Sunday Express 9 Feb 2014 - MADELEINE - There REALLY WAS a COVER-UP

ultimaThule wrote:Really, Brixham?

And then what happens?  Maddie dies and a distraught Gerry carries her corpse out into the night in order to conceal it?  Why would he do that?

What independent proof do we have that GM joined the Tapas at the Great Round Table at all, on May 3rd?

I seem to recall that there are independent witnesses who put both of the McCanns at the great square table shortly after 8pm on the night of 3 May 2007 and that Gerry initiated a conversation with one or other of them.

Woofer wrote:

brixham wrote:It has always struck me as strange that MO checks on the children to the degree that he can discern that the twins are breathing ( to quote –“I mean, they were breathing and that's what, you know, and that was what I was there to check”) but does not even know if Maddie is present.

But if you look again at what he actually says, he says he was there to check if the twins were breathing – not to check if they were there.

So a possible scenario could be that GM is taking such a long time with his 9.05 check that when MO gets up to check at 9.30, KM asks him to check if all is OK.  On arrival at 5a MO finds a distraught GM with Maddie, injured or worse. A panicked  GM asks MO to check if the twins are breathing.

Only my opinion.

Good one Brixham ..........  but need to get round the possibility that GM was in the road outside at around 9.15 when Jane and Jeremy saw him ......  unless GM was only on his way into the flat at 9.15 and not coming out.

Yes Woofer he may have been on his way in.  I am just trying to get my head around how someone can go to check on 3 kids, report that two of them are breathing, in fact noticing that they are breathing 'normally', but does not even look for the other child. Utter rubbish.  There is something really not right here.

We've been here before, but allow me to repeat: WHY would a mother allow / accept  a "stranger" to her children [as MO himself stated ; he didn't know them very well - or at all] to check on them? He might have frightened them. And then only could run back to Tapas to alert the parents to come and calm them again ...

ETA and if memory serves me [but I would to check on that], MO supposedly offered to check on Madeleine [not: the children] ...

brixham,
 
For what it's worth, MO says 'that five minutes later GM came back to the group in the restaurant' (so about 9.10). Oh s***, what happened to his chat with Jez then? You just can't get the staff nowadays.

Portia,

'independent proof'? Them who must be believed have spoken.

Matthew Oldfield's statement 4th May:
 
'That Gerry would have entered  into his apartment and that he checked to make sure that Madeleine and the twins were sleeping in their bedroom, where it was quite dark. The bedroom door was left open [ajar]. That five minutes later, Gerry came back to the group in the restaurant'.
 
Nice of him to know what Gerry did at his 9.05 check. It was quite dark. The bedroom door was left open. ?????? How could you give a statement on someone else's behalf? Rachel went on to do the same thing for him!
 
'At around 9.25pm, the interviewee went into his apartment and Madeleine's apartment to check on the children. He states that the door of the bedroom that was occupied by Madeleine and the twins, was open and that there was enough light in the bedroom for him to see the twins in their cots. That he couldn't see the bed occupied by Madeleine, but as it was all quiet, he deduced that she was sleeping. That the light was not from an artificial source inside the apartment, but perhaps something coming from outside through the bedroom window. That it seemed to him that the shutters of the Master bedroom window were open without knowing if the window was also open……….
……… The couple's bedroom has a window which is visible from the restaurant. The children's bedroom windows look out on the road……….
 
Matthew Oldfield 10^th May 2007
   
‘That he did not enter the bedroom where MBM and the twins were sleeping. He recalls that the bedroom door was half open, making an angle of 50 degrees. He does not know how far away he was from the bedroom door....................
 
‘Asked, he relates that when he entered the apartment, from memory, he did not approach MBM's bedroom therefore cannot provide any details about its condition.’
 
If there was enough light in the room to see that the twins were breathing, without entering the room, (through the solid end of the right hand cot), the disheveled bed under the window would have been obvious, giving rise to anybody checking the kids, concern that M was not in bed. Had she fallen out? Woken & wandered to the bathroom, parents bed etc?
You would have to go into the room to see what had happened and look for her.
He would not have known that she was allegedly in the bed immediately to the left.
 
He does not know how far away he was from the bedroom door!!!!!!!!!
 
It also seemed to him that the shutters of the master bedroom window were open, as opposed to the children’s bedroom windows to which he also refers.
 
As for ‘not approaching MBM’s bedroom’ who knows? Were the twins (or one of them) in the front bedroom, in the cot as reported by the maid on the Wednesday morning? What does he mean by MBM's bedroom?
 
Then we come to Version 3, back in Leicester with the ‘technical problems’.

Then you come to the bewk and KM's admission that she was only pulling the door to, so she didn't intend checking either.
 
You just couldn’t make this nonsense up, could you????????

MO was probably never in 5a checking that night. And neither was Madeleine there either. But the problem for MO when he agreed to say he went to check, possibly when the time-lines were being written up, he didn't know what he was getting himself into.
All imo.

Well, the one thing that is very clear is that it is all a load of utter borrocks.

dantezebu wrote:MO was probably never in 5a checking that night. And neither was Madeleine there either. But the problem for MO when he agreed to say he went to check, possibly when the time-lines were being written up, he didn't know what he was getting himself into.
All imo.

Exactly!

Lance De Boils wrote:Well, the one thing that is very clear is that it is all a load of utter borrocks.

It sure is... but how interesting that MO says he was there to 'check their breathing' when his alleged brief was to check whether any of the children were crying.

ultimaThule wrote:

Lance De Boils wrote:Well, the one thing that is very clear is that it is all a load of utter borrocks.

It sure is... but how interesting that MO says he was there to 'check their breathing' when his alleged brief was to check whether any of the children were crying.

We have to be careful not to create forum myths. Where do you get that quote that he says he was there to "check their breathing"?

(Incidentally I do think the MO check is the key to cracking the case, so I am not downplaying its importance.)

Check out pages 26 and 27 of this thread, Okeydokey.

travis macbickle wrote:

diatribe wrote:

j.rob wrote:

but I think it is true that Madeleine may well have been removed ('taken') from the apartment that evening. The McCanns were behind what happened but it doesn't mean they necessarily physically removed Madeleine or her body. Maybe the chaos that ensued, before the police arrived, provided a cover for a person to scuttle away, perhaps, carrying Madeleine.

But who and for what reason would a friend or acquaintance agree to participate in a criminal enterprise with the McCanns. It couldn't have been for money because at the time the McCanns were financially strapped for cash. None of their associates would have been criminally minded, let alone had any previous dealings with the police, thereby making them extremely vulnerable to the slightest pressure exerted by the aforementioned. Lets have it right, as was the case with the Krays, there wasn't a staunch henchman such as George Foreman on hand to dispose of a body.

Would you put your trust in a straight person to dispose of a body for you with any confidence. The McCann's friends weren't people with vast criminal experience who had grown up together on the mean streets of South London, they were university graduates from middle class backgrounds who'd scream like stuck pigs at the very thought of a few hrs. in police custody. Gerry McCann's entire cavalier attitude of 'Prove it if you can' oozes confidence that Madeleine's body will never be discovered and that type of confidence doesn't emanate from a person who knows that his destiny lays in the hands of others who could expose him at any time.

As previously stated, there is no honour amongst friends any more than there is with thieves and with the amount of money and offers of immunity from prosecution, you can bet your last cent that had anyone possessed such information, the McCanns would have been offered up as sacrificial lambs many moons ago.There are only two people on this planet who know for certain that Madeleine is dead and where her remains are interred. They are the same two who are perpetually attempting to convince the world and his wife that she is still alive. Whilst this illusion is maintained, it makes it more difficult for the authorities to instigate charges against them and also keeps their donation fund ticking over.

freddie foreman,george foreman was a champion boxer and  is a very nice guy by all accounts!

Well, yes, I see what you are getting at. According to Kate, as written in her book, Gerry grew up in a Glasgow one-bedroom tenement as one of six children. His father was often away, his mum must have been hard at work and, incredibly, there were also extra people arriving and sleeping there too. Quite a squash!

"But who and for what reason would a friend or acquaintance agree to participate in a criminal enterprise with the McCanns?"

Good question.  The McCann friends may have felt some level of implication in the turn of events on that fateful Algarve holiday (eg: some of them had sedated their children/they had left their children unattended...or...something else....)

So they may have felt a sense of responsibility/obligation or whatever when there was 'a disaster' as Gerry said.

In terms of agreeing to participate in a criminal enterprise...well, that would presumably fall to people who were part of a criminal underworld. But it seems that the McCanns hired a few such creatures in the weeks following their daughter's disappearance. I guess you have to ask why. And then you have to come to a conclusio

Poor Madeleine. How horrible.

Okeydokey wrote:

ultimaThule wrote:

Lance De Boils wrote:Well, the one thing that is very clear is that it is all a load of utter borrocks.

It sure is... but how interesting that MO says he was there to 'check their breathing' when his alleged brief was to check whether any of the children were crying.

We have to be careful not to create forum myths. Where do you get that quote that he says he was there to "check their breathing"?

(Incidentally I do think the MO check is the key to cracking the case, so I am not downplaying its importance.)

I do apologise if this is not what MO said but that is what is written in the Mccannfiles, towards the bottom of part 2. Please delete this moderators if you feel Mccannfiles wording is not correct and that it should not be copied or discussed over here. 
If it is a misprint in anyway then again I apologise for any offence caused.

Clocker wrote:

Okeydokey wrote:

ultimaThule wrote:

Lance De Boils wrote:Well, the one thing that is very clear is that it is all a load of utter borrocks.

It sure is... but how interesting that MO says he was there to 'check their breathing' when his alleged brief was to check whether any of the children were crying.

We have to be careful not to create forum myths. Where do you get that quote that he says he was there to "check their breathing"?

(Incidentally I do think the MO check is the key to cracking the case, so I am not downplaying its importance.)

I do apologise if this is not what MO said but that is what is written in the Mccannfiles, towards the bottom of part 2. Please delete this moderators if you feel Mccannfiles wording is not correct and that it should not be copied or discussed over here. 
If it is a misprint in anyway then again I apologise for any offence caused.

Indeed it is beyond peculiar that MO noted the twins breathing. The normal babysitting arrangement stuff would be to check in that the children were sleeping and, if not, comfort them. I have been a babysitter on many occasions and I can't say that my primary concern was that the children were breathing - in general, you would assume that would be the case. 

So, the concern would be that the children might wake up and then you would want to comfort them and help them get back to sleep.

J.rob I'm on mobile so can't quote huge 'quotes within quotes' but you raise an interesting point. The ability of the McCanns to hire a stream of crooks and charlatans is quite revealing. The only problem is that I'm not sure what its revealing. A cynical mastermind might choose inept investigators (the last thing you'd want would be the case solved, right?). A traumatised family believing their child's life was in the balance would use the money for the best UK investigators - especially given all the high-level friends they had acquired in the days following the disappearance. Imagine: you have Gordon Brown on your side and you're awash with the public's money. Do you a) say "Prime Minister can you recommend the most effective missing persons investigators?" Or b) Go hire some Spanish crooks followed by an American con-man and then some hapless ex-RUC coppers who formed their company specially to suck up your money? 

Try as I might I can't see the choice of useless investigator-buffoons as complete chance. Very bad advice by people with various vested interests...perhaps.

ProfessorPPlum wrote:J.rob I'm on mobile so can't quote huge 'quotes within quotes' but you raise an interesting point. The ability of the McCanns to hire a stream of crooks and charlatans is quite revealing. The only problem is that I'm not sure what its revealing. A cynical mastermind might choose inept investigators (the last thing you'd want would be the case solved, right?). A traumatised family believing their child's life was in the balance would use the money for the best UK investigators - especially given all the high-level friends they had acquired in the days following the disappearance. Imagine: you have Gordon Brown on your side and you're awash with the public's money. Do you a) say "Prime Minister can you recommend the most effective missing persons investigators?" Or b) Go hire some Spanish crooks followed by an American con-man and then some hapless ex-RUC coppers who formed their company specially to suck up your money? 

Try as I might I can't see the choice of useless investigator-buffoons as complete chance. Very bad advice by people with various vested interests...perhaps.

If you ever want to experience lies, get into PR. I did. Got out of it within weeks.

It became glaringly obvious (in my opinion) fairly quickly that the McCanns were making a point of hiring inept and ineffectual investigators. And every time they were revealed to be exactly that, I just shook my head and thought, how long is the public going to buiy this "Oh poor us, we were duped AGAIN!" line from the McCanns.

IMO the two reasons these buffoons were constantly hired was:

1. The possibility of money from the fund being laundered back to the McCanns' pockets (I'm aware this could be libellous so I'm stating very strongly that this is my opinion only, of something that COULD have been the case but has not been proven or investigated, as far as I know)

2. The chances of them finding out what actually happened to Madeleine were low to zero. As they could be convinced (again in my opinion) to steer quite clear of the obvious.

ProfessorPPlum wrote:J.rob I'm on mobile so can't quote huge 'quotes within quotes' but you raise an interesting point. The ability of the McCanns to hire a stream of crooks and charlatans is quite revealing. The only problem is that I'm not sure what its revealing. A cynical mastermind might choose inept investigators (the last thing you'd want would be the case solved, right?). A traumatised family believing their child's life was in the balance would use the money for the best UK investigators - especially given all the high-level friends they had acquired in the days following the disappearance. Imagine: you have Gordon Brown on your side and you're awash with the public's money. Do you a) say "Prime Minister can you recommend the most effective missing persons investigators?" Or b) Go hire some Spanish crooks followed by an American con-man and then some hapless ex-RUC coppers who formed their company specially to suck up your money? 

Try as I might I can't see the choice of useless investigator-buffoons as complete chance. Very bad advice by people with various vested interests...perhaps.

But in my opinion the McCanns motive was not to hire the best investigators in order to solve the mystery of what had happened to Madeleine. They did not enlist the help of experts in cases of missing children. Metodo 3, Oakley, Kevin Halligan and so on. What about Clarence Mitchell? Is he an expert in cases of missing children? And then at one point Kate and Gerry were listening to clairvoyants and the like.

I think a little more probing into Gerry McCanns background and his work and social contacts would be helpful. It appears that some of the Tapas group did not know the McCanns very well prior to the holiday. And one suspects that if they had been better aquainted with them they might have reconsidered their choice of holiday companions.

And, in actual fact, they would not be the first of the McCanns friends/acquaintances who would come to regret their holiday arrangements with the McCanns. The Gaspers spring to mind. Clearly the Gaspers were not happy with Gerry and David Payne's input into children's bath-time. Equally, I cannot imagine the Gaspers would have wanted either Gerry or David popping into their holiday apartment to check on their sleeping children.

canada12 wrote:It became glaringly obvious (in my opinion) fairly quickly that the McCanns were making a point of hiring inept and ineffectual investigators. And every time they were revealed to be exactly that, I just shook my head and thought, how long is the public going to buiy this "Oh poor us, we were duped AGAIN!" line from the McCanns.

IMO the two reasons these buffoons were constantly hired was:

1. The possibility of money from the fund being laundered back to the McCanns' pockets (I'm aware this could be libellous so I'm stating very strongly that this is my opinion only, of something that COULD have been the case but has not been proven or investigated, as far as I know)

2. The chances of them finding out what actually happened to Madeleine were low to zero. As they could be convinced (again in my opinion) to steer quite clear of the obvious.

The whole thing has been quite extraordinary. I think you have to look at what was going on politically at the time. There were a lot of scandals and other things going on - cash for questions, the fall-out from the Iraq fiasco, phone hacking, Operation Ore D-Notice, nuclear power stuff etc. The Madeleine McCann abduction story was, I imagine, a good way of burying some bad news. Cynical, yes. But there was a hell of a lot of s*** hitting the fan in 2007.

travis macbickle wrote:

diatribe wrote:

j.rob wrote:

but I think it is true that Madeleine may well have been removed ('taken') from the apartment that evening. The McCanns were behind what happened but it doesn't mean they necessarily physically removed Madeleine or her body. Maybe the chaos that ensued, before the police arrived, provided a cover for a person to scuttle away, perhaps, carrying Madeleine.

But who and for what reason would a friend or acquaintance agree to participate in a criminal enterprise with the McCanns. It couldn't have been for money because at the time the McCanns were financially strapped for cash. None of their associates would have been criminally minded, let alone had any previous dealings with the police, thereby making them extremely vulnerable to the slightest pressure exerted by the aforementioned. Lets have it right, as was the case with the Krays, there wasn't a staunch henchman such as George Foreman on hand to dispose of a body.

Would you put your trust in a straight person to dispose of a body for you with any confidence. The McCann's friends weren't people with vast criminal experience who had grown up together on the mean streets of South London, they were university graduates from middle class backgrounds who'd scream like stuck pigs at the very thought of a few hrs. in police custody. Gerry McCann's entire cavalier attitude of 'Prove it if you can' oozes confidence that Madeleine's body will never be discovered and that type of confidence doesn't emanate from a person who knows that his destiny lays in the hands of others who could expose him at any time.

As previously stated, there is no honour amongst friends any more than there is with thieves and with the amount of money and offers of immunity from prosecution, you can bet your last cent that had anyone possessed such information, the McCanns would have been offered up as sacrificial lambs many moons ago.There are only two people on this planet who know for certain that Madeleine is dead and where her remains are interred. They are the same two who are perpetually attempting to convince the world and his wife that she is still alive. Whilst this illusion is maintained, it makes it more difficult for the authorities to instigate charges against them and also keeps their donation fund ticking over.

freddie foreman,george foreman was a champion boxer and  is a very nice guy by all accounts!

Of course, my mistake, I meant Freddie who also isn't a terrible person either, one can't believe everything one reads in the press. 

diatribe wrote:j.ro Well, yes, I see what you are getting at. According to Kate, as written in her book, Gerry grew up in a Glasgow one-bedroom tenement as one of six children. His father was often away, his mum must have been hard at work and, incredibly, there were also extra people arriving and sleeping there too. Quite a squash!

But were any of them available in the hr. of Gerry's need. I appreciate that a few glaswegians went on the lamb to Clacton in the 1960's where there is now a thriving community of ex pat glaswegians, but I wasn't aware there were any tribal communities of ex pat. glaswegians residing in the Priara da Luz area.
 

Good question. The McCann friends may have felt some level of implication in the turn of events on that fateful Algarve holiday (eg: some of them had sedated their children/they had left their children unattended...or...something else....)

So they may have felt a sense of responsibility/obligation or whatever when there was 'a disaster' as Gerry said.

They certainly would have been of the mind to lie to distance themselves from accusations of neglect, but it would be a siesmic leap to agree to assist in the disposal of a body. In the case of Regina v Krays, Freddie Foreman received a 10 yr. stretch for affording such a service. Besides which, would you want to place your future in the hands of people who couldn't even get their witness statements lined up, I'd dread to think how they would have reacted if charged with a criminal offence, why they'd have been queuing round the block to give evidence against the McCanns.

In terms of agreeing to participate in a criminal enterprise...well, that would presumably fall to people who were part of a criminal underworld. But it seems that the McCanns hired a few such creatures in the weeks following their daughter's disappearance. I guess you have to ask why. And then you have to come to a conclusio

But did they hire any of these people, perhaps they were engaged by their financial backers or entourage who had jumped onto the McCann milche cow. I've always been under the illusion that anyone hired to help find Madeleine was the least as opposed to the best qualified. In fact the former seems to be a mandatory requirement.

diatribe,at the risk of upsetting some  people,gerry from day one sounded very effeminate to born and bred glaswegians like myself.draw from this what you may.

diatribe wrote:j.ro Well, yes, I see what you are getting at. According to Kate, as written in her book, Gerry grew up in a Glasgow one-bedroom tenement as one of six children. His father was often away, his mum must have been hard at work and, incredibly, there were also extra people arriving and sleeping there too. Quite a squash!

But were any of them available in the hr. of Gerry's need. I appreciate that a few glaswegians went on the lamb to Clacton in the 1960's where there is now a thriving community of ex pat glaswegians, but I wasn't aware there were any tribal communities of ex pat. glaswegians residing in the Priara da Luz area.
 

Good question. The McCann friends may have felt some level of implication in the turn of events on that fateful Algarve holiday (eg: some of them had sedated their children/they had left their children unattended...or...something else....)

So they may have felt a sense of responsibility/obligation or whatever when there was 'a disaster' as Gerry said.

They certainly would have been of the mind to lie to distance themselves from accusations of neglect, but it would be a siesmic leap to agree to assist in the disposal of a body. In the case of Regina v Krays, Freddie Foreman received a 10 yr. stretch for affording such a service. Besides which, would you want to place your future in the hands of people who couldn't even get their witness statements lined up, I'd dread to think how they would have reacted if charged with a criminal offence, why they'd have been queuing round the block to give evidence against the McCanns.

In terms of agreeing to participate in a criminal enterprise...well, that would presumably fall to people who were part of a criminal underworld. But it seems that the McCanns hired a few such creatures in the weeks following their daughter's disappearance. I guess you have to ask why. And then you have to come to a conclusio

But did they hire any of these people, perhaps they were engaged by their financial backers or entourage who had jumped onto the McCann milche cow. I've always been under the illusion that anyone hired to help find Madeleine was the least as opposed to the best qualified. In fact the former seems to be a mandatory requirement.

ivf!who is the daddy?

But were any of them available in the hr. of Gerry's need. I appreciate that a few glaswegians went on the lamb to Clacton in the 1960's where there is now a thriving community of ex pat glaswegians, but I wasn't aware there were any tribal communities of ex pat. glaswegians residing in the Priara da Luz area.


Well, Gerry seemed to have a lot of contacts. Quite a few people sprung to his defence quite early on. Not necessarily in the local resort. No doubt they were following the money. From the very beginning the McCanns put no faith in the Portugese police system. The evening of Madeleine's 'disappearance' the parents were already critical.

Which is more than suspicious given that neither of the McCAnns or any of their friends actually phoned the police themselves that night. And in fact you could argue that Matt's ridiculous check on Madeleine (which, significantly, failed to check on whether Madeleine was there or not) was designed to delay the arrival of the police.

Matt may have unwittingly found himself thrown into this nightmare. It is possible that some of the children had been sedated and that Madeleine had an adverse reaction (or someone else topped up the dose) and he or Tanner/Russell were complicit in some way - maybe did the same with their children or gave advice or something.

They certainly would have been of the mind to lie to distance themselves from accusations of neglect, but it would be a siesmic leap to agree to assist in the disposal of a body. In the case of Regina v Krays, Freddie Foreman received a 10 yr. stretch for affording such a service. Besides which, would you want to place your future in the hands of people who couldn't even get their witness statements lined up, I'd dread to think how they would have reacted if charged with a criminal offence, why they'd have been queuing round the block to give evidence against the McCanns.






If any of the friends assisted with the disposal of a body it would be because there were more sinister reasons than an accident in the apartment or an overdose of sedatives, in my opinion. There would be compelling reasons why the people involved would not want a body to be found.

But I imagine that there would be people around who would be willing to dispose of a body, for the right price. 

But did they hire any of these people, perhaps they were engaged by their financial backers or entourage who had jumped onto the McCann milche cow. I've always been under the illusion that anyone hired to help find Madeleine was the least as opposed to the best qualified. In fact the former seems to be a mandatory requirement.





Well, the McCanns cannot absolve themselves of every single responsibility (although they do try hard to, especially when it comes to looking after their children). Whoever jumped on the band-wagon would have had the blessing of the McCAnns. If you take the view that they were desperate, grieving parents who would do anything to find their child, then you could understand that they would be vulnerable to exploitation from those who want to milk the cash-cow. But their behaviour after the evening of the alleged 'abduction' strongly suggested that they knew that Madeleine was either dying or dead or would be in the near future.

Which is what the Portugese police thought pretty much from word go. None of what they or their friends said made any sense. And their determination to insist on the abduction theory and not allow for other possibilities was highly suspicious. And you don't have to be a detective to work that one out. 

So it was all a giant hoax. Pretending that Madeleine had been 'grabbed from her bed' (and Kate frequently alludes to this in her book) by an unknown abductor got the parents and their friends off the hook, created a huge media story that captivated the world and launched the McCanns as a celebrity couple who were the victims of a the worst crime imaginable (your child is stolen by a paedophile). This garnered massive sympathy from a gullible public who contributed handsomely to their Fund which was allegedly set up to 'find Madeleine'.

But given that it would seem that the McCanns  at the very beginning showed no real hope of finding Madeleine, you have to reach a conclusion that the Fund was designed to support the abduction story and fund McCann actions and activities that were not designed to 
'find Madeleine' but rather was designed to keep the interest of the inquiry far away from the McCanns and their friends and into far-flung corners of the globe where the 'random abductor' might be hiding Madeleine'. Not to mention financing other activities designed to protect their reputations such as libel cases.

It was all a farce from the very beginning. But the support that the McCAnns received from high places (which presumably they were confident enough of to believe they could pull the whole thing off) was more than baffling.

While it may well be that there were many vested interests and conflicts of interest at play, not to mention back-scratching and the keeping of secrets, another explanation, which is simpler, is that the establishment (of which  McCanns and their friends are a part) did not want a massive media story which could bring disrepute to the medical profession. 

A group of doctors, lawyers and other professionals left their children unattended every evening while they went out to eat and drink. This placed their children in an unsafe environment in which an accident or other misfortune (abduction, molestation, drugging) could occur. There is no dispute that a terrrible misfortune DID occur while the McCann children were unattended in the apartment. This was admitted by the McCanns from the outset.

So even if you accept the McCann version of events (which the Portugese police did not, for very good reasons) then there is culpability on the part of the McCanns as they neglected to ensure that their children were safe from harm. This very obvious child protection issue was never adequately addressed. Instead, the McCanns managed to pre-empt the whole issue of by claiming that an even bigger crime had occurred - the crime of an abduction. So they rather craftily shifted the culpability from themselves onto a random mystery person from the very outset. This dramatically enhanced the story and provided for a 'long term campaign' in a way that the admission of Madeleine having had an accident, say, would never have done. It cunningly placed the McCAnns in the role of victims who needed to be protected which is more than ironic given that their lack of protection of their daughter placed her life in danger.

If, as the Portugese and many other suspect, the abduction was a cover-up for something else that happened to Madeleine, the plot thickens dramatically and the story becomes even more scandalous, even more incriminating when it appears that a group of professionals were all leaving their children unattended every evening. And not just that - when a terrible misfortune befalls one of the children - a misfortune that could have been avoided if proper babysitting arrangements had been in place - the parents and their friends elect to cover it up and fabricate a story about an abduction.

You can see why the group as a whole would try so hard to keep such a scandalous story out of the press. And, given that the group appear to have been quite firmly embedded in the medical/legal/marketing and PR fields - with friends in high and influential places -  you can see why the professional bodies that supposedly regulate these fields might want to close ranks around such audacious behaviour. 

It may well have been considered, by the powers that be, that such a big scandal would rock the public's confidence in the integrity of the medical profession . Not to mention the legal profession. So the public needed to be 'protected' from his hoax, this audacious plan by the very people who we entrust with our health and our lives. And instead, to keep us all in blissful ignorance of how where the true dangers might lie, we are lead up the garden path with the big bad bogey-man who steals little children from their beds at night. A story that will strike fear into the hearts of parents, while taking the spotlight far away from those who seek so hard to protect their reputations.

And all this paid for by the public. By contributing to the Fund, and also in their taxes.

Nice work if you can get it!

What did Amaral say at one stage in relation to deleted texts and so on: 'a high degree of cunning involved.' And while the McCanns like to bang on about how Amaral is 'discredited' over another child abduction case which he solved (in which the mother was involved in the child's murder) a cursory glance at some of the 'experts' that the McCanns chose to hire to help them - people with links to money laundering for instance - does not reveal a bed of roses. And in fact makes Amaral look like a bit of a saint really.

j.rob wrote:What did Amaral say at one stage in relation to deleted texts and so on: 'a high degree of cunning involved.' And while the McCanns like to bang on about how Amaral is 'discredited' over another child abduction case which he solved (in which the mother was involved in the child's murder) a cursory glance at some of the 'experts' that the McCanns chose to hire to help them - people with links to money laundering for instance - does not reveal a bed of roses. And in fact makes Amaral look like a bit of a saint really.

Some silly twits overlooked the fact the man is a doctor of law