Madeleine McCann General Discussion Thread No. 25

[iNTERESTEDWOMAN]

Wondering IW, LOL! The mind boggles.
I will not delve deeper than asking do you mean the Freemasons?

:chicken: Nope...Lower. :silenced:

 

[Barnaby]

:chicken: Nope...Lower. :silenced:

mmmmmmm!!!!

 

[colomom]

Maybe Kennedy was the 10th Tapas....maybe he was there that night. Maybe he has something to hide.

IW....ewwwwwww.

I have always believed that RM was more involved that anyone admitted.

 

[Barnaby]

Maybe Kennedy was the 10th Tapas....maybe he was there that night. Maybe he has something to hide.

IW....ewwwwwww.

I have always believed that RM was more involved that anyone admitted.

Maybe Gerry has something big on Kennedy, hence the - I will support for life thing! - I wouldn't put anything past this unscrupulous bunch!
There is a whole lot more to this than any of us can imagine, I firmly believe that!
Perhaps he was the Tapas 10th so just when & why he flew in & then out so quickly, would be very interesting! Doubt that anyone will volunteer this information any time soon though!

I too believe that Murat has an involvement but hell he just got compensation for his troubles! Madeleine sure has been a moneyspinner for many in one way or another!

 

[Tony Bennett]

From the police report:

"The soft toy was found on the bed where Maddie allegedly slept on the night that she went missing, but on the bed, no cadaver odour was detected, contrary to the soft toy. This fact led the Polícia Judiciária to believe that the crime scene was manipulated in order to better justify the abduction theory that is sustained by the McCanns and their friends".

So, Madeleine's body lay both in the children's room under the window, AND in the McCanns' bedroom near the wardrobe, but NOT in her bed.

Incidentally I am not sure about the alleged bloodspots around that window in the children's room, I don't think Keela detected these, or did she? I thought she only detected blood at the foot of the wall by the window? - where the floor tiles adjoined the wall. I am open to correction.

What can we infer from all that?

It has to be guesswork, but here are two possible scenarios that I think fit the known cadavar/blood-hound facts:

1. Madeleine was trying to get out of the window, fell, and suffered an injury which caused bleeding and death. This happened when the parents were not in the apartment (e.g. the night of 2nd/3rd May). The parents moved Madeleine to their room pending its removal from the apartment

OR

2. Madeleine was assaulted in a rage by trying to get out of the window, knocked against the wall, fell, and suffered an injury which caused bleeding and death. The parents moved Madeleine to their room pending its removal from the apartment.

I tend to favour alternative 1.

Would be very interested to hear other opinions on whether either (1) or (2) fits the facts - or whether there is perhaps a better explanation that fits the facts

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[Tony Bennett]

Barnaby, you wrote:

"I apologise for my grammar mistake if indeed it is a mistake, I am usually a stickler for correct grammar being a school teacher by trade, lol! I always scrutinise my posts for typos but I am more than open to correction when wrong, only the McCanns are infallible, particularly in their good care of their children.

Just as a matter of interest, I said that I was not convinced that Murat did not play a part, meaning that I felt he may have done, two negatives do produce a positive & as far as I know, are not wrong when you wish to convey that very idea. I would appreciate your comments".

REPLY:

A double negative is not incorrect. There, see, another double negative! It conveys meaning accurately, but not necessarily in the most succinct or elegant manner.

IMO

"I feel Murat may have played a part..."

is (a) more succinct and (b) more elegant than

"I am not convinced that Murat did not play a part...".

I enjoy your posts, you understand what has really gone on in this case, and thanks for raising the possibility of Murat's involvement on the forum.

Please feel free to comment on any posts of mine which may be less than succinct, or inelegant

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[Barnaby]

From the police report:

"The soft toy was found on the bed where Maddie allegedly slept on the night that she went missing, but on the bed, no cadaver odour was detected, contrary to the soft toy. This fact led the Polícia Judiciária to believe that the crime scene was manipulated in order to better justify the abduction theory that is sustained by the McCanns and their friends".

So, Madeleine's body lay both in the children's room under the window, AND in the McCanns' bedroom near the wardrobe, but NOT in her bed.

Incidentally I am not sure about the alleged bloodspots around that window in the children's room, I don't think Keela detected these, or did she? I thought she only detected blood at the foot of the wall by the window? - where the floor tiles adjoined the wall. I am open to correction.

What can we infer from all that?

It has to be guesswork, but here are two possible scenarios that I think fit the known cadavar/blood-hound facts:

1. Madeleine was trying to get out of the window, fell, and suffered an injury which caused bleeding and death. This happened when the parents were not in the apartment (e.g. the night of 2nd/3rd May). The parents moved Madeleine to their room pending its removal from the apartment

OR

2. Madeleine was assaulted in a rage by trying to get out of the window, knocked against the wall, fell, and suffered an injury which caused bleeding and death. The parents moved Madeleine to their room pending its removal from the apartment.

I tend to favour alternative 1.

Would be very interested to hear other opinions on whether either (1) or (2) fits the facts - or whether there is perhaps a better explanation that fits the facts

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tony, I don't think that Keela detected blood in the children's room either but I am also open to correction.

I think that if either of your theories are correct then the incident had to have happened on the 2nd May. If it happened on the evening of May 3rd then I doubt that there would have been enough time to put their elaborate plan into action.

 

[Barnaby]

Barnaby, you wrote:

"I apologise for my grammar mistake if indeed it is a mistake, I am usually a stickler for correct grammar being a school teacher by trade, lol! I always scrutinise my posts for typos but I am more than open to correction when wrong, only the McCanns are infallible, particularly in their good care of their children.

Just as a matter of interest, I said that I was not convinced that Murat did not play a part, meaning that I felt he may have done, two negatives do produce a positive & as far as I know, are not wrong when you wish to convey that very idea. I would appreciate your comments".

REPLY:

A double negative is not incorrect. There, see, another double negative! It conveys meaning accurately, but not necessarily in the most succinct or elegant manner.

IMO

"I feel Murat may have played a part..."

is (a) more succinct and (b) more elegant than

"I am not convinced that Murat did not play a part...".

I enjoy your posts, you understand what has really gone on in this case, and thanks for raising the possibility of Murat's involvement on the forum.

Please feel free to comment on any posts of mine which may be less than succinct, or inelegant

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Point taken Tony sometimes I like the sound of my own voice

Welcome about Murat, I was never happy with him!

I also enjoy your posts, I think they are always succint & elegant. Like others here you have a great understanding of the case & very interesting theories.
It is a pleasure to be part of this community & to engage in intelligent debate about the case albeit, a real tragedy that we ever needed to come together in the first place!

 

[Tony Bennett]

****CORRECTION***

I wrote this earlier [Post 225]:

So, Madeleine's body lay both in the children's room under the window, AND in the McCanns' bedroom near the wardrobe, but NOT in her bed.

++++

I should have written this:

So, Madeleine's body lay both in the living room under the window, AND in the McCanns' bedroom near the wardrobe, but NOT in her bed.

++++

As it happens it makes very little difference to the point I was making

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[Texana]

****CORRECTION***

I wrote this earlier [Post 225]:

So, Madeleine's body lay both in the children's room under the window, AND in the McCanns' bedroom near the wardrobe, but NOT in her bed.

++++

I should have written this:

So, Madeleine's body lay both in the living room under the window, AND in the McCanns' bedroom near the wardrobe, but NOT in her bed.

++++

As it happens it makes very little difference to the point I was making

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think your scenario of Madeleine falling or being injured near the window on May 2nd is very plausible and more than likely, given that it is a) backed up by the physical evidence and the dog's reaction b) explains why the cadaver scent was developed enough for the dog to alert easily and readily upon entering apartment and c) is a very likely accident--a small child, near a window, left alone, is a very realistic recipe for a fatal head injury.

 

[colomom]

I think your scenario of Madeleine falling or being injured near the window on May 2nd is very plausible and more than likely, given that it is a) backed up by the physical evidence and the dog's reaction b) explains why the cadaver scent was developed enough for the dog to alert easily and readily upon entering apartment and c) is a very likely accident--a small child, near a window, left alone, is a very realistic recipe for a fatal head injury.

The problem that I have with this scenario is the resulting cover-up that we have talked about.

Why would they have fabricated such an elaborate ruse to cover up an accident? The whole story they have told has insisted that we do not judge them because "it was like dining in the garden" or that they were "doing their own baby-listening service". If it was an accident they could use these same excuses and probably avoid persecution. So why the HUGE lie?

The only reason I can think of would be to cover up death by sedation which could probably still be explained by an attempt to "help" Maddie sleep and/or ignorance on the dosage. Still an accident, involuntary. But this happening in a foreign country with unknown consequences? Would that be enough to facilitate such a reaction?

OR...a violent death. One with broken bones and bruises that could not be explained as an accident. Coupled with sedation and you could very well be looking at a very scary consequence. One that would jeopardize all their lives for a very long time.

So, I return to a violent incident with blunt force trauma resulting in blood spatter on the wall.

I am still in the same place...

 

[Texana]

The problem that I have with this scenario is the resulting cover-up that we have talked about.

Why would they have fabricated such an elaborate ruse to cover up an accident? The whole story they have told has insisted that we do not judge them because "it was like dining in the garden" or that they were "doing their own baby-listening service". If it was an accident they could use these same excuses and probably avoid persecution. So why the HUGE lie?

The only reason I can think of would be to cover up death by sedation which could probably still be explained by an attempt to "help" Maddie sleep and/or ignorance on the dosage. Still an accident, involuntary. But this happening in a foreign country with unknown consequences? Would that be enough to facilitate such a reaction?

OR...a violent death. One with broken bones and bruises that could not be explained as an accident. Coupled with sedation and you could very well be looking at a very scary consequence. One that would jeopardize all their lives for a very long time.

So, I return to a violent incident with blunt force trauma resulting in blood spatter on the wall.

I am still in the same place...

I think the accidental death would be a reason to cover up, simply because they wouldn't believe it of someone else, that it was accidental. I think if it was a fall, because they were gone, the fall was fatal. Had they been present, it either wouldn't have happened, or they would known to get some head trauma care. I think if it was a fall, they might very well have not even realized it until the early morning hours--the most horrifying scenario and one that would demand a cover up, in their minds.

If a death by a sedation overdose or reaction, they would have the same response: cover up because they would react as professionals. How could this happen, how could you do this--ergo, they must cover up simply because they know how the medical professionals in another country would react.

I wouldn't totally rule out a violent blunt force kind of trauma, just that the other scenarios are easier to envision.

 

[Tony Bennett]

The problem that I have with this scenario is the resulting cover-up that we have talked about.

Why would they have fabricated such an elaborate ruse to cover up an accident? The whole story they have told has insisted that we do not judge them because "it was like dining in the garden" or that they were "doing their own baby-listening service". If it was an accident they could use these same excuses and probably avoid persecution. So why the HUGE lie? The only reason I can think of would be to cover up death by sedation which could probably still be explained by an attempt to "help" Maddie sleep and/or ignorance on the dosage. Still an accident, involuntary. But this happening in a foreign country with unknown consequences? Would that be enough to facilitate such a reaction?

OR...a violent death. One with broken bones and bruises that could not be explained as an accident. Coupled with sedation and you could very well be looking at a very scary consequence. One that would jeopardize all their lives for a very long time.

So, I return to a violent incident with blunt force trauma resulting in blood spatter on the wall. I am still in the same place...

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

REPLY: I don't rule out the 'violent incident' theory, certainly NOT if there are several spatters of MADELEINE's blood on the walls. But there is doubt as to whether it is Madeleine's blood, isn't there?

But to return to the accidental fall theory.

First, the McCanns would have to explain what they weren't there - a problem.

Second, if she was regularly sedated, and possibly had been having extra sedation whiulst on holiday, that would be a big problem if there had been a full autopsy.

But third - and here colomom we must remember the key point that cadaverine is usually only emitted a full two hours after a death - what if by the time Madeleine's body was discovered by the McCanns, her body had already been dead for a few hours and rigor mortis had set in?

That would have been an insuperable problem for them. No way they could explain that if they called an ambulance or...a Doctor. Their absence from their apartment for two hours or maybe much more would be bound to lead them to conclude that, if there were an autopsy, they would be highly vulnerable to a charge of causing death by negligent manslaughter. The police would proably have been on the scene within 30 minutes of a Doctor examining Madeleiene's lifeless and rigid body.

There would have been frantic calls to the other Tapas 9 Doctors and agreement swiftly reached to cover up Madeleine's death.

IMO

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[Barnaby]

Can we take these points as facts?

1. Madeleine cried until late on night of May 2nd?

2. Madeleine's bed had not been slept in on the night of May 3rd leading us to believe that she was never even placed in it, sedated or otherwise?

Therefore if she died before the Tapas dinner on May 3rd as point 2 would appear to indicate, it was probably not due to sedation, imo!

If the child was very distressed & cried for several hours on the night of May 2nd, I think that she would have been "cried out" & exhausted & would probably have slept well after her parents returned. Even if sedation had been administered at that point, it would probably have done it's job as the child would have been so very tired so I do not think that she would have got up again that night to wander around, risking an accident. I am sure most here have experienced the exhaustion that comes after distress & crying.

I believe that Madeleine died by violence either late on the night of May 2nd (bad temper due to her crying having disturbed her parent's evening & embarrassed them) or sometime during the day of May 3rd.

The McCanns do not release anything that might make them look bad yet they admitted that Madeleine had asked why they didnt come when she was crying. I believe that Madeleine asked this on the night of May 2nd not the next morning & the only reason that they said it was to make people believe that she was alive on May 3rd.
That very question may well have cost her her life, either parent, angry, embarrassed & very drunk may well have lashed out at what they would perceive to be her audacity in questioning their parenting!

 

[twinkiesmom]

I think if it was a violent death, it happened in the bath tub. I wonder if PJ tested the sink drain?

 

[iNTERESTEDWOMAN]

How do we know it was actually Madeleine that cried until late in the evening of May 2nd? In the McCanns statement they said Madeleine asked why they didn't come when she and Sean were crying out for them...I've always wondered if it was actually Amelie and Sean crying out because Madeleine was hurt and bleeding/not responding. I realize they were young, but still kids at that age associate blood with pain. When my siblings and I were very young, we all sounded a like, (even my brother). Grandma would call and never could figure out which one of us she was talking to.

Anyway, I've always though the McCanns leaked and smeared that info to make us beleive Madeleine was still with us that night.

 

[gord]

at least three people have gone on record to say that Madeline was at the creche on the 3rd

Pennington , Cat Baker and the cook . This is taken from the official PJ DVD that was issued to bonide journalists - being translated by two independent organisations Efant Kidnap and also the portugese journalist Paulo Reis .

Maddy was picked up by Kate from the creche at 5.30ish on the 3rd - again this is in the police statement -

I know conspiracy theores are popular , but whatever happened to maddy happened sometime after the 5.30 on the 3rd IMO

 

[Tony Bennett]

At least three people have gone on record to say that Madeleine [spelling corrected - T.B.] was at the creche on the 3rd:
Pennington, Catriona Baker and the cook. This is taken from the official PJ DVD that was issued to bona fide journalists - being translated by two independent organisations Enfants Kidnappes and also the Portugese journalist Paulo Reis. Maddy was picked up by Kate from the creche at 5.30ish on the 3rd - again this is in the police statement...

REPLY:

Pennington has contradicted herself about which members of the family she saw when that day. Her story in turn contradicts other accounts by some members of the Tapas 9 including the McCanns e.g. Kate seen jogging at 5.20pm by some of the 'Tapas'. Catriona Baker's statements I thought were very vague. As far as I'm aware proper records of which children attended when were not kept - have they been produced yet?

The cook is a new one on me. Who is the cook and what does s/he say?

If you could refer me to the source, gord, I'd be grateful.

You'll recall that earlier on this forum I've published a list of each of the 8 claimed 'sightings' of Madeleine on 3rd May and there were grave doubts about each and every one of them.

The cook's 'sighting' would be the 9th and I would like to know exactly what was said by the cook

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[Tony Bennett]

How do we know it was actually Madeleine that cried until late in the evening of May 2nd? In the McCanns' statement they said Madeleine asked why they didn't come when she and Sean were crying out for them...I've always wondered if it was actually Amelie and Sean crying out because Madeleine was hurt and bleeding/not responding. I realize they were young, but still kids at that age associate blood with pain...Anyway, I've always thought the McCanns leaked and smeared that info to make us believe Madeleine was still with us that night.

REPLY: I agree that the above scenario is more than possible. The McCanns' claim about the 'happy breakfast' with Madeleine cheerfully asking why her Mum and Dad weren't there last night and then went skipping away happily never had the 'ring of truth' about it; it was manifestly IMO a self-serving statement and one that was only made when Pamela Fenn's evidence was about to be made public. Amelie and Sean crying over a dying or dead Madeleine - what a truly awful thought, but by no means impossible from what we know

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[gord]

REPLY:

Pennington has contradicted herself about which members of the family she saw when that day. Her story in turn contradicts other accounts by some members of the Tapas 9 including the McCanns e.g. Kate seen jogging at 5.20pm by some of the 'Tapas'. Catriona Baker's statements I thought were very vague. As far as I'm aware proper records of which children attended when were not kept - have they been produced yet?

The cook is a new one on me. Who is the cook and what does s/he say?

If you could refer me to the source, gord, I'd be grateful.

You'll recall that earlier on this forum I've published a list of each of the 8 claimed 'sightings' of Madeleine on 3rd May and there were grave doubts about each and every one of them.

The cook's 'sighting' would be the 9th and I would like to know exactly what was said by the cook

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CB statement as given to the PJ - translated from
http://www.kidnapping.be/affairemccann07s/index.html

This was from the DVD - issued to to journalists.

CATRIONA B. ( doesnt seem that vague )

In our informal conversation with Catriona Trease Sisile B., also known as CAT, the latter reports:

1. That she arrived on March 21st 2007 and that she plans to return to the UK on November 7th 2007.
2. That she has worked with Madeleine since Sunday April 29th 2007, daily until yesterday and that she always works the same hours.
3. That yesterday Madeleine arrived at 9.10am. It was her father, Gerry, who brought her.
4. That is was her mother, Kate, who picked her up at 12.45pm.
5. That her mother, Kate, dropped her off at 2.50pm and picked her up at 5.30pm.
6. That in the same room as Madeleine, there were 6 other children in the morning and 4 in the afternoon (including Madeleine)
7. That she did not see any strangers in the complex during that time.
8. That on the first day, Madeleine was shy. On the following days she was more self-possessed and uninhibited. Yesterday she was joyful. (Editor's note: verbatim from the case file)
9. That she never left Madeleine, keeping her under visual supervision at all times when she was her responsibility.
10. That, over the days, she noticed no change in the behaviour of the child's parents.
11. That she has noticed no abnormal behaviour towards this family.
12. That Madeleine has not reported to her having had contact or conversations with anyone in recent days, which would possibly be suspicious.

STACEY P.

During our informal interview with Stacey P., the latter reports:

1. That it is she and her colleague, Shinead, who usually work with the twins.
2. That yesterday, it was the informant, Stacey, who worked with the twins, her colleague was on her day off.
3. That the children were dropped off by their parents at 9.30am and that the mother picked them up at 12.30pm.
4. That it was the father, Gerald, who dropped them off at 2.30pm and that it was the mother, Kate, who came to fetch them at 5.30pm.
5. That she did not see any strangers in the surrounding area.
6. That the behaviour of the parents was always perfectly normal.
7. That she arrived in Portugal on March 18th and that she returns to the UK on November 7th next.

It is understood that it was not possible to hear the rest of the young girls, and notably the one called Shinead, because most of them were absent and we will set up other priority work to that purpose.


The statement from the cook - published by Paulo Reis on his blog on the 3 A's - again taken from the DVD

Maria M. J., a cooker at Tapas restaurant, saw Madeleine at 4:30 pm, May 3, 2007, in the Tapas restaurant, having diner ("high tea") with the other children from the creches. Children had "high tea" or diner, every day, in a specific area reserved for it, in the Tapas restaurant. PJ questioned her on May 6, 2007, and the statement is in the DVD files.