Theories

[Barnaby]

Pharm, what you envisage is entirely possible & the thing that noone is commenting on is that as far as I know the McCanns rented the car that O'brien had during their holiday. Everyone is asking how could they move a body in the car after so many days it would be well decomposing but has anyone considered the possibility that the cadaver scent was already in the car from when O'Brien had it & possibly transported the body in it? Going to post this questionon the General Discussion thread also.

 

[Bob&Bob]

Remember that nurse who injected all those patients (I beleive in a nursing home) so she could gain attention as the heroic nurse who was there and rushed to their bedside to adminster CPR; she would bring them back to life and then go back later to their room and start the whole process over again. Does anyone remember that. She killed a bunch of people and they called it Munchausen Syndrome. She was trying to impress a male co-worker

Sorry it's not exactly on topic.

The comment about checking on the corpses that Kate was in the presence of made me think of that evil nurse.

Was that in a movie or for real?

 

[hcc2007]

Here is my theory about what actually went on before 10PM. The rest has been a snowballing coverup.Three assumptions most of us make that we shouldn’t make about that night:

Assumption 1: we are all talking about the same thing when we talk about location of the “bed” that Maddie was put in on May 3. Bedroom 2 from Pictures post #24 (1 sofa, 1 table with chairs)or Diagram Pictures #34 (2 sofas, no table and chairs)shows McCann children’s room set up of cots on one side and Maddie near the wall.

Hi PharmSleuth,

I'm glad you've posted a theory -- we need more of them! And I also applaud your attempt to go beyond assumptions.

-- That said, do you think the exact placement of the kids has an impact on the key question of abduction versus accidental death? I don't see any connection between accidental death and where exactly the kids are sleeping. Nor does an abductor looking for a particular child (which he has been watching all week presumably) care whether he walks 10 feet or 20 feet into the apartment to snatch the victim.

-- Or ... are you just offering an explanation for what appears to be conflicting testimony among the Tapas 9?

This would be consistent with the latest revelation by Kate that the sheets were not messy..Maddie wasn’t placed there to begin with.

-- Why would Kate bother to say that if Maddie weren't placed there to begin with? In the scenario you paint (all the kids were in the McCanns' apartment) it would make her seem particularly nutty to her friends since they were all there and know she knows where the kids were sleeping.

It makes the forensic evidence in the living room area behind the sofa more credible. Why would there be forensic evidence behind sofa? Well,what do kids do at sleepovers? They jump on beds...

-- In my experience, kids jump on sofas with or without sleepovers so the forensic evidence is credible to me no matter where the kids happened to sleep that particular night.

Sedation was not pre-planned, just something they did on the fly.

-- That's a very good point. I think 'on-the-fly' sedation is likely. The parents wanted to go out and party on their last night, the kids were making that difficult by refusing to settle down. It could've been just one parent. Maybe Gerry went to check at 9:05 and found Madeleine up and fussy. He just couldn't deal with her (sounds like, in some sense, he never really bothered to deal with her ... leaving that to Kate while played tennis and what-not) so he drugged her then.

Maybe the original intent was to have Maddie sleep on the floor with the others but due to her injury, they plopped her in the middle of the twins. Later, when checking on her, they discover she had been dead for 1 ½ to 2 hours-long enough for cadaver scent.

-- The idea of an accidental death that occurred later after a delay following an accident, and while the parents were not present, is a good new point. Something I hadn't considered.

Gerry and Oldfield and O’Brien all are at 5A around the same time to make the discovery. Gerry hears Jeremy outside. Gerry talks with Jeremy as Oldfield and O’Brien carry Maddie out the window into the parking lot and to O’Brien’s car trunk - parked near the supermarket (why the cadaver scent was picked up and ended near there. The intent was for O’Brien to drive off with her the next morning after the dust cleared. This is how the body was moved.)The twins could have been moved back to their cots before the cops arrived and the other 20 people were involved in the “search”.

-- This seems like a stretch. Does the timeline support all of them being there at one time? I thought not. Also, is there any evidence the car was in O'Brien's possession at this time?

Assumption 2:[/COLOR]All the Tapas 9 were coming from their respective apartments to join the others at the restaurant. But maybe all of them but Fiona Payne and Dianne were actually at the McCanns from 630 to 830, getting their own kids to settle in. Maybe David Payne was the only one of the Tapas 7 to return to his room to pick up his wife and mother in law to join others at the restaurant. This points to several members knowing Maddie fell and did not do anything about it-thus a pact of silence.

Assumption 3: Why no one used crèche service? Speculations and actual words from Gerry and Kate have included they are too cheap, did not want strangers to look after them(ridiculous since strangers looked after them during the day). The thing I have not seen mentioned is that maybe they did not want to pick up the kids at all that night-it was not about transporting the kids from the creche, but they had no intent to check in on the all night sleepover party after dinner that was going to be going on in 5A. The intent of all the Tapas 9 was to not return to 5A, but to all go to other’s apartments for whatever recreation was going to happen for the last night. Part of the pact of silence is that none of them intended to retrieve their kids after dinner. They all were going to leave them for an all night, unsupervised slumber party

That gives 2 reasons for pact of silence: several saw Maddie fall and 8 of the 9 had no intention of picking the kids up until morning-going out on that last night with a major party in one or more of the other apartments. I am excluding Dianne Webster from the adult party as she would go back to the Paynes apartment to watch her grandchild.

-- Here I think maybe you are adding more detail than necessary. Your story is more complicated than we need to explain the facts. Yes, all these things could have happened, but then so could lots of other things (alien abduction for example ... ha ha just kidding). Are you getting good 'explanatory' bang for your 'complexity' buck?

-- Attributing silence pact to shared guilt makes sense, but there are many reasons the Tapas 9 might've felt guilty and I don't see the thing of "leaving the kids alone for an unmonitored sleepover" as particularly compelling. Especially the part about grandma going back to babysit one kid. Why wouldn't she have gone to McCanns' to babysit them all?

The body move occurred between 915 and 10PM to the temp location of O'Brien's trunk and then to another location the next morning. Gerry and Kate not being involved in the transport due to being hounded by press.

-- I also like this, because one thing ANY case against the McCanns DESPERATELY NEEDS is some way of explaining what happened to the body! It's just so implausible to think they kept it sitting around the apartment or in a freezer, yet they were under press scrutiny all the time.

-- But on the other hand, bringing in the Tapas 9 for body disposal gets you into an even worse implausibility space. If the death was accidental, then why would 1 to 9 medical professionals risk everything to help cover it up? Why not just admit it was an accident?

-- That's why my theory has Gerry acting without involvement of the friends.

 

[PharmSleuth]

hcc2007, thanks for responding. I like your theory, too.I am at the point where nothing really will surprise me anymore.

I will respond to your queries
connection between accidental death and where exactly the kids are sleeping: For me, having more kids there in the same room makes it less likely for someone to go in an abduct--just more possibilities of it going wrong. To me, that would be extra bold.

Or ... are you just offering an explanation for what appears to be conflicting testimony among the Tapas 9? yep

Why would Kate bother to say that if Maddie weren't placed there to begin with? I am implying that the coverup for the 2 reasons I gave started before the cops got there and the collective drunken wisdom at the time was to move back the twins and make like only the McCann kids were there that night.

Does the timeline support all of them being there at one time? As the timelines vary, we have Gerry being there anywhere from 9 to 930 ish. OBrien's arrival and departure from the restaurant table is all over the place from arriving 1st at 915 or being gone 925 to 950 or930 to 10. Oldfield was gone around 925 but no return time given. So, 930ish they all were around 5A.

Also, is there any evidence the car was in O'Brien's possession at this time? Having a car available is due to the several Portguese articles that talk about how 10 cars were examined including friends' cars. The article says cars, so it could be any of them. I pegged O'Brien mainly on rumors I have read.

Here I think maybe you are adding more detail than necessary. Yep I jam-packed the theory with detail . I think what happened that night had a lot of complexities and a lot of the little things were due to many of the Tapas 9 being drunk.

Attributing silence pact to shared guilt makes sense, but there are many reasons the Tapas 9 might've felt guilty and I don't see the thing of "leaving the kids alone for an unmonitored sleepover" as particularly compelling. Yep, could be many reasons. I wanted to give something a little different. Most of these Tapas 9 had vacationed together previously and I can see that their habit was the last night was the big party. I can see them trying to convince the McCanns to quickly get their kids settled and suggesting the sedation...using peer pressure.

Especially the part about grandma going back to babysit one kid. Why wouldn't she have gone to McCanns' to babysit them all? The Paynes and Dianne stand out in my mind as the most innocent probably because they had a slight degree more common sense than the others-they used the baby monitor. Also, the Paynes were the ones that stayed on with the McCanns and I think they were naive to most of what went on that night which made them good sidekicks early on after the disappearance. Dianne mentioned in one news story that everyone was responsible for their own kids. This to me shows she is distancing herself from the others.

But on the other hand, bringing in the Tapas 9 for body disposal gets you into an even worse implausibility space. If the death was accidental, then why would 1 to 9 medical professionals risk everything to help cover it up? Why not just admit it was an accident? Not all were medical professionals. One is a lawyer, who should know about child neglect ramifications. I again think they were scared of social services taking *all* the kids away from them that night and I do think that is a compelling reason to lie and keep the pact. If one goes down, they all go down.

There is no way any of these Tapas 9 could have predicted the worldwide 6-month scrutiny that this case has had. They are professionals who thought they could sweep this under the carpet. There still is lack of responsibility on the Tapas 9 group-I haven't heard even one of them say that leaving their children was wrong. All I hear is "they are naive" or "you are being hurtful" from G and K, their spokespeople and family.

 

[hcc2007]

I will respond to your queries
connection between accidental death and where exactly the kids are sleeping:
For me, having more kids there in the same room makes it less likely for someone to go in an abduct--just more
possibilities of it going wrong. To me, that would be extra bold.

-- Good point, I see how that fits in. And I agree! Even without a roomful of kids it would have taken an astounding amount of confidence for this abductor to have gotten in, and away with a child, with so many people coming and going. And to have gotten a child who was known to the neighbors and hotel staff to be a screamer. A person would have to crazy or desperate ... or on the other hand, very well informed, to have that kind of confidence.

Why would Kate bother to say that if Maddie weren't placed there to begin
with? I am implying that the coverup for the 2 reasons I gave started before the cops got there and
the collective drunken wisdom at the time was to move back the twins and make like only the McCann kids
were there that night.

-- Ok, that makes sense. So assuming that something happened to Maddy and they all decided "the story" had to be abduction, then getting their kids out of there made that story more plausible. BUT ... I'm still troubled by the notion of 9 people all in the know.

Does the timeline support all of them being there at one time? As
the timelines vary, we have Gerry being there anywhere from 9 to 930 ish. OBrien's arrival and departure from
the restaurant table is all over the place from arriving 1st at 915 or being gone 925 to 950 or930 to 10. Oldfield
was gone around 925 but no return time given. So, 930ish they all were around 5A.

-- And so was Jane Tanner, by the way. So ... hm, that doesn't leave very many people in the Tapas Bar does it? I guess we could trim down "9 people in the know" to "3 people in the know" if we assume that the three men (McCann, O'Brien, and Oldfield) were in on something and the women were kept in the dark. Assuming it was the men of the group who "took charge" once Madeleine was discovered missing, they might've been able to direct the course of events somewhat as they wished. You know, tell the women to get the kids home to bed (to keep them safe) while "we go out and search". That kind of thing.

Also, is there any evidence the car was in O'Brien's possession at this time? Having a car available is due to the several Portguese articles that talk about how 10 cars were examined including friends' cars. The article says carso it could be any of them. I pegged O'Brien mainly on rumors I have read.

.

-- So there's been mention of O'Brien having a rented car? I know that someone else having the car before the McCanns is a good way to explain body fluids without having to imagine they waited 25 hot days with a body sitting around their house. And maybe they got it right after O'Brien left by extending the lease. On the other hand, if anyone knew that a body had been transported in that car, wouldn't s/he have preferred renting a different one?

But on the other hand, bringing in the Tapas 9 for body disposal gets you into
an even worse implausibility space. If the death was accidental, then why would 1 to 9 medical professionals
risk everything to help cover it up? Why not just admit it was an accident? Not all
were medical professionals. One is a lawyer, who should know about child neglect ramifications. I again think
they were scared of social services taking *all* the kids away from them that night and I do think that is a
compelling reason to lie and keep the pact. If one goes down, they all go down.

-- Yes doctors are good at sticking together, but I think we can rule out any kind of physical accident here (fall down the stairs or behind a couch) on the grounds that a group of British doctors could have taken the child to a Portuguese hospital and "pulled rank" to make sure no one dared to doubt their story. Accidents happen to kids. It would've been a non-issue.

-- If you do a google search on "Russell O'Brien" and "Exeter" you will see a job announcement from his hospital, for an intern position I think, where he is listed as one of the supervising physicians. A guy in that position can tell junior medical staff anything he wants to tell them, and get away with it. If it were drug overdose, that would make things more 'sticky' for them and the temptation to hide the truth would be greater, but even with that I'll betcha they could've bluffed their way through the medical establishment.

-- Also, if you had all 9 people in the know, you wouldn't have to tell anyone. You just pack up and go quietly home with one child missing and no one will notice til you get back to Jolly Old England. By then you've had time to put a good story in place. Nine people sneaking around with bodies in blankets, under the carpeting of cars, in bags, in freezers? I mean, that's really way out there, and given a choice I'd prefer a less ghoulish scenario if it answers the same questions.

-- I continue to feel strongly that the best explanation for some of the weirdest aspects of the case (the media circus for example) is that one, or at most two, of the Tapas 9 did something and the charade has been for the benefit of the others.

 

[PharmSleuth]

hcc2007,
I don't think all 9 know all aspects of what happened, but they may know about some of them. I think the discovery of the body and movement of the body is only known by a few, but the others are covering up for their own negligence of their kids which is tied to the whole night.

There is one article for me that points to tapas 9 involvement, The SOL July 13th one [FONT=&quot]http://www.geocities.com/hallsofmirrors/SOL.html excerpt:
[/FONT]The three friends of the McCanns who have returned to Portimao state the contrary. Fiona Payne and Rachel Mumpilly assure they saw Robert Murat at the Ocean Club around 11.45 p.m., while Russell O’Brien says he saw him around 1 a.m. These guarantees were given after Murat was constituted an arguido. Because before, when they were confronted with the possibility that they might have seen anything suspicious on the night of the disappearance, they said nothing.

This occurs 2 months after Murat was named arguido but has not been arrested. One person from each couple seems to be trying to put the final nail in the coffin of Murat. Just seems too convenient for me.

 

[hcc2007]

From the media thread:

Today, for the first time, I see a report that the shoeprint is the size that Kate McCann wears. FSS is saying that they have not examined any shoeprint from the Renault. Perhaps the PJ did that, since it does not contain blood & could be inspected & matched for patterns w. ordinary methods. Why would Kate rather than Gerry be the one to put a body into the wheel well?

-- If indeed there is a bloody footprint and if indeed it is Kate's, then we're going to have a dilemma. There are many sources of blood in the world, even blood with DNA partially matching Maddy's. Hate to get graphic on you, here, but women Kate's age produce blood once a month. Sometimes in large enough amounts to form drops on the floor. Children cut themselves and bleed as well. As do adults. It is easy to step in something dark on a dark surface and never notice it.

-- I'm going to continue hammer away at my theory, here:

-- Even imagining that a test could be produced to prove 100% that it is Maddy's blood and it came from a head wound (which will never happen), then I STILL think it is far more likely to have been Gerry's doing, not Kate's. We have ample evidence that Kate did her best to care for these kids even while describing one of them as hysterical. Apparently she spent a lot of time with them. Gerry is the one who, by all accounts, was in and out of the picture, had more important things to do (play tennis), and was a big mucky-muck doctor whereas Kate had scaled back her own professional life to accomodate the kids.

-- I can't quote statistics but I'll get them if someone wants them: fathers are way more likely to kill children (sometimes their own, but especially step children and children whose paternal parentage is unclear) than mothers are.

-- Gerry could have gone back to the apartment to check on the kids, found Maddy "hysterical" again, clinging to him and begging him not to leave her, and being the kind of guy he is, it enraged him. He'd had enough of her taking his wife away from him and just being such a pest. Maybe he hit her, or pushed her into something. Maybe she was standing on the bed, lunged for him, he pulled back and she fell into the corner of the night table.

-- As for what might've happened next, it's my belief that there may be ONE person in the world whose opinion scares Gerry more than the law, more than his reputation: KATE. Gerry is insecure in his relationship with Kate partly because she's hot and he's not, but also maybe because he'd had angry outbursts or other bad behavior in the past. AND we know from her diary she was frustrated with him for not helping enough with the children.

-- So, here he has told her not to hire a babysitter, and has promised to check on the kids. And what happens? He accidentally kills one of them! What to do? The "it was an accident" story would certainly wash with the local hospital and any snoopy hotel people, but it's not going to wash with Kate. She will be furious. She will hate him forever. She might even leave him (though I guess the Catholic faith has something to say about that). So Kate becomes the motive to cover up what happened.

-- Did he call someone, say Russ O'Brien, for help? I'd like to know what exactly happened when Russell O'Brien left the Tapas Bar table. Did he receive a cell phone call? He's an acute care physican. While I don't believe a senior physician would get involved in body-snatching when he could have walked into a hospital with any story whatsoever, he MIGHT have been swayed by a panicked, desperate Gerry.

-- Perhaps he had access to a hospital or morgue freezer?

 

[hcc2007]

Also, BTW, those videos of Kate & Gerry "lieing" about having drugged the kids? I see Gerry getting flustered, just like a liar would. But Kate looks different: more like disgusted. Closing her eyes like that says to me: "If I have to listen to this CR#P one more time, I swear I'm going to scream!"

So the question is, whose CR*P would she be thinking of? The interviewer asking them for the umpteenth time about drugging? Or Gerry lieing to cover up something they should've come clean on at the outset?

 

[PharmSleuth]

hcc2007, I agree that there seems to by lying with sedation question. The bloody footprint is hard for me to believe.

I thought I would add 2 of my other theories to dissect. (I have several)
These I call “Sedation Accident (fault of Kate) with Gerry and 1 Tapas 9 man in coverup and disposal”
And “Discipline gone wrong (fault of Kate) with Gerry and 1 Tapas 9 man in coverup and disposal”

Both are hinged on the report that Gerry went to play tennis after the high tea at 630PM

Sedation Accident:
630PM: Gerry goes off to play tennis with male Tapas 9 person, while Kate goes back to the flat with the kids. Kate sedates the twins AND Maddie with sedatives and they are immediately in bed. Kate feels lonely and leaves 5A to talk with a Tapas 9 woman leaving the children all by themselves at around 6:45PM.
Sometime before 8PM, Gerry and other male return to 5A and discover Maddie had choked on her vomit and was dead. Gerry and male move the body through the window so the other Tapas 9 (including Kate) don’t see and put her in the trunk of a rental car of the male. This male disposes of the body the next morning.

Discipline gone wrong
630PM: Gerry goes off to play tennis with male Tapas 9 person, while Kate goes back to the flat with the kids. Kate hits Maddie causing her death. Kate suffers mental break and puts Maddie back in bed. When Gerry and other male return to 5A before 8PM, they see a zoned out Kate and discover Maddie is dead. Gerry and male move the body through the window so the other Tapas 9 don’t see and put her in the trunk of a rental car of the male. This male disposes of the body the next morning. In this scenario, Kate does not remember what she did, so all of her reactions are genuine.

 

[hcc2007]

hcc2007, I agree that there seems to by lying with sedation question. The bloody footprint is hard for me to believe.

I thought I would add 2 of my other theories to dissect. (I have several)
These I call “Sedation Accident (fault of Kate) with Gerry and 1 Tapas 9 man in coverup and disposal”
And “Discipline gone wrong (fault of Kate) with Gerry and 1 Tapas 9 man in coverup and disposal”

Both are hinged on the report that Gerry went to play tennis after the high tea at 630PM

Sedation Accident:
630PM: Gerry goes off to play tennis with male Tapas 9 person, while Kate goes back to the flat with the kids. Kate sedates the twins AND Maddie with sedatives and they are immediately in bed. Kate feels lonely and leaves 5A to talk with a Tapas 9 woman leaving the children all by themselves at around 6:45PM.
Sometime before 8PM, Gerry and other male return to 5A and discover Maddie had choked on her vomit and was dead. Gerry and male move the body through the window so the other Tapas 9 (including Kate) don’t see and put her in the trunk of a rental car of the male. This male disposes of the body the next morning.

-- That's somewhat plausible, but didn't the McCanns supposedly arrive at dinner together? So that would've meant they either met up outside the apartment and went from there to dinner, or that Kate discovered the death before they went to dinner.

-- I'm having trouble believing these two sat down for 2 hours of eating and conversation knowing that their child was dead. Why did they wait 2 hours before pulling off the abduction stunt?

-- There's no evidence that the McCanns ever left the table together that night. If a couple is hiding something, or preparing a huge stunt, or even just trying to make sure their stories were straight, wouldn't they have gotten up for a "romantic stroll" together, at some point?

Discipline gone wrong
630PM: Gerry goes off to play tennis with male Tapas 9 person, while Kate goes back to the flat with the kids. Kate hits Maddie causing her death. Kate suffers mental break and puts Maddie back in bed. When Gerry and other male return to 5A before 8PM, they see a zoned out Kate and discover Maddie is dead. Gerry and male move the body through the window so the other Tapas 9 don’t see and put her in the trunk of a rental car of the male. This male disposes of the body the next morning. In this scenario, Kate does not remember what she did, so all of her reactions are genuine.

-- That's a douzy. I guess it's possible that a person could have a complete psychotic break.

-- Interestingly, in today's news the tabloids have dug up another juicy fact (one per day, with your glass of orange juice). That Gerry might've asked one of his pals to "check on Kate" late that afternoon, as though he was worried about her.

-- Ha! That's fits PERFECTLY with my theory of Gerry. Now in addition to "hiding in plain sight", he's been trying to frame Kate from the outset.

 

[PharmSleuth]

hcc2007, Oops! I forgot to add that Gerry met Kate at whichever apt she went to and they went together to dinner from there, so Kate would not have known what had happened to Maddie. In both cases, Kate is in the dark and Gerry and 1 Tapas male were the only ones faking it through dinner. We don't know who was drinking those 14 bottles of wine. Maybe just a few of them drank the majority of it so whatever behavior was masked by total drunkenness.

 

[hcc2007]

hcc2007, Oops! I forgot to add that Gerry met Kate at whichever apt she went to and they went together to dinner from there, so Kate would not have known what had happened to Maddie. In both cases, Kate is in the dark and Gerry and 1 Tapas male were the only ones faking it through dinner. We don't know who was drinking those 14 bottles of wine. Maybe just a few of them drank the majority of it so whatever behavior was masked by total drunkenness.

The fewer fakers, the better. And yes I think the alcohol is something worth considering, as you mentioned earlier about "collective drunken wisdom". It clearly affects people's judgement and perception of things. I'm surprised they're able to put together a time line at all. No wonder if if it's a bit out of joint.

I'm especially surprised Gerry was able to say "I left the table at 9:05 to check on Maddy." That's excessive attention to detail if you ask me. And didn't one of our "lieing" experts (or web sites) state that adding irrelevant detail is actually a sign of lieing?

 

[Tuba]

What I read is that liars usually say "05", as in 9:05 and alternatively, on the hour. Another bothersome detail is that the staff says they served the meal at 9:00 p.m. The only reason I can imagine him choosing 9:05 to then leave is that he had already eaten at 6:30 p.m., after the tennis lesson and may not have wanted dinner. There are quite a few newspaper reports of the 6:30 meal.

 

[Notebook]

Thought I would make my second post here regarding my theories. Sorry for the length.

Theory 1. The parents did it

I want to speak in general terms because it is possible that it could go both ways....and the details as we know are not always reliable or even known. I believe if the parents or just one of the parents killed Maddie it was an accident/cover-up. Either way I think that it would have to be Gerry that actually took Maddie's life. I think this because:

A. I don't think these are parents with absolutly no love for their children. Yes I think leaving them all alone is very bad neglect but I still don't think they intended to hurt them. To me if they wanted to "get rid" of Maddie there were many other ways to do that through a staged accident or something. Because I believe this, I just can not believe that these parents murdered their child and then went to dinner. Of course they may have but it seems that someone would have noticed something in their personalities.

B. So if she didn't die before dinner then it had to happen between 8:30ish and 10:00ish. Through the statements of the Tapas 9 and the employees at the restaurant Kate never checked on the kids until 10 pm. In fact it was always the fathers that did the checking even on the previous nights. This to me sounds reliable as more then one person apparantly agreed.

Now as to who did it when and how I think the most likely scenario is that Gerry or Gerry and O'brien checked on the McCann children. I don't think Maddie had passed from any previous sedation because they would have had to actually make sure she was breathing when they checked on her. A sleeping child could easily look like a deceased one in a dark room while they are in bed. To me this would mean that possibly she was awake and crying. If O'brien wasn't with Gerry at this point maybe he called O'brien to have him come help him give Maddie a shot or other sedative to put her back to sleep so they could re-join the party.

It is at this point that I think they over-dosed her. This could have been because Kate had previously given her something and they didn't know it or they were drunk and made a mistake. She may have vomitted, choked etc. If this is what happen I think at this point both Gerry and O'brien felt the only way out was a cover-up and they put a plan in action. Either O'brien called Mr. Murat for help or Maddie was hidden in the wheel well of his car. Their decision may have been influenced by the wine but who knows.

I don't believe she died of a violent accident because I think there would have been too much blood to hide that quickly.

I think when Gerry got back to the Tapas bar he had planned (or him and O'brien planned) to have Kate do the next check so that she would find that Maddie was missing. This is common in criminal profiles where the perpetrator will try to get someone else to happen upon the murder or kidnapping to take the heat off of themselves. He could have easily said to Kate, "honey I did the last can you please do this one"...or "Maddie wanted you when I was up there before she fell back asleep so maybe you should check on her". To me the question to Kate would be "why did you check on the kids that last time?" And why at 10:00? Well O'brien returned to the bar around that time...that may have been Gerry's signal to prompt Kate to do the check as O'briens return told Gerry that Maddie was hidden.

If this is how it happened to me most everything makes sense. Kate doesn't know what happened but maybe suspects something. The media campaign would happen because she felt she was really looking for her daughter. Gerry couldn't complain because that would be suspicious. It is of course possible that Kate does know the truth now but I don't think she did at that point.

So where is Madeleine? If the newest news is correct and there has been DNA matching Maddie's found in Murat's villa then I would assume he helped hide her body. But if she was in the wheel well I'm sure she could have safely stayed there for a little while. I haven't been able to find any time-lines of what the Tapas 9 did the day and days after Maddie disappeared. If she was in Murat's villa and transferred to the wheel well or she was in the wheel well all along O'brien could have easily drove off and buried her somewhere within an hour or two I would think.

As far as Kate having the death smell? I think that could easily be explained. If Maddie died in her bed Kate may have layed on it crying for her child. If Maddie had cuddle cat when she died it could have transferred. I think the places the death smell were found (the car) are more unexplainable. Not saying Kate is innocent but I think it would make sense. Heck they could have told her later and she could have held Maddie before "they took her away" for burial/disposal. But to me that doesn't even make much sense. If you were trying to "cover-up" a murder wouldn't you get rid of the clothes and things you had been wearing? As the parents of a "kidnapped" child it doesn't seem like that would be hard to do as no one was suspecting you and by the time they did if the clothes you were wearing couldn't be found it wouldn't be evidence enough to arrest you.

Theory 2. A stranger did abduct her or Murat abducted her

To me this theory is one in the same because I have to ask myself "if she was abducted why?". To me there are only a couple reasons children are abducted. 1. For profit or 2. For their own pleasure (I know that sounds gross).

For either of these reasons Maddie would have made a good "not the best in all scenerios" but still a good target. These families all had very small children and were out every night leaving them alone. Anyone, whether it was someone they knew or not, could have easily seen a pattern should they have been watching. I doubt it was a stranger just because if the person was watching they would have seen that the checks were often and that would have been risky. Plus one couple had a monitor and unless they knew that why would they zero in on Maddie and no one elses child?

I believe if she was abducted it was by someone in the Tapas 9 for profit. Either they co-conspired with Murat or Murat did it himself. The only reason I question the profit scenerio is because regardless of where it came from there WAS a smell of death and who would abduct a child for profit that wasn't alive?

Bottome line in this theory I believe if she was in fact abducted she was abducted by someone that used her and murdered her. Possibly this was arranged by O'brien for a profit. Murat could have paid him to hand over Maddie.

I do find this pretty unlikely because of the death smell being on Kate and the car. Obviously they wouldn't have helped a man that bought their child to fulfill a fantasy unless O'brien was blackmailed or something I don't know why he would help either.


A couple general points before I write a book lol...

-I don't think Maddie was hidden and moved 25 days later or even more then a week later. I think that would have involved too many people to execute.

-I don't think Maddie was kidnapped at least not in the stranger sense of kidnapping because a lot of the facts wouldn't make sense but I'm sure there is a small possibility.

-I don't think the kiddos were all in the same room because I don't know why the parents would all arrive at such different times to the bar. As well as the fact that one couple had a monitor. Of course it is possible SOME of the kids were in the same room which would lead to more ifs.

-I definatly don't believe the majority of the Tapas 9 know what happened but if they aren't already they are probably becoming suspicious.

Whew I know a lot of this has been covered but I had to write it out for my own thought process.

 

[Barnaby]

Welcome Notebook & thanks for a well thought out post.

When you say you don't think all of the Tapas crew knew, one thing that always puzzled me was why Diane Webster remained at the table when everyone left, seems a bit uncaring under the circumstances or did she know that a search for Madeleine was futile?

 

[Notebook]

My problem with details like this is that I think it is hard to confirm them even with a media article. I'm not sure if that is what you are going off of but I don't have notes on who left or stayed at the table AFTER the alarm was sounded. Also if she did stay at the table she had to leave at sometime so maybe she stayed to pay the bill or only stayed another 15 min which to me wouldn't be inappropriate.

When I look at a case I generally try to put myself in the same situation. Dianne was a friends mother. Maybe she felt it intrusive to go inside the apartment or run to the McCann's aid. Maybe she was in shock. Maybe she was drunk and in shock. Either way the fact that she stayed at the table (should it be true) would not be suspicious enough for me to determine that she knew what happened to Maddie.

Just my :twocents: Oh and thank you for the welcome.

 

[Barnaby]

All reports say that she remained at the table & Yes you could be right, I suppose I was just taking it from my own perspective. If I heard that a child had gone missing & everyone left the table as one would expect, I would most certainly rise also. She did know the McCanns well enough to dine with them every evening & it was a serious issue. Just seems strange to me.

 

[Notebook]

I agree with you but like I said there may be a reason she stayed at the table. I imagine not everyone went running in circles. Also I for a while was wondering if the "they have taken her" statement allegedly made by Kate was an announcement to the whole table or one/two people specifically. Or maybe not everyone heard her as the statement "they have taken her" could mean more then one thing. What if Diane didn't know at that point Maddie was abducted or missing? I just think there are a lot of possibilities of why she would stay. She could have stayed and still been very upset. Kind of like the parent that gets stuck waiting at home in case the phone rings or the kid shows up. It must be hard to not be out looking with everyone. I find it much more unlikely that the whole group was in on a cover up. Someone would have cracked by now in my opinion. Especially those at the table that apparantly had no reason not to.

If I put this in context to my own life I can easily see my own mother saying "go be with your friends and look...I will pay the bill and come as soon as I can".

 

[Barnaby]

This theory on the mirror boards really makes sense to me that is if the child is not dead or perhaps this was the plan & something went wrong.
From the beginning I thought it was a staged abduction for money only swaying from that as reports of madeleines death started to emerge:

http://forums.mirror.co.uk/viewtopic.php?t=23162

 

[daffodil]

:laugh: http://forums.mirror.co.uk/viewtopic.php?t=23162