Madeleine McCann General Discussion Thread #27

Status
Not open for further replies.
Hi all, some interesting studies following on from the Portuguese case against the McCann's. Any clues to add to this would be appreciated.

Having studied the case from back to front I have concluded that things are not what they seem. By that I mean that the timelines and the actual dates of events have become confused. This is because the Tapas nine including the McCann’s did not become suspects in the case until the two police sniffer dogs were used in the case quite a while later. Questions were not raised about their movements until months after the event.
Eddie and Keela (Police dogs) were used and found evidence that Maddy died in the McCann’s apartment at some time, not specifically on the 3rd May 2007.
Here are some interesting points that I have raised:
1. If you had accidentally killed or murdered your daughter and you wished to dispose of her body it would be extremely difficult to do so with very short notice. If she died on the 3rd of May 2007 at perhaps 6.30PM you would only have three and a half hours to find somewhere that is secure enough to avoid detection because the McCann’s raised the alert that she was missing at 10PM that night. You would also draw attention to yourself carrying children down the street at the time she was missing when people would remember seeing you. Too risky, especially if you didn’t have a clue where you were taking her. You have to remember these are pretty smart educated people and calculated too.
2. Eddie and Keela, the Police dogs found that Maddy (her corpse) had been in the McCann’s bedroom wardrobe and behind the sofa for unknown periods of time. There is no way that the MaCann’s would alert the police that she was missing while Maddy’s dead body was still in that apartment. The reason being is that the police could have brought sniffer dogs and located her dead body immediately and the McCann’s couldn’t afford to take that risk. Also there is a strong possibility the Police would have searched the wardrobe and the area behind the sofa.
3. If you evaluate the above two points and think about it, the safe option for the McCann’s is to have kept hold of Maddy’s body the night she died, store it safely until the next day until you decide what you are going to do with it or how to dispose of it. Once you have done that you can raise the alert she is missing knowing full well her body is long gone. That would imply Maddy died on the 2nd of May and not the 3rd of May 2007.
For this to have happened there would have to be some tell tale signs that Maddy died on the 2nd May 2007 and not the 3rd.
The first indications that this may be the case are in the witness testimony. Several of the Tapas group have indicated that on the morning of the 3rd May the group broke from their normal routines and The McCann’s did not do the things with the group they would normally do, for example they did not have lunch on the beach with the group as usual that day. Kate McCann was seen jogging that day at between 5.00 and 5.30PM, she jogged past the tennis court where most of the group were and when they shouted for her attention she did not respond as she normally would have so something was definitely amiss with her. They did not remember seeing the McCann’s with their children on that day as much as they previously had done and because these questions were asked months after the event there is massive confusion as to the exact list of events and timeline.
For the McCann’s to break from the normal routine is a possible sign that Maddy was already dead possibly dying the night before on the 2nd of May.
Several witnesses have stated that on the 2nd May the Tapas nine stayed out later than usual and drank quite heavily including the McCann’s. So much so that one of the Tapas nine Rachael Oldfield was ill the next day from it. Problems relating to alcohol abuse are nearly always related to domestic violence in many cases and this is the one night of that holiday where large amounts of alcohol were consumed by the McCann’s.

So, lets just say hypothetically that the McCann’s came into apartment 5A later than usual on 2nd may 2007 having consumed large amounts of alcohol and find that Maddy is awake and has been mischievous. One of the McCann’s accidentally or purposely kills Maddy in a fit of rage. Firstly they place her body behind the sofa till early the next morning, then Kate McCann realizes that the body cannot be left there on the chance it will be discovered so moves it to the wardrobe in their bedroom. This would explain the dogs finding the death scent in those two locations and on Kate’s trousers and blouse.
The next part of this mystery would have to include both Matthew Oldfield and Russell O’Brien who are in the Tapas nine.
Gerry has a meeting with them the morning of 3rd May 2007 and tells them Maddy is dead. Gerry convinces them that the best way is to conceal the truth and get rid of the body and then later claim Maddy was abducted. They agree but must decide the best way of getting rid of Maddy’s body.
In his testimony O’Brien has stated that he and Matthew Oldfield went sailing that day (3rd May before Maddy officially went missing that night), each of them had a single sailing boat and they went quite a way out to sea. During that trip Oldfield got into difficulty and ended up in the water and O’Brian had to turn around and go help him.
Carrying on with the hypothetical, lets suggest they took Maddy in a large rook sack or a large shoulder bag along with rocks to use as ballast to sink her body. When the coast is clear they shove her over the side and she is in perhaps 100 feet of water.
The incident when Oldfield went into the water is their own explanation of events just incase anyone saw them from afar and something going into the water but its not Oldfield in the water it was Maddy.
They both return and try to carry on as normal.
The problem with this hypothetical is Maddy being missing the whole of the day during the 3rd May 2007. There are some strange witness statements during the days around the 2nd and 3rd of May 2007. Several of the children of the Tapas nine are reported ill and not attending the children’s clubs on or near those dates. The McCann’s witness statements say that their children including Maddy went to the kids clubs that day. Again because of the Tapas nine not being suspects unlil the sniffer dogs went in, the Portuguese Police did not ask questions about this until months after and it is all rather confused and misleading.
Lets put this into our hypothetical again. On the morning of 3rd of May 2007 Maddy is dumped into the ocean after dying the previous night on the 2nd May. To ensure Maddy is witnessed in the kids club on the 3rd May Russell O’Brien brings his own daughter Ella to the McCann’s apartment and she is dropped off with the McCann’s two other kids – the twins at the kids club on the 3rd May. That is why the books at the club show the McCann’s kids as being present. The Police would have to check those books thoroughly to confirm what took place but basically what I’m saying is that Ella could have been passed off as Maddy that day and all the pictures of Maddy at the tennis venue and pool could have been from the previous day.
If you read all the witness statements of everyone there is much confusion during the 2nd and 3rd May and several children and adults are ill and missing from usual routines. This could be a definite red herring to stop the Police finding out that Maddy is actually missing on the morning of the 3rd May and already dead.
What happens then is more or less the official story but I will explain a few things that happened and a possible explanation for them.
Continuing with the hypothetical: The McCann’s have to convince everyone in the Tapas nine (apart from the two that dumped her body) that Maddy is still alive so they set the evening up so that when checks are carried out, O’Brien and Oldfield are the only ones allowed in their apartment. When you read the testimony this is actually what happens the whole night. But the McCann’s have to ensure another thing happens. That is- the twins do not wake up and give the game away because if they do and someone else ends up investigating crying children then the game will be up. So the McCann’s drugged them to ensure they wouldn’t and the rest is history.
Under this scenario only four people know what happened to Maddy, both of the McCann’s, Russell O’Brien and Matthew Oldfield.
It may be of importance to find out therefore, where O’Brien and Oldfield went with those sailing boats and to search that location.
 
There is no point criticising the original investigation because the original investigation received zero cooperation for the McCanns, leading to the case being officially closed.

There were too many questions and not enough answers.

Kate herself shut it when she refused to speak in her interview....flatly refused to answer any questions.

This is a matter of record.

The McCanns left Portugal 2 days after being made Arguidos (despite swearing they would not leave without Madeleine) and that signified the beginning of the end of the PJ investigation.

They simply had no information from the main players.

How does anyone think that an investigation can be successful when the witnesses are lying and evading, lawyering up and leaving the country?

Even the great USA cannot touch a suspect who is in a foreign country....:waitasec: Amaral and his team were supposed to somehow overwhelm two governments and countless lawyers to continue?

This was never ever a search for Madeleine for the parents, not from the very first night.

This can be deduced by the simple fact that they never looked.

:sick:
 
Further - the original investigation revolved around Tanners lies.

Now they have been PROVEN to be lies. All those hinky inconsistencies that convinced the logic freaks she was lying (like myself) has now been completely discounted as....LIES!!!!!!!

MDI's don't really care too much about "how did they do it" - once you're convinced they did do it the details are fairly academic.

Everyones saying "when did they hide her? how?" but we only know the (alleged) movements of Kate and Gerry.

If you believe Tanner was lying, it follows that the others are lying too.

KWIM?

Those who crowed that the Eggman story was HINKY have been proven to be 100% spot on.

Those who totally dismissed the Smiths have been proven to be 100% wrong.

What else is going to be confirmed or shown as a lie?

Can't wait personally, this is like the best tv series ever.

Someone's going to come along and get offended at my flippancy but you know what? I actually think Madeleine is better off wherever she is, away from her "loving parents".

Who lied, and never looked for her. This cannot now be explained away as somehow Amarals fault.

:cow:

ETA: Tanner was all over the media in the beginning, yapping away to anyone with a camera. She even had them in her home so she could elaborate and preen while lying her head off. Where is she now?

Bit quiet there Tanner?
 
The smiths believe it was Gerry, correct?

Positively identified (only 80% certainty though!) by one very shaken and upset Martin Smith, who took himself to his local police station once he'd seen Gerry carrying one of the twins.

Let's not forget the Smiths were pressured beyond belief by Team McCann too.

An 80% certainty was worn away to being "wrong" just like the dogs, the forensics, and everyone else who was questioning the Tapas crew.

:(

PR gurus be warned - the truth does have a nasty way of coming out, eventually.
 
Hi meteor :seeya: Welcome to the board. Good theory except I have a difficult time with replacing maddie with another child. Wouldn't the caregivers notice it wasn't maddie? Surely they would have told LE during the investigation.
 
Further - the original investigation revolved around Tanners lies.

Now they have been PROVEN to be lies. All those hinky inconsistencies that convinced the logic freaks she was lying (like myself) has now been completely discounted as....LIES!!!!!!!

MDI's don't really care too much about "how did they do it" - once you're convinced they did do it the details are fairly academic.

Everyones saying "when did they hide her? how?" but we only know the (alleged) movements of Kate and Gerry.

If you believe Tanner was lying, it follows that the others are lying too.

KWIM?

Those who crowed that the Eggman story was HINKY have been proven to be 100% spot on.

Those who totally dismissed the Smiths have been proven to be 100% wrong.

What else is going to be confirmed or shown as a lie?

Can't wait personally, this is like the best tv series ever.

Someone's going to come along and get offended at my flippancy but you know what? I actually think Madeleine is better off wherever she is, away from her "loving parents".

Who lied, and never looked for her. This cannot now be explained away as somehow Amarals fault.

:cow:

ETA: Tanner was all over the media in the beginning, yapping away to anyone with a camera. She even had them in her home so she could elaborate and preen while lying her head off. Where is she now?

Bit quiet there Tanner?

She did see a man though who was later identified right? What else did she lie about?
 
Wonder why after all these years they finally decided the smith sighting is credible? Bizarre it wasn't done before

It is not they suddenly decided it.. the sighting was widely reported in the media .. but the e fit was published once they discovered the real Jane Tanner suspect.
Why Portuguese police never found this person? It was right there, in front of their eyes! They knew about Jane Tanner suspect from the day one?
Why they never made e fits themselves?
 
Hi meteor :seeya: Welcome to the board. Good theory except I have a difficult time with replacing maddie with another child. Wouldn't the caregivers notice it wasn't maddie? Surely they would have told LE during the investigation.

Madeleine was alive and well up until the late afternoon of 7 May. That now seems to be fact. The PJ said as much too and oh looky they were right. Again. :banghead:

Maybe not "well", her mother did recount how tired and pale she looked before swinging off for tapas.

The child seen being carried was Madeleine, it is almost certain. She was being carried upright so I suspect she may have been in rigour which would take her time of death back to the early evening.

Gerry carrying a stiff Madeleine, John lugging around a stiff JB.

The similarities in these cases continue to amaze me.

:cow:
 
Were the Smiths sightings e-fits ever published before now?

Not the Smiths, it was several of them who saw the guy.. only Martin Smith thought he looked like Gerry..
But Gerry couldn't possibly be there at 9.55. He was seen by many people at that time, OC dinner !
 
Madeleine was alive and well up until the late afternoon of 7 May. That now seems to be fact.


The disappearance of Madeleine McCann occurred on the evening of Thursday, 3 May 2007

How do you know she was alive and well till the 7th????????
 
Now they have been PROVEN to be lies. All those hinky inconsistencies that convinced the logic freaks she was lying (like myself) has now been completely discounted as....LIES!!!!!!!

Totally untrue.
Scotland Yard found the man Jane Tanner described.
So, she hasn't lied about him.
 
It is not they suddenly decided it.. the sighting was widely reported in the media .. but the e fit was published once they discovered the real Jane Tanner suspect.
Why Portuguese police never found this person? It was right there, in front of their eyes! They knew about Jane Tanner suspect from the day one?
Why they never made e fits themselves?

When was the jane tanner sighting thrown out? Was it after the British police got involved with the investigation? Maybe that's why
 
She did see a man though who was later identified right? What else did she lie about?

Her original story was she barely saw anything.

That morphed over time to several increasingly detailed (and different!) sketches, a description of his hair, his clothing, his nationality, the childs pajamas (she was really wearing the same sort as Madeleine? Really?), the fact that she positively ID'd Robert Murat as being that man. :liar:

I think that when someone wishes to dispose of an inconvenient body, and they have functioning brain cells as the McCann do, they look for logical cover ups.

They'd all seen parents walking to and from the crèche with sleeping children. (Maybe they could've decided to use the service too, but no...:() A bunch of yuppies stuck with a body and no car. Of course they're going to get it out of the apartment, so of course, they've got to carry it out.

All the best liars know that when creating a lie it is best to stick to a kernel of truth.

The kernel here is that at some point Tanner saw a man carrying his daughter home just as she described. Heck they probably all did, several times. Apparently it is a common sight in PDL.

Was it on the evening of 7 May? Who knows. The guy himself probably has no idea. She could've seen him the first night, the night before, any time really.

A small kernel of truth, such as a casual sighting of a couple of parents carrying their sleeping children through the streets, can easily be morphed into something convenient.

I would suggest that Tanners ever improving memory and description was actually elaboration of something she actually did see, sometime.

Gerry carried M away because they all knew it was a common sight and could easily be explained or hopefully, barely noticed in the first place.

:twocents:

ETA: I used to have no clue when she died, I even considered the "days before" scenario. Now I firmly believe she died early on in the apartment, probably just before the 5 minute/30 second Payne scenario.

Hopefully, not during. :sick:

Which is looking increasingly likely in my humble opinion.

Poor Madeleine.
 
When I watched Crimewatch I thought Kate, in particular, had aged more than what you would have expected for someone her age. I could see the stress of it all in her face. I also agree that if they had really done something to harm their daughter they would have dropped all this years ago. I personally think that the only thing that all those involved might collude with to cover something up is that they didn't really check on the children as often as claimed, because they knew it wouldn't look good.

are you kidding? continuing on with the case is the perfect, obvious cover for having done it! if they dropped the case, everyone would have pointed the finger at them and been like, ha! so they did do it! no, that would be incredibly foolish from THEIR selfish perspective to have dropped the case, guilty or innocent. they still have two children to raise and they don't want to be pariahs in the public eye. i don't think them continuing on with the case is evidence of anything. the mccanns aren't dummies.
 
When was the jane tanner sighting thrown out? Was it after the British police got involved with the investigation? Maybe that's why

Another common misunderstanding.

The British police were there from 8 May 2007.

It was the British police who first suspected the McCanns, and the British police who brought in Eddie and Keela.
 
are you kidding? continuing on with the case is the perfect, obvious cover for having done it! if they dropped the case, everyone would have pointed the finger at them and been like, ha! so they did do it! no, that would be incredibly foolish from THEIR selfish perspective to have dropped the case, guilty or innocent. they still have two children to raise and they don't want to be pariahs in the public eye. i don't think them continuing on with the case is evidence of anything. the mccanns aren't dummies.

I think they wanted the money.

They became overnight millionaires.

:sick:
 
When was the jane tanner sightinh g thrown out? Was it after the British police got involved with the investigation? Maybe that's why

Jane said it straight away, the same night Madeleine went missing she reported seeing the guy with the child, so she reported in in May 2007.
So, the PJ could go straight to the night nursery and ask the list who took, or brought their children that night, why they did not do that, I don't understand.

Scotland Yard started working on the case two and a half years ago, they interviewed the nursery parents recently and found out the guy.
 
Totally untrue.
Scotland Yard found the man Jane Tanner described.
So, she hasn't lied about him.

Indeed, they've found the men she described. At least two of them.

Do you mean Robert Murat, or the carrying dad? Does the carrying dad have a face full of pimples and bucky teeth? Or does he resemble an egg with hair? :scared:

:offtobed:
 
Indeed, they've found the men she described. At least two of them.

Do you mean Robert Murat, or the carrying dad? Does the carrying dad have a face full of pimples and bucky teeth? Or does he resemble an egg with hair? :scared:

:offtobed:

It is not Jane Tanner who reported Murat, it was OC staff.. I read it in files today..

Scotland Yard found the dark man carrying the child, the one Jane Tanner described.
Funny how PJ didn't find him, he was right in front their nose.
 
Something is very hinky about Scotland Yard getting involved and finding this man. I'm not buying it. Something is going on behind the scenes imo
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
163
Guests online
998
Total visitors
1,161

Forum statistics

Threads
626,216
Messages
18,522,670
Members
240,983
Latest member
nol3hill
Back
Top