What do YOU think happened to Madeleine?

HiDeHo wrote:I would really like to see others' theories as they stand right now.

I don't think many of us establish a scenario and then make it fit.  I believe most of us look at the details and inconsistencies and look at why they exist and how they may impact the theory each of us believe may be possible.

It would give us the opportunity of other member's research and how it may compare to our own.

We must always have an open mind.  I see alternative beliefs held by members I respect and try to use their theories to compare, add or confirm what I believe may have happened.

I have changed my thoughts from those I held at the beginning.

I wrote this in March 2008, prior to the Rogatories. I find it interesting to see the amount of information that we had at the time regardless of the PJ secrecy.

Some of it is, of course, different to what we later discovered.



Title: What I Believe May Have Happened In STORY Form.

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

My theory is based on the discrepancies and inconsistencies, by scrutinising their statements (both early statements and Rogatories)

There are many strange 'activities' on Tuesday. Circumstances that do not seem to fit into a 'normal' week.

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

Tuesday contains a few curiosities (imo)

The maintenance men needing to fix the blinds and show Kate how to use the wahing machine.(Kate claims Gerry broke them on Sunday and they were fixed Monday - curiously, Matthew also claims to have broken his blinds on Sunday)

The trip to the beach with the description of 5 ice creams (as if to confirm how many people) and the strange 'in depth' description of the guitar player.(a possible suspect?)

They used a buggy they claimed they didn't have.

On their return at 2.30pm, Madeleine immediately went back to the beach for the ice cream trip and play on the beach with the creche! (is there a possibility of this activity being used as inspiration for the trip?)  ROB also signed Ella in at the same time.  Madeleine was not signed out that afternoon.

(There is always the possibility that some of these statements may be referring to another day)

Rachael's description of the mini tennis (Madeleine's group played on Tuesday) is attributed to Thursday in her statement where she also claims it was the last time she saw Madeleine.

I can understand her mixing up the days but to claim it was the last time she saw Madeleine leads me to believe that she is possibly lying about being at the tennis, in which case she would not be able to differentiate between the other group or Madeleine's group playing OR she didn't see Madeleine after Tuesday!

The interviewing officer also questioned her on which Court the children played an she described Court 1 confidently but the children in both groups played on Court 2 according to the tennis records. (This tells me they were questioning whether she really DID see Madeleine's tennis lesson)

Jez, Gerry and ROB all went to pick up their children at the same time at lunchtime, but ROB did not sign Ella out.

Ella was signed in (coincidentally) at the same time as Madeleine after her return from the beach and in the afternoon Madeleine was not signed out.

Are the records in the view of the nannies or can they be signed out of view?

At this point in the week Madeleine was just another child to look after and I question whether Catriona needed to be vigilant as to which children were present as, unlike a school atmosphere, children were not obliged to be there at any particular time.

No need to mention that Mrs Fenn heard the crying between 10.30pm and 11.45pm and Kate's mobile had a flurry of calls for the 15 minutes prior to the crying being heard. 10.16pm-10.27pm

Was Kate nearby or IN the apartment?

Were the calls related to the crying?

Was she in the tapas between 10.15 and 10.30?

Did she leave at 11.00 with Gerry?

Why didn't the quiz mistress recall seeing Kate or David Payne?  She noticed a place setting as if someone had left.

Why didn't anyone get up and check on the children between approx 9 and 10. According to the quiz mistress noone left the table while she was there.

Amelie was crying and Madeleine slept in parents room because Amelie was crying.

The cleaner saw a cot in their room the next morning but they deny it.

Was Madeleine sleeping in that cot?

Why were there early morning calls to Amanda around 7  in the morning?

So many questions, so few answers and of course proves nothing.

What it DOES show is that it is POSSIBLE something was being 'covered up' for that day. IMO

Wednesday shows very little activity from their statements.  Although they were asked specifically they gave very few details, despite the rain that morning that could have easily jogged their memory.

They seemed to avoid the day, except Jane Tanner who , in both her early statements, and her Rogatory statement seemed to attributed Tuesdays activities to this day and ROB corroborated her statement.

Dianne saw Kate and Gerry at breakfast even though they claimed to not go that week.

Thursday starts with Gerry and Kate unable to be specific about Madeleine's claim of who was crying and who she told.

Gerry, Fiona and Kate do not agree on who picked Madeleine up from the creche.

Catriona claimed that Gerry was not at high tea and yet Kate and Gerry claim he was there.

Kate claimed she carried Madeleine back to the apartment and Gerry opened the patio doors for them.

Gerry claimed they all went in through the front door.

Fiona was 'pressured' to admit that she does not know what David Payne did between 6pm and 7pm.  Why?
----------------------------------------------------

Taking all the above into account (and lots more) I feel there is something they were trying to hide, earlier in the week and I cannot help but wonder if this is because something happened to Madeleine.

I see the discrepancies start on Tuesday but there are also some questions about Monday. A day we know little about.

The last witness sighting of Madeleine was Sunday lunchtime by the cleaners daughter as they were leaving the apartment to (maybe) go to the Paynes for lunch.

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

On Monday, Madeleine was taken out of the creche after 15 minutes in the afternoon.  here were discussions about a trip to Sagres on Monday (though not sure they were valid, I feel it is worth keeping in mind)

The police continually asked whether they were seen in a car during the week.  Why would they ask if they did not suspect there was something 'untoward' happening?

My main theory is based on the above information.

The cleaners daughter seeing them go to the Paynes for lunch suggests they anticipated sharing lunchtimes together (as would be expected from a group of friends holidaying together)

To suddenly stop going to breakfast and join with the others at lunchtime suggests to me the possibility that if something had already happened to Madeleine that this would serve two purposes.

One would be for Kate to spend time grieving but also to allow less time for others to see that Madeleine was 'missing' (Dianne Webster) but also give the T7 the opportunity to not have to 'lie' about seeing Madeleine every day.

I really believe that this time was used to clean the apartment, grieve, and make preparations for the 'abduction', as well as to find a suitable spot to hide Madeleine's body (freezer).

Their phone records were deleted and I feel these contacts may have given a clue as to the activity needed for preparation.

Why delete phone calls if everything happened on Thursday night?

A quick summary is that something may have happened on Sunday/Monday.

Madeleine was fatally sick and whether rescusitation or death behind the sofa on Tuesday with the cot being used in the parents bedroom that night and Madeleine's bed showing no signs of being used (according to GA).

ROB, DP and Kate were not confirmed as present at the tapas on quiz night, the night of the crying.

Wednesday was used to make arrangements, therefore very little known apart from JT who claimed Tuesdays activities for that day.

Wednesday night they stayed at the tapas after hours (with waiters waiting to go home) to make last minute arrangements for the following night and to prepare them for a day that they would have to account for at a later time.

Thursday night was not about leaving the children alone, it was about the execution of the fake abduction.


IMO

GinevraGodwin wrote:That's a fair point and I agree entirely my own suggestion was spurious and not evidence based.

But, disregarding my own answer, the question of motive still stands. The wealth of information on here, all the meticulous research does very clearly point to the parents having some involvement. This seems to usually lead to the three key theories of how it came about being proposed. 1. Accident, 2 Parents sedated Madeleine leading to death, 3. Intentional murder (usually attributed to 'Satanism' or paedophilia.)

But there isn't a convincing case for any of them. The accidental death (which the Hall documentaries does very convincingly place on Sunday) fails to explain how grieving parents could have managed to hide their natural responses to the death of their child for several days. 

The paedophile suggestion (which although might explain the cover up) fails to explain why the twins were not taken from the parents.

It is the question of motive that interests me most. If I have missed any threads suggesting a premeditated motive that doesn't involve the McCanns being paedophiles or Satanists then I'd be very grateful for a link.

GinevraGodwin wrote:Ok then let me ask my question in a different way without proposing any suggestions or theories of my own:

Are there any links/existing theories I could be pointed to that discuss possible premeditation relating to the case?

GinevraGodwin wrote:The correct spelling in this context should have been 'your'.

At least get the basics right if you are going to criticise other people. 
It will give you more 'credibility'.

GinevraGodwin wrote:The correct spelling in this context should have been 'your'.

At least get the basics right if you are going to criticise other people. 
It will give you more 'credibility'.

GinevraGodwin wrote:
Are there any links/existing theories I could be pointed to that discuss possible premeditation relating to the case?

coati mundi wrote:I would be interested to read TB's full opinion on this. though I do understand the constraint upon him.