Crimewatch Reconstruction 14.10.13 2100GMT

[Linda7NJ]

And you believe in unknown town they been only 3 days, with no help and in a very short slot of time they succeeded to get rid of the body so well no one was able to find it, as well as removing all scientific evidence and then after they've done all of this they merrily went for a dinner with their friends and then they pretended all if fine..

It's my understanding that vacationed there the previous year.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free

 

[haden]

It's my understanding that vacationed there the previous year.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free

No, they were not in Portugal.

 

[Donjeta]

I think this is if they were in the middle of the ocean, in really deep waters, but for something like this one needs to own a boat.
I think this is what happened in Holloway case, with father helping.

No, I don't think so. People drown in shallow waters, in lakes, in rivers, near the beach, jump off bridges and are never found. There are many reports in the Charley Project if you're interested.

 

[Jmoose]

Many people who drowned and had no heavy stones attached have never been found. JMO

You'd want to be sure, I think

 

[Cappuccino]

It was designed exactly for complex situations, where the theory states to strip everything back to simple truths and make the least assumptions possible.

It takes a great deal more assumptions to say that a predatory paedophile just happened to be in that area and targeted Madeleine, than the parents did it and hid the body.

You need all the facts before you can apply Occam's razor. We don't know who the man in the Smith sighting was, or the child, we don't know how many predatory paedophiles were in the area, and probably alot more things we don't know.


And even then Occam's razor is not designed for situations which are deliberately manipulated. Occam's razor would suggest that more assumptions need to be made for an intruder to break into a house and steal a child without waking her brother who was sleeping next to her or father who was asleep upstairs, than for the father himself to have killed the child. But I think the father of Riley Fox would disagree with Occam's razor.

 

[cobalt sky]

Madeleine was last seen alive by someone other than the McCanns (staff at the Creche) at approx 5pm the day she disappeared. So unless the child in the creche wasn't really Maddie, we can assume that she was alive and well as of 5pm. From that point on:

IF Maddie disappeared between 5pm and 8:30 pm , it would seem logical that BOTH of the McCanns would have knowledge of what happened to her. In this time frame, either she 1) died as the result of an accident, 2) died as a result of murder by one or both of her parents (or someone that the parents were willing to cover for), or 3) was willingly given or sold to a third party by her parents with the intention of never getting her back.

~Help from LE and/or EMS was not solicited by the McCanns during this time period, so regardless of the reason for Maddie's disappearance, it would stand to reason that the McCanns found it necessary to plan a cover-up, ie an abduction. If Maddie had been given to a third party, it would not be necessary to worry about disposing of her body; if she had died somehow, it would certainly be necessary to dispose of her body before notifying LE that she is missing. Gerry or Kate would have had time to do that between 5pm and 8:30pm. They could have planned on going to dinner where both were seen together, providing the window of opportunity for a stranger to have come in and taken Maddie. Where it gets sticky for me is that I would think it very difficult for the McCanns to sit and dine with friends afterwards as though everything was peachy, but anything is possible. Someone upthread mentioned the risk of friends going to check on the children, but if Maddie was already disposed of elsewhere, it wouldn't have mattered... if one of the friends had gone to check on the kids and found Maddie missing, all the better for the McCanns! But it just so happened that nobody else noticed, thus forcing Kate to be the one to find her missing.

~One more cover-up scenario for the 5-8:30 time period: Maddie was dead when the McCanns went to dinner and they had not yet had a chance to dispose of her body; they placed her in bed as though she were asleep and went to dinner as planned, hoping for an opportunity to dispose of her later in the evening. I think this scenario is unlikely, as it would have been VERY risky that one of the friends, or staff even, would have entered the apt for one reason or another and noticed that she was not breathing and unresponsive. So I think this is a possibility but extremely unlikely.

IF Maddie disappeared between 8:30 and 10:00, we have the same possibilities as listed above in the 5-8:30 timeframe... BUT we also must add another fourth possibility for this timeframe only: a stranger came in and abducted Maddie.

~If Maddie had died accidentally in the 8:30-10:00, regardless of who witnessed it or discovered her body, when did Kate & Gerry have the time to discuss it, absorb the impact of it, plan a cover-up, all the while keeping thier composure? It seems unlikely to me.

~If Maddie had been murdered by someone known to her in the 8:30-10:00 timeframe, it could not have been Kate. It could have been Gerry and/or some of the Tapas 9. This falls into place with Kate finding Madeleine missing when she went to check on her; however, we still have the question as to how did the murderer dispose of Maddie so quickly and so well, all the while maintaining their composure? I think that this scenario is only possible if at least two individuals were involved, helping move the body around, etc. That would likely mean Gerry and accomplice(s).

~If Maddie had been murdered by a stranger in the apt and then removed from said apt in the 8:30-10:00 timeframe, one would imagine that more forensic evidence of this stranger would have been found. I think this scenario is possible but unlikely.

~It is possible that Maddie had been "abducted" WITH the knowledge and consent of one or both of her parents. It could have been planned well in advance. It is possible that one of the parents did not have knowledge of this. It would explain how the abductor felt comfortable taking Maddie that night despite several Tapas 9 coming & going in the vicinity checking on their kids, not to mention at least one of the couples apt was right next to the McCanns, and there were several others on holiday out & about.

~And then there is the complete stranger abduction. Yes, it could have happened. Unfortunately, the McCanns provided them with ample opportunity. The problem I have with this theory is the McCann's behavior afterwards, which suggests at least some involvement.

So, when I look at all of the possibilities, I think what makes the most sense and what most likely happened to Madeleine is either:

1) She died between 5-8:30pm, the parents both knew how, by whom, and why, and chose to cover it up. They removed her body from the apt BEFORE going to dinner. They then planned it all out to claim a stranger had abducted her.

or

2) She was abducted between 8:30-10pm by a stranger while the parents wined & dined at the Tapas.

All of the above rambling is my observations and opinions only!!!

 

[Linda7NJ]

Madeleine was last seen alive by someone other than the McCanns (staff at the Creche) at approx 5pm the day she disappeared. So unless the child in the creche wasn't really Maddie, we can assume that she was alive and well as of 5pm. From that point on:

IF Maddie disappeared between 5pm and 8:30 pm , it would seem logical that BOTH of the McCanns would have knowledge of what happened to her. In this time frame, either she 1) died as the result of an accident, 2) died as a result of murder by one or both of her parents (or someone that the parents were willing to cover for), or 3) was willingly given or sold to a third party by her parents with the intention of never getting her back.

~Help from LE and/or EMS was not solicited by the McCanns during this time period, so regardless of the reason for Maddie's disappearance, it would stand to reason that the McCanns found it necessary to plan a cover-up, ie an abduction. If Maddie had been given to a third party, it would not be necessary to worry about disposing of her body; if she had died somehow, it would certainly be necessary to dispose of her body before notifying LE that she is missing. Gerry or Kate would have had time to do that between 5pm and 8:30pm. They could have planned on going to dinner where both were seen together, providing the window of opportunity for a stranger to have come in and taken Maddie. Where it gets sticky for me is that I would think it very difficult for the McCanns to sit and dine with friends afterwards as though everything was peachy, but anything is possible. Someone upthread mentioned the risk of friends going to check on the children, but if Maddie was already disposed of elsewhere, it wouldn't have mattered... if one of the friends had gone to check on the kids and found Maddie missing, all the better for the McCanns! But it just so happened that nobody else noticed, thus forcing Kate to be the one to find her missing.

~One more cover-up scenario for the 5-8:30 time period: Maddie was dead when the McCanns went to dinner and they had not yet had a chance to dispose of her body; they placed her in bed as though she were asleep and went to dinner as planned, hoping for an opportunity to dispose of her later in the evening. I think this scenario is unlikely, as it would have been VERY risky that one of the friends, or staff even, would have entered the apt for one reason or another and noticed that she was not breathing and unresponsive. So I think this is a possibility but extremely unlikely.

IF Maddie disappeared between 8:30 and 10:00, we have the same possibilities as listed above in the 5-8:30 timeframe... BUT we also must add another fourth possibility for this timeframe only: a stranger came in and abducted Maddie.

~If Maddie had died accidentally in the 8:30-10:00, regardless of who witnessed it or discovered her body, when did Kate & Gerry have the time to discuss it, absorb the impact of it, plan a cover-up, all the while keeping thier composure? It seems unlikely to me.

~If Maddie had been murdered by someone known to her in the 8:30-10:00 timeframe, it could not have been Kate. It could have been Gerry and/or some of the Tapas 9. This falls into place with Kate finding Madeleine missing when she went to check on her; however, we still have the question as to how did the murderer dispose of Maddie so quickly and so well, all the while maintaining their composure? I think that this scenario is only possible if at least two individuals were involved, helping move the body around, etc. That would likely mean Gerry and accomplice(s).

~If Maddie had been murdered by a stranger in the apt and then removed from said apt in the 8:30-10:00 timeframe, one would imagine that more forensic evidence of this stranger would have been found. I think this scenario is possible but unlikely.

~It is possible that Maddie had been "abducted" WITH the knowledge and consent of one or both of her parents. It could have been planned well in advance. It is possible that one of the parents did not have knowledge of this. It would explain how the abductor felt comfortable taking Maddie that night despite several Tapas 9 coming & going in the vicinity checking on their kids, not to mention at least one of the couples apt was right next to the McCanns, and there were several others on holiday out & about.

~And then there is the complete stranger abduction. Yes, it could have happened. Unfortunately, the McCanns provided them with ample opportunity. The problem I have with this theory is the McCann's behavior afterwards, which suggests at least some involvement.

So, when I look at all of the possibilities, I think what makes the most sense and what most likely happened to Madeleine is either:

1) She died between 5-8:30pm, the parents both knew how, by whom, and why, and chose to cover it up. They removed her body from the apt BEFORE going to dinner. They then planned it all out to claim a stranger had abducted her.

or

2) She was abducted between 8:30-10pm by a stranger while the parents wined & dined at the Tapas.

All of the above rambling is my observations and opinions only!!!

I agree.

But now add in the behaviors of the McCann's and the dogs hits.

I'm left to draw only one conclusion.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free

 

[weeeva]

It wasn't a reconstruction in any technical sense and it's misleading of Crimewatch to call it a reconstruction. It was just a dramatisation of selected events for TV.

As far as I'm aware, there hasn't yet been a proper reconstruction of the alleged events using the timings and accounts of the Tapas 9. Something that should be done properly.

There have been one or two TV specials in the UK about this case. They were very good.
If my memory serves me well at least one of them was actually filmed at the scene.
The other one had an interview with Jane Tanner, and demonstrated very clearly how she had seen the man walking along the top of the road with a child in his arms.
It also showed how Gerry McCann stood talking to another man at the opposite side of the street from Jane Tanner, facing away from her and the man at the top of the road. The timing seemed perfect, as though the abductor had nipped in as soon as Gerry left the apartment after his check. In fact Gerry was convinced that the man was actually hiding in the apartment when he arrived.
Now according to the Crimewatch programme, this man was not the abductor, but another man carrying his child home from a kids club.
The Crimewatch programme did not say when this man came forward to identify himself. If he came forward early on in the case it was never made public.
Until now I have believed this man to be the abductor.
I am not sure when the Smith family reported their sighting of this other man heading toward the beach carrying a child. I think he came forward early in the investigation.

 

[Donjeta]

You'd want to be sure, I think

I don't know... It depends imo.

I think some people who dump a family member's body somewhere might actually be relieved if it's found eventually as some legal issues are difficult to settle until the person can be declared dead (at least if the deceased had property they want to inherit or insurances they want to collect) and because it frees them from the obligation to pretend to search (Not that everybody even pretends but for those who do).

Just as long as finding the body takes long enough that the investigators can't trace the cause of death back to you and you can blame it on an abductor or something else.

 

[SapphireSteel]

There would be barely anything left of Madeleine after a day in the ocean.

:moo:

 

[Fefster]

But I think the father of Riley Fox would disagree with Occam's razor.

That is not a logical thing to say - we can all find exceptions to a rule. The idea is that it is much less likely to be the predatory paedophile than a parental killing. No one can deny that.

 

[SapphireSteel]

Occams Razor ignores the unusual.

It can still be used however, for example, the cadaver in the Renault -

There is only one simple explanation for that.

:cow:

 

[thisiseku]

They have no clue where they put Madeleine but believe she was disposed of 24 days later on their trip to Huelva.

That is why the DNA and cadaver was located in the Renault...there is absolutely no other explanation for this, assuming of course an as yet unknown deceased McCann didn't lie in that car.

:cow:

Also the missing sports bag, where they could've perfectly fit Maddie in.

 

[Cappuccino]

That is not a logical thing to say - we can all find exceptions to a rule. The idea is that it is much less likely to be the predatory paedophile than a parental killing. No one can deny that.

That's statistical likelihood, not Occam's razor. And anyway, as I've already pointed out - you cannot apply Occam's razor to any situation without all the data. And we don't have that.

 

[Cappuccino]

Occams Razor ignores the unusual.

It can still be used however, for example, the cadaver in the Renault -

There is only one simple explanation for that.

:cow:

There are two that I can think of - a cadaver in the car, or a false positive from the dog.

 

[SapphireSteel]

There are two that I can think of - a cadaver in the car, or a false positive from the dog.

The "dogs are rong" theory doesn't explain the recovery of DNA at the alert sites.

 

[Cappuccino]

The "dogs are rong" theory doesn't explain the recovery of DNA at the alert sites.

Its not a theory that dogs can give false positives, its a fact. And the DNA could have belonged to other family members, it was never exclusively a match to Madeleine.

 

[Fefster]

That's statistical likelihood, not Occam's razor. And anyway, as I've already pointed out - you cannot apply Occam's razor to any situation without all the data. And we don't have that.

Look, I don't want to split hairs but Occam's Razor is often phrased as "The simplest explanation that fits the facts." You do not need to have every piece of statistical data to apply it. If you did need that, it would rarely be applicable in any situation at all. There are always variables. There would never be any opposing theories for anything if all the variables were covered.

Anyway, it looks like we shall have to agree to differ and throwing aside our differences on the actual term, the most likely explanation is still the most likely.

 

[SapphireSteel]

Its not a theory that dogs can give false positives, its a fact. And the DNA could have belonged to other family members, it was never exclusively a match to Madeleine.

Follow the logic -

Eddie alerts to cadaver in the Renault
The Renault is swabbed
DNA consistent with Madeleine's is found at the swab site (cadaver alert site)
All other McCanns are alive.

:seeya:

 

[SapphireSteel]

Look, I don't want to split hairs but Occam's Razor is often phrased as "The simplest explanation that fits the facts." You do not need to have every piece of statistical data to apply it. If you did need that, it would rarely be applicable in any situation at all. There are always variables. There would never be any opposing theories for anything if all the variables were covered.

Anyway, it looks like we shall have to agree to differ and throwing aside our differences on the actual term, the most likely explanation is still the most likely.

:welcome2:

Welcome to Websleuths. :seeya: