Theories

[Betsy]

What if Kate is covering for Gerry?

What if something went terribly wrong, either Maddie was overdosed when they sedated the children (if indeed they did) or she got into some pills while her parents were at dinner, whatever. Maybe Gerry found her when he checked the kids earlier, saw that she was dead, realized that he and Kate would be blamed, and he somehow moved Maddie to another location to make it look as though she were kidnapped. I say somehow because I haven't figured that out yet. When Kate found Maddie missing, I believe that was genuine--she truly didn't know where her little girl was. Gerry would have had time to think about it and mull over what they needed to do, therefore he was more calm. At some point in the next few days, he confesses to Kate what happened. She immediately wants to come forward, but he convinces her not to. Nothing they can do will bring Maddie back, but they will end up losing everything else. Gerry tells her he will go to prison, and his trial will bring out all their dirty laundry; she may even go to jail as well for leaving the kids alone. If they say nothing, they won't be charged, because who is going to kick them when they're down? And if she dares to tell the truth, he'll implicate her as well somehow. She's terrified. She has no choice but to go along with it for a while, to save whatever is left of her family. By the time she realizes that this is not going to die down in "a while", it's too late. The story is international and bigger than either of them had thought. Too late to back pedal...

 

[GreenEyes727]

I have only started to follow this case a little more closely in recent days. I belong to another forum called MysticBoard. Two of the posters (Spiritalk and Psychic Chef) who I believe are very good in their readings say that this was either an accident or done by design and someone close to the family is responsible.

See this link:
http://www.mysticboard.com/viewtopic.php?t=33190&highlight=mccann

These posters have also helped me with my question, which I put here as well of "Murder or Suicide" as to my friend who died in June.

 

[ny_]

I don't know about them planning it deliberately. They're doctors, they probably could figure out a way to make a death look more like an illness/accident. Plus, their colleagues at home would be more than likely to be involved in treating Madeline or pronouncing her dead. If anything, they would be less suspicious of the McCanns than the average parent coming into a hospital with a sick or injured child and give them leeway they wouldn't give another parent. Unless, of course, the colleagues already suspected abuse. But nothing the media have been reporting from where they live seems to indicate that.

An accident (from being left on her own), an overdose or unintended force from an out of control temper seem more likely, if the abduction theory isn't true. It would also go along with their public emotions. They seemed somewhat upset to begin with, then more of the smiles, etc. Until they were named as suspects. To me, that seems to indicate a combination of gulit/saddness over the death at first, along with a fear of being caught. Then they though they migh have gotten away with something. Then looking haggard again when it appears they might not have.

 

[ny_]

I've been thinking about this some more in the context of they "doth protest too much" over the leaving the kids alone. While you'd expect parents in this case to be somewhat defensive, their body language, etc. in the interviews such as this Sky News one (sorry, I forgot who had posted it originally or I'd note who did) seems to be really defensive:
http://news.sky.com/skynews/video/videoplayer/0,,31200-1267559,00.html

And here's a summary of quotes by Kate McCann on the topic (again, sorry for not remembering who posted it originally otherwise I'd note it):
http://www.guardian.co.uk/crime/article/0,,2165021,00.html

Purely speculation, but I think what folks here have said about an accident & then attempted cover up is starting to make the most sense to me. A fall has been suggested previously here. That to me, seems to be a likely scenario. Unsupervised, there's a fall. One or both of them discovers it on their next check of the kids. Realizing they might be blamed for leaving the kids alone, they come up with the abduction. That would explain why they get so touchy when the supervision issue comes up because it comes the closest to what may have actually happened. Of course, that doesn't explain how they managed to transport/hide the body. Unless, as has been suggested, the man with the child in the blanket was one of the party carrying her out?

 

[ny_]

I didn't know that falls are a leading cause of accidents for children when I posted that theory. Came across some more info re: falls & children:

http://capt.org.uk/pdfs/factsheet%20falls.pdf

Falls are the most common cause of accidental injury to children of all ages

Deaths and severe injuries are often associated with a fall from a high window or balcony or downstairs. Falls can also result in serious injury if the surface the child hits is hard -- such as concrete or paving stones

They were on the first floor, but how high was the window off the floor? How heavy was it to open? Were the shutters heavy/difficult to open? Although even if she were able to get to the window & open it, if she did fall out, wouldn't there be witnesses outside? What's the foot traffic in that area in the evening? From a Skynews link Colomom posted, here's a photo of the apt:

Though I don't know if that's the room where the children were sleeping. Also, given it wasn't their home, the usual childproof stuff wouldn't be in place.

Another photo of the apt from the same Sky News link:

 

[Betsy]

First off, I am on the fence, somedays my legs are swinging toward one side, some days the other. But since we have no reliable facts with regard to physical evidence, I'm trying to "get into the minds" of the parents. My first reaction to all of is was "Of course they had nothing to do with this--no parent would be able to compose themselves so quickly and convincingly, and remain that way all these months..."

Then I started to really think. The McCanns are obviously professional people who, before all this started, were respected by the people they knew, and it seems they know some pretty important individuals. They wanted children, and so made it happen. They lived well, nice house, were able to go on vacation with several of their friends--not mind blowing things, but sometimes just these simple things are important.

For instance, perhaps earlier in the week, as they left their children alone in the room and checked on them periodically, perhaps one of their friends mentioned to them "Gee, I'm not sure leaving the kids alone is such a good idea--what if something happens?" And perhaps the McCanns replied, "Nah, they'll be fine, they're sleeping, we're checking on them, it's all good, please pass the wine..."

Then the unthinkable happens. Gerry goes to check on the kids and finds Maddie unconscious on the floor; perhaps she has fallen, trying to reach her cuddle cat which is on the shelf. Perhaps she got into a bottle of pills or other medicine. (Years ago, my mom's friend lost her toddler son when he ate her tube of preparation H....things happen...) Anyway, Gerry finds Maddie non-responsive, he tries to revive her, but she's gone. Panic!

Now, what does he do? Does he alert everyone, call an ambulance, knowing that there's nothing that can be done for Maddie, also knowing that, in doing so, the police will be called and he and Kate will be taken in for child endangerment, because they left her alone?? Openly admit that, even though they were warned something could happen, they chose to leave their children alone and will have to pay the consequences (even more than facing Maddie's death).

In shock, he says nothing. He carries her to the car, says a sweet prayer, asks for her forgiveness, and goes back to the table. He can't bear to tell Kate, he needs to think. What to do, what to do.

Before he gets a chance to figure it all out, Kate goes to check on the children and finds Maddie gone. She's in true panic mode! She runs back to the restaurant and says something. We don't know the exact words, so I won't get into that. But suddenly the friends and management and other guests--everyone is going out to find Maddie. The police are called, as well as others.

As Gerry and Kate are walking, searching for Maddie, Gerry confesses to Kate what happened. She breaks down. Others think she is grieving for her missing little girl; her grief is genuine, but not because Maddie is missing. Her first instinct is to tell the truth. Gerry stops her--how can they face everyone? They--who everyone likes and respects--will become outcasts, criminals, with no sympathy coming from anyone. They will have lost everything, their social status, their friends, their family will be so disappointed in their poor judgement, and potentially they will lose their careers, their other children, and quite possibly their freedom. Would Maddie want her parents to suffer so? No, she wouldn't. Gerry tells her we must shift the blame somewhere else, or else our worlds are at an end.

They pray to God, they pray to Maddie, they beg for His forgiveness and her forgiveness. They promise they will be better parents from now on. They promise to pledge their lives to finding lost children all over the world. They will start a campaign to do so, and raise money and awareness. Yes, they will use Maddie to do this, but in doing so, it makes her live on, for she will be helping others. It's what she would want them to do, they convince themselves.

As each day passes, they are torn with guilt, but they know that they can never--EVER--break their silence, or they will be hated throughout the world. And for these people, that may be worse than anything.


Just some thoughts.

 

[BloodshotEye]

very, very interesting theory, Betsy.
I will have to go back, and retrace Gerry's "back and forth" between the tappas party and the apartment. Of course, it will be Gerry's version of how he checked on Maddie that night. Yet, something about his "checking", or was it "standing around taking to Wilkins"... causes this particular scenario to give me the chills. It's as if, Gerry wanted Kate to be the one to discover the missing child. It would look more "authentic".

Still not sure if the news reports were accurate about the sedation of the children. Wonder if we will ever be privy to those details.

Good one, Betsy.

 

[ny_]

Betsy, that seems to fit pretty well with what we've seen of their behavior.

 

[haypaula]

I'm still on the fence and leaning towards the McCanns perhaps sedating the children to keep them asleep while they socialized that evening. If Mrs Fenn's account is true, Maddie had been crying for more than an hour the prior night, and didn't stop until the McCanns returned to their unit. So, it appears the children were repeatedly left alone, for extended periods of time, without anyone checking on them. Perhaps there were complaints about Maddie's crying and the McCanns, wanting to socialize the last night (IIRC) of their stay, decided to sedate them.

If a pedophile had been watching Maddie, that person would have known the McCanns' social schedule of leaving and returning. and the window of opportunity they had to snatch her. When Maddie disappeared, Mrs Fenn said she heard Kate say/cry repeatedly "we let her down" (might be paraphrased). I believe Kate said this out of guilt for rendering Maddie helpless, through sedation, which kept her daughter from awakening and screaming for help.

It would take two very cruel sociopaths to lie to the Pope, travel the world, meet with celebrities, attend church regularly, and accept donations from charitable caring strangers; all the while knowing they killed Maddie and disposed of her body. How could they perpetrate such a continued hoax, day after day? What did they do with her body for nearly a month? Can this couple be that evil and cruel?

This reminds so much of the Natalee Holloway case; same form of secret justice system, and same area dependency on tourism revenue, which had declined since Maddie's disappearance. I've seen the lengths Aruba has gone to in blaming the victim and her family, intentionally (IMO) bungling the case to save their perp inhabitants from being prosecuted and from projecting an unsafe environment for tourists, so I don't doubt the PJ, within that tourist area, would operate similarly. Sadly, tourism supersedes humanity.

Given the McCanns are physicians, they would be less likely to administer an accidental fatal overdose to Maddie, but nothing is impossible. However, it's difficult for me to wrap my mind around the hoax they perpetrated, following Maddie's disappearance, if they had accidentally killed her.

IMO

 

[teddiebear1955]

teddiebear1955
teddiebear hugs & kisses Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: texas
Posts: 68


hello all,
the more i read on this case the more i believe that Madeline was killed before dinner that night and her body moved totally away from the room.
there was enough time before the dinner ...and all else was staged ...they knew before they went to the bar that night that one of them had to make a dramatic announcement ..... before everyone left from the table to go home....which was kate cus i dont think gerry can get that dramatic...JMO... cuddle cat was put on the shelf,door was unlocked ,window was arranged so that it would look like a kidnapping.....
now where did they take her body ...hmmm i'm not sure yet ...but with all the jet setting going on ...anyone of those bags could have been Madeline ...and all the trips to take other ppl to the airport..geez..... the church is another place that i believe could have held her body for awhile...as all have read alot of things go on with the priest and the church and alot is hiden for along time....if they took her to the church the priest may have helped them hide her ...after all they did get the key to the church !!!!!!! i just really believe she was killed then removed and hiden close by till Gerryand Kate made the cry ...and then she was buried ....jmo...
Kate is strange almost like she is drugged to remain calm...she has to stay calm & cool ...she killed Madeline and Gerry covered it up so both are gulity ...if she breaks both will go to jail and lose the twins. Gerry is controlling and to me another Scott Peterson .....they have themselves believing that madeline was kidnapped cus they have to keep that lie going....but Kate is getting weaker as the months go along...you can see it happening while he is just fine ..its wearing on her more....
....sorry this was long....teddiebear
__________________-------------------------------moved by Teddiebear

 

[Tuba]

Yes, the reports in newspapers have concurred that Madeleine was sleeping in a bed between the twins. But I think that is SO important because O'Brien (purportedly) said that he could only see the twins, not Madeleine. If he did indeed say that, it does not make visual sense to me. Unless the twins' beds were far apart.

 

[Barnaby]

Yes, the reports in newspapers have concurred that Madeleine was sleeping in a bed between the twins. But I think that is SO important because O'Brien (purportedly) said that he could only see the twins, not Madeleine. If he did indeed say that, it does not make visual sense to me. Unless the twins' beds were far apart.

I think this is a very important factor! If he saw both the twins & madeleine was in between, he would have had to see her there or missing!

 

[hcc2007]

I think this is a very important factor! If he saw both the twins & madeleine was in between, he would have had to see her there or missing!

Yes I agree. Except ... if the twins were in cribs (which tend to be high) and she was in a lower bed between them, then he wouldn't have seen her.

 

[Tuba]

The Guardian described the twins' beds as cots.

 

[hcc2007]

Websleuths has done some marvelous sleuthing both in getting facts and in making logical inferences from the facts. But there is one assumption that most bloggers and sleuthers have made: Kate and Gerry are in this together.

But, what if they aren't? The more I think about this case, the more I see Gerry as the explanation for some things that haven't made sense.

* Why didn't they leave the kids in England or bring a nanny along? Maybe because Gerry likes keeping Kate 'in line' by loading her down with mothering duties. Or ...

* Why didn't they hire help the night of May 3? Maybe because Gerry is cheap. Or maybe because he had a plan in place for that night.

* How can Gerry have gone to the apartment and found things amiss, but not checked further? How can Gerry have been chatting with Jeremy Wilkins within earshot of his daughter's abduction, and not have noticed anything? Maybe because he knew about the abduction already.

* Why did Kate shout "THEY'VE taken her!"? Because Gerry spent the days leading up to this filling her mind with stories and worries about abduction. He could easily have prepared her, and the entire group, by simply dropping nuggets of information. "I've heard there's a pedo ring operating out of Algarve" or "Someone broke into the Ocean Club apartments last week" or "Look, that man seems to be staring at Madeleine. She's so beautiful, anyone would." That kind of thing. Easy.

* Who is the last person to have seen Madeleine alive? (a classic murder-solving question): Gerry.

* How can the McCanns have launched such an over-the-top campaign to find Maddy if they actually were responsible themselves? Maybe because Gerry is doing this for Kate's sake, to dampen her suspicions about him.

Your husband is the last person to have seen your daughter alive. He claims to have had suspicions but didn't act on them. Would you be livid? I would. I'd be thinking "I do all the work with these kids, I wanted to hire a babysitter, YOU said 'no it's too expensive [or whatever]', and YOU promised to check on them. Now look what's happened!" So he had to scramble and do some BIG stuff to make it up to her.

Maybe, being the callous sort Gerry seems to be, he was surprised at how hard Kate took it. Maybe because he himself is a psychopath, he reasoned that Kate who'd been exhausted, edgy, and critical of Madeleine, would be relieved to have Madeleine gone.

How does this fit with the facts?

* The abduction was without struggle because the abductor knew what to say to Madeleine to keep her quiet. He knew some stuff that only Gerry and Madeleine could know, and told her he was taking her to her daddy but she would have to be very quiet, maybe even pretend to be asleep "so we can surprise daddy!"

* Gerry was on his way back from setting it up, but unfortunately ran into Jeremy Wilkins. He had to act nonchalant but at the same time keep Wilkins distracted from any sounds or sights that might come from the direction of the apartment. So he kept him chatting about, say, tennis.

In this scenario, the Tapas 8 (excluding Gerry) are clueless but they may have their suspicions. And who exactly would have asked for the 'pact' of silence? Gerry, of course! The angry and manipulative one of the group. He's also the one who, apparently, has connections high up in England not to mention sports and literary stars. He's also the senior one in age, or so it appears in photos.

In this scenario, Kate is also innocent but probably not clueless.

The world travels, work on behalf of missing children, etc., are Gerry's means of atoning to the extent that he does have a conscience.

Where is Madeleine now, according to this scenario? Unclear. It's hard to believe adoption could possibly work, although Gerry being a "can do" sort of guy might have believed it could. It's difficult to believe an adoptive family would have kept quiet with all the hoo-ha. Maybe the plan was to keep her in hiding until things blew over, then adopt her out. But things never blew over.

None of this explains the cadaver dogs, bad smells in the little church, and purported DNA evidence. Maybe the intent was to kill her, but that requires a much more evil view of Gerry. Though not impossible, just less plausible.

I may be wrong about what happened to Madeleine, but I feel pretty confident in my intuitions about Kate versus Gerry, and who was responsible for the bad parenting decisions that were made.

JMO of course.

 

[hcc2007]

Why has there been unclarity around which doors were locked? Why would one Tapas 9-er say they were locked, while another says they were unlocked? Why did Kate report the shutters having been forced open? Why was cuddle cat on the shelf instead of in bed with Madeleine?

All of these have a simple answer: It's not because they are all lieing and/or can't get their stories straight. It's because someone who checked on the kids did all this at some point: opened the shutters, unlocked the doors, and put cuddle cat on a shelf.

I'm not saying this is necessarily a sign of guilt. Many a parent has removed a stuffed animal from a sleeping child's arms for fear of suffocation. And anyone checking on the kids could have left the door unlocked innocently, out of a (false) sense of security and to make it easier for the next checker to check. The window shutters are a little harder to explain, but there might be an innocent explanation there as well.

The GUILT comes in when the person who did these things declines to explain to the others that s/he did them. Surely in the excitement of finding Madeleine gone, someone (Kate most likely) would've asked everyone "Did you put cuddle cat up on the shelf?" Did YOU put cuddle cat up on the shelf?" "Did YOU ....?"

If innocent, a person would simply say "Oh, yeah, I did that." But if guilty, the person might be unsure whether admitting to that act might somehow point the finger at him/her, and so decides it's safer to deny everything.

 

[hcc2007]

Then I'll stop hogging the airwaves here.

Another thing that puzzles me about an 'abduction' scenario in light of the cadaver evidence.

I can't believe any abductor is going to remove a dead child from the apartment. What's the point? If the abduction went bad and he accidentally killed her, he would've just left her there and escaped by himself.

If he took her alive, then where did he abuse and kill her (right next to the apartment)? In the church? Given that the alarm was raised at 10 pm, he had to do all this (take, abuse, kill, and bury) in, what, 2 hours' time? And all within 1/4 mile of the apartment?

I may be incorrect, but my understanding of snatchers is that they endeavor to get away from the home locale as quickly as possible, then do the bad thing in the car or out by some reservoir. Not in the church. I mean, really, only the most twisted of homicidal pedos in a Catholic country is going to do this in or near a church.

Likewise a kidnap-to-order is only going to go forward if you have a healthy child to deliver to your client.

So I don't see how ANY kind of death evidence close to the apartment (be it cadaver scent, blood on shoes, blood in the apartment, or any of the rest) can possibly be consistent with an abduction. The two just don't go together.

So if any cadaver/death/blood thing is confirmed in/around the apartment, then that pretty much seals it for the parents.

 

[Bob&Bob]

Churches are everywhere. Lots of churches.

 

[hcc2007]

Websleuths has done some marvelous sleuthing both in getting facts and in making logical inferences from the facts. But there is one assumption that most bloggers and sleuthers have made: Kate and Gerry are in this together.

But, what if they aren't? The more I think about this case, the more I see Gerry as the explanation for some things that haven't made sense.

Hey I'll just respond to myself here, since no one else is. The 10-15 minutes Gerry spent away from the table before he bumped into Jeremy Wilkins also gave him time to drug Madeline in preparation for the take-away. I guess I'm the only one here who thinks Gerry alone is a more likely candidate than Kate alone, Gerry + Kate, or all nine friends. But two things seem to me quite certain:

a) It's a lot easier, and more likely, for ONE person to lie and cover up a horrendous act than it is for whole group of nine people, or even two people, to do it.

2) Lieing to one's friends and wife requires more theatrics than would've been necessary if this had been a conspiracy. With a conspiracy, they could've cried a few times in public for show, then flown quietly back to the U.K.

 

[PharmSleuth]

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. That does not mean that was the configuration of how they were put to bed that night. Everyone seems to assume this. The possible contradiction is the verbal accounts of Maddie being placed to sleep between the twins. What if on night of May 3, they were put into a different sleeping configuration due to a last night of vacation sleepover with the other Tapas 9 kids? With a sleepover, the kids usually sleep in the same room. The room big enough for 7 of them to sleep in would be the living room area. This would be consistent with the latest revelation by Kate that the sheets were not messy..Maddie wasn’t placed there to begin with. What if Maddie was put to bed in the sleeper sofa in the living room between the twins and the other children were on blankets/makeshift sleeping bags on the floor? That would make the verbal accounts of Maddie between the twins correct. It makes the abduction theory seem even more doubtful. 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---Maddie jumps on the bed and falls behind sofa sleeper and hits her head before the parents go out which causes eventual death, but maybe not instant death. If the Tapas 9 kids were to have a sleepover, it would start probably right after dinner, so this could make more credible Dr. Payne’s statement that he saw “Maddie put to bed”. Note, he does not say Maddie put to bed in the bedroom, just “to bed”. After the “accident” and a lot of rowdiness by all the kids, then Gerry or Kate sedated all 3 of the McCann children and put Maddie between the twins. Sedation was not pre-planned, just something they did on the fly. 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. 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”.

Assumption 2: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.

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

There is my:twocents: