Madeleine McCann General Discussion Thread #27

[Fierljepper]

The more I think and read about the case, the more unlikely I find the McCann involvement scenario's. I also discovered a kind of pattern in all those theories and that is that:
1) the starting premise always is that "they behaved suspiciously, they had inconsistencies in there statements and they are doctors, so they must be guilty"
2) the blood and cadaver dogs therefore must also be right and so that provides hard evidence supporting them being guilty.

3) ... (here it typically stops or wanders off into crazy conspiracy theories about Cameron, nuclear plants, money laundering, PJ vs SY battles, etc.)

However, after point 2) a serious issue emerges since (so far) it has been impossible to connect these dots (i.e. inconsistencies about the evening and dog findings 3 months later) by composing a reasonably simple scenario explaining the events on May 3rd (if somebody has found one, I am very keen for a link!). The issue is that if you want to connect the dogs, you almost automatically land on both GM and KM being involved. The reason is that it requires Maddie to be dead for >90mins to produce the 'smell of death', hence she must have died already that afternoon and therefore both must know about it (nope, don't buy the photo being taken a day earlier, the digital photo has a time-stamp so this must have been ruled out). So, two parents involved in the death of a child is already quite a stretch, esp. since most child murders involving parents are committed by only 1 of the parents. And then a couple of hours later they have to both go absolutely relaxed to a Tapas dinner after their daughter just died, rather than being worried about how to dispose of the body? And then KM being close to going hysterical after she found Maddie missing? Really? They possess an unequaled personal resilience and have superb acting skills? Yeah, quite unlikely you'd the say, but hey the way out is that all T9 statements about their observations must be false and concocted. But then it no longer is a very realistic and simple scenario, is it? And why on earth would anybody of the T9 be so stupid to take such a huge personal risk all these years.

Put all these complexities, that immediately frustrate construing a reasonably simple scenario involving the McCann's, and add the lack of a clear motive and the lack of a good opportunity to dispose of their daughter's body, against the utterly simple scenario that she was abducted by only one person who had a clear motive (pedo-sexual, retaliation, ransom or just somebody who envy's doctor's power or the happiness of a fortunate 'upper' class), a low risk opportunity and a car to instantly vanish from the park without a trace to any remote location. And then think one more time about the beauty of Occam's razor. I therefore believe it is much better to start with a simple scenario that fits the minimal data and then to see whether verifiable predictions could be made, rather than to start with a bias of guilt towards one or two persons and then try to compose scenario's from there and then get drowned in unnecessary complexities since you picked the wrong premise.

Just my view at this moment in time and it can be totally different tomorrow

 

[Hexe]

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/KATERINA-PAYNE-INCIDENT.htm

During our holidays in Majorca, it was the fathers who took care of the children baths. I had the tendency to walk close to the bathroom, if it was Dave bathing the children. I remember telling Savio to took care to be there, in case it was Dave helping to bathe the children and, in particular, my daughter E. I was very clear about this, as having heard him say that had disturbed me, and I did not trust him to give bath to E. alone.

Actually this whole statement Katherine made is creepy. Sounds like the fathers were giving baths to children that werent theirs. I dont have a problem with dads giving their kids a bath but never another man doing it.

Now, that is interesting. From Rachael Oldfield's rogatory:

Erm I mean it would have been about seven thirty, maybe even a bit later, maybe about twenty to eight, I mean it was certainly later than normal, cos normally because they're in bed by half seven, erm went back to the apartment, I think Ella came and had a bath with Grace in our apartment, erm you know we often kind of went into each others apartments, sort of around bed time or just before, or just after, erm so I think Ella and Grace had a bath, erm and then I think we were reading books in the lounge area of our apartment and erm Matt came back from tennis'.

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RACHAEL-OLDFIELD-ROGATORY.htm

It seems that bathing someone else's kids was a pattern in that group.

 

[Fierljepper]

As far as the pro McCann cry that the Tapas 9 barely knew each other -

These people had spent at least 5 hours per night "dining" together.

Five hours per night x six nights of holiday = 36+ hours all looking at each other across the same table.

Didn't know each other well? Please. I have friends for decades who I can dine with, guess what it only takes an hour then we go for a walk or to the movies or home to someone's house for coffee.

Five or six hours across from the same faces night after night is not the behaviour of virtual strangers.

I understand where you are coming from, but then imagine this scenario: the couple you have met during holidays and had some very nice dinners with and already had gotten sort of a 'click' with, they suddenly come to you with worried faces and ask you and your partner to help them covering up a terrible accident that has killed their child. What would you say?

 

[Linda7NJ]

The more I think and read about the case, the more unlikely I find the McCann involvement scenario's. I also discovered a kind of pattern in all those theories and that is that:
1) the starting premise always is that "they behaved suspiciously, they had inconsistencies in there statements and they are doctors, so they must be guilty"
2) the blood and cadaver dogs therefore must also be right and so that provides hard evidence supporting them being guilty.

3) ... (here it typically stops or wanders off into crazy conspiracy theories about Cameron, nuclear plants, money laundering, PJ vs SY battles, etc.)

However, after point 2) a serious issue emerges since (so far) it has been impossible to connect these dots (i.e. inconsistencies about the evening and dog findings 3 months later) by composing a reasonably simple scenario explaining the events on May 3rd (if somebody has found one, I am very keen for a link!). The issue is that if you want to connect the dogs, you almost automatically land on both GM and KM being involved. The reason is that it requires Maddie to be dead for >90mins to produce the 'smell of death', hence she must have died already that afternoon and therefore both must know about it (nope, don't by the photo being taken a day earlier, the digital photo has a time-stamp so this must have been ruled out). So, two parents involved in the death of a child is already quite a stretch, esp. since most child murders involving parents are committed by only 1 of the parents. And then a couple of hours later they have to both go absolutely relaxed to a Tapas dinner after their daughter just died, rather than being worried about how to dispose of the body? And then KM being close to going hysterical after she found Maddie missing? Really? They possess an unequaled personal resilience and have superb acting skills? Yeah, quite unlikely you'd the say, but hey the way out is that all T9 statements about their observations must be false and concocted. But then it no longer is a very realistic and simple scenario, is it? And why on earth would anybody of the T9 be so stupid to take such a huge personal risk all these years.

Put all these complexities, that immediately frustrate construing a reasonably simple scenario involving the McCann's, and add the lack of a clear motive and the lack of a good opportunity to dispose of their daughter's body, against the utterly simple scenario that she was abducted by only one person who a clear motive (pedo-sexual, retaliation, ransom or just somebody who envy's doctor's power or the happiness of a fortunate 'upper' class), a low risk opportunity and a car to instantly vanish from the park with a trace to any remote location. And then think one more time about the beauty of Occam's razor. I therefore believe it is much better to start with a simple scenario that fits the minimal data and then to see whether verifiable predictions could be made, rather than to start with a bias of guilt towards one or two persons and then try to compose scenario's from there and then get drowned in unnecessary complexities since you picked the wrong premise.

Just my view at this moment in time and it can be totally different tomorrow

I think there is never a clear motive when a parent kills a child. It never makes sense.

I do not believe your assertion it takes longer than 90 minutes for a body to produce detectable scent for a HRD dog.

I don't believe a prior academy award is necessary to pull off eating and drinking.
We have seen time and time again examples of people holding it together, then acting distraught. Gerry was able to pull himself together enough to play tennis afterwards and Kate enough to go jogging.

I've ruled out kidnapping for ransom as there were never any demands.

I don't believe a pedophile would remove a deceased child, because I do believe the dogs.

Envy seems absurd to me as does a disgruntled employee targeting a child to punish their ex employer.






Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[goldengirl57]

The more I think and read about the case, the more unlikely I find the McCann involvement scenario's. I also discovered a kind of pattern in all those theories and that is that:
1) the starting premise always is that "they behaved suspiciously, they had inconsistencies in there statements and they are doctors, so they must be guilty"
2) the blood and cadaver dogs therefore must also be right and so that provides hard evidence supporting them being guilty.

3) ... (here it typically stops or wanders off into crazy conspiracy theories about Cameron, nuclear plants, money laundering, PJ vs SY battles, etc.)

However, after point 2) a serious issue emerges since (so far) it has been impossible to connect these dots (i.e. inconsistencies about the evening and dog findings 3 months later) by composing a reasonably simple scenario explaining the events on May 3rd (if somebody has found one, I am very keen for a link!). The issue is that if you want to connect the dogs, you almost automatically land on both GM and KM being involved. The reason is that it requires Maddie to be dead for >90mins to produce the 'smell of death', hence she must have died already that afternoon and therefore both must know about it (nope, don't by the photo being taken a day earlier, the digital photo has a time-stamp so this must have been ruled out). So, two parents involved in the death of a child is already quite a stretch, esp. since most child murders involving parents are committed by only 1 of the parents. And then a couple of hours later they have to both go absolutely relaxed to a Tapas dinner after their daughter just died, rather than being worried about how to dispose of the body? And then KM being close to going hysterical after she found Maddie missing? Really? They possess an unequaled personal resilience and have superb acting skills? Yeah, quite unlikely you'd the say, but hey the way out is that all T9 statements about their observations must be false and concocted. But then it no longer is a very realistic and simple scenario, is it? And why on earth would anybody of the T9 be so stupid to take such a huge personal risk all these years.

Put all these complexities, that immediately frustrate construing a reasonably simple scenario involving the McCann's, and add the lack of a clear motive and the lack of a good opportunity to dispose of their daughter's body, against the utterly simple scenario that she was abducted by only one person who a clear motive (pedo-sexual, retaliation, ransom or just somebody who envy's doctor's power or the happiness of a fortunate 'upper' class), a low risk opportunity and a car to instantly vanish from the park with a trace to any remote location. And then think one more time about the beauty of Occam's razor. I therefore believe it is much better to start with a simple scenario that fits the minimal data and then to see whether verifiable predictions could be made, rather than to start with a bias of guilt towards one or two persons and then try to compose scenario's from there and then get drowned in unnecessary complexities since you picked the wrong premise.

Just my view at this moment in time and it can be totally different tomorrow

...................................................................................................

This is my SIMPLE theory......very simple....it has to be otherwise it wouldnt work to many cooks spoil the broth lol.

Gerry went and checked his kids, maddy was asleep he then went out and and bumped into Jez. In the meantime the noise of him using toilet etc, woke the child up. She went into the sitting room and could hear her dad maybe and she got onto the settee to look out window, fell off and fell behind the settee hitting her head very hard....

Matt Oldfield never clocked Maddy he just did a listen at the door.

Mum comes in 10pm finds her missing, panic ensues....everyone looking cant find her outside etc, mum stays in apartment. The are assuming she is outside or been abducted or wondered so search parties organised to check outside. ALL night residents go out looking.

The police were called and they came and took a statement and asked questions when last seen etc. They too organise search then finally contact the PJ.

What if the child wasnt found until much later?

Perhaps the mother doing another look suddenly sees her behind the settee.....they were inside most of the night whilst others were searching.

Is this far fetched NO.

A child went missing in UK two nights ago. The police were called, the parents looked everywhere, they even put up the police helicopter the lot. (Link at bottom).

So it could happen that the child lay where she fell and no one had noticed, as they were looking for her OUTSIDE. THE chlid was found BEFORE the PJ arrived. After all they never found blood spots behind the settee did they not until the dogs came weeks later.

IF this was the case the parents then had time to think about what to do. They knew that they would be in trouble with authorities, so continued with the abduction theme and actually fuelled it even more. I am not convinced their friends were involved to be honest.

Its so simple really. The child was put in a bag placed in the wardrobe and in the morning when the police had them moved out of the apartment to start forensics they took her with them. You have to remember we are dealing with two experienced doctors here who are not prone to panic.

So simple. The body could have been kept in a large suitcase wrapped in a pink blanket covered in sand and shut tight. This would mummify and dehydrate and the body would not leave an odour.

There was a case in Japan where the guy put the body in the bath he had on his verandah and it was filled with sand. Sand was used in Eygpt to mummify and preserve bodies.

Anyway the parents were not suspect they could move around freely, they were not watched 247 were they. A small body could be hid ANYWHERE.

I think the scenario has to be simple otherwise too much can go wrong.....This is just a theory ..... nothing more nothing less.

http://www.torquayheraldexpress.co....s-mum-terror/story-20017339-detail/story.html

 

[Donjeta]

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/KATERINA-PAYNE-INCIDENT.htm

During our holidays in Majorca, it was the fathers who took care of the children baths. I had the tendency to walk close to the bathroom, if it was Dave bathing the children. I remember telling Savio to took care to be there, in case it was Dave helping to bathe the children and, in particular, my daughter E. I was very clear about this, as having heard him say that had disturbed me, and I did not trust him to give bath to E. alone.

Actually this whole statement Katherine made is creepy. Sounds like the fathers were giving baths to children that werent theirs. I dont have a problem with dads giving their kids a bath but never another man doing it.

That is just the strangest thing. I mean, if you think someone's said something odd that gives you cause to worry, why would you walk close to the bathroom while he's in there with your nekkid kids? Why not just give your kids a bath yourself? Why does some strange person who you don't trust need to be there to begin with?

Anyway, this kinda flies in the face with all the "they didn't know each other well" stuff. It's rather intimate to give baths to someone else's kids.

Is that why DP made that last visit while GM was playing tennis? To see if Kate needed any help with the bed time baths?

 

[Linda7NJ]

I understand where you are coming from, but then imagine this scenario: the couple you have met during holidays and had some very nice dinners with and already had gotten sort of a 'click' with, they suddenly come to you with worried faces and ask you and your partner to help them covering up a terrible accident that has killed their child. What would you say?

I do not believe their friends knowingly helped them cover up.
I do think its possible they unknowingly helped by corroborating the timeline Gerry put forth and documented that night.
I also think it's possible one of them is the guilty one and the McCanns are innocent... I highly doubt it.. But maybe.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Linda7NJ]

That is just the strangest thing. I mean, if you think someone's said something odd that gives you cause to worry, why would you walk close to the bathroom while he's in there with your nekkid kids? Why not just give your kids a bath yourself? Why does some strange person who you don't trust need to be there to begin with?

It is absolutely bizarre! No way would any other man besides my husband bathe my child.

I'd love to know whose idea that was, how that ever came about and the reasoning behind it. Did some one say, " hey drop the kids off here... My husband would love to bathe them all" and the McCanns never missing an opportunity to ditch their kids said ... Sure..

Didn't Kate, that last night, claim to have bathed her own children???


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Fierljepper]

...................................................................................................

This is my SIMPLE theory......very simple....it has to be otherwise it wouldnt work to many cooks spoil the broth lol.

Gerry went and checked his kids, maddy was asleep he then went out and and bumped into Jez. In the meantime the noise of him using toilet etc, woke the child up. She went into the sitting room and could hear her dad maybe and she got onto the settee to look out window, fell off and fell behind the settee hitting her head very hard....

Matt Oldfield never clocked Maddy he just did a listen at the door.

Mum comes in 10pm finds her missing, panic ensues....everyone looking cant find her outside etc, mum stays in apartment. The are assuming she is outside or been abducted or wondered so search parties organised to check outside. ALL night residents go out looking.

The police were called and they came and took a statement and asked questions when last seen etc. They too organise search then finally contact the PJ.

What if the child wasnt found until much later?

Perhaps the mother doing another look suddenly sees her behind the settee.....they were inside most of the night whilst others were searching.

Is this far fetched NO.

A child went missing in UK two nights ago. The police were called, the parents looked everywhere, they even put up the police helicopter the lot. (Link at bottom).

So it could happen that the child lay where she fell and no one had noticed, as they were looking for her OUTSIDE. THE chlid was found BEFORE the PJ arrived. After all they never found blood spots behind the settee did they not until the dogs came weeks later.

IF this was the case the parents then had time to think about what to do. They knew that they would be in trouble with authorities, so continued with the abduction theme and actually fuelled it even more. I am not convinced their friends were involved to be honest.

Its so simple really. The child was put in a bag placed in the wardrobe and in the morning when the police had them moved out of the apartment to start forensics they took her with them. You have to remember we are dealing with two experienced doctors here who are not prone to panic.

So simple. The body could have been kept in a large suitcase wrapped in a pink blanket covered in sand and shut tight. This would mummify and dehydrate and the body would not leave an odour.

There was a case in Japan where the guy put the body in the bath he had on his verandah and it was filled with sand. Sand was used in Eygpt to mummify and preserve bodies.

Anyway the parents were not suspect they could move around freely, they were not watched 247 were they. A small body could be hid ANYWHERE.

I think the scenario has to be simple otherwise too much can go wrong.....This is just a theory ..... nothing more nothing less.

http://www.torquayheraldexpress.co....s-mum-terror/story-20017339-detail/story.html

Thanks Goldengirl. I can absolutely follow you up to the point where Maddie was standing the sofa looking outside the window to observe GM chatting with JW and then fell and died. I even follow MO not checking properly, but then you lose me on KM's discovery at 10PM. Why is the window open (or why would she say that)? She searched the apartment instantly before she even raised alarm. It could indeed be that Maddie's body was discovered only later when everybody was searching outside, but then when you find her lying dead behind the sofa, then being so stone coldly rational to collude between man and wife and decide it is best to conceal the body (whilst the police was already alarmed and all your friends were running in an out?). That is quite a stretch to me and makes it improbable.

"You have to remember we are dealing with two experienced doctors here who are not prone to panic." Let me help you out of a dream here: I have many friends who are doctors and surgeons and they are perfectly normal people of flesh and blood with normal emotions. The mystery of doctors being a special kind of people that also possess a different type of personal resilience than 'normal' people, purely comes from the 'eye of the beholder' (and their perceived superiority is probably reinforced by popular chick-lit and series like ER). My medical friends all have families and would be equally emotionally impacted as I would be when something happens to their children.

 

[Hexe]

...................................................................................................

This is my SIMPLE theory......very simple....it has to be otherwise it wouldnt work to many cooks spoil the broth lol.

Gerry went and checked his kids, maddy was asleep he then went out and and bumped into Jez. In the meantime the noise of him using toilet etc, woke the child up. She went into the sitting room and could hear her dad maybe and she got onto the settee to look out window, fell off and fell behind the settee hitting her head very hard....

Matt Oldfield never clocked Maddy he just did a listen at the door.

Mum comes in 10pm finds her missing, panic ensues....everyone looking cant find her outside etc, mum stays in apartment. The are assuming she is outside or been abducted or wondered so search parties organised to check outside. ALL night residents go out looking.

The police were called and they came and took a statement and asked questions when last seen etc. They too organise search then finally contact the PJ.

What if the child wasnt found until much later?

I'm not sure if there was enough of room behind the couch to fit Maddie there. Look at the picture 12, the couch is moved so much towards the window, that it presses the curtains against the wall. And even if there was enough of place, McCanns, and later the PJ allegedly searched every cranny and nook and apartment. There would be no way they would not have found her if she was lying there. And McCanns would have no opportunity to take her body from 5A and hide.

 

[SapphireSteel]

McCann supporters have difficulty believing that 7 unrelated people could be involved in a cover up.

Actually the only ones who seem to be directly involved are Payne, Tanner and Oldfield.

So could 3 people be involved in a cover up? Absolutely.

The alternative is to believe that

An intruder came and went soundlessly carrying Madeleine away seconds before her mother made her "check"

The intruder came in through an unlocked door and out (with child) a shut window

The intruder strolled casually through PDL with the child, and lo and behold! We are told he looks and walks just like Gerry

The intruder left zero forensic trace

The intruder was a burglar who either didn't burgle or

An abductor who took a deceased child (which is kind of pointless for a pedo or a gypsy)

The parents went out again knowingly leaving their children alone and frightened

:dunno:

I know which scenario I find more likely.

 

[SapphireSteel]

From Amaral, The Truth of the Lie -

We then examine the photo of the lounge. This room has three openings: two windows and a patio door that opens at the back onto a balcony, from where you can see the area with the swimming pools and restaurants and the road. It is this patio door - and not the front door - that is used when you want to get into the apartment more quickly, coming from the restaurant. We notice that the sofa, situated under one of the windows, has been moved: the back of it is crushing the thick curtains. If these were closed to keep the light out of the room, it's curious that those at the other window were left open.

- That sofa could have been moved when they searched the apartment looking for the little girl.

- It's possible, but consider: the window is 3 metres above the road and directly overlooks the pavement. You can bet your life that the parents were not going to leave the sofa pushed against the wall, risking seeing their children climbing onto it and falling.


- Nothing surprises me any more on the part of those parents.

- Yes, but why did they push the sofa back under the window so hastily, judging by the position of the curtains.

- No doubt it was during the searches; that could have been done by a police officer or anyone else who was present in the house.

It's the father who clarifies this point for us. He, himself, pushed the sofa against the wall because the children would not stop playing behind it. He did not consider the possibility of a fall from the window. The role of this sofa is important if you imagine the hypothesis, not of an abduction, but of an accident inside the apartment itself. If it was really away from the wall before the abduction, it may be that Madeleine had climbed onto it and fallen down the other side.

http://goncaloamaraltruthofthelie.b...d-max=2009-06-13T15:14:00-07:00&max-results=1

 

[Linda7NJ]

From Amaral, The Truth of the Lie -

We then examine the photo of the lounge. This room has three openings: two windows and a patio door that opens at the back onto a balcony, from where you can see the area with the swimming pools and restaurants and the road. It is this patio door - and not the front door - that is used when you want to get into the apartment more quickly, coming from the restaurant. We notice that the sofa, situated under one of the windows, has been moved: the back of it is crushing the thick curtains. If these were closed to keep the light out of the room, it's curious that those at the other window were left open.

- That sofa could have been moved when they searched the apartment looking for the little girl.

- It's possible, but consider: the window is 3 metres above the road and directly overlooks the pavement. You can bet your life that the parents were not going to leave the sofa pushed against the wall, risking seeing their children climbing onto it and falling.


- Nothing surprises me any more on the part of those parents.

- Yes, but why did they push the sofa back under the window so hastily, judging by the position of the curtains.

- No doubt it was during the searches; that could have been done by a police officer or anyone else who was present in the house.

It's the father who clarifies this point for us. He, himself, pushed the sofa against the wall because the children would not stop playing behind it. He did not consider the possibility of a fall from the window. The role of this sofa is important if you imagine the hypothesis, not of an abduction, but of an accident inside the apartment itself. If it was really away from the wall before the abduction, it may be that Madeleine had climbed onto it and fallen down the other side.

http://goncaloamaraltruthofthelie.b...d-max=2009-06-13T15:14:00-07:00&max-results=1

Kids fall off of soda all the time, they rarely die.

What's wrong with children playing behind the sofa anyway? It's not like they spent a great deal of time with the children. the little time the children actually spent playing there why would Gerry care if they played behind it? I don't get it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Linda7NJ]

No dogs tracked her leaving via the window.

Is that correct?



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[goldengirl57]

Thanks Goldengirl. I can absolutely follow you up to the point where Maddie was standing the sofa looking outside the window to observe GM chatting with JW and then fell and died. I even follow MO not checking properly, but then you lose me on KM's discovery at 10PM. Why is the window open (or why would she say that)? She searched the apartment instantly before she even raised alarm. It could indeed be that Maddie's body was discovered only later when everybody was searching outside, but then when you find her lying dead behind the sofa, then being so stone coldly rational to collude between man and wife and decide it is best to conceal the body (whilst the police was already alarmed and all your friends were running in an out?). That is quite a stretch to me and makes it improbable.

"You have to remember we are dealing with two experienced doctors here who are not prone to panic." Let me help you out of a dream here: I have many friends who are doctors and surgeons and they are perfectly normal people of flesh and blood with normal emotions. The mystery of doctors being a special kind of people that also possess a different type of personal resilience than 'normal' people, purely comes from the 'eye of the beholder' (and their perceived superiority is probably reinforced by popular chick-lit and series like ER). My medical friends all have families and would be equally emotionally impacted as I would be when something happens to their children.

Yes it has flaws hun....but its simple.

As to doctors. Well i lived in Hong Kong and I knew a few too and nurses (military), boy one thing they could do was drink tequila and smoke like chimneys lol....they told me it was the stress of the job.

Of course they would be emotional although I have to say I never saw ANY from the day the story broke. I would not even be able to be on SKY t.v. talking about my missing child I would be under sedation. I found them both very very relaxed and could communicate very well for two people devistaingly involved in such a tragedy.....

Anyway going back to scenario, I still think somehow if it wasnt an abduction it was an accident

~Another thought was I believe there was a stair gate on top of the stairs sure i read it.

~What happens if Maddy went out of the door looking for her dad after hearing him, and being a bit groggy she tries to climb over the gate, and falls over the balestrade into the bushes. Didnt the dogs indicate in the bushes. Perhaps her mum found her there.....didnt i also read that someone thought they hear a women calling Madeliene about 9.30pm?

Anyway it is only a theory a load of rubbish really....

 

[SapphireSteel]

Kids fall off of soda all the time, they rarely die.

What's wrong with children playing behind the sofa anyway? It's not like they spent a great deal of time with the children. the little time the children actually spent playing there why would Gerry care if they played behind it? I don't get it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Psychopaths have to control everything and everyone?

:dunno:

 

[Linda7NJ]

Psychopaths have to control everything and everyone?

:dunno:

I just don't believe that was the reason the sofa was moved. Kids playing behind it...eyeroll.
IMO her little body was hidden back there for a bit.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[goldengirl57]

McCann supporters have difficulty believing that 7 unrelated people could be involved in a cover up.

Actually the only ones who seem to be directly involved are Payne, Tanner and Oldfield.

So could 3 people be involved in a cover up? Absolutely.

The alternative is to believe that

An intruder came and went soundlessly carrying Madeleine away seconds before her mother made her "check"

The intruder came in through an unlocked door and out (with child) a shut window

The intruder strolled casually through PDL with the child, and lo and behold! We are told he looks and walks just like Gerry

The intruder left zero forensic trace

The intruder was a burglar who either didn't burgle or

An abductor who took a deceased child (which is kind of pointless for a pedo or a gypsy)

The parents went out again knowingly leaving their children alone and frightened

:dunno:

I know which scenario I find more likely.

The window. You will laugh but at the time of reading all about this, me and my friend tried it.

I have a window similar position and height off the ground in my sitting room. The opening is about the same.

Using my grandson who was the same age as maddy at the time I tried to get him through the window. FLIPPING heck no way he was awkward and very heavy lol...even with two people. My friend went outside and I tried to pass him through. I scraped ALL my wall paper off the wall and marked the window sill.

I know he was a bit heavier then the girl but not much more. I am over 5ft 8 and my mate is built like a bloke lol (she is ex army and quite strong).

No we couldnt do it. Gave up actually it was too much like hard work.

Now if the child was dead maybe as then they would be limp, but alive no way lol. Apart from which you would have woken the child up trying to negotiate her. My little grandson spent most of the time giggling cos it was funny nanny.....

 

[Pisces Cloud]

McCann supporters have difficulty believing that 7 unrelated people could be involved in a cover up.

Actually the only ones who seem to be directly involved are Payne, Tanner and Oldfield.

So could 3 people be involved in a cover up? Absolutely.

The alternative is to believe that

An intruder came and went soundlessly carrying Madeleine away seconds before her mother made her "check"

The intruder came in through an unlocked door and out (with child) a shut window

The intruder strolled casually through PDL with the child, and lo and behold! We are told he looks and walks just like Gerry

The intruder left zero forensic trace

The intruder was a burglar who either didn't burgle or

An abductor who took a deceased child (which is kind of pointless for a pedo or a gypsy)

The parents went out again knowingly leaving their children alone and frightened

:dunno:

I know which scenario I find more likely.

If the intruder was in and out in a short space of time then I don't see what forensic trace he could leave that would distinguish him from any other visitors to that apartment. He could also have worn gloves to prevent fingerprints or even just used a handkerchief for when he touched door handles and such like. Also, since the witness to the later sighting only claimed months later that the man he saw held a child like Gerry did, then it's safe to assume that the picture came about because of that and not because he actually saw what the guy looked like on the night. Especially, as the other picture looks nothing like Gerry. Rule that as being unreliable and you have a situation in which Madeleine could have been taken at any time after Gerry and Jane Tanner returned to the restaurant and not only just a few minutes before Kate went to check.

 

[Hexe]

Psychopaths have to control everything and everyone?

:dunno:

Narcissists too. They just love to control everything and everyone. But, in this case, I don't think it had anything to do with the control, more with masking the traces of what happened in the room.