Madeleine McCann 3 year old missing in Portugal - Part 11

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
No oops necessary, it is exceedingly difficult to keep up with all the little details.



Your are correct, we did not discuss this "strange" series of events. It has been discussed on other forums with people saying that asking for a priest was "weird". However, I think that asking for a priest so that I could pray for my daughter, for her safe return, for her safety, not so weird.

Asking for GNR to show him the way to the church, that's a bit weird. I would have thought they would have been there at some point in the prior days of their vacation, but maybe not.


Don't know for sure, but I've read either here or on another forum, that GM had in fact been to the church previously, so it was weird for him to ask someone to show him the way. I don't know - almost everything the McC's have done strikes me as odd.
 
http://tinyurl.com/3dhotx

Madeleine McCann police convinced she is dead

"It is now understood that the direction of the inquiry changed a month ago, when a key piece of evidence emerged, which has not been disclosed."

and...

"They are awaiting test results on forensics from inside the apartment but even without them, they say they have another lead which points to Madeleine's death."
 
My opinion/thoughts, not proven fact:

Has it been clarified yet that the night she screamed for her parents that she was actually alone (aside from the twins that I assume were also there). Was anyone else there with her, perhaps causing those screams?

Sorry I skimmed to catch up but I can't remember if that was ever clarified for certain. Little girl screaming according to what was it, the Widow upstairs? Was Maddie screaming at her daddy, screaming for her daddy, screaming out of terror because of who's in the room, or simply just having a tantrum and raising the volume because there was no adults to pay attention to it?

Just something else I was thinking about lately.
 
Gerry asked for the priest after or around 1am by then the police had already arrived. Why is it strange that he asked for directions to the church - just because he might have gone there once doesn't mean he new exactly where it was located. He was a visitor to this country. He was upset, I'm sure not thinking to clearly. He asked to speak to a priest which by the way is normal if you are catholic - Priest offer comfort spritually - I was taught if something bad happens to go to your priest.He did what most devout catholics would do.

When the "hotel/resort/complex" (not sure what it is called) was notified about Maddie missing why did they not call the police right away. If I were staying at one of these place I would assume once I notified them they would call the police - or was everyone at first thinking maybe Maddie wandered off and was still on the property.

When the lady upstairs offered Kate the use of her phone to call police - Kate might have assumed that the hotel had already called them if she had asked them to.

IMO until the police say something is fact I will have to assume that most of what is written in the newspapers and magazines is fiction.

I like the McCanns will still assume Maddie is alive, until there is proof to tell me otherwise- but right now we don't have that, what I have read is that the police are speculating. Also telling people she died on May 3rd might make people stop looking for her in other countries.

This all just my opinion
 
and sky news is still saying the blood found in the apartment is not Madeleine's...

http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,91210-1280958,00.html

"In the intervews they had requested with the Spanish press, Madeleine's parents said they did not wish to comment on recent reports that blood traces found in the apartment from where the girl was taken did not match her DNA.
Mr McCann told newspaper El Pais that he was not able to talk about the ongoing investigation, although his wife revealed she though it was "not surprising" that the traces of blood might have been someone else's."

SOOO in one article we read no results yet and then we have sky news saying blood is not hers... Talk about confusing! I however do not think the test results are in yet...
 
I've been following this also but not posting. Here are some of my thoughts, ideas, etc.

Looking at the timeline, it seems that Mathew, who actually had made arrangements for his children, spent more time checking on children than anyone else. If he didn't get back until 9:30, at which time he left with Russell, he was only gone the second time for 5 minutes, and I don't believe you could walk to the apartments and back in that time. I have 2 theories on this. One, he got back app. 9:20, then left again with Russell at that time to be back by 9:35, or he was gone from 9 to 9:35.

I haven't seen anything to suggest Kate, Rachael, Fiona, David, or Dianne ever left the table once they arrived.

Gerry spent 70 minutes at the table, 20 minutes away.
Russell spent 50 minutes at the table, 25 minutes away.
Mathew spent 40 minutes at the table, 35 minutes away.
Jane spent 55 minutes at the table, 20 minutes away.

Jeremy somebody validates Gerry actually being at least in the vicinity of his apartment at the time he claims. Since Jeremy did not see Jane, that leads me to believe she wasn't there, or got there after they left. Russell seems to have left around the time Jane would have gotten back, though I tend to assume this was at least a little before 9:30, due to Najova's statements.

If this was an 'inside' job, I find it hard to believe the entire group is in on it. It's possible, but unlikely. Here's one of my theories, entirely my opinion, and I also have theories that don't involve the parents, so everyone feel free to pick away.

The night before, Madeleine pitches a fit for over an hour. Sometime the next day, Russell takes the Mccann's aside, and tells them he brought sedatives with him for his kids, and offers them some for Madeleine. They decide to use them, and also take her out for a 'snack' before the planned dinner, to try to explain to her how Mommy and Daddy want to go out with friend's, like they are doing with Maddie right now, and how they won't be gone long, etc. They then administer the drugs to her, and the twins, and as they are putting the kids down that evening, they realize Maddie has OD'ed. Being doctors, they try to rescuitate her, to no avail. They frantically call Russell, and he comes over, and this is when they hatch 'The Abduction Plan'. Kate and Gerry go to dinner first, where they immediately appear to get liquored up to cover any odd behavior. (This is one area I have a problem with. If Maddie did indeed die from an overdose of the same thing given to the twins, how could they then leave the twins to maybe suffer the same fate?) Russell fills Jane in, and then they and the others get to dinner 8:45 to 8:55. Gerry makes some small talk, then goes to move the body, but he runs into Jeremy, so he can't. Meanwhile, Russell is trying to talk someone outside the plan into going with him to check on the kids, so suspicion doesn't fall on him when he finds Maddie missing. When Gerry gets back he signals Russell somehow he failed. Russell now has to ditch Mathew, which is why he was only gone the second time 5 to 10 minutes. Russell temporarily hides the body, then goes back. Kate has been drinking and is wound tight, so decides to 'discover Madeleine missing' to get this over with.
This is just one opinion of mine, trying to fit the pieces together of what we know, and what we don't know. I did want to second the poster who said he/she would be happy to be wrong about all this. Nothing would thrill me more than for Madeleine to be picked up by someone who just desperately wanted a child, and 20 years from now to read some headline, "Woman Discovers She is Long-Lost Madeleine!"
 
GG you guys are hard to keep up with!

I dont think i remember seeing on any of the previous threads that anyone had clarified which UK papers were tabloid and which were broadsheets. So i thought it might be useful...

Ive posted first a section of an article from BBc online which sort of clarifies the difference....

Quote from BBC article:

"Subjective terms

As any reader knows, more than describing the size of the paper, the terms are really about the different journalistic styles and attitudes.
As Ed King, head of the newspaper collection at the British Library puts it,
the terms have "rather subjective connotations applied to each, often by those who have something to gain or lose from the situation".

Thus broadsheets think of themselves as "the quality press" - while for them and their readers tabloids denote big brash headlines, Page 3 nudes, paparazzi pictures, tittle-tattle, celebrity gossip and a lack of seriousness.
The tabloids on the other hand think of themselves as "the popular press", and regard broadsheets as dull, wordy and worthy. Kelvin MacKenzie, a former editor of the Sun whose brash style gave the world "GOTCHA" and still embodies for many people the essence of tabloid journalism." UNQUOTE

Next is an explanation of each of the Uk National Daily papers including their political affiliation: The links to both of these articles and websites are located at the end of this post.

QUOTE
"Broadsheets

The Daily Telegraph
Strongly conservative outlook. (It started out in life as a liberal paper -
funny how you get more right-wing as you get older.) Some efforts to appear more trendy in recent years, but common perception of it is still as a paper read by retired colonels in SE English villages. The broadsheet with the biggest circulation, in spite of strong pressure from The Times.

The Times
The oldest British national daily, known affectionately as "The Thunderer" and still considered to be the paper of the Establishment (though that perception's about as up to date as the one of City gents still wearing bowler hats and pinstripe trousers). Tends to be conservative, though surpassed in this by the Daily Telegraph by quite some distance. Rupert Murdoch's broadsheet vehicle.

The Guardian
Left-of-centre - the paper of social protest and commonly seen as a favourite with students, teachers, social workers and hippies. Generally pro-European, pro-welfare state, pro-civil rights; has recently launched a concerted anti-monarchy campaign. Claims to have made a bigger shift to web-based reporting than any other paper.

The Independent
The newest of the broadsheets, set up with the claim that it would not swallow whole the assumptions foisted on other papers by the Government's press lobby system. Leans slightly to the left, though not as much as The Guardian.

The Financial Times
As the name implies, it focuses strongly on economic matters, restricting its news coverage to the weightiest events. Pretty much neutral politically, although its economic focus means it's seen to be the paper of business and entrepreneurship and thus to have a bias to the right.

Tabloids

The Daily Mail
A newspaper for Stepford wives. Articles tend to be written in one of two tones - either sycophantic praise of middle-class lifestyles and their trappings, or moral outrage at the ever-increasing wickedness of the modern world. Rabidly conservative.

The Daily Express
Similar to the Mail, but a bit more balanced. Or less unbalanced, if you'd rather.

The Sun
The red-top par excellence. Infamous for its sensational headlines and its Page Three pictures of topless girls. Historically right-wing and often touching on the xenophobic, it's supported Labour in the last two general elections.

The Mirror
Ousted from its earlier dominance of the bottom end of the market by The Sun. Traditionally a left-wing paper.

The Daily Star
Launched in the early 1980s with the aim of competing for The Sun's readership, and thuswith similar sensationalism and right-wing politics - though the political content is negligible.

The Daily Sport
Unabashed trash. Almost zero news content - but plenty of soft *advertiser censored* pictures and adverts for adult chatlines. Oddly, though, they don't seem to have a website - they're included here for the sake of completeness." UNQUOTE

The links to both of these articles is below:
http://www.britishpapers.co.uk/natdaily.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/3714293.stm

Cheers, jacobean
 
http://tinyurl.com/3dhotx

Madeleine McCann police convinced she is dead

"It is now understood that the direction of the inquiry changed a month ago, when a key piece of evidence emerged, which has not been disclosed."

and...

"They are awaiting test results on forensics from inside the apartment but even without them, they say they have another lead which points to Madeleine's death."

Hi colo, hope you are well today! You've made a friend here in me, you're one of the most intelligent and compassionate people I've met in a long time. Keep on keepin' on!

I wonder if the "another lead" refers to the car that was rented three days after Maddie's disappearance.
 
Most of you are doing so, but if you're not, WE NEED LINKS TO ANYTHING THAT YOU COPY FROM OTHER PLACES AND BRING TO WEBSLEUTHS. If you do not, you are in violation of the Terms of Service of Websleuths and this forum is violating copyright laws.
 
Great first post Lanie, welcome aboard. Your thoughts are logical and entirely plausible. I can find very little to "pick at". Your last sentence would be an amazing development and boggles the mind to think about. I really hope that this case does not go the way of Jon Benet and remains unsolved. I know that alot of people are praying for the truth to come out and I have total faith in the power of prayer!

Looking forward to your further contributions!
 
Lanie ~

I enjoyed your post! Your theory sounds very reasonable to me!

Keep posting!
 
Thanks. I posted before, trying to figure out how the parents could be involved and be so collected at dinner not one person has stated in all this time in hindsight their behavior seemed even a little off.

I wanted to thank all the people in here who keep us so informed and up to date on what is going on. I also like that it is so civil in here. I stick to this and Aussie Mike's blog to stay up to date, as I have no interest in sifting through all the attacks at the other forums I have seen. Great work, everyone!!

Lanie
 
Thanks. I posted before, trying to figure out how the parents could be involved and be so collected at dinner not one person has stated in all this time in hindsight their behavior seemed even a little off.

I wanted to thank all the people in here who keep us so informed and up to date on what is going on. I also like that it is so civil in here. I stick to this and Aussie Mike's blog to stay up to date, as I have no interest in sifting through all the attacks at the other forums I have seen. Great work, everyone!!

Lanie

Well, please keep posting here!
 
My opinion/thoughts, not proven fact:

Has it been clarified yet that the night she screamed for her parents that she was actually alone (aside from the twins that I assume were also there). Was anyone else there with her, perhaps causing those screams?

Sorry I skimmed to catch up but I can't remember if that was ever clarified for certain. Little girl screaming according to what was it, the Widow upstairs? Was Maddie screaming at her daddy, screaming for her daddy, screaming out of terror because of who's in the room, or simply just having a tantrum and raising the volume because there was no adults to pay attention to it?

Just something else I was thinking about lately.

I had thought of this as well. We don't know for sure why she was screaming. As you stated there could be many reasons for this. 1. Was she screaming at he daddy. 2.Screaming for her daddy because she was afraid of being left alone. 3.Was she screaming for him because someone else was in the room? I find #2 to be most likely becase she screamed for so long. I think if it were 1 or 3 a hand would have been placed over her mouth to keep her quiet.
 
Can't these be printed out for free? Jeez.. I have never heard of selling the posters before. I will withold comment so I don't get tossed for naughty language here....
 
They are 10 pence......that's 20c. There cannot be ANY profit in this, sounds like they are covering costs so the fund does not have to.
 
Can't these be printed out for free? Jeez.. I have never heard of selling the posters before. I will withold comment so I don't get tossed for naughty language here....


Well, I was about to flip out about someone selling the posters, then I searched and found that posters can be downloaded for free (not the same poster as the one for sale - in my opinion the poster for sale is better): http://www.bringmadeleinehome.com/

I've never seen a website for a missing child sell items (especially posters) to raise money but maybe it's common in Europe.

Is there a mission statement or something restricting what the money raised can be used for?
 
Well, I was about to flip out about someone selling the posters, then I searched and found that posters can be downloaded for free (not the same poster as the one for sale - in my opinion the poster for sale is better): http://www.bringmadeleinehome.com/

I've never seen a website for a missing child sell items (especially posters) to raise money but maybe it's common in Europe.

Is there a mission statement or something restricting what the money raised can be used for?

Yup, kinda.....

I have to say, 20c for a poster is hardly 'raising money'. I can't imagine there is ANY profit.
http://store.bringmadeleinehome.com/acatalog/More_Info.html
 
They are 10 pence......that's 20c. There cannot be ANY profit in this, sounds like they are covering costs so the fund does not have to.

But isn't that what the fund is for? Or should be for? Promoting public awareness about Madeleine's disappearance?

Other families of missing children with fewer resources than the McC's provide missing posters free of charge, I believe, why not the McC's?

imo
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
100
Guests online
1,436
Total visitors
1,536

Forum statistics

Threads
599,578
Messages
18,096,988
Members
230,884
Latest member
DeeDee214
Back
Top