Could Gerry have been involved and hid it from Kate?

delete

XTC wrote:

ChippyM wrote:I have thought it may not be as black and white as Kate being fooled by Gerry that it was an abduction. What if one parent was made to feel a death  was their fault entirely...then they might go along with the plan of the other parent to cover-up the death. So they would be complicit in a staged abuduction but not 100% aware of the true circumstances of the death.

  The only reason I have ever considered this theory is the Gaspar statement. If that statement is accurate then you start questioning the likelyhood of one parent being involved in abuse whilst the other one doesn't know. If one parent wanted to cover up abuse they might do everything possible to convince their partner that they were just covering up an accident. Of course it is also possible that some parents willingly cover up abuse by partners.

The downer on this theory for myself is the shutters/door/curtains evidence.
.................

As far as I'm aware only Amy Tierney witnessed the lifted shutters. There are recountings of many shutter testings also but no fingerprints
of use were found.

Finally: If the wind was blowing round my ears and I couldn't discern whether my child was in bed ( despite panicking ) I'd turn the light on
to make sure.

I can't go with the theory of Mrs Mccann not knowing.

All opinion though

I think you missed my point. I'm theorising that one parent could have been responsible for the death via some kind of abuse, ie the Father. He then convinces the mother that the child died in a more 'innocent' accident for which she is partly responsible, he makes her believe it is important to stage an abduction to cover up what she thinks is an accident so they will not lose their remaining children.  

 So....mother complicit in staged abduction but remains unaware of the child being abused....father aware of both abuse and staged abduction.    An entirely  speculative theory of course.

I think they both know exactly what went on although I seem to differ from everyone else in thinking KM was the perpetrator not GM

noddy100 wrote:I think they both know exactly what went on although I seem to differ from everyone else in thinking KM was the perpetrator not GM

Noddy, you are not alone.
IMO the most likely scenario was not a 'major-conspiracy-involving-bigwigs-covered-up' but an accident where either an end-of-tether mother lashes out -  or a 'lets-sedate-her-so-she-sleeps-and-we-can-get-a-rest' - either scenario implicates KM as the jealous mother left to deal the kids while the husband plays tennis/flits with the quiz mistress, or the anaesthetist who can easily fix a quiet night.  
I certainly have no sympathy for any of them - the selfishness is breath-taking, but I can see how the accidental death might arise, and then GM step in to cover it up - seeing what is at stake as youngest -adored-child-risen-out-of the slums-to-middle-classness - never wanna go back!
And having been endlessly lauded by his family and siblings, he thinks he is cleverer than the rest.
Tho' I do suspect that if it finally comes to it - he has carefully retained the evidence to chuck KM to the lions - the final get-out-of-jail-card being the cadaverine on the trouser and cuddlecat.

ChippyM wrote:

XTC wrote:

ChippyM wrote:I have thought it may not be as black and white as Kate being fooled by Gerry that it was an abduction. What if one parent was made to feel a death  was their fault entirely...then they might go along with the plan of the other parent to cover-up the death. So they would be complicit in a staged abuduction but not 100% aware of the true circumstances of the death.

  The only reason I have ever considered this theory is the Gaspar statement. If that statement is accurate then you start questioning the likelyhood of one parent being involved in abuse whilst the other one doesn't know. If one parent wanted to cover up abuse they might do everything possible to convince their partner that they were just covering up an accident. Of course it is also possible that some parents willingly cover up abuse by partners.

The downer on this theory for myself is the shutters/door/curtains evidence.
.................

As far as I'm aware only Amy Tierney witnessed the lifted shutters. There are recountings of many shutter testings also but no fingerprints
of use were found.

Finally: If the wind was blowing round my ears and I couldn't discern whether my child was in bed ( despite panicking ) I'd turn the light on
to make sure.

I can't go with the theory of Mrs Mccann not knowing.

All opinion though

I think you missed my point. I'm theorising that one parent could have been responsible for the death via some kind of abuse, ie the Father. He then convinces the mother that the child died in a more 'innocent' accident for which she is partly responsible, he makes her believe it is important to stage an abduction to cover up what she thinks is an accident so they will not lose their remaining children.  

 So....mother complicit in staged abduction but remains unaware of the child being abused....father aware of both abuse and staged abduction.    An entirely  speculative theory of course.

ChippyM

I understand.

That has been a possibility from the start.

The problem is the belief of the timelines.

If the timelines are true - 8.30pm go for meal - children all in bed.

9.04 ( GM check )

Version 1). Thought Madeleine may have gone into parents room due to bedroom door being open.

Version 2). Looking down at Madeleine on top of the covers - a fatherly moment.

One is from the police interviews and one is from the media reports. They both can't be right.

Entering through the front wooden door/ entering through the patio doors- ditto.

The Keys were left in the apartment yet 4/5/07 PJ statement says entered through front door - both can't be right.

MO's now worthless check ( 9.25pm) . If he did check I don't know.

Finally Mrs McCann's only check. ( 10pm or 10.30pm - Mrs Fenn?)

If the timings are true an innocent accident would be awful but not something you would need to cover up.

If they are not, then that may be a different ball game - except we have a witness who met GM at a ceratin time.

Yet again an uncertainty occurs - JW didn't know what time it was. Theoretically he could have met GM as he was just
exiting 5a at 8.30pm or a little later. Therefore at a certain time ( unknown ) GM was outside 5a.

One thing is for certain though and that is the tampering/jemmying of the shutters. No sign of that happening.

What is noticeable in its abscence is something never mentioned by all checkers and that is the babygate. Anyone who uses
one will know how useful but annoying these can be. Particularly closing them behind yourself everytime. Yet no-one has said anything about it as far as I know. Sky's - The Secret Report on the British Police shows them at 7m.59. From memory the babygate was taken away by
the PJ for examination. The PJ don't mention the gate either.

If I was a parent and my curtains really didn't whoosh and my child was in bed when I left and I'd left the back patio door open I would think
about when I climbed the steps and whether the babygate was open or shut when I ascended to the balcony. Because apart from climbing over the veranda the only likely escape route from 5a ( unless the front door really was wide open? ) was if some idiot had left the babygate open?

Of course if the curtains did whoosh and the wooden door was flung open then I would assume that someone had taken my child whether the babygate was open or not. Then I'd run out of the door or stick my head through the window to see what was going on ( i.e who was
around in the Car Park).

What happened next is unusual as - if I thought someone had taken my child I wouldn't leave the other two children in the bedroom just in case the bastard(s) came back.

I'd shut the window/shut the shutters/shut the front door/lock it with the keys left in the apartment and call reception with my mobile which had been left in the apartment ( allegedly ) and ring my  mates on their mobiles. The I'd sit tight and wait for the Cavalry to arrive.

This didn't happen.

Just one of the many reasons I don't go for the alarm scenario.

The media might believe it and the police might believe it. It doesn't mean that I have to believe it.

That doesn't make me a so called Troll - that makes me a dis-believer.

Like the Sun newspaper - I don't buy it.

All opinion.

I have recently started to use a baby gate - its a Lindham type - and you are right on more than one point XTC -

A] I personally need two hands to OPEN mine, although closing it is easier

B] From the PJ forensic pics, the one at 5a looks like a Lindham type and is photographed CLOSED

C] Not even on the reconstruction was there mention of the safety gate (I am happy to stand corrected if I am wrong on that)

D] No where in her bewk does KM mention the safety gate

Surely GM & MO would have opened it before entering the flat and closed it upon leaving therefore as you say XTC - would have mentioned it

ON KM CHECK - KM would have opened it or would have noticed and mentioned if it was open

But as you say, there has been no mention of it.

I wonder what DCI Calafornia Redwood makes of the absence of the mentioning of the gate (or has he conveniently overlooked it?)

That's a brilliant piece of work XTC.

palm tree wrote:That's a brilliant piece of work XTC.

That's a very kind comment palm tree but the vast vast majority of these things are
in the DVD issued by the Portuguese police.

It's sad that the media commentators don't appear to have read any of this despite
clamouring at the time for the DVD which was meant solely for the MSM to examine.

Even sadder ( unless it's deliberate?) SY don't seem to have examined these DVD's or the
AG's Final Report either.

Of course if your remit is to exclude the so called Tapas 9 from all investigative equations
as a matter of course then it is inevitable that all the other avenues of exploration are going
to end up in blind alleys.


An investigation should take into account ALL possibilities not some possiblities.

Otherwise it's a selective investigation.

I would like to see SY get a result but by excluding one of the main group of people from
the investigation it is inevitable that this will lead nowhere.

Maybe the re - visiting of the forensics may prove to be another " revelation " moment for
DI Redwood but I'm definitely not holding my breath on that one.

Opinion though.

j.rob wrote:

suzyjohnson wrote:

pennylane wrote:

Justformaddie wrote:Has anybody any idea of why gm would be so nasty on the shuttle bus to dp (I think)? Holidaying with 3 very young children would be very stressful, but the rest had young children too and, "fu@k off I'm not here to enjoy myself" to me, a red flag. I don't know why, but for some reason I just can't get my head round it. Is this something to be worked out before the rest of the pieces fit? The kids on that bus weren't messing, crying or screaming, so I'm stuck to try to find an answer to this! Any help? Ta. 

I think Gerry and Kate had a spat that morning over him not helping out.  His petulant reply (minus the foul language) is a fairly typical response of someone whose been accused by their partner of not pulling their weight, and has consequently  been given a right rollicking.. probably from the time they got up that morning. I personally believe that particular bone of contention carried on throughout the holiday, and lead to the kids being sedated, and ultimately to Maddie's sad fate

I expect something like that pennylane

I suspect that their marriage was anything but a bed of roses. Despite what Kate has written in her book. Neither of them appear to enjoy parenthood. I cannot see any evidence of their bonding with Madeleine. Not either of them. I would imagine that a week with his wife and three children under four was not his idea of fun. Plus holidaying with other parents and their children.

I am sure he perked up when the busty aerobics instructor appeared. And I wouldn't be at all surprised if this triggered an almighty row. Gerry inviting her to join the table I doubt was the cleverest move. 

If the marriage deteriorated after the children came along (as is not uncommon, especially if the parents have narcissistic tendencies) then Kate might have resented them. Especially Madeleine as she was the first, maybe. It may have already been highly strained by the IVF treatment which puts a lot of pressure on a marriage.

Plus then twins came along - a ready made family of a boy and girl and, tragically, Madeleine was considered a nuisance.

And if Madeleine was not Gerry's biological child, that might explain certain things. 

I get every impression that Gerry loathed family life - because it's not all about him and what he wants - so I can quite understand why he made that boorish remark. 

Gerry likes the Gerry show. 

In my opinion.

The McCann's marriage is very interesting. Since Madeleine disappeared they are closer than newly-weds, always touching. This is very unusual because most parents are driven apart by tragedies involving their children-remember Sarah Payne's. sometimes it's because one partner moves on while the other is still grieving. Sometimes it's a blame game.

Kate expressed doubts about a few things - the holiday itself, the children crying, the unlocked door. Then her daughter is 'abducted'. She was right to have doubts! Her fears were not groundless! Her husband was wrong when he said it was OK to leave the door unlocked! 

Instead of this pushing them apart though, they draw closer together. Why? Has Kate never told Gerry he was wrong? She is either an exceptionally forgiving person, a very subordinate partner in the marriage, an idiot, or involved in something in my opinion. 

In marriages where one partner is very dominant and controlling the other one tends to go along with what they want for various reasons; they are tired of conflict so do it for the sake of peace; they adore the other person; they are afraid of them; they are reluctant to admit they made a bad choice. Domination is a process taking place in small steps over time, not something that happens suddenly. Often the dominated partner doesn't realise it's happening until it's too late. Then they may cover it up because they don't want anyone to know; or because their self esteem has been damaged and they have been made to think it's their fault; or because they don't think they can manage alone. Friends and family can miss it completely because the dominated one seems strong and defends the other fiercely. Domination complete!

Maggs Shaw wrote:

Justformaddie wrote:Has anybody any idea of why gm would be so nasty on the shuttle bus to dp (I think)? Holidaying with 3 very young children would be very stressful, but the rest had young children too and, "fu@k off I'm not here to enjoy myself" to me, a red flag. I don't know why, but for some reason I just can't get my head round it. Is this something to be worked out before the rest of the pieces fit? The kids on that bus weren't messing, crying or screaming, so I'm stuck to try to find an answer to this! Any help? Ta. 

The incident on the shuttle has always mystified me, why would he be so miserable...a lovely family holiday, with friends...I thought that very strange behaviour.....then.....3 days after Maddie goes missing, he is seen laughing and joking while standing by some patio doors....!!   his demeanor on the patio door clip is one that could only really be described as looking, relieved!       I really would love to know what exactly he was laughing about.  That sickened me to the bone.

 I agree. Why would Gerry be sitting on the airport bus looking and behaving like a bear with a sore head then, just a few days after Madeleine is allegedly 'abducted' he is filmed looking really happy by the patio doors. Relieved, even.

It IS sickening.

Also, I wonder why that video clip on the airport bus was released to the general public? It paints Gerry in a terrible light. Boorish behaviour in the extreme. Completely disengaged with any of the children. And seemingly disengaged from the whole dynamic of going on holiday. The rest of the group seem quite upbeat, as you normally are when you are anticipating a holiday, even if it entails an early start. There is still a sense of excitement about going away.

But Gerry's response gives no indication that he is looking forward to the week away with his family and friends. I had always assumed his reaction might be to do with a kind of macho dislike of family life. A sort of: 'Oh God - a week with my wife and three kids under four.'  He strikes me as the type of man who would not embrace family life but likes the status it gives him as a father and husband. 

But when you consider that Gerry also has his friends with him and they are socializing every night. Plus he is not actively taking part in childcare as the children are at kids' clubs most of the time and neither parent babysits in the evening or eats with their children in the evening, then he can hardly be moaning about a family holiday. As it wasn't really a family holiday.

So what does this comment mean? Was there already 'a plan' afoot? And Gerry had a task to undertake that was unenjoyable? But once Madeleine had allegedly been 'abducted' the task had been undertaken and he was relieved?

What a sickening thought indeed, imo.

Guest wrote:On another thread I've just alluded to the issue of how 'convenient' it could be considered to be that this tragic event took place in Portugal when you consider that witnesses cannot be forced to attend in a foreign country to give evidence and, of course, the extradition laws.

Almost as if it could have been planned that way...  Just musings and speculation, no factual basis for this theory at all, of course.

Agreed. Too convenient by half.

Guest wrote:

j.rob wrote: [...]
And if Madeleine was not Gerry's biological child, that might explain certain things.  [...]

***
I don't understand, why this is being brought up again and again. The forensic reports were quite clear: the DNA was of a female natural child of both McCanns and it wasn't Amelie's.

The Portuguese newspaper 24horas made this claim and the editor stood by it claiming that his sources were rock solid. He even invited the McCanns to sue them, I do believe. 

Judging by the vehement denials by all family members and Clarence Mitchell, I tend to suspect that there is some validity to the claim.

They would have been far better off to say nothing, imo. 

How did the McCanns react to this claim, according to the press?

With anger and fury, apparently. And 'with horror'. Gerry's mum Eileen called the claims 'utterly ridiculous'. Clarence Mitchell called the claims: 'Lies and fabrications.' Family friend Jill Renwick said it was 'absolute rubbish.'

That tells me all I want to know. If there was no validity to the claim then they wouldn't be that bothered by it, would they? Plus they would have sued. 


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

noddy100 wrote:I think they both know exactly what went on although I seem to differ from everyone else in thinking KM was the perpetrator not GM

I completely agree with you.
And IMHO Gerry was covering his back since the beginning but not covering for his wife. His clothes and blue bag "disappeared " but Kate's "smelly " clothes didn't. Why? I believe being KM the culprit GM wasn't very bothered if she was caught. All Moo.