Re: G.McCann laughs when talking about age progression picture (split from Maddie: Cops at War thread)

[Guest]

This is another thread on John McCann.......


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

This from above link...

Madeleine's family come together BBC News video

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

09 May 2007

John McCann has just returned from Portugal where his niece Madeleine was kidnapped.

(00:03:20)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Transcript

By Nigel Moore

BBC: We'll speak now to Madeleine's uncle, John McCann. Now, John - just returned from Portugal late last night - joins us from his home in Glasgow. We're very grateful for you to, errr... to be speaking to us this morning, John. Thank you, so much. The thoughts of everyone watching are with you and your family. What are they like, errm... Gerry and Kate, this m...? How... how are they feeling?

John McCann: Well, they've moved along since what happened last Thursday/Friday. Errm... Obviously we were all devastated then and, you know, there was a... a feeling of helplessness but in the last few days they've had a lot of support and they've been buoyed by that support, both in Portugal and at home, and, errm... they're much more positive about things that can be done to get Maddie back.

BBC: Yes, what... what were you able to do out there? Obviously, you were off... able to offer a lot of support to your brother. Are the family very close?

JM: Errm... (laughs) I suppose that's all relative, errr... yeah, we... we get on really well. We've got a good dynamic amongst us all and it was amazing actually to, errm... to realise how strong the extended family is, errm... some fantastic people, like, errr... Mike and Nicky who are still out there, errm... helping Gerry and Kate with some of the... the handling with the twins, you know, so it's... some good stuff has come out of a very adverse situation.

BBC: Yes, I mean, and they'll need an awful lot of support because you... you just wonder how they're able to cope with looking after the twins as well, when all this is going on and there's so much media attention on them.

JM: You're right, it... it is very difficult and you guys have been pretty good actually in terms of, errm... you've not been too intrusive, errr... and been very helpful at getting people to... to rally round and support us and to get information back to the police because, at the end of the day, that's what we need is... is leads to be followed, so that Maddie can get back to us.

BBC: What are your thoughts, John, on how the police have handled this investigation so far? Because you'll know that in the newspapers a lot of them this morning are calling the Portuguese police 'clueless'.

JM: I... I don't think that's a... a useful avenue to explore. I'd rather take it forward in a different way and get people saying, 'Right, let's move on. What can we do now? What... what's the best way to tackle this now?' And I think Gerry and Kate want us to focus like that as well, so, please, you know, let's focus on what can be done now. Any information; let's get on with working on that.

BBC: Yes, okay, so you're quite happy and... and the family are quite happy with the way the police are investigating this, so far?

JM: Everybody's working to the same end, you know, nobody... nobody's trying to stop us getting Maddie back. Everybody wants Maddie back and everybody is working, as far as I could perceive out there, to... to get that wee girl back to us.

BBC: Of course. What's Maddie like? What's she like as a character? What's she like as an individual?

JM: Errm... (laughs) She's, errr... she's a mixture of her parents. She's very bright, very quick, very energetic, a right wee individual. Errm... My two kids love her to bits, errr... her and the twins, errm... she's so fun, errr... she can be... she can be a bit stroppy at times, errr... but what... what interesting kid can't be? Errm... She's a wee darling, errr... really fantastic wee girl.

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

[sallypelt]

"Well, they've moved along since what happened last Thursday/Friday. Errm... Obviously we were all devastated then"

Huh???? Is this less than 6 days after Madeleine disappeared?

Something is VERY wrong, here!

[Tangled Web]

"Well, they've moved along since what happened last Thursday/Friday. Errm... Obviously we were all devastated then"

Huh???? Is this less than 6 days after Madeleine disappeared?

Something is VERY wrong, here!

It's just not normal behaviour and it's things like this that get me wondering if MM really did exist. You could only react in this manner if you KNEW that no tragedy had befallen your daughter/grand-daughter/niece etc. and you'd soon be profiting from a hoax. I can't believe that there could be so many cold and heartless people in that family   

[Guest]

I feel the same tangled web,bizarre.

[ChippyM]

I'm going to play devils advocate here, has anyone considered that Gerry might not be laughing at the question being asked?

 We can't hear the question properly and we certainly can't see the reporters as Kate and Gerry can. The person asking the question could have tripped or something, or made some kind of gesture that was un-intentionally funny when asking his question. Something like this might have made Gerry laugh and then he tries to stifle his reaction as he remembers where he is.

 I know Gerry has had inapropriate looking reactions before (the smirking when asked why they don't get their hopes up about possible sightings comes to mind) but it's a bit of a leap to presume he is laughing at the E-fit or having a private joke with the journalist when we can't see what else is going on in that room.

[Guest]

But chippym he is clearly trying to suppress a laugh for a lot of that interview.
And we all know how good he is at suppressing things...

[Research_Reader]

"Well, they've moved along since what happened last Thursday/Friday. Errm... Obviously we were all devastated then"

Huh???? Is this less than 6 days after Madeleine disappeared?

Something is VERY wrong, here!

It's just not normal behaviour and it's things like this that get me wondering if MM really did exist. You could only react in this manner if you KNEW that no tragedy had befallen your daughter/grand-daughter/niece etc. and you'd soon be profiting from a hoax. I can't believe that there could be so many cold and heartless people in that family   

I think most people on here (myself included) think this is all a hoax. However we mostly seem to focus on it being an accidental death followed by a cover-up.

Yet what if the truth is stranger? In my more imaginative moments I wonder if the hoax is something more akin to a big-business + government 'stunt' in order to further some kind of agenda (e.g. creation of a more robust child-protection database, flushing out of child-abuse groups operating in Portugal etc), that just went a bit too far. Or perhaps Maddie was taken by people known to the McCanns and used as a bargaining chip to force them to do something?

I don't think those are the MOST likely explanations, but sometimes I think along those lines.

[whatliesbehindthesofa]

I think most people on here (myself included) think this is all a hoax. However we mostly seem to focus on it being an accidental death followed by a cover-up.

Yet what if the truth is stranger? In my more imaginative moments I wonder if the hoax is something more akin to a big-business + government 'stunt' in order to further some kind of agenda (e.g. creation of a more robust child-protection database, flushing out of child-abuse groups operating in Portugal etc), that just went a bit too far. Or perhaps Maddie was taken by people known to the McCanns and used as a bargaining chip to force them to do something?

I don't think those are the MOST likely explanations, but sometimes I think along those lines.

My opinion is something very strange was going on on that 'holiday', but that the death of Madeleine* wasn't intended to be part of what was going on. There is a tendency on these forums to assume that all suspicious behaviour that was evident that week must have been connected to the crisis of the 3rd - I see no reason to automatically assume this to be the case. That poor girl may have died on the 3rd or earlier in the week, I really don't know. I do believe that all the strange connections that forum members have been unearthing recently show that it wasn't just a 'family holiday'. I've always agreed with that - the fact of several unrelated families holidaying together has struck me as off from the word go. I feel that the 'last photo' was a genuine photo that had the date changed from earlier in the week, to put Gerry at the club when I suspect he was actually somewhere very different.

*('in my opinion' of course, as we're all told to say here as if it makes any difference legally - I do it just to keep people happy.)

[Research_Reader]

You mean the swinging scenario? Or something else?

[whatliesbehindthesofa]

You mean the swinging scenario? Or something else?

In my opinion it's more likely to be something financially motivated - but I have no idea what. Could just as easily be swinging, who knows! I'm not one of those people whose first thought on a subject is 'it must be about sex' ;-)

[Cristobell]

I'm going to play devils advocate here, has anyone considered that Gerry might not be laughing at the question being asked?

 We can't hear the question properly and we certainly can't see the reporters as Kate and Gerry can. The person asking the question could have tripped or something, or made some kind of gesture that was un-intentionally funny when asking his question. Something like this might have made Gerry laugh and then he tries to stifle his reaction as he remembers where he is.

 I know Gerry has had inapropriate looking reactions before (the smirking when asked why they don't get their hopes up about possible sightings comes to mind) but it's a bit of a leap to presume he is laughing at the E-fit or having a private joke with the journalist when we can't see what else is going on in that room.

I think you are right to play Devil's advocate here Chippy and I have wondered that myself. We can see how close the McCanns are here, she knows what triggered Gerry's giggles, but keeps her cool.

I have a similar close relationship with my brother, and actually with my sons as well, where humour is concerned. I am sure we have all experienced that moment when a friend or stranger says something that we know will trigger a fit of giggles in our loved one, and it is at that moment we shoot them a 'don't you dare' glance or give them a sly kick. It is also conspiratorial, especially if we are sharing a secret from someone and trying to keep a straight face. I'm talking about fairly innocent secrets here btw, as in where someone's christmas present is hidden. I am sure most people have experienced similar with partners and close family members.

Bearing all this in mind, there could be an innocent explanation for Gerry's laughter - the man may have had an ill fitting toupee, or pronounced a word wrongly. The man may have held up a picture of 'Asian Maddie' as I think someone else suggested - but again, as ridiculous as 'Asian Maddie' was, they were talking about his missing daughter!

However, this was a very solemn occasion, they were presenting to the world a picture of how their daughter would look at the age of 9, if she were alive. This would break most parents' hearts, they would be struggling to utter a single coherent sentence. We have seen genuine mothers of missing children, their faces crumple at the mention of their child's name.

This is the Gerry and Kate Show! The Age Progression Pic, is just a sideline, it makes no impact on the emotions of the McCanns whatsoever. In my opinion they are psychopaths and the picture behind them should be of the Paypal button with clear instructions on how to use it. I'm afraid what I see, is the interview coming to an end, and Gerry in rush to celebrate another media victory and an in depth analysis of how well they did (him especially).

[Research_Reader]

If it were just an innocent fit of the giggles: how come they are emotional enough to show happiness and humour in public but rarely anything approaching genuine grief or tears?

Perhaps some people do, but I'm more inclined towards labelling this as the aforementioned 'duping delight'.

[Cristobell]

"Well, they've moved along since what happened last Thursday/Friday. Errm... Obviously we were all devastated then"

Huh???? Is this less than 6 days after Madeleine disappeared?

Something is VERY wrong, here!

It's just not normal behaviour and it's things like this that get me wondering if MM really did exist. You could only react in this manner if you KNEW that no tragedy had befallen your daughter/grand-daughter/niece etc. and you'd soon be profiting from a hoax. I can't believe that there could be so many cold and heartless people in that family   

I think most people on here (myself included) think this is all a hoax. However we mostly seem to focus on it being an accidental death followed by a cover-up.

Yet what if the truth is stranger? In my more imaginative moments I wonder if the hoax is something more akin to a big-business + government 'stunt' in order to further some kind of agenda (e.g. creation of a more robust child-protection database, flushing out of child-abuse groups operating in Portugal etc), that just went a bit too far. Or perhaps Maddie was taken by people known to the McCanns and used as a bargaining chip to force them to do something?

I don't think those are the MOST likely explanations, but sometimes I think along those lines.

I personally am glad people go into their imaginations RR, its pretty much all we have!

The most likely scenario out of the above that you have given, is, imo, creating a database. I have no doubt that is what Amber Alert was all about, microchipping all kids under the pretext of child abductors lurking on every corner. The Labour Government were very keen on the idea of ID Cards, and were pushing their agenda via several means, including using the terrorist threat. The Tories have always been against ID cards, as far as I am aware, and they rule the roost now. If something was begun along those lines in 2007/8, then nothing has come of it.

I have serious doubts as to the Government making any moves with regard to child protection. Simply on the grounds that it would cost money, and would not be seen as a priority at this time. Whilst they might wish to 'snatch' many more children from their parents, they haven't got the cash to pay for it.

[Research_Reader]

Yes the biggest problem with the 'children protection agenda stunt' theory is that it hasn't really transpired. Also, wouldn't you choose parents who seemed more sympathetic?

Yet...yet... the thing that niggles at my mind re this just being a cover-up is the behaviour of the extended family. Surely the parents wouldnt have risked telling them the truth? Yet if they genuinely believed Maddie was missing, I'm sure they would have been more sober in their behaviour? And what about that £30k or whatever it was that was paid to the nephew for making a website? V strange and just doesn't gel with a standard cover-up scenario.

[Tangled Web]

"Well, they've moved along since what happened last Thursday/Friday. Errm... Obviously we were all devastated then"

Huh???? Is this less than 6 days after Madeleine disappeared?

Something is VERY wrong, here!

It's just not normal behaviour and it's things like this that get me wondering if MM really did exist. You could only react in this manner if you KNEW that no tragedy had befallen your daughter/grand-daughter/niece etc. and you'd soon be profiting from a hoax. I can't believe that there could be so many cold and heartless people in that family   

I think most people on here (myself included) think this is all a hoax. However we mostly seem to focus on it being an accidental death followed by a cover-up.

Yet what if the truth is stranger? In my more imaginative moments I wonder if the hoax is something more akin to a big-business + government 'stunt' in order to further some kind of agenda (e.g. creation of a more robust child-protection database, flushing out of child-abuse groups operating in Portugal etc), that just went a bit too far. Or perhaps Maddie was taken by people known to the McCanns and used as a bargaining chip to force them to do something?

I don't think those are the MOST likely explanations, but sometimes I think along those lines.

We are bound to consider other theories when trying to make sense of things that don't make sense, such as:-

No police force appears to be in any rush to bring to justice the people responsible for a 3 year old child's death.
The majority of photo's I have seen with Madeleine on look photoshopped in some way.
The connections/coincidences between an awful lot of people who happened to be holidaying in PdL at the same time.
The lack of emotion from the McCann's and other family members (the swinging theory wouldn't explain other family members appearing not to care).
The gagging of the press.
Political interference.

And the list goes on and on and on!

[Seek truth]

JeanM: see the last post on page 1 re the question which Gerry found so funny.

Seek truth: Gerry's father died in 2004 or 2005 before the twins were born.

SORRY I mean John Mccann.

Thanks

[j.rob]

"Well, they've moved along since what happened last Thursday/Friday. Errm... Obviously we were all devastated then"

Huh???? Is this less than 6 days after Madeleine disappeared?

Something is VERY wrong, here!

It's just not normal behaviour and it's things like this that get me wondering if MM really did exist. You could only react in this manner if you KNEW that no tragedy had befallen your daughter/grand-daughter/niece etc. and you'd soon be profiting from a hoax. I can't believe that there could be so many cold and heartless people in that family   

I think most people on here (myself included) think this is all a hoax. However we mostly seem to focus on it being an accidental death followed by a cover-up.

Yet what if the truth is stranger? In my more imaginative moments I wonder if the hoax is something more akin to a big-business + government 'stunt' in order to further some kind of agenda (e.g. creation of a more robust child-protection database, flushing out of child-abuse groups operating in Portugal etc), that just went a bit too far. Or perhaps Maddie was taken by people known to the McCanns and used as a bargaining chip to force them to do something?

I don't think those are the MOST likely explanations, but sometimes I think along those lines.

There are many indications that there is a lot more behind it than simply covering up an accident. The very early media involvement and the speed with which The Fund was set up and other influential figures came on board. This indicates some kind of prior planning. I think it was a hoax to extort money and gain fame and fortune (there may have been other business/govt agendas ) plus the McCanns wanted roles as 'experts' in missing children (oh, the irony) but it didn't go to plan. Hence, the hoax became complicated by the necessity to cover up an accident/death. 

Whatever the eventual outcome for Madeleine (and faking an abduction was always going to be a highly risky and dangerous move for her safety) surely the McCanns would not have wanted the complication of removing a corpse from the apartment and resort? That is so risky. Far more risky than carrying a sleeping child away.

And don't forget that the scent of cadaver in the apartment and in the hire car has been probably the single most damning piece of evidence against them. If Madeleine had not died at some stage, but had been removed from the resort sedated but alive, this evidence would not have been there.

I think it is possible that, around a week after Madeleine 'went missing' and at the time that Murat was made a suspect, the McCanns - or at least Kate - were not entirely sure of the whereabouts of Madeleine or what kind of condition she was in. If the plan was for her to be removed from the resort and then hidden far away, perhaps with a false identity - or maybe even sold - then a great deal of her fate would lie in the hands of those who have acted as accomplices to the crime. And these would not be people who were motivated by Madeleine's best interests, obviously. So even if the intention were for Madeleine to be alive when removed from the resort, staging an abduction was a high risk hoax which could only seriously endanger Madeleine's safety (assuming the plan was for her to remain alive). 

On page 137 of Madeleine, about a week after Madeleine's 'disappearance' Kate writes of how she pleaded with the PJ to keep them abreast of what was happening. "We took it as read that those in charge of the investigation would have a duty to tell us, as the parents of an abducted child, whether they were any closer to finding her."

"Not knowing where your child is, how your child is, who she's with or indeed whether you will ever see her again is a glimpse of hell. Not knowing, either, about anything that is (or worse, isn't) being done to find her, or whether those looking for her are privy to more information about her circumstances than you are, only piles on the agony."

Although Kate often appears to be writing fiction, I do believe that nuggets of truth are embedded among the fantasy. At this particular point in time, Kate may well have been unsure exactly where Madeleine had been taken to, who she was with, and what her condition was.

However, what appears to disturb her as much if not more is that the police may discover what has happened to Madeleine before she does, and it appears that it is 'agony' that 'those looking for her' may be privy to more information about Madeleine's circumstances than Kate.

One imagines that if the police were to get to Madeleine first, the game might well be up from a very early stage, so this is not something that the McCanns wish for, despite what they say to the contrary which is so obviously contrived.

Because the consequences of that discovery would be 'hell' for the McCanns. As one might well imagine. 

So, as often seems to be the case, Kate's fears revolve around what the police might discover, before the McCAnns have had a chance to dispose of any incriminating evidence. 

As for the inappropriate laughter in the video clip, if you watch thought the entire interview, Gerry has the ghost of a smirk around the sides of his mouth for most of the interview. I think he found it mighty entertaining assisting the Met Police artist with an age-progressed photo of his daughter. Both the parents, at the end when they talk about the decision to show Madeleine without a fringe, are glib and flippant. There is no sincerity. They just appear to be congratulating themselves on another pantomime performance.

[Cristobell]

Yes the biggest problem with the 'children protection agenda stunt' theory is that it hasn't really transpired. Also, wouldn't you choose parents who seemed more sympathetic?

Yet...yet... the thing that niggles at my mind re this just being a cover-up is the behaviour of the extended family. Surely the parents wouldnt have risked telling them the truth? Yet if they genuinely believed Maddie was missing, I'm sure they would have been more sober in their behaviour? And what about that £30k or whatever it was that was paid to the nephew for making a website? V strange and just doesn't gel with a standard cover-up scenario.

The website was designed by one of Aunty Phil's students I believe RR, not a relative, and it was £37k - nice work for a student!

Gerry is the youngest of 5 siblings, and in large families the younger ones are usual raised by the oldest, not suggesting this is the case in McCann family, but he is in undoubtedly doted on by his older sisters. Kate is an only child, the 'special one', and doted on by her parents and extended family, her Aunt was one of the first people she called that night. I have a good idea of what life was like before 3rd May 2007, but I'll keep that to myself for now.

The McCanns are surrounded by a family of high achievers, we can only imagine what I must have been like when they all 'hit the phones'. Unlike call centre workers, the name Madeleine got these particular telephone pests through to the boardrooms.

Are they all involved? The length of time being taken by both police forces suggests they have a lot of names to work through. Coming from a long line of black sheep, I honestly don't know if large families do 'close ranks', unfortunately the only comparison (for me) is the Mafia!    I'm hoping someone can enlighten me?



Many clues in John McCann's interview I think RR. The McCanns are a very proactive family. They were working their little socks off calling in favours and sending begging letters to anyone and everyone whose address they could get hold of. They contacted JK Rowling, they contacted David Beckham. Whether others may have shown a little decorum in the aftermath of such a tragedy, this lot were saturating the media with false stories and spamming every area of society - large corporations, pressure groups, charities, celebrities with whiney claims that no-one was helping them. Therein lies all the help they received imo.

[Cristobell]

Hi Rob, I love your posts (especially the psychological ones), but having studied this case for years, I personally discount any scenario that doesn't take into account the evidence of the dogs. That is, the child is dead as Goncalo Amaral has said all along.

As for any premeditation, I think it unlikely. They would have come up with a tragedy that would have been much easier to hide. A sailing accident, a fall, basically something that would take attention away from themselves. I know the abduction theory does just that, but it was incredibility risky, and their story began to fall apart that same night when Jane Tanner had to come up with an abductor pdq. If stranger abduction was the best they could come up, they were pretty desperate.

As for their incredible success and the enormous amount of diplomatic help they received, I think the reasons for this were twofold. They were savvy enough to know their targets and they had enough people with them to 'hit the phones' 24/7. Did Gerry ever put his laptop down? Unless he was searching for Maddie using goggle earth, he was sending out those begging letters, or getting others to do it for him.

I do think they received help from the government (of 2007) that was over and above that normally given to UK citizens abroad. Whether that was as a result of pressure from the McCanns and their Media machine will be revealed in time I am sure. I just can't see the government investing £7m+ to shelve something that was already shelved.

[Research_Reader]

I think a lot of the extraordinary levels of help that they received was down to:

(1) The owners of the Ocean Club were well connected politically and with public relations experts, and they were able to pull in a lot of help, presumably to protect the reputation of the resort.

(2) As soon as the McCanns were able to whip-up a media storm in the first days, that created a bandwagon that politicians and celebrities were only too happy to jump on so as to make themselves seem caring, and get themselves noticed by the public.

[Research_Reader]

The website was designed by one of Aunty Phil's students I believe RR, not a relative, and it was £37k - nice work for a student!
 

As I'm sure has been mentioned numerous times: £37K for a website is at least 200 times the fee for a high level web-design project!

The only way it makes sense is if its for a website + full-time webmaster wages for a year. But how could they be sure they'd even need if for a year or any long period of time?

[justathought]

The website was designed by one of Aunty Phil's students I believe RR, not a relative, and it was £37k - nice work for a student!
 

As I'm sure has been mentioned numerous times: £37K for a website is at least 200 times the fee for a high level web-design project!

The only way it makes sense is if its for a website + full-time webmaster wages for a year. But how could they be sure they'd even need if for a year or any long period of time?

Website design is obviously dependent on end use and the purpose of the site. If the end use is one of generating income as the Madeleine Fund appeared(s) to be. The initial investment could well have paid for itself? But you have to also take into account that those setting up a website might not care as to the cost involved. Think this is the case here.
It is of course possible, to secrete funds raised to family members, and others those whom have a vested interest in a case. Including the cost of "maintenance" of a website, which could well be done for free by volunteers. And might run into many £1k's per annum. However, we will never know, given the Madeleine Fund is a Ltd company and Team MCCann can hide behind the accounts

[Guest]

I think that their accounts of the "fund" are part of their weakest spots. The first year they were detailed and then filet to death. Since then they've been publishing the bare necessities, which bear no resemblance anymore to their announced "transparency". Hiding in clear sight ...

[j.rob]

Hi Rob, I love your posts (especially the psychological ones), but having studied this case for years, I personally discount any scenario that doesn't take into account the evidence of the dogs.  That is, the child is dead as Goncalo Amaral has said all along.



As for their incredible success and the enormous amount of diplomatic help they received, I think the reasons for this were twofold.  They were savvy enough to know their targets and they had enough people with them to 'hit the phones' 24/7.  Did Gerry ever put his laptop down?  Unless he was searching for Maddie using goggle earth, he was sending out those begging letters, or getting others to do it for him.  

I do think they received help from the government (of 2007) that was over and above that normally given to UK citizens abroad.  Whether that was as a result of pressure from the McCanns and their Media machine will be revealed in time I am sure.  I just can't see the government investing £7m+ to shelve something that was already shelved.

Hi, thanks for the feedback! I think maybe I am unclear about what I believe may have been the motive/may have happened.

I think that it is quite possible that the plan was for Madeleine to 'be abducted'/'go missing' or whatever - alive and well, but heavily sedated. In other words, the McCanns had planned a 'faked abduction' of Madeleine. This was to raise money with the fund, become rich and famous and so on. Maybe some other business/Govt agendas.

Now, I obviously can only speculate on what may have been the intention for Madeleine in the longer term. Possibly to remain alive somewhere, but under a false identity. Possibly to die BUT NOT IN THE OCEAN CLUB RESORT!!! Because that would complicate the abduction plan and leave evidence. Not to mention the very real difficulty of disposing of a body FROM THE OCEAN CLUB or at least from nearby.

I do not dispute the evidence of the sniffer dogs - on the contrary. The reveal that Madeleine either died in the apartment or died outside the apartment - but somewhere not that far from the resort probably and then her body was brought back to the apartment while the parents decided what to do with it.

Yes - it was a crazy thing to do. But I believe they had no choice - because Madeleine died when and where she wasn't supposed to! Which left incriminating evidence.

All I am suggesting is that it seems more logical to me for Madeleine to be removed from the resort alive (as there would be no evidence of a dead body). Plus, it is much less suspicious taking a very sleepy child away from the resort than a corpse. Once far and away from the Ocean Club, it would be much easier for Madeleine to 'disappear' - for a period of time/for ever - alive, or dead. Far easier to dispose of a body a very long way from the scene of the crime.

I think that whatever the original intention of the McCanns with regard to Madeleine, it did not go entirely to plan. Hence the chaos of the 'final evening' and the inconsistent reports and so on.

I know it seems a bit crazy to suggest premeditation - but there is so much that suggests that the Fund/media interest/campaign had at least been thought about prior to the holiday. Just look at how the McCAnn team swung into action. It was like they were following a script.

The 'faked abduction' allowed for Madeleine to be alive at the time of her disappearance from the resort. And I do believe that that had been the intention (cannot say what the longer term plan was for her - perhaps it was dependent on the outcome of the police campaign/media etc). It meant that the McCanns could start a Fund to raise money and a media aw - in other words admitted that she had had an accident or something. 

I think she had an adverse reaction to the sedatives, or someone (Kate) flipped and hit out in anger or something unplanned happened which meant that the original plan for a 'faked abduction' then became much more complicated. 

As you say, why invent a stranger abduction to cover up an accident? So risky. And crazy. The reason, imo, is that 'stranger abduction' had been the plan all along and even though the plan went wrong (Madeleine had an accident/was injured/hit etc), they had no choice but to follow the original script. 


To have deviated from the script (in other words to put hands up and say 'there has been an accident') would have revealed a wider agenda or other things that the McCAnns very much wanted to kept hidden.

Just an opinion, obviously! 

As for any premeditation, I think it unlikely. They would have come up with a tragedy that would have been much easier to hide.  A sailing accident, a fall, basically something that would take attention away from themselves.  I know the abduction theory does just that, but it was incredibility risky, and their story began to fall apart that same night when Jane Tanner had to come up with an abductor pdq.  If stranger abduction was the best they could come up, they were pretty desperate.

[j.rob]

Sorry - the last paragraph was a quote from you:

As for any premeditation, I think it unlikely. They would have come up with a tragedy that would have been much easier to hide.  A sailing accident, a fall, basically something that would take attention away from themselves.  I know the abduction theory does just that, but it was incredibility risky, and their story began to fall apart that same night when Jane Tanner had to come up with an abductor pdq.  If stranger abduction was the best they could come up, they were pretty desperate.

[Guest]

Hi Rob, I love your posts (especially the psychological ones), but having studied this case for years, I personally discount any scenario that doesn't take into account the evidence of the dogs.  That is, the child is dead as Goncalo Amaral has said all along.



As for their incredible success and the enormous amount of diplomatic help they received, I think the reasons for this were twofold.  They were savvy enough to know their targets and they had enough people with them to 'hit the phones' 24/7.  Did Gerry ever put his laptop down?  Unless he was searching for Maddie using goggle earth, he was sending out those begging letters, or getting others to do it for him.  

I do think they received help from the government (of 2007) that was over and above that normally given to UK citizens abroad.  Whether that was as a result of pressure from the McCanns and their Media machine will be revealed in time I am sure.  I just can't see the government investing £7m+ to shelve something that was already shelved.

Hi, thanks for the feedback! I think maybe I am unclear about what I believe may have been the motive/may have happened.

I think that it is quite possible that the plan was for Madeleine to 'be abducted'/'go missing' or whatever - alive and well, but heavily sedated. In other words, the McCanns had planned a 'faked abduction' of Madeleine. This was to raise money with the fund, become rich and famous and so on. Maybe some other business/Govt agendas.

Now, I obviously can only speculate on what may have been the intention for Madeleine in the longer term. Possibly to remain alive somewhere, but under a false identity. Possibly to die BUT NOT IN THE OCEAN CLUB RESORT!!! Because that would complicate the abduction plan and leave evidence. Not to mention the very real difficulty of disposing of a body FROM THE OCEAN CLUB or at least from nearby.

I do not dispute the evidence of the sniffer dogs - on the contrary. The reveal that Madeleine either died in the apartment or died outside the apartment - but somewhere not that far from the resort probably and then her body was brought back to the apartment while the parents decided what to do with it.

Yes - it was a crazy thing to do. But I believe they had no choice - because Madeleine died when and where she wasn't supposed to! Which left incriminating evidence.

All I am suggesting is that it seems more logical to me for Madeleine to be removed from the resort alive (as there would be no evidence of a dead body). Plus, it is much less suspicious taking a very sleepy child away from the resort than a corpse. Once far and away from the Ocean Club, it would be much easier for Madeleine to 'disappear' - for a period of time/for ever - alive, or dead. Far easier to dispose of a body a very long way from the scene of the crime.

I think that whatever the original intention of the McCanns with regard to Madeleine, it did not go entirely to plan. Hence the chaos of the 'final evening' and the inconsistent reports and so on.

I know it seems a bit crazy to suggest premeditation - but there is so much that suggests that the Fund/media interest/campaign had at least been thought about prior to the holiday. Just look at how the McCAnn team swung into action. It was like they were following a script.

The 'faked abduction' allowed for Madeleine to be alive at the time of her disappearance from the resort. And I do believe that that had been the intention (cannot say what the longer term plan was for her - perhaps it was dependent on the outcome of the police campaign/media etc). It meant that the McCanns could start a Fund to raise money and a media aw - in other words admitted that she had had an accident or something. 

I think she had an adverse reaction to the sedatives, or someone (Kate) flipped and hit out in anger or something unplanned happened which meant that the original plan for a 'faked abduction' then became much more complicated. 

As you say, why invent a stranger abduction to cover up an accident? So risky. And crazy. The reason, imo, is that 'stranger abduction' had been the plan all along and even though the plan went wrong (Madeleine had an accident/was injured/hit etc), they had no choice but to follow the original script. 


To have deviated from the script (in other words to put hands up and say 'there has been an accident') would have revealed a wider agenda or other things that the McCAnns very much wanted to kept hidden.

Just an opinion, obviously! 

As for any premeditation, I think it unlikely. They would have come up with a tragedy that would have been much easier to hide.  A sailing accident, a fall, basically something that would take attention away from themselves.  I know the abduction theory does just that, but it was incredibility risky, and their story began to fall apart that same night when Jane Tanner had to come up with an abductor pdq.  If stranger abduction was the best they could come up, they were pretty desperate.

Over the years I've seen a number of people theorise that Kate and Gerry McCann planned the situation knowing they could make a fortune from the fund, but I have to say I think this is wrong. At the time Madeleine disappeared, such a fund for a missing person/child was unprecedented. Nobody could possibly have known that - for the first time ever - the disappearance of a child would result in millions of pounds being donated to the parents. On the surface, a far more likely outcome was that they'd all be hauled in by the police for neglecting their children and probably lose their jobs in the process (at the very least). Surely it's because this case played out so very differently from how most people expected it to that we're all still here discussing it seven years later?

No, I have always believed that the purpose of the fund was partly to help with anticipated legal expenses (As Gerry himself said at one point: "It seems like a disaster that we've got this huge donated fund and now we're not allowed to use it for legal costs because we're under suspicion."[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]), but more because it represented tangible public support. And someone who's sent off £20 to an apparently charming couple to help them find their beautiful little girl is going to be a lot less willing to believe they've been conned than someone who merely read the news stories and wondered what on earth was going on.

[travis macbickle]

j.rob.your posts would be more effective if your shortened them .they are very long winded imo.just a thought.

[MrsC]

j.rob.your posts would be more effective if your shortened them .they are very long winded imo.just a thought.

I enjoy reading j.rob's posts! Horses for courses, eh?

[Curious_Bystander]

Popcorn, while reading your link (which, incidentally, the DM have made to sound like an admission, rather than the denial in the URL) I noticed the following quote from GM:

"I know 100 per cent Kate could NOT have done anything. I know that's true from what I did that night."

Strikes me as an odd thing to say...

ETA: There are a lot of "odd things" said in this piece - perhaps Tigger would be so kind as to analyse them?  I enjoy his/her interpretation of linguistics.

[Julchen]

Quote Popcorn:
At the time Madeleine disappeared, such a fund for a missing person/child was unprecedented. Nobody could possibly have known that - for the first time ever - the disappearance of a child would result in millions of pounds being donated to the parents.


Exactly that! It was unheard of, new, different. In other words: a masterpiece and fine example of entrepreneurship!
Hence recipe for success.

Jule