Accident or accidentally on purpose

by jacquidawn 14.06.11 14:11

Hello, If we all think that she died in the apartment, well the dogs seem to think someone died in the apartment, how? is my next question.

For them to go to such lengths as to create a whole abduction plot, they must have felt that they would be held accountable, thus putting their whole future in doubt.

So when was the last time Maddie was seen alive by anyone?

Do you think she was drugged by her parents, to induce sleep so that they could go out. Has this ever been proved with hair tests on the twins???

I think most of you believe it was something like this, but even so I would have expected more emotion, more grief. Has anyone toyed with the idea that something more sinister could be at play. The door was left open, is that an invitation for things to happen?

There seems to be such a lack of empathy for Maddie, whatever happened to her. The abduction scenerio is probably one of the most appalling, because anything could have happened to her. As a mother myself, I'm not sure I would be able to function at all....let alone write a book about the whole thing.

We have all heard stories of how children can be passed from individual to individual (Sorry, but someone has got to bring it up regardless of how awful it is. I don't want to offend anyone). This seems a tight little group of professional people, people who on the face of it, must know leaving children home alone is just not done!

by The Shelfstacker 14.06.11 16:40

Even at this juncture, over four years down the line, I'm not sure that speculation helps. All it serves to do is fill in the gaps in established knowledge with subjective opinion. And there are still many gaps.

Personally I am satisfied on the evidence that the parents are concealing something of major, game-changing importance to this case, whether willingly or by coercion. I am satisfied beyond all reasonable doubt, if that is the right test to apply, that they know precisely what happened to their daughter. I am satisfied on the evidence that they are party to a conspiracy to conceal the truth. The evidence so far in the public domain in my opinion establishes that sadly the child is no longer alive, at least to the standard of on the balance of probabilities. What I am not satisfied on, on the evidence, is the level of parental involvement, complicity, in Madeleine's death, or the manner thereof.

by Guest 14.06.11 17:07

In all my considerable number of years on this planet, I have never known a case like this which has attracted so much interest and speculation. I agree with The Shelfstacker that the latter doesn't necessarily help but I feel that it's human nature to try to find some rhyme and reason to explain what might have happened. Personally I find the setting up of the website and the limited company in just about the minimum time possible rather worrying. Leaving aside the question of what "normal" bereft parents would even think of doing such things in the first place, it does suggest to me an element of preparing some of the ground work in advance. To have gone to the trouble of setting up these commercial money making ventures, when Madeleine could have been found at any moment making them completely redundant, leads me to no other conclusion than that the McCanns knew exactly what had happened to her and that there was no possibility that she would ever be found.

by The Shelfstacker 14.06.11 17:25

Absolutely agree Marian.

I also agree that it's the little things that niggle, it's the smallest of things that resonates most loudly and flag up that something is not right.

For me, there are three. 1: washing Cuddlecat when they heard the dogs were on their way. 2: Those passport pictures. 3: The video from the airport transfer bus.

Other people may have other bugbears.

I don't know what's going on but whatever it is, it's not usual and it's not straightforward.

by Guest 14.06.11 17:37

Yes, there are so many bones of contention here. Some of them if taken in isolation may well have no significance or may have been misrepresented, but when looking at everything overall, there is something very wrong. This feeling of "what aren't they telling us?" is only reinforced in my mind by the lengths to which some of their supporters and the McCanns themselves go to discredit the doubters.

by poppydog 14.06.11 21:07

The passport pictures really bug me too. Neither of those photos are acceptable, smiling, mouth open and Kate being side on. I see Gerry's expires 2014, so would have been issued in 2004 when the rules were definately strictly enforced, even if Kate's earlier passport wasn't. I know there was a thread earlier about this but I can't seem to find it. Was it established that the passports were issued in this country? To me, that doesn't even look like Gerry's mouth, or teeth.

I still feel money is at the root of this. The campaign was too slick, too quick, the wider agenda too contrived. The smiles outside church chill me, and there response when Sandra F asked about sightings they took a second look at gives the game away as far as I'm concerned.

by Guest 14.06.11 21:18

poppydog wrote:The passport pictures really bug me too. Neither of those photos are acceptable, smiling, mouth open and Kate being side on. I see Gerry's expires 2014, so would have been issued in 2004 when the rules were definately strictly enforced, even if Kate's earlier passport wasn't. I know there was a thread earlier about this but I can't seem to find it. Was it established that the passports were issued in this country? To me, that doesn't even look like Gerry's mouth, or teeth.

I still feel money is at the root of this. The campaign was too slick, too quick, the wider agenda too contrived. The smiles outside church chill me, and there response when Sandra F asked about sightings they took a second look at gives the game away as far as I'm concerned.

Hi poppydog,

The posts about the passport photos are on Page 3 of the Photographs and Memories Thread, in the McCann Case - Important Information Forum.

by poppydog 14.06.11 21:37

Accident or accidentally on purpose 636506

Thanks Candyfloss.

by **Tony Bennett** 14.06.11 22:24

jacquidawn wrote:Hello, If we all think that she died in the apartment, well the dogs seem to think someone died in the apartment, how? is my next question.

For them to go to such lengths as to create a whole abduction plot, they must have felt that they would be held accountable, thus putting their whole future in doubt.

So when was the last time Maddie was seen alive by anyone?

Do you think she was drugged by her parents, to induce sleep so that they could go out. Has this ever been proved with hair tests on the twins???

I think most of you believe it was something like this, but even so I would have expected more emotion, more grief. Has anyone toyed with the idea that something more sinister could be at play. The door was left open, is that an invitation for things to happen?

There seems to be such a lack of empathy for Maddie, whatever happened to her. The abduction scenario is probably one of the most appalling, because anything could have happened to her. As a mother myself, I'm not sure I would be able to function at all...let alone write a book about the whole thing.

We have all heard stories of how children can be passed from individual to individual (Sorry, but someone has got to bring it up regardless of how awful it is. I don't want to offend anyone). This seems a tight little group of professional people, people who on the face of it, must know leaving children home alone is just not done!

Thank you jacquidawn for starting an interesting discussion and thank you shelfstacker for an excellent and careful response and also Marian for the same.

To answer this question of yours: "So when was the last time Maddie was seen alive by anyone?"

...let me resurrect an analysis I did almost three years ago which examines the alleged eight sightings of Madeleine on Thursday 3 May (the date she was reported missing). It may have to be revised in matters of detail, three years on, but I think the general point is sound, namely that all the claimed sightings are suspect. I believe that HideHo has done some very good work on this.

Goncalo Amaral in his book relies on one of the creche workers telling the truth about the McCanns having high tea with the staff and the children at around 5.30pm, but with the benefit of analysis carried out by various people since Mr Amaral published his book, I think now there is real doubt about whether she was telling the truth.

Here's my analysis of the eight sightings:

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

THE EIGHT CLAIMED ‘SIGHTINGS OF MADELEINE MCCANN ON 3^RD MAY 2007 – AND WHY NONE OF THEM MAY BE GENUINE

By Tony Bennett, 4 September 2008

This is a revision of a document I compiled earlier in the year, when I maintained that not one of the claimed eight ‘sightings’ of Madeleine on 3^rd May was beyond doubt. Since I first compiled this analysis, further information has come to light, for example from the Portuguese police files, from Goncalo Amaral’s book, and from newspaper articles like the News of the World’s publication of a CCTV image from the Paraiso restaurant, taken some time between 5.00pm and 5.59pm. I have revised my analysis, always accepting that still more information may come to light.

This article is not copyright, but acknowledgement is always welcome. In turn I acknowledge the many contributors on Madeleine forums whose information and ideas have helped me to compile my analysis.

There may be mistakes in the analysis. I apologise if there are; it is difficult to keep track of all the evidence, reports, statements and claims made in this very murky affair. If anyone has corrections or additions, I shall receive them gratefully.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

1. The register of who was at the kids’ club/creche that day is said to show that Madeleine attended

ANSWER: The register has not been produced, and a false entry could easily have been created by Ms Pennington (or someone else) on 3rd May. It is equally possible that record-keeping at the crèche was haphazard. Ms Pennington was I think a family friend who had known the McCanns from their time in New Zealand.

2. The ‘last photo’ of Madeline at 2.29pm on 3rd May

ANSWER: There is only one claimed photo of Madeleine taken on 3^rd May - the notorious ‘2.29pm’ photo. Gerry McCann himself has admitted that this time might be wrong by one hour because of the time difference, taking into account Portuguese time and summer time. It is highly suspicious that the McCanns did not release this digital photo for 3 whole weeks after Madeleine ‘disappeared’. It could have been published within hours. There is a very strong suggestion - amounting in the eyes of some experts to absolute truth - that this ‘last photo’ could be a ‘photoshopped’ forgery, see e.g. ]www.truthformadeleine.com. It was published only after Gerry McCann made a strange visit to England, on his own, during may 2007. He took with him Kate McCann’s digital camera, which is the one the couple were using to take pictures whilst on holiday.

3. Charlotte Pennington, the nanny, having seen Madeleine having high tea with her mother at c. 5.30pm to 6pm

ANSWER: I previously wrote this: “There are a number of reasons for doubting whether Ms Pennington is a witness of truth. Her story has varied from one account to another. Her on-the-record interview for the ‘Daily Mail’ in October was also evasive and vague at key points. Her account also conflicts with other accounts of where Madeleine was at this time”. I have now seen Charlotte Pennington’s statement to the Portuguese police and I note in particular that she is not able to state where she is supposed to have had this ‘high tea’ with Madeleine and the children, except to say that it was ‘somewhere near the Tapas bar’. On an issue as important as whether or not Madeleine was alive or not at that time, this is far too important a detail about which to be so vague. Her account also conflicts with accounts of Kate McCann going for a jog at between 4.30pm and 5.30pm and with accounts by some of the ‘Tapas 9’ that they were on the beach at 5.20pm, and saw Kate jogging

4. Another nanny, Catriona Baker, claimed to have seen Madeleine on 3 May at the kids’ club/crèche. Her statement, now disclosed by the Portuguese police, contains this key statement about having seen Madeleine during 3 May: “On May 3, 2007 she remembers that Gerry McCann took Madeleine to the crèche, between 9:15/9:20 am. She doesn't remember who took Madeleine out from the “Minis Club”, for lunch, that day. Around 2:45 pm, Madeleine went back from lunch, but Catriona doesn't remember who took her to the crèche. In the afternoon, the children went swimming. Between 3:35/6:00 pm, May 3, Kate went to the area near Tapas Bar, and she took Madeleine with her. Kate was using a sporting outfit and Catriona thought she has been jogging. She believes Gerry was playing tennis”.

ANSWER: Catriona Baker claims to have seen Madeleine during the morning crèche session and again from 'around 2.45pm to 3.35pm'. Now if you look at the Daily Mail , it says:

"Ms Baker revealed to one friend - spoken to by this newspaper - that she told Portuguese police of a man she saw acting strangely near the apartments in the days leading up to Madeleine's disappearance on May 3". The McCanns have made great use of that.

Some points about Catriona Baker's and Charlotte Pennington's stories:

(a) The other nanny, Charlotte Pennington, claimed that Madeleine was in the creche during the afternoon

(b) The other nanny, Charlotte Pennington, claimed to have had 'high tea' with Kate and all three children 'somewhere near the Tapas bar' at around 5.50pm.6.00pm [NB this is significant because she would not say exactly where]

(c) It conflicts with other statements including one from Gerry that he and Kate were at the tennis court between 3.30pm and 4.30pm - while Gerry was playing with 'Julian'

(d) It conflicts with Kate's statement that she left Gerry on the tennis courts at around 4.30pm to go jogging

(e) It conflicts with statements by at least two of the 'Tapas 9' that they saw Kate jogging on the beach at around 5.20pm and waved to her.

5. The CCTV video of Gerry and the family at the El Paraiso restaurant, produced by Miguel Matias

ANSWER: I previously wrote this: “Matias was comprehensively exposed by a Portuguese journalist and newspaper as a serial con-man and fraudster known to the Portuguese police. Even before he was exposed, he had ‘rowed back’ from his earlier claims, admitting that the video was ‘grainy’ and ‘may not have been the McCanns after all’.” My suspicion has been proved absolutely correct now that the Portuguese police has produced CCTV images from the Paraiso and the News of the World has reproduced a still image from the CCTV. By all accounts, neither the McCanns nor any of their children are on that CCTV. That disposes of all those earlier accounts of the McCanns being seen at the Paraiso and Gerry McCann dancing with the children etc.

6. David Payne claiming to have seen Madeleine being put to bed at around 6.30pm on 3rd May

ANSWER: Previously I wrote: “An unlikely story - again with many variations as to the time he went to the apartment and the reason he did so. The reasons why this story is unlikely to be true have been aired and on many Madeleine forums”. It is worth noting that Dr David Payne and those speaking for him did not publicly claim that he had seen the children being put to bed until 24 September 2007 - 144 days after Madeleine had ‘disappeared’. And that was in response to the British press openly discussing the so-called ‘missing six hours’ in the afternoon and evening of 3^rd May when the Portuguese police were saying that no-one but the McCanns had seen Madeleine during this time. Now we have reports on the one hand that he knocked on the door, Kate came to the door naked except with a towel round her, and he left 30 seconds later, and on the other hand that he stayed for half-an-hour or so, and saw all the three children already tired and ready for bed, dressed in white, and ‘looking like angels’. Both accounts cannot be right. In all probability, therefore, neither of them is right. David Payne’s claim is deeply suspect

7. Gerry McCann’s ‘check’ on the children at 9.05 to 9.10

ANSWER: This ‘sighting’ has been subject to numerous changes since it was first claimed. The latest version has Gerry McCann going in to all four rooms in the apartment during his brief check, going to the loo (for quite a long time!) and failing to notice an abductor hiding behind one of the doors, or in a wardrobe or under the bed. In addition he claims that he looked lovingly down at Madeleine thinking how very lucky he was to have such a beautiful daughter - while, according to the thoughts of Gerry McCann, the abductor may have been breathing noiselessly in the very same room. These statements of Gerry McCann are all self-serving statements after the event and consequently of little or no evidential value, especially given so many other doubts as to whether Gerry McCann is a witness of truth. The credibility of this whole claimed ‘check’ is now surely close to zero

8. Matthew Oldfield’s check on the children at 9.30pm

ANSWER: It is not really certain whether this is a true ‘sighting’ as Matthew Oldfield doesn’t claim to have seen all the children, only to have peeped into the children’s room. He says he saw the twins in their cot but not Madeleine, because he didn’t pop his head round quite far enough. He also claims to have noticed that the apartment ’looked strangely lighter’ than earlier in the evening, which is somewhat difficult to believe, as between 9.00pm and 9.30pm it had gone from dusk to dark. He claimed he had listened outside the apartment at around 8.55pm/9.00pm. Quite why he had to check when he checked at 9.00pm, Gerry McCann did again at 9.10pm and had only just returned to the Tapas bar at 9.25pm, has never been satisfactorily explained. His claimed ‘check’ looks to be no more than a crude and McCann-serving attempt to bolster the claim that the alleged abductor removed Madeleine from the apartment at about 9.15pm. In any case, he admits he did not see Madeleine.

by jacquidawn 14.06.11 22:56

I am eager to find out why Gerry checked so soon after Matthew. In the witness statement this was the first time that Matthew had checked someone else's children ( I hope am right about that bit !) and he was a bit miffed that Gerry checked almost straight away again. I wondered whether he was meant to have found her missing, and when he came back and everything was fine, gerry had to go off to think!! It would have to be down to one of them to find her missing. The plan changed.
I was surprised to hear on here that the children cried for over an hour on one night, that doesn't sound like regular checking to me.
Also Kate mentioning the crying kinda makes me think of someone planting ideas into other people's heads.

Do you think it is possible that some or all of the group have been duped into carrying on the game ( for want of a better word).

Thanks agin for helping me to understand this case. Accident or accidentally on purpose 160807

Accident or accidentally on purpose 160807

by **Tony Bennett** 14.06.11 23:19

jacquidawn wrote:I am eager to find out why Gerry checked so soon after Matthew. In the witness statement this was the first time that Matthew had checked someone else's children (I hope am right about that bit !) and he was a bit miffed that Gerry checked almost straight away again.

REPLY: Is it possible that they were all arranging the 'abduction scene' in Room G5A? - look at how much time, in total, the men were away from the table.

I wondered whether he was meant to have found her missing, and when he came back and everything was fine, Gerry had to go off to think!! It would have to be down to one of them to find her missing. The plan changed.

REPLY: I think it may be best to regard most of their accounts of what happened late that afternoon and evening as sheer fabrication.

I was surprised to hear on here that the children cried for over an hour on one night, that doesn't sound like regular checking to me.

REPLY: The McCanns have denied this, putting up as a witness their friend Rachael Oldfield/Mampilly who claims she was in the room next door in her flat and heard nothing. It was the late Mrs Pamela Fenn, then a widow aged 82, who said she heard Madeleine crying from 10.30pm to 11.45pm on Tuesday 1 May. Some people think this may not have been Madeleine but could have been another child or even Dr Kate McCann (that's a whole other story).

Also Kate mentioning the crying kinda makes me think of someone planting ideas into other people's heads.

Do you think it is possible that some or all of the group have been duped into carrying on the game (for want of a better word).

REPLY: No. IMO the evidence suggests they all knew fine well what had happened and were determined to back the McCanns' story.

Thanks agin for helping me to understand this case.