CRIMEWATCH ON BBC ***Part 2 DISCUSSION**** including CRIMEWATCH UPDATE (for what it was worth)

candyfloss wrote:Someone asked if that was it or was there more to come, well off to Ireland next.............



Metropolitan Police ‏@metpoliceuk [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
DCI Redwood: "The next stage of the appeal will be in Ireland later in the month." [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

candyfloss wrote:

candyfloss wrote:Someone asked if that was it or was there more to come, well off to Ireland next.............



Metropolitan Police ‏@metpoliceuk [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
DCI Redwood: "The next stage of the appeal will be in Ireland later in the month." [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Doh I'm getting cynical again, next month!!!!  No rush then.


Doesn't  the libel trial resume next month, and ends next month.  It's now 17th October.......next month to find this man???

geh007 wrote:

nobodythereeither wrote:

intrigued89 wrote:
If the version of events widely believed by posters on here and other sites is true (that the McCann's are in some way responsible for Madeleine's death and that the T7 were aware of this and helped them cover it up), my question is why? Why would the T7 risk their careers and livelihoods to protect their friends' negligence?


It is the one thing that doesn't make sense to me and I am yet to hear a rational explanation. The cadaver, the 48 questions, the lack of coherence in the relative stories all points in one direction. I have even come round to dismiss the 'why do they still keep going on tv if they are guilty' line of thought, so for me this is the one remaining question and it remains an important one. 

I hope someone can help me out with this one...

My take on this is that they had all left their children unattended night after night, and had also possibly had sedated them.

If it were to come out that Madeleine had died as a result of such action (eg by accidental death whilst in a dozy state because sedated) then they could be implicated as well if they had all done the same thing.

If her body had to be hidden because an autopsy would show sedation (or - possibly - signs of something else which was too awful to come to light) then clearly it was not a straightforward accidental death which could be explained away.

I don't want to surmise more than that, but there are theories online which would explain why there is a "pact of silence" . Whether that silence has now been broken by one or more of them, who knows.

I don't buy that for a second. There are many things about this case that are a little "odd". However....

But the suggestion that 9 people colluded is beyond any sense and reason and championing that "line" makes seemingly sensible people appear pretty daft.

intrigued89 wrote:
If the version of events widely believed by posters on here and other sites is true (that the McCann's are in some way responsible for Madeleine's death and that the T7 were aware of this and helped them cover it up), my question is why? Why would the T7 risk their careers and livelihoods to protect their friends' negligence?

mouse wrote:

geh007 wrote:

nobodythereeither wrote:

intrigued89 wrote:
If the version of events widely believed by posters on here and other sites is true (that the McCann's are in some way responsible for Madeleine's death and that the T7 were aware of this and helped them cover it up), my question is why? Why would the T7 risk their careers and livelihoods to protect their friends' negligence?


It is the one thing that doesn't make sense to me and I am yet to hear a rational explanation. The cadaver, the 48 questions, the lack of coherence in the relative stories all points in one direction. I have even come round to dismiss the 'why do they still keep going on tv if they are guilty' line of thought, so for me this is the one remaining question and it remains an important one. 

I hope someone can help me out with this one...

My take on this is that they had all left their children unattended night after night, and had also possibly had sedated them.

If it were to come out that Madeleine had died as a result of such action (eg by accidental death whilst in a dozy state because sedated) then they could be implicated as well if they had all done the same thing.

If her body had to be hidden because an autopsy would show sedation (or - possibly - signs of something else which was too awful to come to light) then clearly it was not a straightforward accidental death which could be explained away.

I don't want to surmise more than that, but there are theories online which would explain why there is a "pact of silence" . Whether that silence has now been broken by one or more of them, who knows.

I don't buy that for a second. There are many things about this case that are a little "odd". However....

But the suggestion that 9 people colluded is beyond any sense and reason and championing that "line" makes seemingly sensible people appear pretty daft.

Seemingly sensible people who thought it okay to leave their kids in a holiday apartment while they went out to eat most nights of the holiday. I wouldn't call that sensible behaviour - I'm with the 'nobodytheireither'  theory, always have been, and having to face the cold hard facts - if this scenario did happen - that they'd risked losing their most precious possessions - their much loved children if this all came to light, that they may face charges of neglect. Add to that their careers and the fact they'd be facing the onslaught of the world's press.....It might have appeared to be their only way out at that time.

nobodythereeither wrote:

mouse wrote:

geh007 wrote:

nobodythereeither wrote:

intrigued89 wrote:
If the version of events widely believed by posters on here and other sites is true (that the McCann's are in some way responsible for Madeleine's death and that the T7 were aware of this and helped them cover it up), my question is why? Why would the T7 risk their careers and livelihoods to protect their friends' negligence?


It is the one thing that doesn't make sense to me and I am yet to hear a rational explanation. The cadaver, the 48 questions, the lack of coherence in the relative stories all points in one direction. I have even come round to dismiss the 'why do they still keep going on tv if they are guilty' line of thought, so for me this is the one remaining question and it remains an important one. 

I hope someone can help me out with this one...

My take on this is that they had all left their children unattended night after night, and had also possibly had sedated them.

If it were to come out that Madeleine had died as a result of such action (eg by accidental death whilst in a dozy state because sedated) then they could be implicated as well if they had all done the same thing.

If her body had to be hidden because an autopsy would show sedation (or - possibly - signs of something else which was too awful to come to light) then clearly it was not a straightforward accidental death which could be explained away.

I don't want to surmise more than that, but there are theories online which would explain why there is a "pact of silence" . Whether that silence has now been broken by one or more of them, who knows.

I don't buy that for a second. There are many things about this case that are a little "odd". However....

But the suggestion that 9 people colluded is beyond any sense and reason and championing that "line" makes seemingly sensible people appear pretty daft.

Seemingly sensible people who thought it okay to leave their kids in a holiday apartment while they went out to eat most nights of the holiday. I wouldn't call that sensible behaviour - I'm with the 'nobodytheireither'  theory, always have been, and having to face the cold hard facts - if this scenario did happen - that they'd risked losing their most precious possessions - their much loved children if this all came to light, that they may face charges of neglect. Add to that their careers and the fact they'd be facing the onslaught of the world's press.....It might have appeared to be their only way out at that time.

I consider myself a perfectly sensible person.

What would your explanation be, geh007?

geh007 wrote:

nobodythereeither wrote:

mouse wrote:

geh007 wrote:

nobodythereeither wrote:

intrigued89 wrote:
If the version of events widely believed by posters on here and other sites is true (that the McCann's are in some way responsible for Madeleine's death and that the T7 were aware of this and helped them cover it up), my question is why? Why would the T7 risk their careers and livelihoods to protect their friends' negligence?


It is the one thing that doesn't make sense to me and I am yet to hear a rational explanation. The cadaver, the 48 questions, the lack of coherence in the relative stories all points in one direction. I have even come round to dismiss the 'why do they still keep going on tv if they are guilty' line of thought, so for me this is the one remaining question and it remains an important one. 

I hope someone can help me out with this one...

My take on this is that they had all left their children unattended night after night, and had also possibly had sedated them.

If it were to come out that Madeleine had died as a result of such action (eg by accidental death whilst in a dozy state because sedated) then they could be implicated as well if they had all done the same thing.

If her body had to be hidden because an autopsy would show sedation (or - possibly - signs of something else which was too awful to come to light) then clearly it was not a straightforward accidental death which could be explained away.

I don't want to surmise more than that, but there are theories online which would explain why there is a "pact of silence" . Whether that silence has now been broken by one or more of them, who knows.

I don't buy that for a second. There are many things about this case that are a little "odd". However....

But the suggestion that 9 people colluded is beyond any sense and reason and championing that "line" makes seemingly sensible people appear pretty daft.

Seemingly sensible people who thought it okay to leave their kids in a holiday apartment while they went out to eat most nights of the holiday. I wouldn't call that sensible behaviour - I'm with the 'nobodytheireither'  theory, always have been, and having to face the cold hard facts - if this scenario did happen - that they'd risked losing their most precious possessions - their much loved children if this all came to light, that they may face charges of neglect. Add to that their careers and the fact they'd be facing the onslaught of the world's press.....It might have appeared to be their only way out at that time.

I consider myself a perfectly sensible person.

What would your explanation be, geh007?

Explanation for what?

Châtelaine wrote:Seems that geh007 has been posting the same in two or more other threads.
I replied in the Matt Oldfield "check" one ...

candyfloss wrote:

candyfloss wrote:Someone asked if that was it or was there more to come, well off to Ireland next.............



Metropolitan Police ‏@metpoliceuk [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
DCI Redwood: "The next stage of the appeal will be in Ireland later in the month." [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Doh I'm getting cynical again, next month!!!!  No rush then.


Doesn't  the libel trial resume next month, and ends next month.  It's now 17th October.......next month to find this man???

The Slave wrote:Not everybody knew everything AT THE TIME.
They do now.
So will they cave now or be forever waiting for that tap on the shoulder?
Once the timeline was written 'in stone' so to speak..they sealed their own fates.
Easy, in the adrenaline haze of the first hour.
Who decided to write it all down?
That's a far more interesting question. And why?

nobodythereeither wrote:

intrigued89 wrote:One question here that continues to bother me (and I am genuinely not asking this to derail the thread). I am 99% convinced of the McCann's guilt, but there is one small nag. If someone can explain this to me I am completely sold...

If the version of events widely believed by posters on here and other sites is true (that the McCann's are in some way responsible for Madeleine's death and that the T7 were aware of this and helped them cover it up), my question is why? Why would the T7 risk their careers and livelihoods to protect their friends' negligence?


It is the one thing that doesn't make sense to me and I am yet to hear a rational explanation. The cadaver, the 48 questions, the lack of coherence in the relative stories all points in one direction. I have even come round to dismiss the 'why do they still keep going on tv if they are guilty' line of thought, so for me this is the one remaining question and it remains an important one. 

I hope someone can help me out with this one...

My take on this is that they had all left their children unattended night after night, and had also possibly had sedated them.

If it were to come out that Madeleine had died as a result of such action (eg by accidental death whilst in a dozy state because sedated) then they could be implicated as well if they had all done the same thing.

If her body had to be hidden because an autopsy would show sedation (or - possibly - signs of something else which was too awful to come to light) then clearly it was not a straightforward accidental death which could be explained away.

I don't want to surmise more than that, but there are theories online which would explain why there is a "pact of silence" . Whether that silence has now been broken by one or more of them, who knows.

tasprin wrote:What ever time the abduction happened - 9.15 or 10.00 - there is still the question of sedation. Even the McCanns say the children were sedated but how did an abductor sedate three children without waking them? Oral or intravenous sedation would have woken them and chloroform would have left an unmistakable smell.
Sedation could very well be the reason for collusion. Fear of the consequences could have deterred them from bringing the little girl to a hospital. If she suffered a fatal injury whilst under the influence of sedatives one or more of them may have attempted to resuscitate her. It is not unknown for doctors to cover up for each other.

candyfloss wrote:

candyfloss wrote:Someone asked if that was it or was there more to come, well off to Ireland next.............



Metropolitan Police ‏@metpoliceuk [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
DCI Redwood: "The next stage of the appeal will be in Ireland later in the month." [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Doh I'm getting cynical again, next month!!!!  No rush then.


Doesn't  the libel trial resume next month, and ends next month.  It's now 17th October.......next month to find this man???

tiny wrote:

tasprin wrote:What ever time the abduction happened - 9.15 or 10.00 - there is still the question of sedation. Even the McCanns say the children were sedated but how did an abductor sedate three children without waking them? Oral or intravenous sedation would have woken them and chloroform would have left an unmistakable smell.
Sedation could very well be the reason for collusion. Fear of the consequences could have deterred them from bringing the little girl to a hospital. If she suffered a fatal injury whilst under the influence of sedatives one or more of them may have attempted to resuscitate her. It is not unknown for doctors to cover up for each other.

I agree to the doctors do cover do up for each other,but we are talking about a 3yr old little girl, what sort of people are these tapas 7 to do a thing like that

tiny wrote:

tasprin wrote:What ever time the abduction happened - 9.15 or 10.00 - there is still the question of sedation. Even the McCanns say the children were sedated but how did an abductor sedate three children without waking them? Oral or intravenous sedation would have woken them and chloroform would have left an unmistakable smell.
Sedation could very well be the reason for collusion. Fear of the consequences could have deterred them from bringing the little girl to a hospital. If she suffered a fatal injury whilst under the influence of sedatives one or more of them may have attempted to resuscitate her. It is not unknown for doctors to cover up for each other.

I agree to the doctors do cover  up for each other,but we are talking about a 3yr old little girl, what sort of people are these tapas 7 to do a thing like that unless all the children were sedated and if they were then i can see why a cover up occurred,yep Gerry and kate have got them over a barrel if this is the case.

tiny wrote:

tasprin wrote:What ever time the abduction happened - 9.15 or 10.00 - there is still the question of sedation. Even the McCanns say the children were sedated but how did an abductor sedate three children without waking them? Oral or intravenous sedation would have woken them and chloroform would have left an unmistakable smell.
Sedation could very well be the reason for collusion. Fear of the consequences could have deterred them from bringing the little girl to a hospital. If she suffered a fatal injury whilst under the influence of sedatives one or more of them may have attempted to resuscitate her. It is not unknown for doctors to cover up for each other.

I agree to the doctors do cover  up for each other,but we are talking about a 3yr old little girl, what sort of people are these tapas 7 to do a thing like that unless all the children were sedated and if they were then i can see why a cover up occurred,yep Gerry and kate have got them over a barrel if this is the case.

ShuBob wrote:

candyfloss wrote:

candyfloss wrote:Someone asked if that was it or was there more to come, well off to Ireland next.............



Metropolitan Police ‏@metpoliceuk [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
DCI Redwood: "The next stage of the appeal will be in Ireland later in the month." [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Doh I'm getting cynical again, next month!!!!  No rush then.


Doesn't  the libel trial resume next month, and ends next month.  It's now 17th October.......next month to find this man???

Next month? The tweet says later in the month i.e. later THIS month (October).

MoonGoddess wrote:had real problems with that last post??

@ intrigued89

the above give a couple of examples of cracks in the "pact"... I think the first link might give you a good idea... I personally think that maybe 1 or 2 know the truth, the others are just caught up in the whole mess... I think JT deliberately lied about 'bundleman', I now think she did see SC leave the tapas with his child in his arms and turned him into bundleman in order to promote the 'abduction'... in a nutshell, I think a couple got roped in early on [but not knowing what they were getting roped into.... if that makes sense?]

candyfloss wrote:

ShuBob wrote:

candyfloss wrote:

candyfloss wrote:Someone asked if that was it or was there more to come, well off to Ireland next.............



Metropolitan Police ‏@metpoliceuk [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
DCI Redwood: "The next stage of the appeal will be in Ireland later in the month." [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Doh I'm getting cynical again, next month!!!!  No rush then.


Doesn't  the libel trial resume next month, and ends next month.  It's now 17th October.......next month to find this man???

Next month? The tweet says later in the month i.e. later THIS month (October).

Oh Gawd, I'm losing it, sorry, and sorry SY,    I apologise, but I am reading sooo many posts, my eyes aren't working    Thanks for pointing it out ShuBob  

candyfloss wrote:Will you stop re-quoting my cock-up ShuBob    That's what speed reading does for you, I think I need to go to specsavers.

Daisy wrote:

MoonGoddess wrote:had real problems with that last post??

@ intrigued89

the above give a couple of examples of cracks in the "pact"... I think the first link might give you a good idea... I personally think that maybe 1 or 2 know the truth, the others are just caught up in the whole mess... I think JT deliberately lied about 'bundleman', I now think she did see SC leave the tapas with his child in his arms and turned him into bundleman in order to promote the 'abduction'... in a nutshell, I think a couple got roped in early on [but not knowing what they were getting roped into.... if that makes sense?]

Interesting. Here's another report that backs up your theory. It comes just a week after the DM article you mention above.

 I believe they would definitely have cracked if they had been made official suspects.

Madeleine: Changes in evidence from Tapas Nine could 'dramatically change investigation'


Last updated at 10:04 09 November 2007

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

mouse wrote:

tiny wrote:

tasprin wrote:What ever time the abduction happened - 9.15 or 10.00 - there is still the question of sedation. Even the McCanns say the children were sedated but how did an abductor sedate three children without waking them? Oral or intravenous sedation would have woken them and chloroform would have left an unmistakable smell.
Sedation could very well be the reason for collusion. Fear of the consequences could have deterred them from bringing the little girl to a hospital. If she suffered a fatal injury whilst under the influence of sedatives one or more of them may have attempted to resuscitate her. It is not unknown for doctors to cover up for each other.

I agree to the doctors do cover  up for each other,but we are talking about a 3yr old little girl, what sort of people are these tapas 7 to do a thing like that unless all the children were sedated and if they were then i can see why a cover up occurred,yep Gerry and kate have got them over a barrel if this is the case.

Way, way back - don't I remember something about them saying that some of this group (not the Mccanns) had been away on holiday together before. Perhaps they had sedated/left their kids on this prev. holiday with no incidents and thought that this was the way to go on this holiday with the Mccanns -  however this time it went wrong....for what ever reason...Maddie woke sedated, felt dizzy and tripped (as you can do when you awake after taking a sleeping pill or sedation) or she had a reaction to it, or neither of these but just woke up and something else happenend...but because they'd all sedated their kiddie....Perhaps they felt a cover-up was necessary as they wouldn't want the other kids tested for medication - being Doctors....Just thinking aloud.

tasprin wrote:

mouse wrote:

tiny wrote:

tasprin wrote:What ever time the abduction happened - 9.15 or 10.00 - there is still the question of sedation. Even the McCanns say the children were sedated but how did an abductor sedate three children without waking them? Oral or intravenous sedation would have woken them and chloroform would have left an unmistakable smell.
Sedation could very well be the reason for collusion. Fear of the consequences could have deterred them from bringing the little girl to a hospital. If she suffered a fatal injury whilst under the influence of sedatives one or more of them may have attempted to resuscitate her. It is not unknown for doctors to cover up for each other.

I agree to the doctors do cover  up for each other,but we are talking about a 3yr old little girl, what sort of people are these tapas 7 to do a thing like that unless all the children were sedated and if they were then i can see why a cover up occurred,yep Gerry and kate have got them over a barrel if this is the case.

Way, way back - don't I remember something about them saying that some of this group (not the Mccanns) had been away on holiday together before. Perhaps they had sedated/left their kids on this prev. holiday with no incidents and thought that this was the way to go on this holiday with the Mccanns -  however this time it went wrong....for what ever reason...Maddie woke sedated, felt dizzy and tripped (as you can do when you awake after taking a sleeping pill or sedation) or she had a reaction to it, or neither of these but just woke up and something else happenend...but because they'd all sedated their kiddie....Perhaps they felt a cover-up was necessary as they wouldn't want the other kids tested for medication - being Doctors....Just thinking aloud.

Yes if other members of the group were doing it they may have been sympathetic to their plight - justifying by saying 'We've all done it - why should they suffer any more'? - but at the same time worried about their own position.