Do Not Muzzle The Ox That Treads The Corn.

by Snifferdog 16.05.12 9:41

If you really want to have any hope of discovering what happened to Madeleine Mccann it would be self limiting to discount any theory until it can be disproved. Many crimes would never be solved if this were the case. The PJ were hampered in their quest as they were refused important information by the British Police. If we let our emotions and feelings dictate our analytical mind we severely limit our vision. What we may or may not do if we had to be in the mccs shoes is irrelevant. Some say a theory is impossible as "they cannot understand someone doing such and such, and so therefore it could not have happened this way". It is human nature to try and protect a conclusion that one has drawn. We have to get over this tendency. Test every theory, then try and disprove it with the circumstances and facts we know, and eventually we will be left with a plausible one with no holes. It should be evident by now that we cannot wholly trust the creche records and anything that comes out of TM mouths as they are proven liars. All progress comes from truth an open mind and a willingness to think laterally. If this were not so we would still think the earth was flat, and perhaps not even have invented the wheel. I have posted up a theory in the form of a "book to be written" posted under 'Brand New Theory: A Diabolical Mcplan Uncovered', and had hoped that someone on this forum would debate it with me, even rip it apart with good arguments. After all a forum is like a huge debating circle. Come on guys and girls I want to be proved right or wrong! I just want to add that what makes me think that her disappearance is preplanned is the niggling fact that the posters were ready and printed in the same evening that she supposedly disappeared. Where did they get the photographic paper from, and where were the posters printed then? [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

by Liz Eagles 16.05.12 9:54

Snifferdog wrote:If you really want to have any hope of discovering what happened to Madeleine Mccann it would be self limiting to discount any theory until it can be disproved. Many crimes would never be solved if this were the case. The PJ were hampered in their quest as they were refused important information by the British Police. If we let our emotions and feelings dictate our analytical mind we severely limit our vision. What we may or may not do if we had to be in the mccs shoes is irrelevant. Some say a theory is impossible as "they cannot understand someone doing such and such, and so therefore it could not have happened this way". It is human nature to try and protect a conclusion that one has drawn. We have to get over this tendency. Test every theory, then try and disprove it with the circumstances and facts we know, and eventually we will be left with a plausible one with no holes. It should be evident by now that we cannot wholly trust the creche records and anything that comes out of TM mouths as they are proven liars. All progress comes from truth an open mind and a willingness to think laterally. If this were not so we would still think the earth was flat, and perhaps not even have invented the wheel. I have posted up a theory in the form of a "book to be written" posted under 'Brand New Theory: A Diabolical Mcplan Uncovered', and had hoped that someone on this forum would debate it with me, even rip it apart with good arguments. After all a forum is like a huge debating circle. Come on guys and girls I want to be proved right or wrong! I just want to add that what makes me think that her disappearance is preplanned is the niggling fact that the posters were ready and printed in the same evening that she supposedly disappeared. Where did they get the photographic paper from, and where were the posters printed then? [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Snifferdog, you need to do a search re the printed photos. IIRC it was alleged that a Mark Warner employee had a personal photo printer.

by david_uk 16.05.12 10:04

aquila wrote:
Snifferdog wrote:If you really want to have any hope of discovering what happened to Madeleine Mccann it would be self limiting to discount any theory until it can be disproved. Many crimes would never be solved if this were the case. The PJ were hampered in their quest as they were refused important information by the British Police. If we let our emotions and feelings dictate our analytical mind we severely limit our vision. What we may or may not do if we had to be in the mccs shoes is irrelevant. Some say a theory is impossible as "they cannot understand someone doing such and such, and so therefore it could not have happened this way". It is human nature to try and protect a conclusion that one has drawn. We have to get over this tendency. Test every theory, then try and disprove it with the circumstances and facts we know, and eventually we will be left with a plausible one with no holes. It should be evident by now that we cannot wholly trust the creche records and anything that comes out of TM mouths as they are proven liars. All progress comes from truth an open mind and a willingness to think laterally. If this were not so we would still think the earth was flat, and perhaps not even have invented the wheel. I have posted up a theory in the form of a "book to be written" posted under 'Brand New Theory: A Diabolical Mcplan Uncovered', and had hoped that someone on this forum would debate it with me, even rip it apart with good arguments. After all a forum is like a huge debating circle. Come on guys and girls I want to be proved right or wrong! I just want to add that what makes me think that her disappearance is preplanned is the niggling fact that the posters were ready and printed in the same evening that she supposedly disappeared. Where did they get the photographic paper from, and where were the posters printed then? [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Snifferdog, you need to do a search re the printed photos. IIRC it was alleged that a Mark Warner employee had a personal photo printer.

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

by nomendelta 16.05.12 10:13

I am all for theorising but again I reiterate the simplest solution to fit most of the facts is often going to be the right one.

We have dogs that have detected blood and cadaverine in an apartment that nobody has repotedly died in and from which a girl has gone missing.

The most likely scenario is that the girl died - accidentally or otherwise - in that apartment. It's a very neat fit you must admit?

The secondary scenarios are that something was planted in the apartment. By whom? Some who postulate the "sub" theory suggest the McCanns planted it themselves. I can't think why but it's a theory. Other possibility is that the PJ planted it in order to frame the parents and hopefully coerce a confession from one or other of the parents. Again possible but dodgy and every sign of dodgy policing in this case seems to have been from the British side.

So whist the secondary scenarios are not impossible they are automatically less likely than the most obvious solution. Which means Maddie was there. Which means that the "sub" idea was not premeditated.

The creche records clearly show something strange going on. Well, having been in these kinds of places myself I can tell you that the staff can be very lax. Some staff might have signed Kate's name for completeness. Alternatively someone else signed Kate's name on her behalf. Given the large number of young blond girls in the resort at the time, creating confuson over who was who would be quite easy without any real need for an official "sub". To me the pointers are that something happened to Maddie before the 3rd, there was initial panic and a hasty plan drawn up to create confusion in the creche over who was there. Fairly easy to do.

The shortest distance between two points is a straight line. We need as many straight lines as possible to create a reasonable theory for the case. We don't have access to all the info but I see it pointless creating plots which a soap would reject as far-fetched when other more reaosnable theories fit the bill perfectly.

by Lady-Heather 16.05.12 11:05

Snifferdog wrote:If you really want to have any hope of discovering what happened to Madeleine Mccann it would be self limiting to discount any theory until it can be disproved. Many crimes would never be solved if this were the case. The PJ were hampered in their quest as they were refused important information by the British Police. If we let our emotions and feelings dictate our analytical mind we severely limit our vision. What we may or may not do if we had to be in the mccs shoes is irrelevant. Some say a theory is impossible as "they cannot understand someone doing such and such, and so therefore it could not have happened this way". It is human nature to try and protect a conclusion that one has drawn. We have to get over this tendency. Test every theory, then try and disprove it with the circumstances and facts we know, and eventually we will be left with a plausible one with no holes. It should be evident by now that we cannot wholly trust the creche records and anything that comes out of TM mouths as they are proven liars. All progress comes from truth an open mind and a willingness to think laterally. If this were not so we would still think the earth was flat, and perhaps not even have invented the wheel. I have posted up a theory in the form of a "book to be written" posted under 'Brand New Theory: A Diabolical Mcplan Uncovered', and had hoped that someone on this forum would debate it with me, even rip it apart with good arguments. After all a forum is like a huge debating circle. Come on guys and girls I want to be proved right or wrong! I just want to add that what makes me think that her disappearance is preplanned is the niggling fact that the posters were ready and printed in the same evening that she supposedly disappeared. Where did they get the photographic paper from, and where were the posters printed then? [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Are you suggesting that this was a pre-planned hoax? Ludicrous!, right? Let's weight it up:

For:
Pre-printed photos, of a child younger than Maddie
Super-fast inclusion of the press
A journo (Olive Press) 'on site that fateful morning'
'Treatment' by the press (& subsequent payouts)
'Acting up' for the press (described by Amaral)
The interference of Lori Campbell
Weird behaviour, laughing/joking so soon after
Questionable crèche records
Rubbish 'actors' who couldn't get their lines right
Unusual political intervention (courtesy of Bex/NI?)
No DNA found in the apartment
The novel
The Fund

Against:
Eddie & Keela's findings
If M didn't die in PDL, where is she now, and how has she been concealed for so long?
Too complex: why hasn't someone let slip/cracked & confessed?

by sweetex 16.05.12 11:35

Snifferdog, you need to do a search re the printed photos. IIRC it was alleged that a Mark Warner employee had a personal photo printer.

As far as I know, but I will go back and look for a link to this, but there was more than one "type" of poster available. One were printed on paper done by nanny/receptionist/MW the other one was not.

I will go back and find the link to this. Maybe someone else knows about this?

by sweetex 16.05.12 11:55

I found this, but will look more into this

As far as I understood there were 4 "Poster size" posters that was not printed by MW or anyone else for that matter in that building.

"ca. 2.00 am Antonio Duarte, a commander for the GNR in Lagos, got the mysterious pictures. Four equal images, in sets of two, printed in photographic paper, 15,3 cm x 10,3 cm. The military declared to the PJ that he got the pics at 2 am on the 4th of May – four hours after the disappearance was reported. Antonio Duarte said he got the pictures when he was sitting in a vehicle when trying to get identification data of the McCanns, but that he cannot recall who gave him the pics.

Gerry declared that he was not the one that had given the pics to the GNR. But the dossier contains also declarations from Sílvia Baptista, responsible for the Ocean Club who says she saw the father of Madeleine give the pics, on a poster-type paper to one of the militaries of the GNR. "They were practically all similar" said Baptista. The PJ made a research of the printers available in Luz, but the sort of paper the pics of Maddie were printed on, could not be found anywhere. Nelson Costa, one of the militaries in the GNR who was called on the night of 3 May, was perplex. He told the PJ he saw several pictures of Maddie, some A4 size and others with the size of a poster, that 'couldn't have been made' in the reception of the Ocean Club. (Link)

Pictures were printed on a personal printer from a British staff member of Ocean Club. (This I understand to be the A4 poster size photo's)

It was Russell O'Brien who brought a memory card and that member of staff brought the printer from her room. PJ asked for the printer, but she said her boyfriend took it with him to France.(Paulo Reis)"

Ok maybe I'm confused:

"He also notes that he saw various photographs on normal A4 paper of the girl, which had been printed at the reception, as well as other photos on photographic paper, poster type 10x15, that could not have been printed at the reception. This seemed unusual to him and he later confirmed that it was not possible for them to have been printed at the reception. "

Sorry for going off topic here. My thoughts have always been that the A4 photo's was printed by the Nanny. Maybe someone can shed light on this for me.

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

Did the nanny print the posters in her room then? Not at reception? The 4 "different" type of photo's/posters has always confused me.

by jd 16.05.12 12:30

There were 2 types of posters. One set which was printed at the reception on the printer which then took a holiday to France (the next day photocopies were made at reception too), and another set of posters which were printed on photographic paper which cannot be bought in PDL. There are police reports in the PJ files which follow up this photographic paper in the following days/weeks and they never could find any shop in PDL that sold this paper. The mccanns never explained where they got this photographic paper from

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
He also notes that he saw various photographs on normal A4 paper of the girl, which had been printed at the reception, as well as other photos on photographic paper, poster type 10x15, that could not have been printed at the reception. This seemed unusual to him and he later confirmed that it was not possible for them to have been printed at the reception.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
When questioned he says that the photos could not have been printed/revealed at the Ocean Club installations (they do not have this kind of paper). He adds that the photos produced the following day, which he observed, were printed on A4 paper, which was available at the resort.

by sweetex 16.05.12 12:47

Lol ok

So can we agree then (Correct me if I am wrong) that there was in fact photos printed that was not done by either the Nanny or the reception. Photo's that could never be explained? Because this is also how I understood it.

Thanks

offtopic

Apologies Snifferdog!

by jd 16.05.12 12:57

For the pre-planned hoax, yes I think this was...but only preplanned since April 30th/May1st unexpectedly and why so many mistakes. I also do not imagine they ever thought this coverup would ever get as big as it did. As someone said, put yourself back to 2007 and the internet/broadband/forums etc were not nearly as good then as today. I also think the NOTW/Sun latched onto it once the story was in the media and saw the longevity of it and the money that could be made from it, a story that could run & run for years as proven, a newspapers dream story. Brooks also has an obsession with child cases. The NOTW did set up other big profile stories purely for the money and circulation sales, everyone wins...except the public who were duped and paid them for the privilege

by jd 16.05.12 13:01

sweetex wrote:Lol ok

So can we agree then (Correct me if I am wrong) that there was in fact photos printed that was not done by either the Nanny or the reception. Photo's that could never be explained? Because this is also how I understood it.

Thanks

Apologies Snifferdog!

This is exactly the truth of the matter. And they had these posters printed on photographic paper you cannot purchase in PDL before the PJ even got there....mmmmmmmm

by sweetex 16.05.12 13:19

Thanks jd for clearing that up for me big grin

With regards to theories. In my opinion it is really simple. I believe in the "Maddie died in the apartment" theory. It probably was an accident but I have a feeling Kate was involved. Gerry was playing tennis, Kate was alone with the kids, and we all know 3 kids under 4 years can definitely be a handful. Something happened... (Maddie threw a tantrum) Kate lost her temper, and and and.... who knows.

I also don't think everyone in the Tapas group know what happened. Either Russel or David Payne or maybe both. For the rest they probably know bits, or have their own suspicions but I don't think ALL of them know everything. Jane probably covering for Russel and Fiona for David but maybe not sure why. Don't know if the two men would have shared EVERYTHING, also maybe to protect them, the less they know the better.

As far as photo's are concerned, some of them look photoshopped. I believe all of them is the same child. All of them looks like Maddie, but for some reason there are a few photo's that looks strange (specially the ice cream one with the chopped off arm) WEIRD?!!

The lack of grieving is another story, but to be honest, Kate doesnt look very stable to me... mentally or emotionally. Gerry may be dominant and controls her, (his idea to keep this all secret I believe) but he's got hands full with her I think. He is really very afraid she is going to spill the beans, and probably threatens her with who knows what. They are forever bound by the lies they have started. It escalated in one HUGE drama, and sometimes I actually wonder if they'd change things if they can do it all over again.

The pre-printed photo's (4 of them). Not sure - that is a bit of a spanner in the works. Then again they had a laptop there. I keep lots of files and folders in my laptop bag. I get mail at work, sometimes just stick it in my laptop bag. I visited my parents over the weekend, and has put some documents from them in my laptop bag. The photo's could have been printed for their house and it was in the bag? Lol I'll have to think about this for a while...

No sympathy whatsoever from my side though. They made their bed, they will have to sleep in it. And I believe in how Amaral puts it: "justice work in silence".

by **tigger** 16.05.12 13:41

@ sweetex.
I believe there were no laptops (no personal ones) at PdL. They even allegedly left their mobiles and watches in the apartments. Because they were 'so into each other' - which sounds puerile! I'd expect teenagers to talk like that.

I thought there were two photo's/posters. One which I love, again a two+ year old Maddie looking down, looking absorbed in something, a handwritten message on it.
I think these were just colour photocopies. Which were definitely printed at OC.

The famous poster photo was also ready before 3.00 a.m. on the 4th I believe. The rogatory or PJ interviews with ROB who is said to have been given a USB key by Gerry (why have a usb key if you don't take your laptop?) and a girl at reception allegedly brough her own portable printer down and printed about 30 - 40 copies - size I don't know. This printer almost immediately went to France (boyfriend took it) and then was stolen or disappeared.
The photographic paper used was not available in any shop in PdL. The PJ went into this quite thoroughly. Because not many printers at the time were capable of using usb keys. So that was lucky? But the deciding factor for me was the coloboma - that would have had to be done on a photoshop programme - so a facility for that would have had to be accessed. There was no time or opportunity or indeed a computer with such a programme available. Therefore it had to be done before 10.00 pm. on the 3rd May 2007. Therefore there was planning.

We must not underplay the psychological profiles of these two people. Kate isn't stable imo and as you said. Gerry practically dragged her around sometimes. He's the control freak who comes apart when he's faced with a situation he can't control.
They made so many glaring mistakes because they didn't think anyone would notice. They would say it was so and that should be accepted. Especially by foreigners.
They are now royalty, a cult, patting Lord Leveson on the shoulder for a job well done. It won't last.

by jd 16.05.12 13:46

I don't think they had their own laptop with them. Someone from the British Consultant I believe got them one to use after May 3rd (something like this). Besides its not the laptop, its the printer and where did they get this paper from. Its sounds so simple, photographic paper, but in this situation this asks big questions and to my eye one of the biggest slip ups

I think jane tanner/ROB are involved in this somehow. Tanner has a reason to put herself in the position she did. There is hardly anything from the paynes, dianne webster totally nothing, rachael oldfield/matt oldfield a little bit of involvement...jane tanner total involvement

by Snifferdog 16.05.12 13:50

david_uk wrote:
aquila wrote:
Snifferdog wrote:If you really want to have any hope of discovering what happened to Madeleine Mccann it would be self limiting to discount any theory until it can be disproved. Many crimes would never be solved if this were the case. The PJ were hampered in their quest as they were refused important information by the British Police. If we let our emotions and feelings dictate our analytical mind we severely limit our vision. What we may or may not do if we had to be in the mccs shoes is irrelevant. Some say a theory is impossible as "they cannot understand someone doing such and such, and so therefore it could not have happened this way". It is human nature to try and protect a conclusion that one has drawn. We have to get over this tendency. Test every theory, then try and disprove it with the circumstances and facts we know, and eventually we will be left with a plausible one with no holes. It should be evident by now that we cannot wholly trust the creche records and anything that comes out of TM mouths as they are proven liars. All progress comes from truth an open mind and a willingness to think laterally. If this were not so we would still think the earth was flat, and perhaps not even have invented the wheel. I have posted up a theory in the form of a "book to be written" posted under 'Brand New Theory: A Diabolical Mcplan Uncovered', and had hoped that someone on this forum would debate it with me, even rip it apart with good arguments. After all a forum is like a huge debating circle. Come on guys and girls I want to be proved right or wrong! I just want to add that what makes me think that her disappearance is preplanned is the niggling fact that the posters were ready and printed in the same evening that she supposedly disappeared. Where did they get the photographic paper from, and where were the posters printed then? [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Snifferdog, you need to do a search re the printed photos. IIRC it was alleged that a Mark Warner employee had a personal photo printer.

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

Most printers for office and personal use only print up to A4.

by Snifferdog 16.05.12 13:58

Lady-Heather wrote:
Snifferdog wrote:If you really want to have any hope of discovering what happened to Madeleine Mccann it would be self limiting to discount any theory until it can be disproved. Many crimes would never be solved if this were the case. The PJ were hampered in their quest as they were refused important information by the British Police. If we let our emotions and feelings dictate our analytical mind we severely limit our vision. What we may or may not do if we had to be in the mccs shoes is irrelevant. Some say a theory is impossible as "they cannot understand someone doing such and such, and so therefore it could not have happened this way". It is human nature to try and protect a conclusion that one has drawn. We have to get over this tendency. Test every theory, then try and disprove it with the circumstances and facts we know, and eventually we will be left with a plausible one with no holes. It should be evident by now that we cannot wholly trust the creche records and anything that comes out of TM mouths as they are proven liars. All progress comes from truth an open mind and a willingness to think laterally. If this were not so we would still think the earth was flat, and perhaps not even have invented the wheel. I have posted up a theory in the form of a "book to be written" posted under 'Brand New Theory: A Diabolical Mcplan Uncovered', and had hoped that someone on this forum would debate it with me, even rip it apart with good arguments. After all a forum is like a huge debating circle. Come on guys and girls I want to be proved right or wrong! I just want to add that what makes me think that her disappearance is preplanned is the niggling fact that the posters were ready and printed in the same evening that she supposedly disappeared. Where did they get the photographic paper from, and where were the posters printed then? [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Are you suggesting that this was a pre-planned hoax? Ludicrous!, right? Let's weight it up:

For:
Pre-printed photos, of a child younger than Maddie
Super-fast inclusion of the press
A journo (Olive Press) 'on site that fateful morning'
'Treatment' by the press (& subsequent payouts)
'Acting up' for the press (described by Amaral)
The interference of Lori Campbell
Weird behaviour, laughing/joking so soon after
Questionable crèche records
Rubbish 'actors' who couldn't get their lines right
Unusual political intervention (courtesy of Bex/NI?)
No DNA found in the apartment
The novel
The Fund

Against:
Eddie & Keela's findings
If M didn't die in PDL, where is she now, and how has she been concealed for so long?
Too complex: why hasn't someone let slip/cracked & confessed?

Sean loves sea bass....I would still love to find out if sniffer dogs can be fooled by it, but I conclude most probably as is why it appears in the police manual? Why hasn't someone let slip/cracked and confessed anyway, even if one discounts that it was preplanned and an accidental death or deliberate murder?

by Snifferdog 16.05.12 14:07

jd wrote:For the pre-planned hoax, yes I think this was...but only preplanned since April 30th/May1st unexpectedly and why so many mistakes. I also do not imagine they ever thought this coverup would ever get as big as it did. As someone said, put yourself back to 2007 and the internet/broadband/forums etc were not nearly as good then as today. I also think the NOTW/Sun latched onto it once the story was in the media and saw the longevity of it and the money that could be made from it, a story that could run & run for years as proven, a newspapers dream story. Brooks also has an obsession with child cases. The NOTW did set up other big profile stories purely for the money and circulation sales, everyone wins...except the public who were duped and paid them for the privilege

if one can get rid of the problem of the mccs having size A3 posters in their possession on the very night she disappeared, printed on unavailable photographic paper on a printer that had to be able to print poster size, yes.

by jd 16.05.12 14:11

Why hasn't someone let slip/cracked and confessed anyway, even if one discounts that it was preplanned and an accidental death or deliberate murder?

Maybe read back to November 2007

by sweetex 16.05.12 14:11

Most printers for office and personal use only print up to A4.

I agree.

So that means there was a poster size photo printed beforehand. Which I can not explain right now when following my theory. lol but I suppose thats part of it all. To figure it out as you find the facts. I always knew there was an issue with the photo's and not all of them were printed by the nanny or oc.

I am very open to other theories, but I still believe she is (unfortunately) dead, and I really can't get my head around the fact that it was/could have been planned. I think Dr. Ludke (psychologist) who analysed them and the case also mentioned he think it was planned. Lol maybe its just tooo huge and above my head.

Honestly the only reason I can think of why it would have been planned, is because of a terminal illness. They decided to euthanized (That word sounds off to me. Don't we normally euthanized pets? Sorry English not my first language, I'm sure you know what i mean though).

jd - I wasnt actually thinking specifically about the laptop, but more about the pre-printed photo. That could have been done back home before the holiday for other purposes. I thought they had some type of laptop bag/office bag etc with them, and it would not have been strange to find a random photo in the work bag. (At least not mine - being as disorganised as I am).

With regards to who was involved. I'd say David had to help with resuscitation that is why he visited Kate when she was alone wiht the kids. Russel was away from the table for a while the evening because his daughter was "ill". Instead I think it was all about Maddie.

by Guest 16.05.12 14:13

Snifferdog wrote:
jd wrote:For the pre-planned hoax, yes I think this was...but only preplanned since April 30th/May1st unexpectedly and why so many mistakes. I also do not imagine they ever thought this coverup would ever get as big as it did. As someone said, put yourself back to 2007 and the internet/broadband/forums etc were not nearly as good then as today. I also think the NOTW/Sun latched onto it once the story was in the media and saw the longevity of it and the money that could be made from it, a story that could run & run for years as proven, a newspapers dream story. Brooks also has an obsession with child cases. The NOTW did set up other big profile stories purely for the money and circulation sales, everyone wins...except the public who were duped and paid them for the privilege
if one can get rid of the problem of the mccs having size A3 posters in their possession on the very night she disappeared, printed on unavailable photographic paper on a printer that had to be able to print poster size, yes.

Snifferdog, can you please revert to black for your postings. Blue is usually used by mods to post certain information relating to posts and as such stands out and can be seen quickly. Also if every poster used different colours this forum would look a mess and be rather unreadable. Thanks.

by Hummingbird 16.05.12 14:15

Hi, I have just been reading through this thread and 2 things struck me - probably covered before but relevant to what is being said here.

1. I used to air travel a lot and often would take a laptop with me, I know that my handbag and laptop always go with me and were never checked in for obvious reasons - too valuable, you never pack laptops, cameras, jewellery etc etc in you hold luggage. If one of them had a laptop with them then I feel they would have had it on their lap, over their shoulders with strap or in their hands in the video when they are on the bus travelling to the terminal in Portugal. I would never put my laptop between my feet under the chair etc on the airport bus because the 'rush' and commotion on exiting the bus often makes one forget things. Therefore maybe one can be seen on the video, does Kate have a handbag on her lap, how big is it and would it be big enough to hold a laptop? Of course they could have been stupid enough to pack it in their suitcase if they didn't want someone to see it and then we would never know!! Just thinking out loud.

2. I am sure you have all seen it, but with reference to the dominant GM, I remember seeing a video of one of the first interviews, the one where Kate is asking the abductor not to hurt Madeleine, the one that makes my blood run cold when Gerry shoots a look at her and then puts his head on her shoulder. The video (I believe on Youtube) was where some guy had had his volume up really high on his computer and heard Gerry mutter something under his breath as he puts his head on her shoulder, this muttering was 'SHUT UP' . You cannot see his mouth move but if anyone can find it and show the link when you've watched it try this. Pretend you are a ventriloquist and try to say shut up under your breath without moving your lips it is almost doable, the only thing you can't do is the last P!!

It certainly shows a very dominant side to him even right at the beginning. Again I apologise if this has been done many times before, but it was something that as I say came to mind as I read the thread!

by Snifferdog 16.05.12 14:18

sweetex wrote:Thanks jd for clearing that up for me [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

With regards to theories. In my opinion it is really simple. I believe in the "Maddie died in the apartment" theory. It probably was an accident but I have a feeling Kate was involved. Gerry was playing tennis, Kate was alone with the kids, and we all know 3 kids under 4 years can definitely be a handful. Something happened... (Maddie threw a tantrum) Kate lost her temper, and and and.... who knows.

I also don't think everyone in the Tapas group know what happened. Either Russel or David Payne or maybe both. For the rest they probably know bits, or have their own suspicions but I don't think ALL of them know everything. Jane probably covering for Russel and Fiona for David but maybe not sure why. Don't know if the two men would have shared EVERYTHING, also maybe to protect them, the less they know the better.

As far as photo's are concerned, some of them look photoshopped. I believe all of them is the same child. All of them looks like Maddie, but for some reason there are a few photo's that looks strange (specially the ice cream one with the chopped off arm) WEIRD?!!

The lack of grieving is another story, but to be honest, Kate doesnt look very stable to me... mentally or emotionally. Gerry may be dominant and controls her, (his idea to keep this all secret I believe) but he's got hands full with her I think. He is really very afraid she is going to spill the beans, and probably threatens her with who knows what. They are forever bound by the lies they have started. It escalated in one HUGE drama, and sometimes I actually wonder if they'd change things if they can do it all over again.

The pre-printed photo's (4 of them). Not sure - that is a bit of a spanner in the works. Then again they had a laptop there. I keep lots of files and folders in my laptop bag. I get mail at work, sometimes just stick it in my laptop bag. I visited my parents over the weekend, and has put some documents from them in my laptop bag. The photo's could have been printed for their house and it was in the bag? Lol I'll have to think about this for a while...

No sympathy whatsoever from my side though. They made their bed, they will have to sleep in it. And I believe in how Amaral puts it: "justice work in silence".

I agree Sweetex that not all of the tapas 7 may have been involved initially. I remember reading a rather strange letter sent to this forum where it looked as if it could have been written by one of the tapas 7. I don't know if anyone remembers it or would know where to find it? I should love to read it again.

by jd 16.05.12 14:21

sweetex wrote:
With regards to who was involved. I'd say David had to help with resuscitation that is why he visited Kate when she was alone wiht the kids. Russel was away from the table for a while the evening because his daughter was "ill". Instead I think it was all about Maddie.

I agree sweetex that this is possible it was Maddie that was really ill, but with all things considered I don't think so. The staff at the Tapas bar all said that hardly anyone left the table that night. With murats sudden flight back on the 1st, all the mobile phone activity in the 3 days prior (especially murat/gerry mccann),allegedly falsified creche sheets, daytime stories that do not match in their statements, no DNA from Maddie in PDL, her clothes?, no given medical records, last photo not on their camera just for starters off the top of my head.... all say to me that they were placed into a panic situation for 3 days and they made the decision to create an false abduction story. Why is the big question?

by sweetex 16.05.12 14:34

jd wrote:
sweetex wrote:
With regards to who was involved. I'd say David had to help with resuscitation that is why he visited Kate when she was alone wiht the kids. Russel was away from the table for a while the evening because his daughter was "ill". Instead I think it was all about Maddie.

I agree sweetex that this is possible it was Maddie that was really ill, but with all things considered I don't think so. The staff at the Tapas bar all said that hardly anyone left the table that night. With murats sudden flight back on the 1st, all the mobile phone activity in the 3 days prior (especially murat/gerry mccann), falsified creche sheets, daytime stories that do not match in their statements, no DNA from Maddie in PDL, her clothes?, no given medical records, last photo not on their camera just for starters off the top of my head.... all say to me that they were placed into a panic situation for 3 days and they made the decision to create an false abduction story. Why is the big question?

jd if you getting at she died earlier than the 3rd, I am with you. I think the other possible date would be the 1st. Because of the crying Mrs Fenn heard (although it has been claimed that it was actually Amelie crying). But the 1st is a definite possibility for me.

Then again (And please I was called an Amaral worshipper before which is not the case), but I often go back and use some of his writings/interviews for reference and his answer to a question if Maddie did actually attend creche on the 3rd was: "Without a doubt." Now look I dont say he knows everything, in fact we all know he wants the case reopened to follow up on certain things that could not be concluded, but he sounds pretty sure? Unless the "fake/falsified" chreche records made him believe she was there. Do you think he will not pick up on the fact that it was falsified?.

I remember Diane Webster also said she didnt see Maddie on the 3rd, she remember the last time she saw her was on the 2nd. Don't know if we can take her word for that though. It probably wasn't priority for her to look out for the other couple's kids so she might be wrong and the last time was actually on the 1st.

My point is just that in my mind I find it difficult to accept a pre-planned possibility.

Snifferdog: It would be great to see that letter. I don't know about this, never seen it before.

by Snifferdog 16.05.12 14:43

I will try and find the letter jd.

by jd 16.05.12 14:44

I too have thought about what you say re GA and agree with you. He does seem very certain it happened on the night which must be taken into consideration. But I also think he probably would't reveal absolutely everything he knows and am sure there are many many things he knows as facts that we don't and keeping them to his chest until such time. When I put all the other things together it points very strongly to a few days before rather than on the night itself

Dianne Webster - I feel she is the only Tapas member whom I believe is not lying, and the only one with a conscious and why she has been totally kept out of it, as I don't think she likes to lie. I think what she actually says is true, but she also is economical with what she says as she doesn't want to lie. She naturally will want to protect her daughter. This is how I read her anyway

by Snifferdog 16.05.12 14:54

Snifferdog wrote:I will try and find the letter jd.

Oops sorry Sweetex it was you that posted. I have found it. It appears on Textusa's page. Don't know if I can post it here but I will try.
Aug 28, 2011 9:27:00 AM

“…Where is your sense of shame or decency in accusing innocent witnesses of being involved in covering up the death of a child?
I see no shame or decency on here - just an utter indifference to the rights or feelings of others.
I notice no-one had the balls to answer my question about how you would feel if this was done to you - if you were a witness to a crime and some deranged cow on the internet accused you of being involved. You are all a complete disgrace.”
Aug 28, 2011 1:09:00 PM

mmmm interesting and sounds like it comes from the heart so to speak.....I think from one of the T7?

by jd 16.05.12 14:57

There are no "you knows" or "erms" "errs" in it so am not sure big grin

by Hummingbird 16.05.12 15:02

Hummingbird wrote:Hi, I have just been reading through this thread and 2 things struck me - probably covered before but relevant to what is being said here.

1. I used to air travel a lot and often would take a laptop with me, I know that my handbag and laptop always go with me and were never checked in for obvious reasons - too valuable, you never pack laptops, cameras, jewellery etc etc in you hold luggage. If one of them had a laptop with them then I feel they would have had it on their lap, over their shoulders with strap or in their hands in the video when they are on the bus travelling to the terminal in Portugal. I would never put my laptop between my feet under the chair etc on the airport bus because the 'rush' and commotion on exiting the bus often makes one forget things. Therefore maybe one can be seen on the video, does Kate have a handbag on her lap, how big is it and would it be big enough to hold a laptop? Of course they could have been stupid enough to pack it in their suitcase if they didn't want someone to see it and then we would never know!! Just thinking out loud.

2. I am sure you have all seen it, but with reference to the dominant GM, I remember seeing a video of one of the first interviews, the one where Kate is asking the abductor not to hurt Madeleine, the one that makes my blood run cold when Gerry shoots a look at her and then puts his head on her shoulder. The video (I believe on Youtube) was where some guy had had his volume up really high on his computer and heard Gerry mutter something under his breath as he puts his head on her shoulder, this muttering was 'SHUT UP' . You cannot see his mouth move but if anyone can find it and show the link when you've watched it try this. Pretend you are a ventriloquist and try to say shut up under your breath without moving your lips it is almost doable, the only thing you can't do is the last P!!

It certainly shows a very dominant side to him even right at the beginning. Again I apologise if this has been done many times before, but it was something that as I say came to mind as I read the thread!

Sorry got lost higher up the page I took that long to type it and loads if replies came in as i did this post - so I will try again!!

by sweetex 16.05.12 15:04

jd wrote:I too have thought about what you say re GA and agree with you. He does seem very certain it happened on the night which must be taken into consideration. But I also think he probably would't reveal absolutely everything he knows and am sure there are many many things he knows as facts that we don't and keeping them to his chest until such time. When I put all the other things together it points very strongly to a few days before rather than on the night itself

Dianne Webster - I feel she is the only Tapas member whom I believe is not lying, and the only one with a conscious and why she has been totally kept out of it, as I don't think she likes to lie. I think what she actually says is true, but she also is economical with what she says as she doesn't want to lie. She naturally will want to protect her daughter. This is how I read her anyway

He does sound certain yes, but I admit I have also thought about a few days earlier. But like you say he probably knows things that we don't.

I agree about Dianne Webster. Even if she did see Maddie for the last time on the 1st or the 3rd or whatever date, I don't think it is a deliberate lie. She wants to keep out of this. Things happens daily around us without noticing. If they ask me now for instance when was the last time I saw my neighbour, I wont be sure. It could be yesterday afternoon or morning. Come to think of it, I'm actually not sure if I saw her at all yesterday.

@Hummingbird

I just wanted to mention that I know exactly what video clip you are talking about. I actually watched it again this morning. Gerry McCann is a control freak. Although Kate may have a temper, I think he runs the show and often has to tell her why they are doing what they are doing. I think he has to literary drag her through each day, watch who she is talking to when and where. And to be honest if she ever should go through a proper interrogation session without him, she'll spill it all. I'm sure. JMO

@Snifferdog

Wow thanks! I have never seen that before? I agree it could be one of them. Interesting though because I think if I had to witness a crime such as "killing a child by accident" I won't be able to keep it to myself. I honestly don't want to be in any of the T7 shoes.

Off topic: Are the lot still seeing each other? I know about the secret meeting late in 2008, but does anyone know if they still do bday parties and things like that together?