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!

Case simplification

Page 1 of 3 1, 2, 3  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Case simplification

Post by HelenMeg on 14.01.14 11:09

Hi

Just having a little think, sitting here..
This whole case  has become so complicated with different elements such as referrals to swinging, pedophilia, sedation, arguments that it clouds the view and makes it very difficult to think about clearly. Its almost better to try and take it back the simple facts:

A little girl disappeared and we were alerted of this on 3rd May with the parents pushing the abduction right from the start.
If we find the parents a little hard to believe and acting suspiciously then lets just say the girl died sometime during the holiday - no date assumed.
The dogs show very strong indication that the girl died in the apartment
The apartment was thoroughly (but not thoroughly enough!) cleaned after death taking place
A car was hired long after 3rd May and the dogs alert to a dead body having been transported in it approx 22 days after 3rd May.

That, for me, is a very simplified view of the case indicating that the parents are guilty of, if nothing else, cover up of death and concealment of body.
She either died before or on the 3rd May. Her body was transported in the hire car which was hired on the xxth May.

Ok maybe this post isn't very helpful and brings nothing new - but it just helps me clear my head a little and concentrate on the simple assumptions that we can make.
So we have people working on establishing date of death (as per creche records / sightings) - already being done
Mobile phone records  - already being done
Cr journeys        - already being done

Then we need to tie all these up together in a thread somehow... easier said than done.. nah

HelenMeg

Posts : 1782
Reputation : 208
Join date : 2014-01-08

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Case simplification

Post by tigger on 14.01.14 11:32

You're quite right. I think we should cut out a lot of unnecessary 'information' - most of it specifically generated to distract.

My view is that the initial 'actions' (hiding the body etc) was done by amateurs.
The cover-up was in the hands of 'professionals' if you like. Due to the amateur work leaking like a sieve, the pros were unable to cover up all of the 'work'.
Add to that the press and the PJ files as well as the fact that the 'pros' didn't have the authority to do as they liked in a foreign country. Serious confusion.

I think there was planning and preparation to benefit financially from the disappearance of a child.
I do believe a projected disappearance was very much complicated by an accident and consequent unforeseen death.

The health records of Madeleine Beth McCann were not and imo will never be released.

I think the McCanns are guilty as charged by the PJ. Also guilty of fraud. But not of murder.

This imo is what it boils down to, the venue and timing of the disappearance was imo also planned.

____________________
Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch'entrate.
avatar
tigger

Posts : 8114
Reputation : 48
Join date : 2011-07-20

View user profile http://fytton.blogspot.nl/

Back to top Go down

Re: Case simplification

Post by Guest on 14.01.14 11:49

When you say projected 'disappearance of a child' tigger, how, why and who do you think was involved? 

Do you think this was a plan to fake her abduction and then keep her alive somewhere indefinitely (but how, wouldn't she be recognised?) or do you think the planned 'disappearance' involved her pre-planned death?


This is what is really puzzling me, I too think that something was pre-planned but I can't work out what.

ETA: OR she was terminally ill back  in the UK, they used a sub to fake her abduction, again for financial gain.

Don't know which one of these scenarios is worse really.
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Case simplification

Post by HelenMeg on 14.01.14 11:51

I suppose I dont really think it was premeditated, just an accident. The body must have had 2 resting places (or more).
An initial place (or 2) and then it was transported by a hire car (probably the day after G's 'alleged' stomach problems).
Without a body, what can be proved (as G might say) ... ?  If you were G  and knew the body must never be traced, what would you do with it?
I'm just interested if the police can make any arrests without a body?

For me, the most confusing thing is that I believe she died before the 3rd... but how can that fit with the man (G) carrying the child towards he beach.
According to my beliefs, M was already hidden by the 3rd May ready for the great abduction scene.  Unless G was just carrying a child in order to create a red herring to further confuse things. He was just playing the role of an abductor to add credence, and kept his head down so as not to be recognised.

I think one day we will find it is all much more simple a scenario than we ever imagined.  These were parents who were having to think very quickly
and yes, they would have made many mistakes - they had to act and develop plans quickly and use people they could trust... e.g. Jon Corner / and G's uncle. ... he could only enlist the help of those he knew would not be able to turn him down (for some reason)

HelenMeg

Posts : 1782
Reputation : 208
Join date : 2014-01-08

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Case simplification

Post by HelenMeg on 14.01.14 11:52

post repeated in error

HelenMeg

Posts : 1782
Reputation : 208
Join date : 2014-01-08

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Case simplification

Post by tigger on 14.01.14 12:08

BlackCatBoogie wrote:When you say projected 'disappearance of a child' tigger, how, why and who do you think was involved? 

Do you think this was a plan to fake her abduction and then keep her alive somewhere indefinitely (but how, wouldn't she be recognised?) or do you think the planned 'disappearance' involved her pre-planned death?


This is what is really puzzling me, I too think that something was pre-planned but I can't work out what.

ETA: OR she was terminally ill back  in the UK, they used a sub to fake her abduction, again for financial gain.

Don't know which one of these scenarios is worse really.

For me, it's the extensive photoshopping that is the planning and the use of the media, the Ltd. Co.
can't get away from it.
Also, imo these are not 'average' people we are observing as is clear from many videos and interviews.
We cannot expect the emotions we would feel in such cases.

____________________
Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch'entrate.
avatar
tigger

Posts : 8114
Reputation : 48
Join date : 2011-07-20

View user profile http://fytton.blogspot.nl/

Back to top Go down

Re: Case simplification

Post by HelenMeg on 14.01.14 14:33

I wonder why they had to cover up the death and conceal the body..

If she died accidentally in the apartment, even through falling off the settee or being hit and bumping her head then they could have
declared her death an explained it off as an accident, or taken her to hospital.
The fact that they could not decalre her death and had to make her body disappear indicates that there was something on her body that would implicate them
in something bad. E.g. strangulation marks, sexual interference, bruises or sedatives in blood. Otherwise there is no reason why they could not have admitted
she had died by accident in the apartment.

HelenMeg

Posts : 1782
Reputation : 208
Join date : 2014-01-08

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Case simplification

Post by ultimaThule on 14.01.14 15:10

@HelenMeg wrote:I wonder why they had to cover up the death and conceal the body..

If she died accidentally in the apartment, even through falling off the settee or being hit and bumping her head then they could have
declared her death an explained it off as an accident, or taken her to hospital.
The fact that they could not decalre her death and had to make her body disappear indicates that there was something on her body that would implicate them
in something bad. E.g. strangulation marks, sexual interference, bruises or sedatives in blood. Otherwise there is no reason why they could not have admitted
she had died by accident in the apartment.
Given the circumstances of this case, there can only be one reason for concealing the body and that is the child died of non-accidental injury or injuries.
avatar
ultimaThule

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

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Case simplification

Post by suzyjohnson on 14.01.14 15:15

I have always thought the case was fairly simple, if the McCanns were involved in her disappearance, some kind of accident after 5.30 pm on the 3rd, a reason why they didn't want a post mortem, most probably sedatives, a hasty decision to cover up what had happened.

____________________


suzyjohnson

Posts : 1192
Reputation : 261
Join date : 2013-03-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Case simplification

Post by HelenMeg on 14.01.14 15:18

@suzyjohnson wrote:I have always thought the case was fairly simple, if the McCanns were involved in her disappearance, some kind of accident after 5.30 pm on the 3rd, a reason why they didn't want a post mortem, most probably sedatives, a hasty decision to cover up what had happened.
yes - i have always thought this sort of thing..

HelenMeg

Posts : 1782
Reputation : 208
Join date : 2014-01-08

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Case simplification

Post by ultimaThule on 14.01.14 15:22

IMO what you've outlined is the 'fall back' position, suzy. 

The bitterly regretted wrong decision conceived out of panic, made in haste, etc etc, but, for the reasons given by tigger, I will never buy into that story even though it could be the one which will be put forward in mitigation after the perpetrators of this heinous crime have been convicted.
avatar
ultimaThule

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

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Case simplification

Post by Guest on 14.01.14 16:21

@tigger wrote:
BlackCatBoogie wrote:When you say projected 'disappearance of a child' tigger, how, why and who do you think was involved? 

Do you think this was a plan to fake her abduction and then keep her alive somewhere indefinitely (but how, wouldn't she be recognised?) or do you think the planned 'disappearance' involved her pre-planned death?


This is what is really puzzling me, I too think that something was pre-planned but I can't work out what.

ETA: OR she was terminally ill back  in the UK, they used a sub to fake her abduction, again for financial gain.

Don't know which one of these scenarios is worse really.

For me, it's the extensive photoshopping that is the planning and the use of the media, the Ltd. Co.
can't get away from it.
Also, imo these are not 'average' people we are observing as is clear from many videos and interviews.
We cannot expect the emotions we would feel in such cases.

oh yes I totally agree there was pre-planning but do you think they actually pre-planned her death (via the fake abduction)?
This must have been planned back in the UK a while before they went.
This is the bit I just cant get my head around. 
But as you say they do not appear to be normal people...
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Case simplification

Post by whatliesbehindthesofa on 14.01.14 16:31

@ultimaThule wrote:
Given the circumstances of this case, there can only be one reason for concealing the body and that is the child died of non-accidental injury or injuries.

Are you classing 'accident caused by sedatives or occurring while sedated' as 'non-accidental injury'?

whatliesbehindthesofa

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

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Case simplification

Post by Tangled Web on 14.01.14 19:03

All the detail we have makes the whole thing very confusing indeed. My head is fuzzy with it all.

However, I cannot bring myself to believe it was an accident. I don't believe for one second that doctors would leave three young children alone in apartment. I just don't buy it. At one time, I had 3 children aged five and under and anybody with half of a brain knows the tragedy that can befall young children when you take your eye off them for even one second. I just don't buy it that they were left alone and the more the McCann's try to force me to believe that they left them, the less I believe it. They are trying to distract us here. I even struggle to believe that KM had a bath/shower whilst in the apartment with the three little ones. This is barely feasible with three older ones so I just don't buy it. Any 'normal' parent finding their child had died in an accident whilst left unattended (for whatever reason) would not conceal the body of the child they loved so dearly. Absolutely no way.

Problem I have is, if it wasn't an accident then what on earth happened and why?


Tangled Web

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

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Case simplification

Post by bobby18 on 14.01.14 19:21

It is completely understandable that people would ask if it was an accident, why would the McCann's not report it as such?

I believe that is explained in their behaviour pre and post a disappearance, in that social standing is EVERYTHING to them. Demonstrated by leaving children unattended in an unfamiliar place on holiday to their unerring love of the limelight - the Pope, World leaders, Oprah - they cannot get enough of it. Repulsive to many but an addiction to them.

The highly plausible and simple explanation of an accident (and specifically the circumstances of it) would mean child neglect accusations, loss of job, etc.

Social standing is everything to them - and is more important to them than anything or ANYONE else imo.

bobby18

Posts : 69
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-10-25

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Case simplification

Post by mysterion on 14.01.14 19:33

Neglect or manslaughter convictions might put them behind bars in a foreign prison for years leaving the twins in social care.

mysterion

Posts : 361
Reputation : 14
Join date : 2013-11-08

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Case simplification

Post by Casey5 on 14.01.14 19:40

I've thought often enough that Madeleine died prior to the third of May, giving the McCanns time to cover their tracks and have a rough idea of what they would say to the police, family, friends etc.
But, a big stumbling block for me is that on the 3rd May Madeleine was supposed to be alive. Therefore, unless all of the tapas 7 were in on it which I don't believe, then there is a chance that one or more of them would be at the creche, the tea table or somewhere else that Madeleine should have been and been able to say "hang on, I was there and saw Gerry, Kate and the twins but Madeleine wasn't there."
I know they all dithered and stuttered in their accounts but none of them would say when the last time was that they saw Madeleine, not even Diane Webster was sure. Surely on the day the child disappeared, that last sighting - if it was on that day - would have been to the forefront of their minds, even if it was just seeing her at the creche or witnessing Kate carrying Madeleine home because she was so tired.
Why didn't they know?

Casey5

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

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Case simplification

Post by bobby18 on 14.01.14 19:53

@Casey5 wrote:I've thought often enough that Madeleine died prior to the third of May, giving the McCanns time to cover their tracks and have a rough idea of what they would say to the police, family, friends etc.
But, a big stumbling block for me is that on the 3rd May Madeleine was supposed to be alive. Therefore, unless all of the tapas 7 were in on it which I don't believe, then there is a chance that one or more of them would be at the creche, the tea table or somewhere else that Madeleine should have been and been able to say "hang on, I was there and saw Gerry, Kate and the twins but Madeleine wasn't there."
I know they all dithered and stuttered in their accounts but none of them would say when the last time was that they saw Madeleine, not even Diane Webster was sure. Surely on the day the child disappeared, that last sighting - if it was on that day - would have been to the forefront of their minds, even if it was just seeing her at the creche or witnessing Kate carrying Madeleine home because she was so tired.
Why didn't they know?

IMO the case is quite simple and I cannot see by the principles of Mr Amaral's reasoned logic and theory (especially from 9.30 onwards and specifically Smithman).

The unparalleled government intervention and unwavering media support is something I cannot fathom and I fully understand why it will lead people into other areas.

bobby18

Posts : 69
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-10-25

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Case simplification

Post by HelenMeg on 14.01.14 20:02

@Tangled Web wrote:All the detail we have makes the whole thing very confusing indeed. My head is fuzzy with it all.

However, I cannot bring myself to believe it was an accident. I don't believe for one second that doctors would leave three young children alone in apartment. I just don't buy it. At one time, I had 3 children aged five and under and anybody with half of a brain knows the tragedy that can befall young children when you take your eye off them for even one second. I just don't buy it that they were left alone and the more the McCann's try to force me to believe that they left them, the less I believe it. They are trying to distract us here. I even struggle to believe that KM had a bath/shower whilst in the apartment with the three little ones. This is barely feasible with three older ones so I just don't buy it. Any 'normal' parent finding their child had died in an accident whilst left unattended (for whatever reason) would not conceal the body of the child they loved so dearly. Absolutely no way.

Problem I have is, if it wasn't an accident then what on earth happened and why?

Yes, I have always thought that the 'leaving 3 kids on their own' was the red herring and key to this.  IMO they were prepared to accept being labelled as 'neglecting' parents rather than anything else.  It was the lesser of the evils.  Anything they actually 'want' us to believe is likely to be a red herring. They NEED us to believe that they left their children in order for us to accept the 'abduction' .
The other thing they want us to believe is that Madeleine complained to them 'Why did you leave us Mummy?''  on the previous night.. now why did they badly want to reveal that to us?  To make us accept that Madeleine was still alive the night before. So as they want us to believe that then we can be pretty sure that she was already dead by then. Whatever they reveal to us of their own free will is likley to be designed to make us believe something. They are good at that.. lots of little bits of information that they impart - sea bass / hair cuts / etc etc all for a reason. Everything is contrived.
Therefore I have always though the key to this case is to take everything they have 'revealed to us' of their own free will  and turn it around to understand what they were covering up.

HelenMeg

Posts : 1782
Reputation : 208
Join date : 2014-01-08

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Case simplification

Post by Guest on 14.01.14 20:55

@bobby18 wrote:It is completely understandable that people would ask if it was an accident, why would the McCann's not report it as such?

I believe that is explained in their behaviour pre and post a disappearance, in that social standing is EVERYTHING to them. Demonstrated by leaving children unattended in an unfamiliar place on holiday to their unerring love of the limelight - the Pope, World leaders, Oprah - they cannot get enough of it. Repulsive to many but an addiction to them.

The highly plausible and simple explanation of an accident (and specifically the circumstances of it) would mean child neglect accusations, loss of job, etc.

Social standing is everything to them - and is more important to them than anything or ANYONE else imo.
If you have to work out underlying motives for, of course hypothetical, concealment and disposal of a dead body, based on the McCann's story of leaving their children alone, just to get to a theory of an accident as a cause of death, then that is not very simple and plausible.
Calling it the simplest and therefore probable explanation seems to me just reverse logic.
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Case simplification

Post by Tangled Web on 14.01.14 21:00

@HelenMeg wrote:
@Tangled Web wrote:All the detail we have makes the whole thing very confusing indeed. My head is fuzzy with it all.

However, I cannot bring myself to believe it was an accident. I don't believe for one second that doctors would leave three young children alone in apartment. I just don't buy it. At one time, I had 3 children aged five and under and anybody with half of a brain knows the tragedy that can befall young children when you take your eye off them for even one second. I just don't buy it that they were left alone and the more the McCann's try to force me to believe that they left them, the less I believe it. They are trying to distract us here. I even struggle to believe that KM had a bath/shower whilst in the apartment with the three little ones. This is barely feasible with three older ones so I just don't buy it. Any 'normal' parent finding their child had died in an accident whilst left unattended (for whatever reason) would not conceal the body of the child they loved so dearly. Absolutely no way.

Problem I have is, if it wasn't an accident then what on earth happened and why?

Yes, I have always thought that the 'leaving 3 kids on their own' was the red herring and key to this.  IMO they were prepared to accept being labelled as 'neglecting' parents rather than anything else.  It was the lesser of the evils.  Anything they actually 'want' us to believe is likely to be a red herring. They NEED us to believe that they left their children in order for us to accept the 'abduction' .
The other thing they want us to believe is that Madeleine complained to them 'Why did you leave us Mummy?''  on the previous night.. now why did they badly want to reveal that to us?  To make us accept that Madeleine was still alive the night before. So as they want us to believe that then we can be pretty sure that she was already dead by then. Whatever they reveal to us of their own free will is likley to be designed to make us believe something. They are good at that.. lots of little bits of information that they impart - sea bass / hair cuts / etc etc all for a reason. Everything is contrived.
Therefore I have always though the key to this case is to take everything they have 'revealed to us' of their own free will  and turn it around to understand what they were covering up.

I completely agree Helenmeg. Do they not realise how transparent they actually are?? No, because they appear to have no self awareness at all.

Tangled Web

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

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Case simplification

Post by bobby18 on 14.01.14 21:22

MarcoG wrote:
@bobby18 wrote:It is completely understandable that people would ask if it was an accident, why would the McCann's not report it as such?

I believe that is explained in their behaviour pre and post a disappearance, in that social standing is EVERYTHING to them. Demonstrated by leaving children unattended in an unfamiliar place on holiday to their unerring love of the limelight - the Pope, World leaders, Oprah - they cannot get enough of it. Repulsive to many but an addiction to them.

The highly plausible and simple explanation of an accident (and specifically the circumstances of it) would mean child neglect accusations, loss of job, etc.

Social standing is everything to them - and is more important to them than anything or ANYONE else imo.
If you have to work out underlying motives for, of course hypothetical, concealment and disposal of a dead body, based on the McCann's story of leaving their children alone, just to get to a theory of an accident as a cause of death, then that is not very simple and plausible.
Calling it the simplest and therefore probable explanation seems to me just reverse logic.

I wouldn't say that I haven't tried to 'work out' motive - IMO it is plain to see.

For example, if I was guilty of what the McCann's readily accept was their behaviour on that holiday, with the alleged consequences they purport happened to young Madeleine , I would be eaten with guilt, shame, remorse etc. Completely contrary to their behaviour, I would never have the stomach to show my face in public again.

In addition, I probably would have served jail time.

Grotesque as it may sound, the McCann's appear to me to have used it to 'bigger and better' things!

bobby18

Posts : 69
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-10-25

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Case simplification

Post by Guest on 14.01.14 22:37

@bobby18 wrote:
MarcoG wrote:
@bobby18 wrote:It is completely understandable that people would ask if it was an accident, why would the McCann's not report it as such?

I believe that is explained in their behaviour pre and post a disappearance, in that social standing is EVERYTHING to them. Demonstrated by leaving children unattended in an unfamiliar place on holiday to their unerring love of the limelight - the Pope, World leaders, Oprah - they cannot get enough of it. Repulsive to many but an addiction to them.

The highly plausible and simple explanation of an accident (and specifically the circumstances of it) would mean child neglect accusations, loss of job, etc.

Social standing is everything to them - and is more important to them than anything or ANYONE else imo.
If you have to work out underlying motives for, of course hypothetical, concealment and disposal of a dead body, based on the McCann's story of leaving their children alone, just to get to a theory of an accident as a cause of death, then that is not very simple and plausible.
Calling it the simplest and therefore probable explanation seems to me just reverse logic.

I wouldn't say that I haven't tried to 'work out' motive - IMO it is plain to see.

For example, if I was guilty of what the McCann's readily accept was their behaviour on that holiday, with the alleged consequences they purport happened to young Madeleine , I would be eaten with guilt, shame, remorse etc. Completely contrary to their behaviour, I would never have the stomach to show my face in public again.

In addition, I probably would have served jail time.

Grotesque as it may sound, the McCann's appear to me to have used it to 'bigger and better' things!

What I mean is, though nothing has been proven, that from concealment and disposal of a corpse to an unfortunate accident is logically a bigger step, further fetched even, than to something more deliberate, like for example murder.
There's simply no reason to presume an accident.
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Case simplification

Post by ultimaThule on 14.01.14 23:15

There was no abduction by stranger(s) and, by virtue of the fact that accidents are common occurrences which can be explained to the appropriate authorities without fear of censure or other unwelcome repercussions, there was no accident, MarcoG,

It therefore follows that in all probability imo, the child met her death at the hands of her parent(s), or person(s) known to them, and her corpse was concealed because the perpetrator(s) of these heinous crimes feared the consequences of being held to account in a court of law.
avatar
ultimaThule

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

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Case simplification

Post by Guest on 14.01.14 23:30

@ultimaThule wrote:There was no abduction by stranger(s) and, by virtue of the fact that accidents are common occurrences which can be explained to the appropriate authorities without fear of censure or other unwelcome repercussions, there was no accident, MarcoG,

It therefore follows that in all probability the child met her death at the hands of her parent(s), or person(s) known to them, and her corpse was concealed because the perpetrator(s) of these heinous crimes feared the consequences of being held to account in a court of law.

Yes. All hypothetical of course unproven speculation blahdieblah: If this, then probably that.
Though the Unfortunate Accident is sold everywhere I read as the so called simplest thus probable explanation. 
"Oh that. That was just an accident your honour."
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Page 1 of 3 1, 2, 3  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


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