What was to be gained by the cover up?

by Level01 07.10.12 21:32

Hi folks,

I found this sites after following links from reading about the Jersey scandal. I've had my suspicions about this case and read lots of articles a year or two back. My brother in law is friends with a couple of the Mccann's friends and it was chatting with him that first aroused my suspicion.

This sites is unbelievably deep and complex and I've barely scratched the surface even though I've been reading most of the day!

My question is, assuming there was no abduction and the opinion of the PJ is true (that maddie died in the apartment and was possibly hidden by her parents) why was it covered up? What did the family have to gain? What did the press and government have to gain by collusion?

If the death was accidental surely the first reaction would be to report it. I cant believe it could be successfully hidden considering the grief and emotion they must have felt in the case of an unexpected and tragic loss like that. Equally I cannot believe that she was killed with intent while on holiday in a strange country.

I'm in little doubt there was collusion and a cover up but no matter what I read I just cannot find a satisfactory reason to suggest why. Can anyone share any reasoning behind this tragic event?

by **tigger** 08.10.12 6:47

Welcome!
Perhaps this might help? [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

It seems clear to me that the main driving force was money and and a new lifestyle. It seems they got it but not quite the way they wanted it. All my opinion of course.

Essential to state anything you propose as a theory is your opinion, by the way.

by MrsC 08.10.12 9:48

*snipped*

Level01 wrote:Hi folks,

My brother in law is friends with a couple of the Mccann's friends.

I'd be really interested to know what these people make of the McCanns and the abuction story?

by Level01 08.10.12 10:26

MrsC wrote:*snipped*

Level01 wrote:Hi folks,

My brother in law is friends with a couple of the Mccann's friends.

I'd be really interested to know what these people make of the McCanns and the abuction story?

Well my BIL did his phd at Leicester and only had a passing acquaintance with mr M but one of his friends and his wife were good friends. It's difficult to know what I can say but my BIL was convinced there was more to it right from the off. Allegedly mr M was quite cold and detached from other other people, a 'cold fish' as it were. There was nothing more concrete than that and he was very cagey when he talked about it.

The thing I struggle with in the whole case is the complicity of all 7 friends. If something tragic were to happen to one of my children, and neglect was the cause (say we went to the pub and left theft them sleeping) I would be going straight to the police, even if my wife suggested we do otherwise, and I'm certain she would do the same. I'm absolutely baffled why 7 friends would all go along and be complicit in the cover up, risking their job's, families and freedom for the sake of friendship.

There's so much that just doesn't tally with how 99% of people would behave. I also can't understand why if they were complicit in the cover up, they wanted to highlight so much attention to it with the constant media attention, campaign etc..

by Guest 08.10.12 11:05

Level01 wrote:I'm absolutely baffled why 7 friends would all go along and be complicit in the cover up, risking their job's, families and freedom for the sake of friendship.

I think it's for this reason why they are complicit in the cover up! The McCanns have excellent people to protect them, for some reason, so why wouldn't the friends shelter under the same umbrella?

Of course, if Sir Jimmy Savile for example can have his cover blown even after he's died then I hope the McCanns and their 7 buddies are quivering a little. When their cover is eventually blown they will leave a terrible legacy for their poor children to deal with and they will all go down in history for trying to get away with crimes involving the death of a child (according to British sniffer dogs, Eddie and Keela), perverting the course of justice, and therefore fraudulently raising millions of pounds some of which they used to pay their mortgage.

Oh well. Rather them than me. fan

Welcome by the way welcome

by Level01 08.10.12 11:23

admin wrote:

I think it's for this reason why they are complicit in the cover up! The McCanns have excellent people to protect them, for some reason, so why wouldn't the friends shelter under the same umbrella?

I can understand the level of protection they had but relying on the willing coercion of 9 people to each come up with their own story and stick to it, to me seems doomed to failure. It's no longer a secret for a start.. Do you think PM GB, the PR and media people knew the full truth or were they suckered by the adduction story? Why would they be afforded such high level protection?

I really do believe an accident happened, the body was hidden and it was covered up but I just can't convince myself there is any good reason for the 7 to go along with it. I think the action to deceive would go against the natural instinct of 90+% of the population, yet the Tapa's group was entirely complicit.

by sami 08.10.12 11:28

Level01 wrote:. I think the action to deceive would go against the natural instinct of 90+% of the population, yet the Tapa's group was entirely complicit.

And the action of going out night after night and leaving tiny sick children alone be against the natural instinct of the same 90+% of the population. The only think I have learned for certain about all of this is that there is nothing normal, natural or usual about any of the people on holiday, imo.

by Guest 08.10.12 11:32

I was recently reminded, here or on another forum, of the saying:
It is not about what you know or who you know, but it's about what you know about who you know.

by Level01 08.10.12 12:07

sami wrote:
Level01 wrote:. I think the action to deceive would go against the natural instinct of 90+% of the population, yet the Tapa's group was entirely complicit.

And the action of going out night after night and leaving tiny sick children alone be against the natural instinct of the same 90+% of the population. The only think I have learned for certain about all of this is that there is nothing normal, natural or usual about any of the people on holiday, imo.

As I said I only stumbled across this site yesterday so I've barely scratched the surface but what is the evidence that any of the children was sick? I've not come across that yet. I've also read theories that she might have died before the 3rd, are there any holiday photo's or any proof (apart from the creche records) that show she was alive up to and on the 3rd? I struggle to believe it happened earlier in the holiday but I'm open to the idea if there is anything to back up that claim.

by sami 08.10.12 12:24

Level01 wrote: As I said I only stumbled across this site yesterday so I've barely scratched the surface but what is the evidence that any of the children was sick? .

The friends statements and rog. interviews.

by Level01 08.10.12 18:14

sami wrote:
Level01 wrote: As I said I only stumbled across this site yesterday so I've barely scratched the surface but what is the evidence that any of the children was sick? .

The friends statements and rog. interviews.

Thanks, I'll have to read a bit deeper. I did see that one couple weren't at dinner due to illness, was Madeline ill too? I've literally spent almost the whole of yesterday and today reading these threads and documents. The more I read, the darker and more confusing it becomes... I started reading about Jimmy Savile which led me to Haut de La Garenne which led me here and it's amazing how many similarities there are in a lot of these child cover up's, they all generally involve a PM or high ranking politician for a start....

I've long been interested in 'conspiracies' and the truth behind historical events but I've never come across a site so full of documents, evidence and information as this one, so often discussions are based on hearsay and best guess, but not here! Well done to those that have worked hard on this site, it could easily be a full time job just reviewing the content! (and while I'm suffering an illness at home all day tucked up with a laptop, it might just turn into that!)

I'm not sure how much I can say on here about what my BIL told me are there any guidelines about what I can/can't mention?

by **tigger** 09.10.12 16:09

Level01 wrote:
sami wrote:
Level01 wrote: As I said I only stumbled across this site yesterday so I've barely scratched the surface but what is the evidence that any of the children was sick? .

The friends statements and rog. interviews.

Thanks, I'll have to read a bit deeper. I did see that one couple weren't at dinner due to illness, was Madeline ill too? I've literally spent almost the whole of yesterday and today reading these threads and documents. The more I read, the darker and more confusing it becomes... I started reading about Jimmy Savile which led me to Haut de La Garenne which led me here and it's amazing how many similarities there are in a lot of these child cover up's, they all generally involve a PM or high ranking politician for a start....

I've long been interested in 'conspiracies' and the truth behind historical events but I've never come across a site so full of documents, evidence and information as this one, so often discussions are based on hearsay and best guess, but not here! Well done to those that have worked hard on this site, it could easily be a full time job just reviewing the content! (and while I'm suffering an illness at home all day tucked up with a laptop, it might just turn into that!)

I'm not sure how much I can say on here about what my BIL told me are there any guidelines about what I can/can't mention?

Best thing is to ask a mod, like Candyfloss, she'll be able to tell you. Looking forward to hearing from you!

by Guest 09.10.12 16:26

I would say as long as it is not personal information it should be ok. Mods can always edit or delete anything that may not be the right thing to post.

by Guest 09.10.12 16:32

I always thought that as long as you added "allegedly" to any comments, you'd be okay!

That's according to Have I Got News For You anyway.

by Level01 09.10.12 19:11

Ok, I'll say that at the time my BIL insisted 'there's more to this than meets the eye' and then went on to tell me what he knew from his friend about some doctors. Allegedly he knew of a Dr in Leicester that was said to be cold, calculating and influential. There had allegedly been some talk of medical malpractice some years ago but as the Dr in question was a member of his local freemasonry lodge, this was an issue that was soon dusted under the carpet.

There was talk of Dr's being able to self prescribe and help themselves to the 'good stuff' in times of need and there was mention that there had been allegations made against a different Dr (that had a connection to the self prescriber) that suggested the use of opiate based sedatives on a regular basis to 'settle' restless children at night which gave a good 12 hour windows for the parents to drink, snort and enjoy themselves.

This obviously has nothing to do with this case and doesn't involve anybody you would know but I think it's interesting to illustrate that there is a section of the medical profession that isn't as noble, well meaning or honest as the media would like to suggest.

by Level01 09.10.12 19:55

I should add that the alleged malpractice was related to the above average prescribed use of controlled drugs.

by Bebootje 10.10.12 11:05

There is a lot of circumstantial evidence that is pointing in the direction of involvement of the parents of Madeleine in her disappearence.
It is exactly the described personality of mr M. as you say it to be "a cold fish" "cool and collected" that makes me believe he is capable to make Madeleines body dissapear,
even if her death was an accident. But there must have been a very good reason for him to do so. And the friends must have had a good reason for the conclusion of a "pact of silence" as they do this for years. I am convinced that Madeleine's body if found would show something so bad, that it would destroy the carreer of mr. M., his life, his family.
Since they were never charged with neglect (which was so obvious) it must have been something more serious. Could have been drugs, but again I believe it is not the main reason for the cover up. So it is not the question: wat was to be gained by the cover up, but: wat did they have to hide?
To anwer that question I can't help but thinking at the statements of the Gaspars and of Yvonne Martin about Payne (who seemed to be one of the closest friends of the Macs)

by Guest 10.10.12 11:28

Everything about this case is so contradictory! If, speaking theoretically, something happened to Madeleine which could not be revealed, Team McCann could have used their undoubted contacts in high places to pass it off as an accident or even natural causes.

There would then be no reason to launch the most bizarre publicity and fund raising campaign that the world has ever seen.

I don't have an answer yet for this one.

by **tigger** 10.10.12 11:36

Jean wrote:Everything about this case is so contradictory! If, speaking theoretically, something happened to Madeleine which could not be revealed, Team McCann could have used their undoubted contacts in high places to pass it off as an accident or even natural causes.

There would then be no reason to launch the most bizarre publicity and fund raising campaign that the world has ever seen.

I don't have an answer yet for this one.

One very quick result was money, (which was not needed to search for Maddie). Even to the extend that the mcCanns put collecting boxes in various places of the OC (without asking permission to do so according to the staff). They had free accommodation from MW, they weren't even allowed to employ privated detectives whilst the police of two countries were on the case and liaising (free of charge) with the rest of the world. A certain avarice pervades the aftermath...

by Guest 10.10.12 11:45

They couldn't have foreseen how the enterprise would go though unless their psychic friends really have special powers!

by Liz Eagles 10.10.12 11:48

tigger wrote:
Jean wrote:Everything about this case is so contradictory! If, speaking theoretically, something happened to Madeleine which could not be revealed, Team McCann could have used their undoubted contacts in high places to pass it off as an accident or even natural causes.

There would then be no reason to launch the most bizarre publicity and fund raising campaign that the world has ever seen.

I don't have an answer yet for this one.

One very quick result was money, (which was not needed to search for Maddie). Even to the extend that the mcCanns put collecting boxes in various places of the OC (without asking permission to do so according to the staff). They had free accommodation from MW, they weren't even allowed to employ privated detectives whilst the police of two countries were on the case and liaising (free of charge) with the rest of the world. A certain avarice pervades the aftermath...

Tigger, I think the worst photograph I saw of the McCanns was the one where they walked with the twins in a double buggy with Tee Shirts and balloons along the streets of PDL. It didn't sit well with my gut. It was staged and looked a bit 'tawdry' to me that the McCanns turned up with a begging bowl in a tourist area (remember most of the residents of PDL had searched for Madeleine) on the advice and invitation of the press. What a shame that Madeleine is no more than an exploited thing by a lot of people surrounding the McCanns. Just my opinion. Tigger, if you have this photo please put it up on the forum. I didn't think it sat well with GM's image.

All of this is my opinon.

by DIBarlow 12.10.12 15:08

Level01 wrote:Ok, I'll say that at the time my BIL insisted 'there's more to this than meets the eye' and then went on to tell me what he knew from his friend about some doctors. Allegedly he knew of a Dr in Leicester that was said to be cold, calculating and influential. There had allegedly been some talk of medical malpractice some years ago but as the Dr in question was a member of his local freemasonry lodge, this was an issue that was soon dusted under the carpet.

There was talk of Dr's being able to self prescribe and help themselves to the 'good stuff' in times of need and there was mention that there had been allegations made against a different Dr (that had a connection to the self prescriber) that suggested the use of opiate based sedatives on a regular basis to 'settle' restless children at night which gave a good 12 hour windows for the parents to drink, snort and enjoy themselves.

This obviously has nothing to do with this case and doesn't involve anybody you would know but I think it's interesting to illustrate that there is a section of the medical profession that isn't as noble, well meaning or honest as the media would like to suggest.

Hi Level01, I'm a newbie on the forum, but certainly not on the case of poor Maddie.

Just to clarify if I may? From information via your BIL, there was one doctor at Leicester whio was said to be cold, calculating and influential, and another who'd had allegations made against him concerning possible abuse of prescription drugs?

And this information came to your BIL from a friend of his? Was his friend a doctor at Leicester?

by Level01 13.10.12 13:50

Yes, that's exactly right. My BIL did his PhD at Leicester and his friend and his friends wife were both friends with a group of doctors based in Leicester.

by badger5149 13.10.12 18:36

I still believe that the most logical reason for a cover up was to hide the fact that the baby was suffereing from FAS ( fetal alcohol syndrome) This could have been damaging to the mothers reputation. I would like to see an expert review photos of the baby and give an opinion on this. It seems strange that the baby disappeared at 4 yrs old and this is the age that fas become apparent.

by aiyoyo 13.10.12 19:27

Well, the only logical reason for a cover up is: if the child's death is not self caused, hence not taking her to hospital or reporting the accidental death and must be hidden to prevent pathologist scrutiny.
Logical conclusion therefore is: child's death is third party inflicted - maybe administered wrong drug as in overdozed on adult drug, or maybe slapped so hard she fall and concussed, or maybe even worst if certain parties testimonies is to be taken into account. Personally I don't believe so-ville type predilection is involved.

Likely she was given medication (not calpol but something else by mistake).
If it was calpol they could bluff their way through by saying Maddie helped herself. If it was opiate for example then it's difficult to explain why that sort of drug is in their possession in the first place, let alone how the child had access to it.

I have some friends from UK visited me not so long ago , and one among them is in military intelligence, he observed that the pair of mccanns behavior is off right on the outset.
Anyway they all believe Maddie is dead, her parents cover up to protect their self interests because they'd plenty at stake.