Madeleine McCann General Discussion Thread #27

[ATasteOfHoney]

Firstly, a journalist who uses quotation marks in place of inverted commas. (several examples in the actual article - not necessarily in the above)

As for "on one reading of the evidence, this case does have the hallmarks of a pre-planned abduction" - careful wording, suggests to me that a second reading was to be the one to go on and that the first impression must not be taken on face value. Jmo.

Jigzy.......please don't get my grammatical prowess panties in a bundle. :floorlaugh:

Back to our topic at hand: I feel that the author of the article you referenced is just revealing some theories and tossing them around a bit.

 

[jigzy]

BBM. I'm not disagreeing, I'm currently undecided. BUT, IMO Occam's Razor goes right out the window if one believes that the cadaver dog hits are proof that MDI. It is very hard to explain the cadaver dog hitting in the trunk of the Renault, a vehicle that the Mccanns had no access to until at least two weeks after her disappearance. I have mentioned this before but despite many here supporting this, nobody has been willing to share a reasonable explanation or theory.

One would have to assume that Maddie's body was hidden somewhere on the 3rd, left to decay until over 2 weeks later, then retrieved, placed in the back of the Renault, and dumped somewhere, all without LE, media, Warner staff, friends/family, etc being aware. The risk would be enormous. If one considers that Maddie's body had been refrigerated/frozen during that time span, there compounds and complicates the scenario even further.

IMO, MOO... Something about that cadaver dog hit in the Renault just nags at me.

The hit in the trunk of the Renault need not be of an actual corpse being in there, but of clothing removed from a corpse after some time. It is possible that the corpse was taken from the scene wearing the 'wrong' clothing conflicting with the pyjama sighting and the McTimeline. In other words, the child may have died wearing daytime clothing, i.e. before bath time. I would be interested to know exactly what the crèche workers saw Madeline wearing at day, and were those items recovered. Had the body been discovered wearing daytime clothing the McCanns would have some answering to do. I recall posting some Photoshop work I did on another forum, showing what we were told by the McCanns were Amelie's pyjamas, the same design as those that M supposedly was 'abducted' wearing; they were HUGE! I said at the time that I thought that they were Madeleine's and that Amelie did not have a similar pair. Jmo.

 

[aa9511]

Trust me their motive for clamming up wasn't because they worried about the twins.., remember they continued to leave them in the day care in the days that followed the "abduction" .... It never even occurred to them the "abductor" could work there...or that they may be unsafe there.

Because they knew exactly what happened to Madeleine...IMO


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free

Oh yes, you are so right, Linda. Don't know what their support was in terms of family and friends....you'd think someone could have watched the twins for them (other than strangers). I'm assuming the Tapas group had to go back for work and stuff, but didn't they have people that could go there and help them? Or take the twins to one of their parents' homes for them to keep while they focused on "finding Madeleine?" The whole thing is just so strange.

Its all S T R A N G E.

 

[aa9511]

Like Caylee Anthony's body?

It's impossible to check every square inch. Sometimes Lady Luck shines bright on the guilty......it's another reason I'm an atheist!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free

good point. sigh.

 

[ATasteOfHoney]

Oh yes, you are so right, Linda. Don't know what their support was in terms of family and friends....you'd think someone could have watched the twins for them (other than strangers). I'm assuming the Tapas group had to go back for work and stuff, but didn't they have people that could go there and help them? Or take the twins to one of their parents' homes for them to keep while they focused on "finding Madeleine?" The whole thing is just so strange.

Its all S T R A N G E.

So very true, aa9511......I make better arrangements for my dogs when I go about travelling!

 

[aa9511]

Yes i agree and sometimes you just need to hide a body in play view.....

Its so easy to hide a childs body, they can get into all kinds of tiny spaces. So many have suffocated in accidents for doing so sadly.

They have a thing about hiding perhaps Maddy came out and decided to hide and punish her parents and it went awfully wrong, has anyone thought of that?

Its the kind of things 4 year olds do. I know at the time my grandson was her age, and believe me he knew how to wind my daughter up and was very clever for his age.

NOT saying this happened but could be a possible scenario.

ALSO everyone assumes she was taken out of the flat. The GNR dogs traced her scent to the supermarket they dont give a time stamp, perhaps she did wonder off looking for mummy and daddy and it was there someone took her who knows....anything is possible. Perhaps it was the person seen with a child at 10pm....who knows....

ALSO i know from experience that tired children get very fractious ....

BUt I don't think there would then be any reason to stage the window. I really don't think that the McCann's would have panicked b/c they left their kids alone....b/c what happened in this case? they still had to call police. And they still had to obviously admit that they wren't with their kids (intruder story). So it's the same thing.

No, something happened in there in between that family and we will probably never know.

 

[aa9511]

i actually agree with you. All the ones in UK who did something with their children were the wailers, criers...or then there were the ones who just sat stunned and let someone else do the talking. I have seen it all now it breaks my heart that I have become so cynical because everytime i felt sorry for someone i found out they did it.....

especially in the age of "24/7" news, internet, social media....sick people think they will become "famous" and be on TV...sometimes I think that's what the McCanns motivation was (money from being "celebrities" through their fund). They must have seen on TV about people like Ramseys, Amanda Knox, etc..

 

[Morag]

When David Payne (? I think) stopped by the McCann apartment while Gerry was playing tennis, he described the children as 'looking like angels', all dressed in white. I thought Madeleines jammies were primarily pink?

 

[aa9511]

Going back to Madeliene.

I actually still think it is feasible she did wonder out of the apartment to look for her parents.

Everyone concentrates on someone going in but really she could have come out.

Any thoughts?

Was she annoyed when she found her mum and dad were not there and went off to punish them by hiding somewhere.

The GNR dogs found her scent near to the supermarket did she walk that far on her own, did she meet someone, did she go off and fall into an open culvert or something.....

Wasnt there there work being done in PDL at the time on the roads, with big holes and things going on....

There was also a lot of bushy areas about, could she have fallen into something, or did someone with bad intent find her and take her away and this is the 10pm sighting......

IMO, I don't think a 4 year old could do that much thinking, as in "by doing this....I will punish my parents for leaving me alone." I really don't think she could have thought that far ahead.

 

[aa9511]

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.

SS, I saw the documentary Amaral did for a TV station, and he pointed out that all the Tapas group who checked on the McCann kids used the long route to go check on them. He said there was a shorter way (I guess by the pool), which none of them used....instead they went around and to the side.

Do you know the significance of that and what might that mean? TIA to anyone.

 

[aa9511]

When David Payne (? I think) stopped by the McCann apartment while Gerry was playing tennis, he described the children as 'looking like angels', all dressed in white. I thought Madeleines jammies were primarily pink?

Oh my goodnes, good observation there!

 

[aa9511]

The hit in the trunk of the Renault need not be of an actual corpse being in there, but of clothing removed from a corpse after some time. It is possible that the corpse was taken from the scene wearing the 'wrong' clothing conflicting with the pyjama sighting and the McTimeline. In other words, the child may have died wearing daytime clothing, i.e. before bath time. I would be interested to know exactly what the crèche workers saw Madeline wearing at day, and were those items recovered. Had the body been discovered wearing daytime clothing the McCanns would have some answering to do. I recall posting some Photoshop work I did on another forum, showing what we were told by the McCanns were Amelie's pyjamas, the same design as those that M supposedly was 'abducted' wearing; they were HUGE! I said at the time that I thought that they were Madeleine's and that Amelie did not have a similar pair. Jmo.

But couldn't they have just washed those clothes? If anyone asked, she could have just said "I'm washing her clothes because I know we're gonna find her, and when she comes back she'll have all her clothes waiting for her," or something like that.

 

[aa9511]

I am not sure about the gypsy camps. There was a 1 million pound reward for info on Madeleine back in 2007. If she was with gypsies they are poor, someone would alert the police and get 1 million pound.

Regarding the current SY theories, IMO it is better she is found now if she is alive than never.

Assuming she is dead is not fair.

I, too, think the reward money is too good of a deal for anyone to pass up. If she's in some kind of gang or osmething, someone (not the immediate leaders) would know about her, call in and report, ask for immunity and no questions asked, just give me the money. It would have to be someone not in her immediate circle.

However, if it's just one person or one household, then they could easily hide her and it becomes less likely that anyone in the household would call it in b/c then obviously the others would soon find out who called her in.

 

[Cappuccino]

I think some of us are a bit skeptical of dog alerts, and those of us who have read up on LCD testing are highly skeptical of the DNA results.

<modsnip>.

 

[SapphireSteel]

SS, I saw the documentary Amaral did for a TV station, and he pointed out that all the Tapas group who checked on the McCann kids used the long route to go check on them. He said there was a shorter way (I guess by the pool), which none of them used....instead they went around and to the side.

Do you know the significance of that and what might that mean? TIA to anyone.

I suspect they were checking the coast was clear.

:scared:

 

[Cappuccino]

I suspect they were checking the coast was clear.

:scared:

Clear for what?

You think all nine of them were in on some kind of conspiracy about Madeleine's death? :facepalm:

 

[Linda7NJ]

I think some of us are a bit skeptical of dog alerts, and those of us who have read up on LCD testing are highly skeptical of the DNA results.

<modsnip>.

IMO people love DNA, LCD and TDNA but really don't understand it very well, sure... It's easy to understand if a perp unknown to the victim leaves a bunch of it behind and the victim later identifies the perp...like semen in a rape victim or a bunch of blood.
But in a case like this one, IMO DNA means very little. IMO it's not a DNA case. In the grand scheme of things so what if it was even a speck of her blood? it still proves nothing. Any good defense attorney could argue it away. It could be a perfectly innocent reason for it being there. She lived there for a week!

I do believe the dogs, I have faith in dogs. I understand it doesn't rise to the level necessary for legal or scientific certainty. it's good enough for me to consider in light of the McCanns behavior.

All this talk of not taking her sheets,., so what? the bed didn't even appear to have been slept in, no way was she sexually assaulted on it, what would be the point?

If you take the CSI effect out of the equation, ya gotta admit the parents can not be eliminated from the suspect pool. Their behavior alone would send any law enforcement officer, detective, investigators hinky meter into overdrive.

I don't hate the McCanns, I hate what I believe they've done.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free

 

[SapphireSteel]

Todays article from the Daily Telegraph.
Madeleine McCann: is there hope at last?
As a fresh Crimewatch appeal over Madeleine McCann's disappearance generates are huge response, are police any closer to solving the case?
with quote from the DCI Redwood
"On one reading of the evidence, this case does have the hallmarks of a pre-planned abduction," he said. "That would undoubtedly have involved reconnaissance, so we are really keen to find out who these people so that we can eliminate them."

See what AR did there? "On one reading" implying that there is more than one reading of the evidence.

I swear this man can say so much without really saying anything at all!

and

To this day, anti-McCann "trolls" persist in voicing malevolent conspiracy theories on the internet.

Now, that sentence right there is the author's opinion, yet here it is being presented as some sort of evidence in whatever happened to Madeleine. :waitasec:

Just because someone is voicing a conspiracy theory, doesn't automatically follow they're being malevolent. Why is everyone who expresses an opinion that is remotely critical of the McCanns made out to seem malevolent, evil, offensive or somehow worse, thick as two bricks and too stupid to see the obvious halo of innocence swirling around the McCann?

:dunno:

It's called rhetoric and enquiring minds would wonder why the UK papers are so full of it, and full of blogs masquerading as "articles".

As of this weekend, some were even threatening to scupper the latest Crimewatch appeal by flooding Scotland Yard with false information.[/B]

This, I need a link for. Who said this? They way you wrote it, you're presenting it as something AR said, but somehow I don't think he did, am I right?

:cow:

 

[Salem]

See what AR did there? "On one reading" implying that there is more than one reading of the evidence.

I swear this man can say so much without really saying anything at all!



Now, that sentence right there is the author's opinion, yet here it is being presented as some sort of evidence in whatever happened to Madeleine. :waitasec:

Just because someone is voicing a conspiracy theory, doesn't automatically follow they're being malevolent. Why is everyone who expresses an opinion that is remotely critical of the McCanns made out to seem malevolent, evil, offensive or somehow worse, thick as two bricks and too stupid to see the obvious halo of innocence swirling around the McCann?

:dunno:

It's called rhetoric and enquiring minds would wonder why the UK papers are so full of it, and full of blogs masquerading as "articles".



This, I need a link for. Who said this? They way you wrote it, you're presenting it as something AR said, but somehow I don't think he did, am I right?

:cow:

Its in the article previously quoted.

Salem

 

[goldengirl57]

I've been here (mostly) since the beginning, but there's so much to read from all sources, I'm not sure if I have missed this.

What have the McCanns and their team said about the Smith family's testimony, that they saw a man carrying a child matching Madeleine's description and that the man's description matched that of the man seen by Jane Tanner?

It would seem that they would have been eager to accept the Smith sighting, as it logically could have been the same man Jane saw. It's only been this week that we learned that the Tanner sighting was irrelevant.

So for years there has been a possibility that the 'abductor' was seen by the Smiths. Was that publicized by the McCanns and their people? If not, why not?

I believe its in Mrs McCanns book somewhere around page 300. She said the sighting matched that of Jane Tanners as more or less the same man, looked the same etc, this is not her wording but the gist, and was exciting etc so must be maddy...