The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™
Welcome to 'The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann' forum 🌹

Please log in, or register to view all the forums, then settle in and help us get to the truth about what really happened to Madeleine Beth McCann.

Please note that when you register your username must be different from your email address!

something nefarious

Page 1 of 5 1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

something nefarious

Post by cockerspaniel on 16.12.13 17:57

nefarious = extremely wicked or villainous evil; wicked; sinful
[from Latin nefārius, from nefās unlawful deed, from not + fās divine law]

How about this for a different angle,

The mcc`s knew mbm was going to be taken on the night in question, hence the patio doors left open and 3 children sedated (and the discussion of said doors being left open on same night between km and fp). No sane intelligent person in the same situation would leave the premises unlocked,especially as they locked it during the day! Maybe the reason there were no checks on the nights before is because THERE WAS NO REASON TO CHECK ("it all felt so safe"-kmcc). BUT on the 3rd there WAS a reason to check,to make sure mbm HAD been taken, hence all the tooing and frowing by all and sundry.Then once she had been taken,well no need to search as they KNEW she would not be found.No searching since despite this text on the  findmadeline website "madeline is still missing and someone needs to be looking for her" .note, not`us` or `we are` but `someone`. And safe in the knowledge that they can still safely ask for money.There is NO WAY GMc carried his daughter through the streets that night ,especially to the beach (cmon, she would have been found,or he would  been 100% identified), but SOMEBODY took her  (kmc.."THEY have taken her"  the "THEY" a freudian slip as the "THEY" are the people who were MEANT TO TAKE HER) . and I doubt it was one of the tapas lot either.

No, there is SOMETHING NEFARIOUS going on here.

No way am I buying all this mystery to cover a simple accident, there`s a very good reason why the body will never be recovered,why no medical records given to the PJ and gerrys " its a good marketing ploy" comment after being told by the police not to mention her columba.

They may not know WHERE she is,but they DEFINITELY know SHE WONT EVER BE COMING BACK!

No, there is SOMETHING NEFARIOUS going on here.

all just a theory and an opinion  of course...
admin please edit delete as needed.thanks
Madeleine is still missing and someone needs to be looking for her. - See more at: http://www.findmadeleine.com/home.html#sthash.L2pmfo1J.dpuf
Madeleine is still missing and someone needs to be looking for her. - See more at: http://www.findmadeleine.com/home.html#sthash.L2pmfo1J.dpuf

____________________
Heracltus  say  You could not step twice into the same river.
avatar
cockerspaniel

Posts : 176
Reputation : 3
Join date : 2013-06-08

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: something nefarious

Post by whatliesbehindthesofa on 16.12.13 18:03

@cockerspaniel wrote:There is NO WAY GMc carried his daughter through the streets that night ,especially to the beach (cmon, she would have been found,or he would  been 100% identified),

Because if it was an accident and there was no time to do anything else, I'm sure Gerry would have just sat there with a body waiting for the police, career soon to be in tatters and the strong possibility of jail time looming over his head.

I'm not saying that it was an accident and Gerry panicked. I'm saying that I don't understand at all why yourself and others think the 'blind panic' theory is so impossible to consider.

whatliesbehindthesofa

Posts : 1320
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-11-08

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: something nefarious

Post by cockerspaniel on 16.12.13 18:13

@whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:
@cockerspaniel wrote:There is NO WAY GMc carried his daughter through the streets that night ,especially to the beach (cmon, she would have been found,or he would  been 100% identified),

Because if it was an accident and there was no time to do anything else, I'm sure Gerry would have just sat there with a body waiting for the police, career soon to be in tatters and the strong possibility of jail time looming over his head.

I'm not saying that it was an accident and Gerry panicked.  I'm saying that I don't understand at all why yourself and others think the 'blind panic' theory is so impossible to consider.

REPLY.

if your daughter had just died,and you discovered her,you would not panic and sit there weighing up how it would affect your career, you would be FAR TO DISTRAUGHT! if it had happened in a blind panic moment then why has no-body ever been found.How far did he manage to go on foot and hide her,never to be found,with NO SPADE? Answer me that.



____________________
Heracltus  say  You could not step twice into the same river.
avatar
cockerspaniel

Posts : 176
Reputation : 3
Join date : 2013-06-08

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: something nefarious

Post by whatliesbehindthesofa on 16.12.13 18:14

If the McCanns knew what was going to happen that night, why did somebody (allegedly) sedate the twins?  If the police caught wind of that, big questions would be asked.  That would seem an incredibly dangerous - and stupid - thing to do, if you knew that the police were going to be there.

If what happened that evening was planned ahead of time, who screamed (as heard by waiter J.R.Salcedas) and why?

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JERONIMO-SALCEDAS.htm
'I ran out of the Tapas and noticed that some of the childcare works of the Mark Warner had begun to arrive. At the point I left the Tapas I heard a scream from a woman I did not know. I do not know who screamed, but I had never heard a similar cry. I cannot even describe it but thought it had come from the child's mother.'

This was all an act I take it?

whatliesbehindthesofa

Posts : 1320
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-11-08

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: something nefarious

Post by whatliesbehindthesofa on 16.12.13 18:20

@cockerspaniel wrote:
if your daughter had just died,and you discovered her,you would not panic and sit there weighing up how it would affect your career, you would be FAR TO DISTRAUGHT! if it had happened in a blind panic moment then why has no-body ever been found.How far did he manage to go on foot and hide her,never to be found,with NO SPADE? Answer me that.

You're describing how you think you would react. Not all human beings react to things in the same way. And I find it strange that you find it implausible that someone could be calculating enough to think about their own future when faced with a catastrophe, and yet you find it plausible that the same person is capable of what I can only describe as 'pure evil'.

No spade? Woah, good point, you've got me there.

whatliesbehindthesofa

Posts : 1320
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-11-08

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: something nefarious

Post by cockerspaniel on 16.12.13 18:24

@whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:If the McCanns knew what was going to happen that night, why did somebody (allegedly) sedate the twins?  If the police caught wind of that, big questions would be asked.  That would seem an incredibly dangerous - and stupid - thing to do, if you knew that the police were going to be there.

REPLY

They were sedated so they would not be disturbed maybe.The police carried them out,resting against their shoulders IIRC.It was on the tv. Obviously the police didnt worry about that 1st thing,they had no reason to.The only person who seemed concerned at the time was KM,hence all the laying hands on twins backs to check they were breathing,but not concerned enough to voice her concerns to the police.




If what happened that evening was planned ahead of time, who screamed (as heard by waiter J.R.Salcedas) and why?

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JERONIMO-SALCEDAS.htm
'I ran out of the Tapas and noticed that some of the childcare works of the Mark Warner had begun to arrive. At the point I left the Tapas I heard a scream from a woman I did not know. I do not know who screamed, but I had never heard a similar cry. I cannot even describe it but thought it had come from the child's mother.'

This was all an act I take it?

____________________
Heracltus  say  You could not step twice into the same river.
avatar
cockerspaniel

Posts : 176
Reputation : 3
Join date : 2013-06-08

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: something nefarious

Post by cockerspaniel on 16.12.13 18:34

@whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:
@cockerspaniel wrote:
if your daughter had just died,and you discovered her,you would not panic and sit there weighing up how it would affect your career, you would be FAR TO DISTRAUGHT! if it had happened in a blind panic moment then why has no-body ever been found.How far did he manage to go on foot and hide her,never to be found,with NO SPADE? Answer me that.

You're describing how you think you would react.  Not all human beings react to things in the same way.  And I find it strange that you find it implausible that someone could be calculating enough to think about their own future when faced with a catastrophe, and yet you find it plausible that the same person is capable of what I can only describe as 'pure evil'.

Reply

Then tell me how did he manage to hide her so well, on foot,at night,in a small village he probably didnt know very well,probably in some form of distress,to his OWN DAUGHTER.....never to be found.....then go of for a jog and a game of tennis a few days later?   And i will say it again,with no spade,just to rule out a beach burial.

No spade?  Woah, good point, you've got me there.

Re spade-Thought so!  high5 

____________________
Heracltus  say  You could not step twice into the same river.
avatar
cockerspaniel

Posts : 176
Reputation : 3
Join date : 2013-06-08

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: something nefarious

Post by whatliesbehindthesofa on 16.12.13 18:36

@cockerspaniel wrote:
They were sedated so they would not be disturbed maybe.The police carried them out,resting against their shoulders IIRC.It was on the tv. Obviously the police didnt worry about that 1st thing,they had no reason to.The only person who seemed concerned at the time was KM,hence all the laying hands on twins backs to check they were breathing,but not concerned enough to voice her concerns to the police.

That's not the point. If the police didn't notice the sedation, then they got lucky didn't they? The point is that if the police *had* noticed, the game would have been up right there and then, and so sedation would be an incredibly risky action to take, as risky as the 'blind panic' theory that you have discounted already.

whatliesbehindthesofa

Posts : 1320
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-11-08

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: something nefarious

Post by whatliesbehindthesofa on 16.12.13 18:42

@cockerspaniel wrote:
Then tell me how did he manage to hide her so well, on foot,at night,in a small village he probably didnt know very well,probably in some form of distress,to his OWN DAUGHTER.....never to be found.....then go of for a jog and a game of tennis a few days later?   And i will say it again,with no spade,just to rule out a beach burial.

Everything you've said here is highly subjective, and there's no real answer for that.  I'm not going to be able to give you an answer you like, because what you've said above is the way that you feel.  In other words, there are no facts presented, so I have nothing to refute.

Obviously, regarding the question about the spade, I wasn't being serious.  Suggesting that someone couldn't have concealed a body without taking a spade is like saying that someone couldn't rob a bank without a black and white stripey jumper, a black eye-mask, and a big bag that says 'SWAG' on it.

whatliesbehindthesofa

Posts : 1320
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-11-08

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: something nefarious

Post by ultimaThule on 16.12.13 19:19

@whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:

Because if it was an accident and there was no time to do anything else, I'm sure Gerry would have just sat there with a body waiting for the police, career soon to be in tatters and the strong possibility of jail time looming over his head.

I'm not saying that it was an accident and Gerry panicked.  I'm saying that I don't understand at all why yourself and others think the 'blind panic' theory is so impossible to consider.

As their various appearances on celebrity sofas around the globe demonstrate, neither GM or his spouse do 'panic'.   For a glimpse of the true nature of the beast see here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vIvFkXkVn1I

I've yet to read a theory which explains why there would be need to conceal the body of a child who sustained accidental injury, or injuries, which proved fatal.  

It would indeed be an unfortunate parent who lost their career or found themselves facing the prospect of jail time because their child met with a fatal accident of the kind which happens to numerous children both in Portugal and the UK on an annual basis.
avatar
ultimaThule

Posts : 3355
Reputation : 4
Join date : 2013-09-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: something nefarious

Post by cockerspaniel on 16.12.13 19:33

@whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:
@cockerspaniel wrote:
Then tell me how did he manage to hide her so well, on foot,at night,in a small village he probably didnt know very well,probably in some form of distress,to his OWN DAUGHTER.....never to be found.....then go of for a jog and a game of tennis a few days later?   And i will say it again,with no spade,just to rule out a beach burial.

Everything you've said here is highly subjective, and there's no real answer for that.  I'm not going to be able to give you an answer you like, because what you've said above is the way that you feel.  In other words, there are no facts presented, so I have nothing to refute.


REPLY

This has nothing to do with how i feel,this is about the practicality of your "Blind panic" situation. Its easy to refute my point,but i would appreciate it if you could give me some sort of credible response thats not to far beyond the realms of possibility.I dont have to like it but at least I get to make that choice and not have it made for me.

Obviously, regarding the question about the spade, I wasn't being serious.  Suggesting that someone couldn't have concealed a body without taking a spade is like saying that someone couldn't rob a bank without a black and white stripey jumper, a black eye-mask, and a big bag that says 'SWAG' on it.



REPLY 

I know you were joking,no probs.


But you do concede that more people try to conceal a body with the help of a spade than people rob banks in "a black and white stripey jumper, a black eye-mask, and a big bag that says 'SWAG' on it" big grin 

specially if they were seen heading in the direction of the beach!

btw,am enjoying the friendly debate thumbup 

____________________
Heracltus  say  You could not step twice into the same river.
avatar
cockerspaniel

Posts : 176
Reputation : 3
Join date : 2013-06-08

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: something nefarious

Post by cockerspaniel on 16.12.13 19:43

@ultimaThule wrote:
@whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:

Because if it was an accident and there was no time to do anything else, I'm sure Gerry would have just sat there with a body waiting for the police, career soon to be in tatters and the strong possibility of jail time looming over his head.

I'm not saying that it was an accident and Gerry panicked.  I'm saying that I don't understand at all why yourself and others think the 'blind panic' theory is so impossible to consider.

As their various appearances on celebrity sofas around the globe demonstrate, neither GM or his spouse do 'panic'.   For a glimpse of the true nature of the beast see here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vIvFkXkVn1I

I've yet to read a theory which explains why there would be need to conceal the body of a child who sustained accidental injury, or injuries, which proved fatal.  

It would indeed be an unfortunate parent who lost their career or found themselves facing the prospect of jail time because their child met with a fatal accident of the kind which happens to numerous children both in Portugal and the UK on an annual basis.

REPLY


Maybe we are thinking along the same lines, I doubt there was a "genuine" accident in this case.Besides dont most people head to the hospital when theres been an accident and not to the beach? Confronted with a genuine accident im sure most people would do ALL they could to save their childs life before worrying if they might get the sack.

____________________
Heracltus  say  You could not step twice into the same river.
avatar
cockerspaniel

Posts : 176
Reputation : 3
Join date : 2013-06-08

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: something nefarious

Post by whatliesbehindthesofa on 16.12.13 20:10

@ultimaThule wrote:
As their various appearances on celebrity sofas around the globe demonstrate, neither GM or his spouse do 'panic'.   For a glimpse of the true nature of the beast see here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vIvFkXkVn1I

I've yet to read a theory which explains why there would be need to conceal the body of a child who sustained accidental injury, or injuries, which proved fatal.  

It would indeed be an unfortunate parent who lost their career or found themselves facing the prospect of jail time because their child met with a fatal accident of the kind which happens to numerous children both in Portugal and the UK on an annual basis.

This is an argument from incredulity, finished off with a Straw Man. If a child dies of an accident in your care, and that child may have been sedated, and you may have been seated several minutes' walk away all evening, I can't see how you can seriously say that this would not get you into trouble, i.e. jail time.

whatliesbehindthesofa

Posts : 1320
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-11-08

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: something nefarious

Post by whatliesbehindthesofa on 16.12.13 20:10

@cockerspaniel wrote:
btw,am enjoying the friendly debate thumbup

Yes, me too cockerspaniel  big grin 

whatliesbehindthesofa

Posts : 1320
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-11-08

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: something nefarious

Post by cockerspaniel on 16.12.13 20:36

@whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:
@ultimaThule wrote:
As their various appearances on celebrity sofas around the globe demonstrate, neither GM or his spouse do 'panic'.   For a glimpse of the true nature of the beast see here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vIvFkXkVn1I

I've yet to read a theory which explains why there would be need to conceal the body of a child who sustained accidental injury, or injuries, which proved fatal.  

It would indeed be an unfortunate parent who lost their career or found themselves facing the prospect of jail time because their child met with a fatal accident of the kind which happens to numerous children both in Portugal and the UK on an annual basis.

This is an argument from incredulity, finished off with a Straw Man.  If a child dies of an accident in your care, and that child may have been sedated, and you may have been seated several minutes' walk away all evening, I can't see how you can seriously say that this would not get you into trouble, i.e. jail time.


REPLY

Yes there may be a possibility of jailtime,but surely you would do all you can 1st to see if your child could be saved before something more sinister came to mind,ie call an ambulance? or one of your group would suggest this,i doubt that there would be an immediate "pact" of silence,especially between people who are mostly aquaintances at best.

____________________
Heracltus  say  You could not step twice into the same river.
avatar
cockerspaniel

Posts : 176
Reputation : 3
Join date : 2013-06-08

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: something nefarious

Post by whatliesbehindthesofa on 16.12.13 21:06

@cockerspaniel wrote:
Yes there may be a possibility of jailtime,but surely you would do all you can 1st to see if your child could be saved before something more sinister came to mind,ie call an ambulance? or one of your group would suggest this,i doubt that there would be an immediate "pact" of silence,especially between people who are mostly aquaintances at best.

What use would an ambulance be if the child was already dead?

Why is a pact of silence among people who sit at a meal while waiting for someone to collect a dead child more likely?

You asked earlier what may have happened.  I know I'm not going to convince anyone who's mind is already mind up, but I'll give it a go, and give the shortest version I can.

WHAT FOLLOWS HERE IS MY OPINION AND MINE ONLY!!!

Madeleine may have fallen behind the couch while sedated, and lay dead for some time.  The accounts of people 'checking' are from the Tapas group, and may be false.  Certainly, Jane Tanner's sighting of an abductor looked very dubious for years, and has now been rewritten by SY.  Matthew Oldfield twisted and turned about whether the curtains were open on his supposed 9:30 check.  The statements of the Tapas bar staff indicate that the Tapas group were gone except for Dianne Webster between 9:30 and 10:00.  My theory is that Kate went to do her check immediately as Gerry returned at 9:30, where the official story has it that MO stopped Kate from going (for no apparent reason, and very unlikely - a relative stranger is not the best person to look in on a child who has trouble sleeping).  Madeleine had been put in the adult's bed, next to the window.  Kate couldn't find Madeleine, and didn't think to look behind the couch - because she was in a panic, and was looking for a living child.  None of the Tapas bar staff corroborate the story of Kate returning to the table and saying 'They've taken her'.  One of the statements says that the whole group apart from DW left a very short while after Kate left.  Maybe she had her mobile on her and rang someone at the table.  Immediately, they start running around looking for Maddy, assuming that Kate is correct and that she is not present in apartment 5A.  The Tapas bar staff corroborate the initial searching of the Tapas group.

Gerry is seen rushing into the pool area, heading towards the childrens' play area.  That's exactly where I would look - somewhere that Maddy was most familiar with.

From the rogatory interview of J.R.Salcedas (waiter):

'I ran out of the Tapas and noticed that some of the childcare works of the Mark Warner had begun to arrive. At the point I left the Tapas I heard a scream from a woman I did not know. I do not know who screamed, but I had never heard a similar cry. I cannot even describe it but thought it had come from the child's mother. I went to the reception with one of the child care workers whose name I do not remember. One of the employees looked to be organizing the searches and told us the name of the child.'

The scream may have been Kate finding Maddy - dead - behind the couch.  At the same time, people outside of the Tapas group are forming search parties.  The McCanns have two choices - call it off, and face the law, or continue as if she had not been found.  Of course, the latter requires that the body be removed and concealed.  At roughly 9:45-9:50, Gerry comes to a decision to do this - possibly at this point Kate becomes furious and has to be held back, causing the bruising on her wrists and upper arms.  Gerry heads towards the wasteland to the west, but is unable to find a way inside through the boarding.  He makes a snap decision to go towards the beach, and is seen moments later by the Smith family.  He manages to conceal the body - I don't know where, obviously if I did the police would be notified and this whole farce would have been over years ago - and perhaps phones back to the apartment to tell them that he has been seen, probably not to the hysterical Kate.  Back at 5A, the first timeline is written on the sticker book cover, and they concoct the sighting of Tannerman.

They write on the first timeline:

'Jerry 9:10-9:15 in tv room + all well ? did he check'

This makes me think of a couple of things.

1. Perhaps Gerry had just watched TV in the 'tv room' on his 9:05 check.  Jane Tanner said in the documentary that Kate was wondering if Gerry had been watching the football as he'd taken so long'.  Perhaps he sat on the couch, unaware that his daughter was lying dead or dying on the floor behind him.

2. ? did he check - indicates to me that Gerry was not present when this timeline was written.  If he had been present, there would be no need to write this, they could just ask.  Additionally, the use of the third person indicates that he wasn't there.

I think the second timeline was written when Gerry returned.  Why write two timelines?  They are very similar.  One is pre-Gerry, the other approved-by-Gerry.  Funnily enough, the approved-by one has 'GERALD' written on it in capitals.

And now for a quick break  big grin

whatliesbehindthesofa

Posts : 1320
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-11-08

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: something nefarious

Post by Casey5 on 16.12.13 21:29

The reactions of the McCanns in both scenarios are
weird.
If Madeleine had a fall or whatever and was found dead, then even thinking about what the outcome for them would be, should, I say should be the last thing on their minds.
Most people would be so distraught and guilt-ridden they would be unable and also unwilling to plan anything, let alone the removal and hiding of the body of their daughter.

If Madeleine had been abducted then they would have physically searched until they dropped and then searched again - every single day. And they would still be searching every holiday and using their extended families to search but they didn't and they don't.

Kate McCann blossomed in the first few weeks, had highlights put in her hair, her clothes colour co-ordinated. Gerry and Kate played tennis and jogged and Gerry laughed and sucked a lollipop whilst waiting to hear the outcome of a very important phone call about his daughter.
And then they wonder why people think there's something odd about them!!

Casey5

Posts : 339
Reputation : 38
Join date : 2013-02-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: something nefarious

Post by Tangled Web on 16.12.13 21:30

Interesting...

Whatliesbehind the sofa - If your theory is correct then why so many discrepancies in the Tapas statements prior to the Thursday?? It seems they couldn't get their timelines straight the whole holiday.

Also, how and when would they have cleaned the apartment so thoroughly that there was virtually no trace of MBM?

Just a few questions that popped into my head whilst reading  smilie 

Tangled Web

Posts : 303
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-11-22

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: something nefarious

Post by whatliesbehindthesofa on 16.12.13 21:35

As to how a group of people could so quickly fall into a 'pact of silence'...

Perhaps simple cowardice can explain it. Gerry may have acted quickly and forcefully - we know the guy is calculating, and capable of laughing merrily days after his daughter's disappearance or death. The others may have stood around speechless, with nobody getting the courage to speak up. When the police arrive at 11pm there is a moment where all must decide: am I going to stay quiet, or speak up and condemn people to prison? Some may have wanted to do the latter, but didn't find the courage. Before you know it, you're part of the conspiracy, you're equally culpable. Too late for turning back.

I've wondered if others were 'in' on the sedation business, but I find the way that Fiona Payne drew attention to the twins' breathing and Kate's checking of them strange, if she was in on it. She must have been Kate's closest friend on the holiday, but it seems unlikely to me that she knew about the sedation. Unless she was gently trying to implicate the McCanns with a suggestion.

Whatever, I believe that the key to the whole business is the supposed visit of David Payne at 6:30pm/7:00pm, for 30 seconds or 30 minutes, when DP failed to remember that Kate was wearing nothing but a towel. My feeling is that this may have been sedation time. Perhaps Fiona was there (my opinion only!), which could be the reason DP stepped in belatedly to pretend that he was the one who made the visit. I wonder what was in the childrens' milk.

whatliesbehindthesofa

Posts : 1320
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-11-08

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: something nefarious

Post by ultimaThule on 16.12.13 21:42

@whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:
@ultimaThule wrote:
As their various appearances on celebrity sofas around the globe demonstrate, neither GM or his spouse do 'panic'.   For a glimpse of the true nature of the beast see here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vIvFkXkVn1I

I've yet to read a theory which explains why there would be need to conceal the body of a child who sustained accidental injury, or injuries, which proved fatal.  

It would indeed be an unfortunate parent who lost their career or found themselves facing the prospect of jail time because their child met with a fatal accident of the kind which happens to numerous children both in Portugal and the UK on an annual basis.

This is an argument from incredulity, finished off with a Straw Man.  If a child dies of an accident in your care, and that child may have been sedated, and you may have been seated several minutes' walk away all evening, I can't see how you can seriously say that this would not get you into trouble, i.e. jail time.

Any credulity in this matter is more properly attributed to those who would term such an event an 'accident'.  

If a parent sedates a child for a non-medical reason and the child subsequently sustains a fatal injury which is unlikely to have occurred had it not been under the influence of a sleep-inducing drug this is not an 'accident' -  it is manslaughter, albeit some may be of the opinion that the parent's act in giving their child non-essential medication is tantamount to murder.  In addition, there would of course be issues of negligence arising from where that parent was, and what they were doing, while the child they had unlawfully drugged met with an untimely death.

If such a parent subsequently concealed the body of the child for fear of prosecution and its consequences and was subsequently tried and convicted, I would expect them to claim that panic 'drove them to it' in mitigation of their crime(s), but this wouldn't wash with me nor would I expect it to reduce the sentence handed down by any judge who has experience of the lies criminals tell to elicit sympathy and, more particularly, if that parent was shown to have benefitted financially from a gullible public while attempting to cover their heinous act by claiming by that a person, or persons, unknown had 'taken' their child.

I have said before, and repeat again, that I cannot buy into any theory that has individuals such as the McCanns and/or their doctor friends being panicked into hasty action and, IMO, any such notion is as probable as a herd of flying pigs accompanying the spy planes which are reported to have been performing manoeuvres over Luz on the night of 3 May 2007.
avatar
ultimaThule

Posts : 3355
Reputation : 4
Join date : 2013-09-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: something nefarious

Post by whatliesbehindthesofa on 16.12.13 21:42

@Tangled Web wrote:Interesting...

Whatliesbehind the sofa - If your theory is correct then why so many discrepancies in the Tapas statements prior to the Thursday?? It seems they couldn't get their timelines straight the whole holiday.

Also, how and when would they have cleaned the apartment so thoroughly that there was virtually no trace of MBM?

Just a few questions that popped into my head whilst reading  smilie 

Good questions.

My theory about the discrepancies is that Kate and Gerry were having massive problems with their relationship - the whole week was one long argument.  Kate signing under her maiden name one time only in the creche records is suspicious to me.  I know that doctors will use their maiden names, but it is the fact that she signs under her maiden name one time only.  And in a big flourish, if you look at it.

Everyone going to the beach on the Thursday except for the McCanns?  Why weren't they invited?  In my opinion, because they were too much trouble.  Which one do you invite?  Kate seems to have been too busy running up and down the beach, even to speak to the rest of the group.  Which. Is. Strange.

Why would they cover up relationship problems?  Because it is a good marketing ploy!  A good marketing ploy for freedom as well.  The parents arguing all week would immediately raise alarm bells with the police, and the general public.

Cleaning: the police didn't arrive until approx 11:00-11:05.  Twenty minutes scrubbing behind the couch was probably all they managed before the police arrived.  Later on, when the police and other spectators were away on other business, they could have properly cleaned the place up.  Including the removal of Gerry's cream trousers that were on the bed.

Incidentally, I'm not suggesting that this theory is correct, just that this theory is a plausible theory and alternative to the 'nefarious' pre-planned theory  big grin

whatliesbehindthesofa

Posts : 1320
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-11-08

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: something nefarious

Post by whatliesbehindthesofa on 16.12.13 21:47

@ultimaThule wrote:
Any credulity in this matter is more properly attributed to those who would term such an event an 'accident'.  

If a parent sedates a child for a non-medical reason and the child subsequently sustains a fatal injury which is unlikely to have occurred had it not been under the influence of a sleep-inducing drug this is not an 'accident' -  it is manslaughter, albeit some may be of the opinion that the parent's act in giving their child non-essential medication is tantamount to murder.  In addition, there would of course be issues of negligence arising from where that parent was, and what they were doing, while the child they had unlawfully drugged met with an untimely death.

If such a parent subsequently concealed the body of the child for fear of prosecution and its consequences and was subsequently tried and convicted, I would expect them to claim that panic 'drove them to it' in mitigation of their crime(s), but this wouldn't wash with me nor would I expect it to reduce the sentence handed down by any judge who has experience of the lies criminals tell to elicit sympathy and, more particularly, if that parent was shown to have benefitted financially from a gullible public while attempting to cover their heinous act by claiming by that a person, or persons, unknown had 'taken' their child.

I have said before, and repeat again, that I cannot buy into any theory that has individuals such as the McCanns and/or their doctor friends being panicked into hasty action and, IMO, any such notion is as probable as a herd of flying pigs accompanying the spy planes which are reported to have been performing manoeuvres over Luz on the night of 3 May 2007.

As I've already said, this is an argument from incredulity, i.e. an argument that starts with 'I cannot buy into any theory that...'.  

For further information: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_incredulity

whatliesbehindthesofa

Posts : 1320
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-11-08

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: something nefarious

Post by whatliesbehindthesofa on 16.12.13 22:00

@Casey5 wrote:The reactions of the McCanns in both scenarios are
weird.
If Madeleine had a fall or whatever and was found dead, then even thinking about what the outcome for them would be, should, I say should be the last thing on their minds.
Most people would be so distraught and guilt-ridden they would be unable and also unwilling to plan anything, let alone the removal and hiding of the body of their daughter.

I'd like to address this if I may :)

We have to remember that we are dealing with the 'one in a million' event.  It is similar to the Anthropic Principle.  It is extraordinarily unlikely that life should exist on this or any planet, but it takes life to observe that seemingly improbable event.  Same with the McCanns.  If Gerry had been less calculating, he may have just owned up - it might have made the news on the morning of 4th May 2007, but we certainly wouldn't remember his name all these years later.  So the probability of Gerry (possibly) taking the actions that I have theorized is largely irrelevant.  Improbability does not prevent events like this occurring, as anyone who has been struck by lightning will tell you, if they happened to survive  big grin

If the McCanns had done what most people would do ... well, then we never would have heard of them.

whatliesbehindthesofa

Posts : 1320
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-11-08

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: something nefarious

Post by cockerspaniel on 16.12.13 22:03

@whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:
@cockerspaniel wrote:
Yes there may be a possibility of jailtime,but surely you would do all you can 1st to see if your child could be saved before something more sinister came to mind,ie call an ambulance? or one of your group would suggest this,i doubt that there would be an immediate "pact" of silence,especially between people who are mostly aquaintances at best.

What use would an ambulance be if the child was already dead?

Why is a pact of silence among people who sit at a meal while waiting for someone to collect a dead child more likely?

You asked earlier what may have happened.  I know I'm not going to convince anyone who's mind is already mind up, but I'll give it a go, and give the shortest version I can.

WHAT FOLLOWS HERE IS MY OPINION AND MINE ONLY!!!

Madeleine may have fallen behind the couch while sedated, and lay dead for some time.  The accounts of people 'checking' are from the Tapas group, and may be false.  Certainly, Jane Tanner's sighting of an abductor looked very dubious for years, and has now been rewritten by SY.  Matthew Oldfield twisted and turned about whether the curtains were open on his supposed 9:30 check.  The statements of the Tapas bar staff indicate that the Tapas group were gone except for Dianne Webster between 9:30 and 10:00.  My theory is that Kate went to do her check immediately as Gerry returned at 9:30, where the official story has it that MO stopped Kate from going (for no apparent reason, and very unlikely - a relative stranger is not the best person to look in on a child who has trouble sleeping).  Madeleine had been put in the adult's bed, next to the window.  Kate couldn't find Madeleine, and didn't think to look behind the couch - because she was in a panic, and was looking for a living child.  None of the Tapas bar staff corroborate the story of Kate returning to the table and saying 'They've taken her'.  One of the statements says that the whole group apart from DW left a very short while after Kate left.  Maybe she had her mobile on her and rang someone at the table.  Immediately, they start running around looking for Maddy, assuming that Kate is correct and that she is not present in apartment 5A.  The Tapas bar staff corroborate the initial searching of the Tapas group.

Gerry is seen rushing into the pool area, heading towards the childrens' play area.  That's exactly where I would look - somewhere that Maddy was most familiar with.

From the rogatory interview of J.R.Salcedas (waiter):

'I ran out of the Tapas and noticed that some of the childcare works of the Mark Warner had begun to arrive. At the point I left the Tapas I heard a scream from a woman I did not know. I do not know who screamed, but I had never heard a similar cry. I cannot even describe it but thought it had come from the child's mother. I went to the reception with one of the child care workers whose name I do not remember. One of the employees looked to be organizing the searches and told us the name of the child.'

The scream may have been Kate finding Maddy - dead - behind the couch.  At the same time, people outside of the Tapas group are forming search parties.  The McCanns have two choices - call it off, and face the law, or continue as if she had not been found.  Of course, the latter requires that the body be removed and concealed.  At roughly 9:45-9:50, Gerry comes to a decision to do this - possibly at this point Kate becomes furious and has to be held back, causing the bruising on her wrists and upper arms.  Gerry heads towards the wasteland to the west, but is unable to find a way inside through the boarding.  He makes a snap decision to go towards the beach, and is seen moments later by the Smith family.  He manages to conceal the body - I don't know where, obviously if I did the police would be notified and this whole farce would have been over years ago - and perhaps phones back to the apartment to tell them that he has been seen, probably not to the hysterical Kate.  Back at 5A, the first timeline is written on the sticker book cover, and they concoct the sighting of Tannerman.

They write on the first timeline:

'Jerry 9:10-9:15 in tv room + all well ? did he check'

This makes me think of a couple of things.

1. Perhaps Gerry had just watched TV in the 'tv room' on his 9:05 check.  Jane Tanner said in the documentary that Kate was wondering if Gerry had been watching the football as he'd taken so long'.  Perhaps he sat on the couch, unaware that his daughter was lying dead or dying on the floor behind him.

2. ? did he check - indicates to me that Gerry was not present when this timeline was written.  If he had been present, there would be no need to write this, they could just ask.  Additionally, the use of the third person indicates that he wasn't there.

I think the second timeline was written when Gerry returned.  Why write two timelines?  They are very similar.  One is pre-Gerry, the other approved-by-Gerry.  Funnily enough, the approved-by one has 'GERALD' written on it in capitals.

And now for a quick break  big grin


REPLY

Lots of good points in your theory WLBTS,will give it some thought.

The main sticking point for me is,how do you hide a body so well in a small area, in such a short space of time that nearly 7 years later its not been fund?

Will be back for more tomorrow.




____________________
Heracltus  say  You could not step twice into the same river.
avatar
cockerspaniel

Posts : 176
Reputation : 3
Join date : 2013-06-08

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: something nefarious

Post by whatliesbehindthesofa on 16.12.13 22:10

@cockerspaniel wrote:
The main sticking point for me is,how do you hide a body so well in a small area, in such a short space of time that nearly 7 years later its not been fund?

Now that is the million dollar question  big grin My theory is that it was moved to a more permanent place later on, on maybe more than one occasion.  The important thing to me is that the body was not found on the first night.  Again, they may have just gotten lucky - or maybe they had help.  Perhaps they were hoping that if the body was found, it would just be blamed on the abductor - as the vast majority of abductees are killed and dumped within hours.  That's why I think Gerry was originally heading for the patch of wasteland across the road to the west of the apartments, but couldn't find a way in because it was too dark and there was boarding all the way around.  He might have just been trying to make it look as if the body was dumped, and had no intention originally of this thing going on for the length of time it has.

Another theory I have is that when Gerry was out of the country, Kate may have begun to lose her resolve, and was warming herself up to tell the police where the body was - through 'psychic visions'.  Perhaps Kate herself didn't know where it was.  Perhaps somebody didn't trust her enough to let her into that little secret.  So maybe, just maybe, she was giving the police her 'best guess'.

One thing I am certain of, is that the video of Gerry laughing his head off a few days after the disappearance, is a picture of a man who has started to believe that he has 'gotten away with it'.

whatliesbehindthesofa

Posts : 1320
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-11-08

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Page 1 of 5 1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum