Where Would Body Be Hidden

by sijm 30.11.11 19:09

Excuse me, but did'nt I read somewhere that Kate's friend Amanda's husband was a pathologist or

was it just a rumour?

by Maive 30.11.11 21:31

sijm wrote:Excuse me, but did'nt I read somewhere that Kate's friend Amanda's husband was a pathologist or

was it just a rumour?

I have read that too. But what is bugging me is that Kate called her friend (whose husband is a pathologist) the early morning of May 3rd. So, this theory involves that Maddie was already dead before that time (and that she didn't die during the evening of May 3rd).

by Guest 30.11.11 21:50

Amanda`s husband is a chemical pathologist i.e a scientist not a medic. But chem pathologists work closely with the medical profession.

From memory, the early morning calls to Amanda were on the morning of the 2nd, not the 3rd.

In other words, the morning after her flurry of evening text messages on the 1st.

Please correct my memory if necessary!!

by Maive 30.11.11 22:43

alison wrote:Amanda`s husband is a chemical pathologist i.e a scientist not a medic. But chem pathologists work closely with the medical profession.

From memory, the early morning calls to Amanda were on the morning of the 2nd, not the 3rd.

In other words, the morning after her flurry of evening text messages on the 1st.

Please correct my memory if necessary!!

Ok, thanks, I was wrong!

But anyway, that call was made before the «official» alert that Madeleine was «missing» so it's very suspicious.. I have always thought that Madeleine died in the early evening of May 3rd but that specific phone call makes me wondering that maybe she died earlier. Also, if you add that flurry of text messages on the 1st (which I didn't know), things become very very suspicious, at the least..

Moreover, we have that crying episode from Madeleine during the night of May 2nd. Maybe Kate killed Madeleine in a moment of rage. I remember have read that Madeleine stopped crying abruptly that night...

But something doesn't work.. The flurry of text messages (May 1st) can not be related to the case if Madeleine was still alive the night of May 2nd (crying episode). Is it possible that the crying episode happened the night of May 1st?

by Guest 30.11.11 23:50

The crying episode did happen on Tuesday 1st May, although the Mccanns did suggest that Madeleine had cried on the night of the 2nd. ( Mummy, why didn`t you come when we were crying). A number of people think that the Mccanns invented this story to make it look as if Madeleine was definitely alive on 3rd May.

Maeve - if you look at the threads on this forum on the creche records; the photographs and the phone records, you will see a considerable amount of discussion on the possibility that something happened to Madeleine before 3rd May.

by Maive 01.12.11 0:16

alison wrote:The crying episode did happen on Tuesday 1st May, although the Mccanns did suggest that Madeleine had cried on the night of the 2nd. ( Mummy, why didn`t you come when we were crying). A number of people think that the Mccanns invented this story to make it look as if Madeleine was definitely alive on 3rd May.

Maeve - if you look at the threads on this forum on the creche records; the photographs and the phone records, you will see a considerable amount of discussion on the possibility that something happened to Madeleine before 3rd May.

MY GOD!!!!!!! I was always wondering WHY (for God sake WHY) they keep saying that (Mummy, why didn`t you come when we were crying) because it was not very positive for them and quite frankly unnecessary.. Now I understand... EVIL couple..

Yes I have read all that information but I was a fan of the simpliest explanation.. Why? Because I thought that the cover up was so bad that it was probably made in hurry.. But now I have changed my mind.. Too much things point out the fact that she died before May 3rd. You have a new member in your club [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Is someone has read about a visit (from a family member) that they have the early morning of May 3rd? Am I wrong about that?

So in that case, the Smiths sighting was not related to the case?

Such a complicated case..

by jd 01.12.11 2:09

Maive wrote:
So in that case, the Smiths sighting was not related to the case? .

I believe without any hesitation that the Smith sighting was set up by Murat to give him an alibi for when he was made suspect. There is a topic on here which explains why

by finch 01.12.11 10:46

jd wrote:
Maive wrote:
So in that case, the Smiths sighting was not related to the case? .

I believe without any hesitation that the Smith sighting was set up by Murat to give him an alibi for when he was made suspect. There is a topic on here which explains why

Hi jd, I'm new here and didn't read all the posts yet. This one I find interesting though. Could you please point me to that topic? Thanks.

by pennylane 01.12.11 11:01

jd wrote:
Maive wrote:
So in that case, the Smiths sighting was not related to the case? .

I believe without any hesitation that the Smith sighting was set up by Murat to give him an alibi for when he was made suspect. There is a topic on here which explains why

Morning jd [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Do you believe RM knew GM, in some capacity, prior to fateful holiday?

by aiyoyo 01.12.11 11:37

Maive wrote:
alison wrote:The crying episode did happen on Tuesday 1st May, although the Mccanns did suggest that Madeleine had cried on the night of the 2nd. ( Mummy, why didn`t you come when we were crying). A number of people think that the Mccanns invented this story to make it look as if Madeleine was definitely alive on 3rd May.

Maeve - if you look at the threads on this forum on the creche records; the photographs and the phone records, you will see a considerable amount of discussion on the possibility that something happened to Madeleine before 3rd May.

MY GOD!!!!!!! I was always wondering WHY (for God sake WHY) they keep saying that (Mummy, why didn`t you come when we were crying) because it was not very positive for them and quite frankly unnecessary.. Now I understand... EVIL couple..

[i]I think they want to create a false impression that the ABDUCTOR MADE A DRY RUN; at the same time offer the reason why her children were heard crying - not because they found themselves neglected and frightened but because they were disturbed. Evil alright. [/i

Yes I have read all that information but I was a fan of the simpliest explanation.. Why? Because I thought that the cover up was so bad that it was probably made in hurry.. But now I have changed my mind.. Too much things point out the fact that she died before May 3rd. You have a new member in your club [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Is someone has read about a visit (from a family member) that they have the early morning of May 3rd? Am I wrong about that?

So in that case, the Smiths sighting was not related to the case?

Such a complicated case..

by jd 01.12.11 11:39

Morning Pennylane and Finch

Yes I totally believe GM and RM knew each other prior to the holiday without question. Gm said 'no comment' when asked if he knew him, and we have Murat less than half a mile away from jane tanners house the week before the holiday..more than a mere coincidence I think in more ways than one

As for Smith, he said nothing to anyone for over 2 weeks, this despite the mccann scam being the only story in the news for all that time. Then a couple of days after Lori Campbell gets Murat as a suspect, Smith suddenly remembers his 'sighting'. If you read Smith's statement, he can not remember anything or be positive about anything except for one thing...that the man he saw with the child definitely was not Murat. This was the only thing he could be positive about

This despite the fact he says he had only ever seen Murat once in his life, which was a year or 2 previously in a bar one night and thats it. So how could he be so 100% positive it was not him he saw on the night of 3rd May 2007 and why is this 'the' only positive thing he can say in his statements....I think we know why!

Then a few months later when the mccanns were being touted as suspects, Smith appears again and suddenly remembers that he is 80% sure it was GM he saw that night, the image of GM coming down the steps off an easyjet plane reminded him of this. there appears to be some internal fighting amongst themselves and for whatever reason they were trying to pin the blame on Murat and he acted to defend himself

After Kennedy had his private rendez-vous with Murat in November (I think), Murat goes very quiet, takes his compensation money and all but disappears. mmmmmmmm. And a little about Murats history, his father all but built the area around Ocean club and Murat is a main player in the region. His cousin, Angus Symington, is also a part owner of Ocean Club. I am sure these connections go back years in business terms and all these creatures knew each other long before 2007

As Murat say says himself "this is one of the biggest c**kups in history'......

by finch 01.12.11 12:21

Thanks jd. The timing Campbell/Smith is indeed suspicious. I never linked this together. There is one minor mistake in your comment though, nothing really important I guess, but I read the Smith statement again and he saw Murat twice. Not that it makes much difference.

by pennylane 01.12.11 12:29

Hi jd, thank you for your excellent explanation of how you have arrived at your conclusions. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

I agree with you that RM and GM knew each other in some capacity prior to the hols. I am not convinced however that the Smith's were hustled up to create a devious reason to assist RM. It simply doesn't make sense to identify GM the way they did if their soul purpose was to free up RM from being connected to the disappearance. If GM & RM knew each other in some capacity prior to the hols, this would only serve to further implicate RM, albeit along with GM, following such a vital lie on both their parts. Thus I do not believe it would help RM in any way if the investigation deepened.

Could it be that the Smith's did not want to get involved as (possibly) the main witnesses to the abduction.... but their consciences got the better of them when they realised an innocent man was getting set up? Just a thought.

I prefer the simplest explanations, but I do believe there is a big piece of the puzzle missing regarding all those doctors being on that holiday, hence I believe the fine-tuned examination of the bookings, and crèche records, etc, to be immensely valuable.

I agree with your last para also:

"After Kennedy had his private rendez-vous with Murat in November (I
think), Murat goes very quiet, takes his compensation money and all but
disappears. mmmmmmmm. And a little about Murats history, his father all
but built the area around Ocean club and Murat is a main player in the
region. His cousin, Angus Symington, is also a part owner of Ocean Club.
I am sure these connections go back years in business terms and all
these creatures knew each other long before 2007" [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

by Guest 01.12.11 12:53

pennylane wrote:It simply doesn't make sense to identify GM the way they did if their soul purpose was to free up RM from being connected to the disappearance.

It does to me. RM was being fingered as bundleman. The Smith sighting confirms 'on record', it was not RM. By claiming it was GM, who already had an alibi and was therefore safe, means RM is now well and truly off the hook. This would not have happened if Smith had not come forward to make an 'official police statement'.

If GM & RM knew each other in some capacity prior to the hols, this would only serve to further implicate RM, albeit along with GM, following such a vital lie on both their parts. Thus I do not believe it would help RM in any way if the investigation deepened.
The question to both of them should have been, did they know each other before 10pm on May 3rd and 'not', 'prior to that holiday'? As they might have only met each other for the first time around May 1st. Change the question, you might get a different result. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

by jd 01.12.11 13:06

Smith has an apartment in PDL (not in Ocean Club) and goes there at least 3/4 times a year. Being a small community, I think it is highly unlikely that Smith didn't know Murat or at the very least know well of him

by jd 01.12.11 13:09

Stella wrote:
pennylane wrote:It simply doesn't make sense to identify GM the way they did if their soul purpose was to free up RM from being connected to the disappearance.

It does to me. RM was being fingered as bundleman. The Smith sighting confirms 'on record', it was not RM. By claiming it was GM, who already had an alibi and was therefore safe, means RM is now well and truly off the hook. This would not have happened if Smith had not come forward to make an 'official police statement'.

If GM & RM knew each other in some capacity prior to the hols, this would only serve to further implicate RM, albeit along with GM, following such a vital lie on both their parts. Thus I do not believe it would help RM in any way if the investigation deepened.
The question to both of them should have been, did they know each other before 10pm on May 3rd and 'not', 'prior to that holiday'? As they might have only met each other for the first time around May 1st. Change the question, you might get a different result. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Exactly...and lets not forget the identical mobile phone activity of GM and RM from the day Murat arrived back in PDL on May 1st...And Murats 30 second call to Malinka whom he hadn't spoken to a year (apparently) 20 mins after kate raised the alarm

by pennylane 01.12.11 13:29

Stella wrote:
pennylane wrote:It simply doesn't make sense to identify GM the way they did if their soul purpose was to free up RM from being connected to the disappearance.

It does to me. RM was being fingered as bundleman. The Smith sighting confirms 'on record', it was not RM. By claiming it was GM, who already had an alibi and was therefore safe, means RM is now well and truly off the hook. This would not have happened if Smith had not come forward to make an 'official police statement'.

If GM & RM knew each other in some capacity prior to the hols, this would only serve to further implicate RM, albeit along with GM, following such a vital lie on both their parts. Thus I do not believe it would help RM in any way if the investigation deepened.
The question to both of them should have been, did they know each other before 10pm on May 3rd and 'not', 'prior to that holiday'? As they might have only met each other for the first time around May 1st. Change the question, you might get a different result. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Hi Stella, thank you for your reply,

GM's alleged 'alibi' is only offered up by his close friend that may also be involved in the crime, so I disagree that GM was 'safe' and RM would be 'off the hook,' in any way. GM could have still been arrested and charged at that juncture, as could JT for that matter.

I totally agree with your second reply, in that the method of questioning could have (and indeed should have) been far more calculating and deviously applied, as should the manner in which all the tapasniks were questioned. Unfortunately they were all "treated with tweazers."

by pennylane 01.12.11 13:30

jd wrote:
Stella wrote:
pennylane wrote:It simply doesn't make sense to identify GM the way they did if their soul purpose was to free up RM from being connected to the disappearance.

It does to me. RM was being fingered as bundleman. The Smith sighting confirms 'on record', it was not RM. By claiming it was GM, who already had an alibi and was therefore safe, means RM is now well and truly off the hook. This would not have happened if Smith had not come forward to make an 'official police statement'.

If GM & RM knew each other in some capacity prior to the hols, this would only serve to further implicate RM, albeit along with GM, following such a vital lie on both their parts. Thus I do not believe it would help RM in any way if the investigation deepened.
The question to both of them should have been, did they know each other before 10pm on May 3rd and 'not', 'prior to that holiday'? As they might have only met each other for the first time around May 1st. Change the question, you might get a different result. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Exactly...and lets not forget the identical mobile phone activity of GM and RM from the day Murat arrived back in PDL on May 1st...And Murats 30 second call to Malinka whom he hadn't spoken to a year (apparently) 20 mins after kate raised the alarm

I agree jd, there is a link between Murat, Malinka and McCann. I've always believed that to be so, and thus far have seen nothing to alter my opinion.

by jd 01.12.11 14:51

pennylane wrote: I agree jd, there is a link between Murat, Malinka and McCann. I've always believed that to be so, and thus far have seen nothing to alter my opinion.

I believe so too...its all a bit too obvious really isn't it!!! And then there was Malinka's car blown up a few months later with writing on it to warn him...can't remember exactly what the words were, they might have been 'tell the truth' or something

by Guest 01.12.11 15:22

I believe it was "fala", which is 'talk', in red paint.

Perhaps not telling him to talk, but rather a warning what will happen if he does !!

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

by jd 01.12.11 16:07

Thanks Stella I couldn't remember exactly what was painted

Someone was clearly worried to do something extreme like this

by truthseeker 18.12.11 0:51

Did the dogs Eddie and Keela also examine apartment 4G (where the McCanns moved to immediately after leaving 5A, and before renting the villa)?

by sijm 19.12.11 21:11

Hi TruthSeeker!

Could not help noticing how the Priests Hubbard's wife, when advertising thier appartment for rent later in 2007, she stated new beds and new fridge,

Did.nt the McCanns spend time there, I wonder who bought the fridge and beds, was it the McCanns when they left?

Pretty sure there was some talk about GM taking a fridge to the the tip?

Amaral did say he thought there was an indication in the car that Madeleine's body may have been frozen and that the evidence, such as fluids in the car suggested this

by Daisy 19.12.11 22:19

sijm wrote:Hi TruthSeeker!

Could not help noticing how the Priests Hubbard's wife, when advertising thier appartment for rent later in 2007, she stated new beds and new fridge,

Did.nt the McCanns spend time there, I wonder who bought the fridge and beds, was it the McCanns when they left?

Pretty sure there was some talk about GM taking a fridge to the the tip?

Amaral did say he thought there was an indication in the car that Madeleine's body may have been frozen and that the evidence, such as fluids in the car suggested this

Ooooooh! I wonder [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] Hmmmm... very interesting sijm. I'll go off and investigate your info right now! I'll let you know if I find owt. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

by Pershing36 19.12.11 22:50

Sijm you may have answered some questions I had a few weeks back. The PJ talked about a body being frozen but as far as I could see there was no lead to where this could have taken place. Also the talk about the freezer and the dump never made sense unless somebody could say were the freezer might have come from, I really can't believe the apartments.

I am sure I have read somewhere that they had the keys to the church for awhile so they must have been on good terms whilst they were in Portugal.

There are some Hubbard's renting an apartment in PDL who live in Gloucestershire. Looking at the description it is in the Ocean club.

Just want to state this is just the same surname!!