Re: KISS (Keep It Simple Stupid!)

by Guest 01.10.12 8:58

Moa and Nina: it was the Oldfield baby (somewhere around 15 months old?) who was supposedly ill with diarrhoea. One of the O'Brien / Tanner children (the elder I think) was vomiting - yet both sets of parents want us to believe that they were left unsupervised!

by Guest 01.10.12 11:04

It beggers belief indeed.
And why did Kate leave the twins in an unlocked apartment? Why didn't she yell to the "back of the garden"?
Why didn't she check with Jane, if Madeleine had wandered and she was there? Why didn't she ask Jane if she had seen or heard anything, whilst the others came running down to see what was going on?

by Pershing36 02.10.12 9:53

KISS (Keeping it stupid simple)

1. It was just a chance abduction by unknown person/persons.

2. It was a tragic accident. Why did they all cover for each other? Maybe the use of sedation was more common place with this group than anyone realized. Lets say the accident happened after the children had been sedated to avoid any more incidents of them crying and getting complaints. They could use this as leverage to make the other doctors conform to a story and hide the body to avoid autopsy and toxicology. Lets face it if they had owned up lots of questions would have been asked in the UK and they would almost certainly been struck off for miss-use of medications. They could have easily have turned round to the others and told them if they take the fall they will make sure they do as well. Plus they were all pretty drunk according to the Tapas waiters account of the amount of wine being drunk. This would cloud anyone's decision making under pressure.

That's what I always had a suspicion about anyway.

by **PeterMac** 02.10.12 10:27

There really was an awful lot of sickness in this group.
Vomiting - child
Diarrhoea - child
Stomach bug - adult
Achilles tendon - adult

by sami 02.10.12 10:34

PeterMac wrote:There really was an awful lot of sickness in this group.
Vomiting - child
Diarrhoea - child
Stomach bug - adult
Achilles tendon - adult

And Tanners child with the foot which kept her out of the childcare facility at the beginning of the holiday.

by **PeterMac** 02.10.12 10:39

Which they described as Toxic Shock !

by Guest 02.10.12 10:49

The direct family of a doctor lives in constant danger. I remember my ex-father-in-law-to-be [yes, I didn't marry his son after all ...] kept his new live-in girlfriend on morphine for 5 days whilst he was arranging for a medical insurance so that she could have her appendicitis surgery yes

by Guest 02.10.12 23:08

Da Troof wrote:Hello All, I'm a new member here, but have been looking at this forum for a while and have been skeptical about the McC's abduction hypothesis ever since 4th May 2007. I am a research scientist (molecular biologist) by profession so I tend to approach everything from an evidence based perspective.

I find much of the debate and discussion on this forum very interesting and informative, but I think some of the suggestions I have seen recently are starting to get a little far fetched. My own view is that the available evidence should be the foundation of any discussion about the fate of poor little MMcC.

I have always considered the abduction by stranger hypothesis to be rather absurd for several reasons. However I think it is even more absurd to suggest that MMcC was never in PdL, that the "last photo" was photoshopped, that some of the photographs are not of MMcC, that the McC's had another child etc etc.

My interpretation of the available evidence that I have read (I admit I haven't read K McC's book and still haven't managed to read every word of the official PJ files) is that there are still four possible explanations for MMcC's disappearance.

1. MMcC was abducted by stranger(s).
2. MMcC died accidentally in PdL Portugal, and her parents covered up her death and disposed of the body.
3. MMcC was deliberately killed in PdL Portugal and her parents covered up her death and disposed of the body.
4. MMcC was given/sold to a third party in PdL Portugal and her parents created an abduction hoax to cover up this fact.

It is quite alarming to realise that of these four explanations the least likely (when considering the available evidence) is the first! However even this explanation is more likely than some of the suggestions I have read on here and other forums (fora?) recently.

For what it is worth I find it incredibly frustrating that all four of the possible explanations given above are still possible after all this time and money.

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

Hello new fellow Sleuth!

Option five. Or rather: one. Maddie never reached Praia da Luz.
Option Two: she did but was offed on tuesday, (is that correct, the complete day omitted/evaded/left out in The Gospel according to KH (i.e. the truthful Book Madeleine)

by Monty Heck 03.10.12 19:53

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

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

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] Yesterday at 9:53 am

KISS (Keeping it stupid simple)

1. It was just a chance abduction by unknown person/persons.

2. It was a tragic accident. Why did they all cover for each other? Maybe the use of sedation was more common place with this group than anyone realized. Lets say the accident happened after the children had been sedated to avoid any more incidents of them crying and getting complaints. They could use this as leverage to make the other doctors conform to a story and hide the body to avoid autopsy and toxicology. Lets face it if they had owned up lots of questions would have been asked in the UK and they would almost certainly been struck off for miss-use of medications. They could have easily have turned round to the others and told them if they take the fall they will make sure they do as well

In my opinion, scenario 2 is the most likely explanation of what happened because people on holiday with expert knowledge of sedation and synchronised bedtime every night for lots of babies has to be a huge red flag. There is nothing in any of the witness statments I've read that indicates any of the couples had a problem meeting up night after night. That all those young children were asleep bang on cue, allowing parents to tiptoe off for the evening has to be something way beyond mere good fortune. That the McC twins didn't stir through all the screaming hysteria, not to mention the cold in the bedroom with the open shutters, etc is also well out of the ordinary. Yet after sleeping like angels for the entire week of the holiday there are anecdotes in the diary and blog that, after the disappearance, there were problems getting the twins settled for the night, and witness statments to the effect that MMcC had sleep issues prior to the holiday.

It would certainly go a long way to explaining any pact which would be cast iron if all were involved. If there had been an accident whether caused by sedation or not, not only would those involved have been struck off the medical register, it would have been major scandal for the UK and I suspect that it was (intially at least) the reasoning behind the abassadorial and political interventions and press manipulation.

by **PeterMac** 03.10.12 23:05

jd wrote:
The grandmother was told stay at the table, that I believe

Dianne Webster was told to stay at the table on her own for 5 minutes after kate mccann started the scam. After 5 minutes Dianne Webster then went to apartment 5A, tried to pull the shutters up outside Maddies room but could not as they were too heavy (they were down)...Then she was told to go to the paynes apartment and wait there for the rest of the night

But they were NOT heavy.
I pushed them up easily as is shown on the video on Pat Brown's blog.
They are cheap nasty plastic slats, which rattle in their inadequate cheap and nasty housings and can be rammed up about two thirds of their length into the roller housing above the window. But when you let go, they rattle and crash and squeak down again. There is no way of holding them up from the outside without
• a stick, or
• an accomplice.
JT , Please note. There must have been a second person. Can your psychological intervention now provide the details ?
Tall, dark, handsome, smelling of Paco Rabane, murmuring softly in Latin (or perhaps they were Greek heroic couplets, one cannot tell at 15 feet distance), which matched perfectly his manly torso, visible through the finely crafted pure silk shirt, over the perfectly tailored trousers of the finest linen. His teeth clearly by the finest odontologists, his hands perfectly manicured, and his breath had that beautiful overtone of rose water and cardamom. His gait was upright and true, his shoes polished to a standard a drill sergeant would have praised.
This was the one for Madeleine.
This was her Prince. The one who was worthy of spiriting her away to far away Barcelona in less than three days, in his yacht. A super-powered yacht, not yet seen in the Atlantic or the Med. Capable of speed and luxury beyond imagination, (except for the imagination of Edgar and Mitchell , of course - But I digress !)

Will one of them one day have the guts to stop all this ?
:puke:

by david_uk 04.10.12 14:43

PeterMac wrote:
jd wrote:
The grandmother was told stay at the table, that I believe

Dianne Webster was told to stay at the table on her own for 5 minutes after kate mccann started the scam. After 5 minutes Dianne Webster then went to apartment 5A, tried to pull the shutters up outside Maddies room but could not as they were too heavy (they were down)...Then she was told to go to the paynes apartment and wait there for the rest of the night
But they were NOT heavy.
I pushed them up easily as is shown on the video on Pat Brown's blog.
They are cheap nasty plastic slats, which rattle in their inadequate cheap and nasty housings and can be rammed up about two thirds of their length into the roller housing above the window. But when you let go, they rattle and crash and squeak down again. There is no way of holding them up from the outside without
• a stick, or
• an accomplice.
JT , Please note. There must have been a second person. Can your psychological intervention now provide the details ?
Tall, dark, handsome, smelling of Paco Rabane, murmuring softly in Latin (or perhaps they were Greek heroic couplets, one cannot tell at 15 feet distance), which matched perfectly his manly torso, visible through the finely crafted pure silk shirt, over the perfectly tailored trousers of the finest linen. His teeth clearly by the finest odontologists, his hands perfectly manicured, and his breath had that beautiful overtone of rose water and cardamom. His gait was upright and true, his shoes polished to a standard a drill sergeant would have praised.
This was the one for Madeleine.
This was her Prince. The one who was worthy of spiriting her away to far away Barcelona in less than three days, in his yacht. A super-powered yacht, not yet seen in the Atlantic or the Med. Capable of speed and luxury beyond imagination, (except for the imagination of Edgar and Mitchell , of course - But I digress !)

Will one of them one day have the guts to stop all this ?
:puke:

eh!! Have I totally missed something Peter. Are you the guy who went to Portugal with Pat?

by **PeterMac** 04.10.12 15:39

by jd 05.10.12 1:30

PeterMac wrote:
But they were NOT heavy.
I pushed them up easily as is shown on the video on Pat Brown's blog.

Remember though that dianne webster is an elderly woman and her 'physical' strength would not be the same as a mans. Though having said this, you would be able to judge the weight and how light or heavy they might be to someone else not so physically strong as you

by **tigger** 05.10.12 6:51

jd wrote:
PeterMac wrote:
But they were NOT heavy.
I pushed them up easily as is shown on the video on Pat Brown's blog.

Remember though that dianne webster is an elderly woman and her 'physical' strength would not be the same as a mans. Though having said this, you would be able to judge the weight and how light or heavy they might be to someone else not so physically strong as you

I don't know why DW is described as 'elderly' she was then in her fifties and looked perfectly strong and healthy to me. She also switched on her mobile phone between 7.00 and 8.00 pm that evening after it was switched off for some 70 hours. Her son in law did the same. It was strange for her to be on the holiday at all, babysitting the children would have been logical in exchange for a free holiday with her daughter and friends.
Her presence there at all is the weirdest thing, there seems to have been no special occasion, did she ever go on holiday with this group before or did she ever have a holiday with her daughter and son in law? (Apart from the wedding in Tuscany).

by sami 05.10.12 6:58

The image I have in my mind of DW is elderley. Your post got me thinking why this is Tigger. It is due to having read her statements. She tries to conjure up this image of her being like a forgetful grandmother, not having a great sense of direction, having no clue of what anybody was doing nor what she herself did.

Her description of the shutters strikes me as one from someone who has seen the shutterrs in passing but has never touched them. They look heavy, they ought to be heavy, so they are heavy. If you have tried to open or close them, clearly they are not.

by **PeterMac** 05.10.12 8:15

Quite. She was in her fifties. I am in my sixties.
But the shutters are very light. The difficulty is not their weight, it is that they are loose in the housing either side and jam as you try to push them up, since that is not what they were intended to do. They were supposed to be pulled, not pushed.

by Genbug 05.10.12 8:39

Not important in the great scheme of things, but for clarification, Dianne Webster gives her date of birth on her rogatory as 10 March 1944, so she would have been 63 at the time.

by **tigger** 05.10.12 8:40

sami wrote:The image I have in my mind of DW is elderley. Your post got me thinking why this is Tigger. It is due to having read her statements. She tries to conjure up this image of her being like a forgetful grandmother, not having a great sense of direction, having no clue of what anybody was doing nor what she herself did.

Her description of the shutters strikes me as one from someone who has seen the shutterrs in passing but has never touched them. They look heavy, they ought to be heavy, so they are heavy. If you have tried to open or close them, clearly they are not.

imo we're underestimating this lady. DW comes across as scatty, very useful if you want to get out of things. Gets things wrong, it's her age.
The shutters got stuck a few inches up when they tried to push them up, but perhaps the 'heavy' bit was part of an instruction to illustrate how a child could not do it? That precognitive switching on of the mobiles worries me.

by sami 05.10.12 8:57

tigger wrote: imo we're underestimating this lady. DW comes across as scatty, very useful if you want to get out of things.

A bit like the old aunt who comes to stay at Christmas, sits in the corner asking the same question every five minutes whilst everybody rolls their eyes. For me it is not an opinion formed, but an impression given very clearly in the statements. In the same way Jane Tanner likes to have us think she hated Gerry McCann.

by joyce1938 05.10.12 9:29

is there any chance these shutters had been replaced at all ,before you went there peter mac,just a thought?joyce1938

by Da Troof 05.10.12 10:31

joyce1938 wrote:is there any chance these shutters had been replaced at all ,before you went there peter mac,just a thought?joyce1938

It really doesn't matter whether they were heavy or light or might have been replaced after summer 2007.

1. The shutters were open when the police arrived on the scene.

2. The tapas 9 witnesses including McC's and especially K say that they found the shutters were open when M was found to be missing.

3. There was NO evidence of anyone using the shutters/window for access from outside.

4. There was NO evidence of anyone using the shutters/window as an exit/escape route.

5. The only fingerprints on the window/window catch/handle were K McC's.

WHO OPENED THE WINDOW AND SHUTTERS? (Amaral thinks it was K McC because here fingerprints are there!)

WHY DID THEY OPEN THE WINDOW AND SHUTTERS? (Amaral thinks K McC did it to make it look like someone had come in or left the apartment through the window. Remember to start with the McC's claimed the apartment doors were locked)

I agree with Amaral and cannot imagine why anyone else would not.

by joyce1938 05.10.12 11:19

yes de troofe,i do understand those details ,but i just was realizing that the cause for shutters could have been use and forcing attempt,or being as petersaid how cheap and flimsy they were when he went with pat brown ,as it was this yeatr i think ,being channged could have been clever ploy also . joyce1938

by Guest 05.10.12 11:51

Da Troof wrote:
joyce1938 wrote:is there any chance these shutters had been replaced at all ,before you went there peter mac,just a thought?joyce1938

It really doesn't matter whether they were heavy or light or might have been replaced after summer 2007.

1. The shutters were open when the police arrived on the scene.

2. The tapas 9 witnesses including McC's and especially K say that they found the shutters were open when M was found to be missing.

3. There was NO evidence of anyone using the shutters/window for access from outside.

4. There was NO evidence of anyone using the shutters/window as an exit/escape route.

5. The only fingerprints on the window/window catch/handle were K McC's.

WHO OPENED THE WINDOW AND SHUTTERS? (Amaral thinks it was K McC because here fingerprints are there!)

WHY DID THEY OPEN THE WINDOW AND SHUTTERS? (Amaral thinks K McC did it to make it look like someone had come in or left the apartment through the window. Remember to start with the McC's claimed the apartment doors were locked)

I agree with Amaral and cannot imagine why anyone else would not.

Three people fiddled with the shutters that night, Diane Webster, Gerry McCann and Kate McCann according to various witness statements. Here is a snip from Rachael Mampilly rogatory..............

Page 4 of the The Shutters thread, Rachael Oldfield rogatory statement...............

Rachael statement

Reply “Erm but I mean I remember kind of standing near the window with Kate and Fiona, erm so but I mean I don’t remember the specifics of anyone actually saying to me that, I think it was just sort of a general, Kate and Fi were sort of milling around outside the apartment, outside her and Kate’s apartment and cos I think at, either at that point or perhaps it was later in the night, erm you know Kate had tried to see whether you could lift the shutters from the outside, erm but which you could and they would stay up, erm so I think, I don’t think anyone told me specifically that the windows were open and the shutters were up, it was just erm you know kind of listening to conversations and seeing Kate and Fiona, erm sort of outside the apartment”.
1578 “Did you at any point yourself see the shutters up and the window open”?
Reply “Yes”.
1578 “When was that”?
Reply “When, when Fi and Kate were outside, erm you know

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

by jd 05.10.12 21:07

Dianne Webster 11th May 2007

However, she states that KATE had repeatedly commented that, on arriving at the bedroom, she had found the window of the room, with its shutter, both open. Yet, she [DW] did not notice, while at the entrance to the room, if the window was or was not open.

- However, she wants to stress that immediately afterwards, she went outside the apartment in order to ascertain whether she would be able to raise the shutters by hand from the outside, and found it was impossible for her. Consequently she infers that at the time of her arrival at the apartment the window would have been closed.

.... At the time described above she remained about 10 minutes in the apartment. After this time she returned to the restaurant to get her handbag as well as the camera of the couple McCANN and "baby monitor" of her daughter, and was soon back again in the apartment.

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

And the shutters would have to be down for Dianne Webster to try and raise them...law of physics

And Dianne Webster was in apartment minutes after kate mccann raised the alarm, so they were down then

by jd 06.10.12 2:53

Dianne Webster 11th May 2007

In turn, as relates to her, the witness says she stayed at the restaurant for about five minutes, then, noting that the remaining members of the group had not returned, she followed in the direction of the apartment McCANN.

To clarify, just 5 mins after kate mccann started the scam screaming and shouting that the window/shutters were open, Dianne Webster was in the apartment and saw the window closed and tried to open the shutters herself (which had to be down for her to try and raise them)

I don't believe Dianne Webster knew anything of the impending abduction scam at that time. Its interesting she says:

The informant does not know Madeleine well, because she lives a long way from the McCanns, and she cannot say very much about Madeleine's personality. ....Sounds like she hardly saw Maddie on the holiday (apart from the 1st day and flight over) if she can't say much about her. Would explain why the mccanns always had breakfast/lunch by themselves, DW would not have particularly noticed Maddie not being around. She had no reason to see her at creche as her grand daughters were not in the same group

Log in for more topics