morning of the 3rd May she asked why neither of them came when her and Sean were crying; and a final example, neither McCann could confirm that the child was asleep when they left the apartment to dine on the 3rd May.

What I do not believe is that Madeleine was subject to sexual abuse by the McCanns or anyone in their circle.

Hi HideHo and all,
I used to naively think she had wandered off and got injured somehow, but this was back in the 1st week of May, I didn't know that the parents had not searched for her. And lied re the windows + shutters and prepared a 'note of despair, LOL = timeline' (no, TWO in fact!), and that JT had spotted an eggman, etc., etc. I too changed my theories in much confusion a number of times since.

Now with more updated knowledge and done analysis of Kate's diary and of many other facts, I suspect that she died of obsessive, violent paedophily - activity
(-by Payne with Gerry's consent or by both? - or by other 'politically correct gentlemen' of the sort, possibly, very possibly even someone who was at the government at the time, hence the abbormal, disproportionated protection the parents have benefitted from.

She was, in my researched, much reflected views based on observations and analyses of the facts, hired out by her greedy, lying, acting, ruthless and visibly deranged parents (or one of them? both are in it now anyway) for paedophily purposes, hence the suspicions that not all the kids were in the 5a at nights, but only Madeleine, and the weird, "appealing" photos. Likely, another adult was supervising the child in betweens 'activities', TO make sure she wouldn't run away, (hence their certitude that 'no way she could run away and the contradictions on the front door/ key/ slide windows), preferably a DOCTOR - just in case something would go wrong. -and something DID.

The date of death is likely to be the 1st of May or the 2nd, Payne was said to be the one 'visiting her' for a check on the Wednesday night (2nd May 2007, according to statements), but the McCanns contradicted each other strongly on this. Is this because this night was significant, and horrific? or is it because they were both lying?

The creche records being falsified, and the main nanny visited by Kennedy and enrolled by Kate "as a good friend" afterwards, I don't agree with PJ's final report that she (Pennington) could be anything like a reliable "witness" who can for sure set the last sight (among strangers) of the poor child at 17:45 on the 3rd.

So, the 1st May has all to weigh for a fatal date, with Mrs Fenn's witnessing. I just wish that she had called the police then.

She was, in my researched, much reflected views based on observations and analyses of the facts, hired out by her greedy, lying, acting, ruthless and visibly deranged parents (or one of them? both are in it now anyway) for paedophily purposes

Hi Mags,

Can you provide your research in support of your that statement?

kangdang wrote:

She was, in my researched, much reflected views based on observations and analyses of the facts, hired out by her greedy, lying, acting, ruthless and visibly deranged parents (or one of them? both are in it now anyway) for paedophily purposes

Hi Mags,

Can you provide your research in support of your that statement?

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] well it's easy, but depending on how much you have searched so far dear KangDang, I can't afford to go into an extensive demonstration at this time on a week-end night, - I am very busy all the time and can only get 'crumbs times' to post on forums, rarely. So here is a sum-up you might:

1) Look in the files
2) Read the Police Statements (specially PJ ones, as 'rogatories' being a big joke of British Government CORRUPTION examples) AND compare the statements
3) Look at the photos, read the photo-threads in forums/blogs / and/ or comments on photo-albums / facebook etc
4) Study the McCanns and friends and wider social + family circle(s) BEHAVIORAL attitudes -and patterns
5) Read analyses of some statements and media-interview
6) Go on You-Tube, search videos
7) then look at the FACTS again, after you did all this.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] Something doesn't add on, but additionally in my and so many other people's views, something smells of dirty behaviour towards a Child / Children. Now nothing is in their way, they have the full green light for a book (after they banned one successfully for a long time!)
-What next? Ah but There IS already the WIDER AGENDA IN PLACE! The SERIALISATION of the BOOK!!! Check [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

then we can imagine ANYTHING... meanwhile their ADS are FREE via media-INTERVIEWS... will they ALWAYS get away with it? moneywise,
AND: if people carry on being intimidated by THEM, or [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] 'them', (WO ARE THEY TO US??!! LOL!!!) imo they'll ALWAYS get away with it, money creating money, money being king in that rotten sick to the core society... - unless we decide to DO something- what becomes of a child being suspected of DEATH that involves BLOOD and CADAVER ODOUR (NOT "scent, fok me! "scent".... :flower: "LOL, LOL LOL...") and some other STATEMENTS that the PARENTS NEVER WERE FIGHTING.. MRS GASPAR!

Have a nice week end...

Just going through some of the material here and found your long post.

I had just one thought, since that post the book was published and we're a little way further.
You said that in your opinion, the only safe sighting of Maddie in PdL was on Sunday by the cleaner.
What bothers me about that is the shoes she describes, trainers with little lights on the side. I know what she meant.

Thing is, they never get a mention from Kate, who seems to make sure we know all about Maddie's clothes in the book. The twins are supposed to have had the same shoes. Now one would expect the girl in the tennis photo to be wearing those, instead of unsuitable sandals.

It's just that a little girl would practically go to bed with them on, in my experience. but they're not in the book.
The twins are supposed to have had the same shoes, I've never seen any photographs where they're wearing those. Which makes me think the children the cleaner saw where some of the other tapas children, or even the Naylor girl.

Bit wild, but it seems weird that Kate passes this up. She was very informative about her own pink runnings shoes. To put it mildly.

And being very informative on things like new zealand wine, cabin service etc....just not informative like this with anything to do with Maddie

HiDeHo wrote:Thank you for the nice comments.

I don't want to change peoples opinions just because the prevalent theory possibly supports something happening to Madeleine prior to Thursday evening.

I attempt to compile as much of the information available in a format to make comparisons as easy as possible.

Only with knowledge can one form an opinion that is worthy of the respect of others, regardless of whether it conforms to the majority opinion or whether it stands alone.

To form an opinion based on what others have decided or spoken about is the type of mentality that blindly believes the first thing they are told and subsequently defends their opinion regardless of future information that contradicts their opinion.

These people are unable to ever admit to being wrong.

The McCanns played their 'cards' well.

I don't believe the crys of 'abduction' were used as a defence against the police that night so much as to 'brainwash' the public into believing it was an abduction before any other theory registered in people's minds.

'Tell a lie often enough and people will believe you.'

The vast majority of people, once believing in the 'abduction' would have a hard time admitting they made a mistake, especially if they were prevented from seeing details that could prove otherwise.

The McCanns had it all wrapped up.

The police were forced to keep the details secret so for the first year, apart from a few leaks, the McCanns could keep a reasonable control over the media reports, then along came Goncalo Amaral and Tony and the release of the files and it's not so easy for them now, and, we are all very patient, so it will not get any easier....

However, I have always believed that the sudden conscious effort to inform everyone, including the media, of the abduction, regardless of the validity, was a contrived effort and therefore one of the first reasons I believed that something happened to Madeleine prior to Thursday night.

It was all carefully thought out, in my opinion.

I am one of the few 'non believers' in the Smith sighting, regardless of it having the importance it seems to deserve.

There seems to be an overwhelming belief, mainly because Goncalo Amaral gives it importance as well as other issues but, although I may be wrong, I continue to disbelieve a probability of Gerry walking through the streets holding his dead daughter.

I just cannot come to terms with that and until I can see a link with an earlier death I do not enter into discussions about the sighting. I cannot claim an opinion based on knowledge, but in this case I base it on my belief that this case may be a lot more simple (relatively) than most seem to think.

I am willing to admit to being incorrect should we ever find out the truth.

Being right is not as important as keeping the case alive for a little girl that needs us.

My thoughts follow a very basic scenario interrupted and confused by Government (and other) intervention that would elicit too much scrutiny of the individual should they admit to being wrong. No-one is willing to go on the chopping block and have personal details exposed and scrutinised, which would surely happen if anyone admitted to making the wrong choices initially.

The easiest thing to do has been to quietly remove themselves from the situation, or keep the McCanns at arms length, or, just continue blindly believing as they dont have the time or courage or motivation to dispute it.

The T9 went on holiday, they started with a normal holiday of responsible adults.

The BBC Whistleblower program had, only a couple of weeks earlier, investigated Mark Warner in Greece and came up with some issues that needed addressing.

Madeleine's disappearance coincided with the changes and probably appeared to be responsible for them but from what I understand, the baby listening service had only just been discontinued.

Travelers complained that it was advertised for Portugal in the brochures but was not available when they arrived in May 2007.

The listening service was something the McCanns expected. They also did not realise the resort was spread out so when they arrived they realised that babysitting was an issue to them and I believe they handled it 'relatively' responsibly in some form.

Someone was away from the table almost (if not) every day.

Once something happened to Madeleine (because of the discrepancies I believe earlier in the week) the T7 were, at some point, informed. Whether she died immediately or became sick and died later, we don't know but I do believe the possibility of Gerry's power of persuasion and whether they helped assist in rescusitation or were persuaded to not alert anyone until a plan was decided we don't know.

They had no knowledge about what was about to happen and how their lives would be affected.

Hindsight was not something afforded to them.

Once 'in' on the secret, there was no turning back.

Madeleine died and the plan needed to be put into place.

What would have been a holiday of shared activities between them all may have become a holiday of hiding the truth and compensating for the grief that Kate would no doubt have had difficulty hiding.

What has been judged as keeping themselves separate to the others was probably a front to enable them to grieve and prepare for the plan.

One of the major issues that prevents people from believing an earlier demise is the difficulty in denying Madeleine being seen during the week, especially by the nannies, and ultimately Catriona as well as her being registered every day.

Because Catriona made a visit to Rothley in November (apart from a variety of contradictions) I see no proof that Madeleine was at the creche every day.

The room was used by many of the nannies with the Sharks as well as the Lobsters all in the same room and with an earlier picture of Madeleine used in the search, (also conntrived and planned IMO) many of the nannies were mistaken about seeing Madeleine.

I have scrutinised ALL the statements that claim to have seen her and the ONLY statement I can find that places Madeleine (IMO) in the Ocean Club that week was when seen by the cleaner's daughter on Sunday lunchtime, outside their apartment, on their way to Payne's for lunch.

As for the creche records, do we know if the nannies ever checked the signatures or were they just filled out as a record to contact the parents if needed?

Any discrepanacy or missed times, filled in later by Cat may have been more to do with the tightening up because of the Whistleblowers investigation.

The records were removed by the police on Friday and at that point, there was no issue that the creche was involved in Madeleine's disappearance but they would have known their reputation was on the line and maybe Catriona was trying to ensure her job.

Maybe the records were filled out every day and Gerry and Kate claimed Madleine was there and Catriona, maybe, second guessed herself as to which child was which. We don't know but it could be possible if Gerry was very intimidating.

The nannies were removed the following week to go to Greece, but this may not have had anything to do with Madeleine's disappearance but more to fill in the spots of the nannies in Greece that were found to not have the credentials and checks they were advertised as having.

I believe the meeting at the tapas on Wednesday night was to discuss last minute plans for the following night.

I was important enough that the waiters were supposed to finish their shift at midnight and the T9 (or some of them) kept them waiting for nearly and hour later!

Thursday was not, (IMO) about checking on the children it was, maybe about setting up the scenario for the abduction, maybe sedating the twins so they would not hear as the shutters were undergoing an attempt at 'jemmying'.

Their claims of checking throughout the week was not the truth, they needed to claim the children were left alone to enable the possibility of abduction.

I believe it was only Dianne Webster that didn't know most of the story.

Madeleine's death had to be kept secret for one BIG reason.

Whether the Gaspars' statement is a clue, whether it was imperative to not submit her body for an autopsy, or both, or some other major reason, we dont know....

One day we will...

(All my opinion of course!)

Been on here only a few days and ive not stopped reading..my wife thinks im having an affair via internet..LOL..This is a great post , i just wanted to acknowledge it and the poster, who writes so much sense and is helping me understand this case.
I agree that if and when the truth of the matter emerges, it will probably be much more mundane than people imagine ( some anyway). I doubt that the group were all wife swaping swinging child abusers, IMO, but at the heart of the matter, the key question is why they so desperately needed to cover up her death and key to that would be making sure the body was never found.
Im staying with my hunch that its something to do with a medical reason / experiment that Madeleine was a part of , maybe something very secret that an autopsy would reveal, the importance of which could have been used to get the other people (and they were medical people apart from the lady who appears to have been left out of the coxver up) to agree to comply with the cover up.
Its just my hunch.It would make sense of why, the cover up and no body. Also if Madeleine's whole existence to begin with had been an experiment ( cloning ? ) that had always had a high risk of failure, then it would explain the parents perceived lack of emotion.It would also explain other peoples willingness to help the cover up ( state secret, nobody must know, highly confidential etc) ..
Thoughts of abduction/ child abusers suited the situation to throw everyone off.. It makes more sense to me ,than many other scenarios.
Like i say, just my hunch.
Many thanks once again to the poster for exeptionally well presented facts.

TrevorNigel wrote:
Been on here only a few days and ive not stopped reading..my wife thinks im having an affair via internet..LOL..This is a great post , i just wanted to acknowledge it and the poster, who writes so much sense and is helping me understand this case.
I agree that if and when the truth of the matter emerges, it will probably be much more mundane than people imagine ( some anyway). I doubt that the group were all wife swaping swinging child abusers, IMO, but at the heart of the matter, the key question is why they so desperately needed to cover up her death and key to that would be making sure the body was never found.
Im staying with my hunch that its something to do with a medical reason / experiment that Madeleine was a part of , maybe something very secret that an autopsy would reveal, the importance of which could have been used to get the other people (and they were medical people apart from the lady who appears to have been left out of the coxver up) to agree to comply with the cover up.
Its just my hunch.It would make sense of why, the cover up and no body. Also if Madeleine's whole existence to begin with had been an experiment ( cloning ? ) that had always had a high risk of failure, then it would explain the parents perceived lack of emotion.It would also explain other peoples willingness to help the cover up ( state secret, nobody must know, highly confidential etc) ..
Thoughts of abduction/ child abusers suited the situation to throw everyone off.. It makes more sense to me ,than many other scenarios.
Like i say, just my hunch.
Many thanks once again to the poster for exeptionally well presented facts.

You commence your post by saying, I quote..  "This is a great post , i just wanted to acknowledge it and the poster, who writes so much sense and is helping me understand this case."

Excellent sentiments so far but you then continue by totally ignoring the content of HiDeHo's post and reverting to your fixation about medical drug/experimentation.

You conclude your post by saying, I quote.. "Many thanks once again to the poster for exeptionally [sic.] well presented facts."

Excellent sentiments so far but HiDeHo's post does not contain fact - it is an analysis of documented information relevant to the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, presented in the form of opinion, theory and highlighting the many discrepancies.  HiDeHo winds-up her post by stating it is only her opinion.  A lot of water has passed under the bridge since HiDeHo posted that excellent summary nearly seven years ago.  If you want to get up to speed on the case it helps to follow more recent developments resulting from further research and analysis by HiDeHo and other well respected forum members.

HiDeHo never tries to lead anyone, she identifies and presents areas of doubt - indeed she is quite adamant about her purpose.

On my reading of the files, I am strongly beginning to suspect that something happened Madeleine  on Monday April 30^th – between approx. 3.45 pm and 5.00pm.
And I will attempt to tell you the reason I think this;
That Monday evening was to have been the ‘Women’s tennis’ from 6.30pm to 7.30pm.  (Not on file)
Fiona goes in to some detail (Rog) about that Women’ tennis night, who was there etc., but finishes up lamely (I think) by saying; “ but mostly it was our, it was our group and yeah, we all, we all sort of played each other really”. (She also goes along with it being on a Wednesday; 'Right. And Wednesday, to try and jog your memory, was the ladies tennis''
  Reply
 'Uh hu'.
Jane does not mention the women’s tennis when questioned about the Monday.  (Rog)
I find this quite strange as I believe that all women would enjoy (and remember) the men having to look after the children, and preparing them for bed.
Rachael (Rog) states ;
Yeah we went up, well erm but in the evenings, they had social tennis, which I think started at six thirty and went 'til seven thirty and after about the first, you know the Sunday and Monday night, nobody had really turned up and we said that we'd like to go but it wasn't a great time for us cos it was bath time and getting the kids ready for bed, so we asked them if they could move it forward, erm so they said they couldn't sort of bring it forward to five thirty but I think they brought it forward to six o'clock for us, erm and I think, so, so that on Thursday night it was mens social and erm, although I think it was probably about six thirty when we were still down at the beach, we've always kind of said, oh well you know, should we go to social tennis and we kind of said well you ought to because you know, they moved it deliberately for us, erm you know so that we could go, so you really ought to go up, erm so Matt, Dave and Russell headed back up to the apartments, I think that, it must have been about half six, quarter to seven, something like that, erm and you know we, we kind of followed, I don't know, ten or fifteen minutes later, I think the kids were eating their ice cream and erm, you know we came up after they'd finished, erm so we probably got up there about seven-ish or something, a bit after seven'. 
I believe they asked for the time change on the Tuesday, giving the above as an excuse for their absence. (Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday have a line drawn indicating the new time of 6pm to 7pm.)
I believe that none of the women of the group attended the women’s tennis that Monday evening.
Then, I ask myself, why did they not turn up?

Sorry - this bit also. The crèche records show Madeleine being signed out that Monday at 3.30pm by Kate.
(Perhaps for ‘an early bath’ by a doctor friend.)
Kate and Gerry return to the apartment, (perhaps to get something to eat, and change for the tennis,) and find Madeleine behind the sofa.
I believe in this scenario, that both parents would have been distraught, but especially Kate, who was then forcibly restrained by Gerry, and told to keep quiet.
I believe that one of their friends collected the twins, as neither parent would be in any fit state to.
The signature in the crèche records for Sean and Amelia (5.20pm), does not appear to be that of Kate’s.

I think that Peter Hyatt was spot on with his statement analysis on kate and gerry and her death was unintentional but happened in apartment few days before they raised the alarm which would give them lots of time to plan and conceal madeleine, they had to conceal the body as she would have had drugs in her system and also she perhaps had the signs of sexual abuse

William1 wrote:I have no doubt whatsoever that she died a number of days prior to her supposed 'abduction' - that the time in between death and 'abduction' was spent preparing, hiding, cleaning, deleting, fabricating - an illusion of her attending creche was created... we can roughly see time of death from when her parents first started to act 'abnormally.'

Its so simple really but maybe its better for the government to let it lie. But we can live in hope.

Absolutely, the situation with Madeleine saying mummy why were you not there when we woke up would indicate to a normal caring parent NOT to leave the children alone again, however they HAD to in order to then set up scenario of abduction although in doing so they make themselves look worse and completely selfish in , if in fact Madeleine did make that comment , why leave them alone again ??? just in case...