Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Madeleine McCann

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by WallaceWackedHer View Post
    Kate didn't have to leave the apartment to call for help, you could see the tapas bar from the apartment lmao.

    Though panic is a funny thing. I don't attach much to it.
    Hi WWH,

    I didn't think the tapas bar was so close that Kate could have attracted attention merely by calling out. I thought the parents were blamed because they were too far from their apartment to be aware of anything untoward, hence the need for regular checks on the kids?

    And surely panic played a major part in Kate's reaction, whether we believe she found Madeleine unexpectedly missing, or knew full well what had happened and had to act her socks off.

    Love,

    Caz
    X

    "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


    Comment


    • Hi Abby,

      I think you misunderstood me there. I was asking how quick and easy it would have been to cart not one, but two sleeping toddlers off to the tapas bar; I wasn't saying it would have been a doddle. I'm actually far from convinced it would have been the breeze you suggest, for the slightly built Kate to scoop them both up in her arms and dash round the pool area to alert Gerry and their friends. They were not babies any more and their combined weight and bulk would have slowed her down at the very least. If she truly believed Madeleine had been snatched [for instance, if she couldn't see how she could have got out of the apartment unaided], she may have presumed - rightly or wrongly - that the abductor would not still be hanging around outside with his prize, but would have taken off immediately to avoid being caught in the act by the next parent to come checking.

      I'm not trying to defend Kate in any way for how the events unfolded that night, because I do believe she and Gerry were entirely responsible for leaving their children vulnerable. I'm actually trying to see if their behaviour after the fact is necessarily indicative of their direct involvement. Panic and guilt would both have been natural enough emotions in the circumstances, making either of them act in ways we might not like or might find suspicious, but that would have applied whether they were only guilty of neglect or of something far worse.

      Love,

      Caz
      X

      "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


      Comment


      • Originally posted by caz View Post

        Hi WWH,

        I didn't think the tapas bar was so close that Kate could have attracted attention merely by calling out. I thought the parents were blamed because they were too far from their apartment to be aware of anything untoward, hence the need for regular checks on the kids?

        And surely panic played a major part in Kate's reaction, whether we believe she found Madeleine unexpectedly missing, or knew full well what had happened and had to act her socks off.

        Love,

        Caz
        X
        You could attract attention (I've seen it on documentaries and it looks like you could), that was what the parents used as their defence, that they could see the apartment from the Tapas bar... However, it is obviously still negligent to leave your UNLOCKED APARTMENT with children inside while you get blackout drunk nearby.

        It looks to me that they very much believed Maddie was missing...

        I base this on the fact that Gerry was seen by a witness running around play areas (exactly what you'd expect of a man looking for his daughter who was not in the apartment) and other areas you might expect a child to go.

        What I think is this:

        The children were ALL sedated. Maddie got up, woozy etc. from the drug and while leaning across to look out of the window (possibly looking for her parents), she fell down behind the small space that you see between the back of the couch and the window, breaking her neck... IIRC I believe there was something consistent with a neck break, maybe miniscule blood patterning indicative of that, it's something really obscure I read and don't remember well so DON'T take my word on it... But either way I think she fell behind there and died.

        Kate or someone checked the apartment and could not find Madeleine, they called her name, but of course she did not reply. Naturally - after looking in all the rooms and getting no response, they believe she has been taken or left the apartment. Gerry etc. now begin searching frantically... All the while, Madeleine is lying dead behind the couch... At some point, someone finally finds her body there.

        The parents - in order to keep custody of their remaining two children (especially since any autopsy would show Madeleine was hopped up on sedatives) - decide to get rid of her body. They move her to a temporary location. At a later stage, once they have the hire car, they pick her up from that temporary location and drive her and place her somewhere much more permanent.

        ---

        That is, what I believe happened.

        Comment


        • Really WWH, I hope you have good lawyers, because the McCanns certainly do!
          What amazes me is that within hours the family had sought support of the third highest in the land. None other than Godron Broon, a man of deep "prudence" (with some minor glitches, eg allowing the evaporation of Pension Treasuries, and selling almost all UK gold at one of its lowest ever prices). Surely, if guilty, this is an act of great courage.
          Anyway it resulted in the visitation of not just the junior UK rep, but the Ambassador to Portugal, no less; oh and lots of media attention. And then they hired a PR consultant and set up a website and an organisation, IIRC. Great courage indeed.
          Alright, if innocent, in the sense of actual guilt, who is free from sin? My heart goes to them.
          If not, the field is open to speculation, and from the website referenced previously is clear that they do indeed have a case to answer.
          As to whether poor Maddy is well: the only hope would be that she was abducted to provide a childless family with a child. Would that it were.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by WallaceWackedHer View Post

            You could attract attention (I've seen it on documentaries and it looks like you could), that was what the parents used as their defence, that they could see the apartment from the Tapas bar... However, it is obviously still negligent to leave your UNLOCKED APARTMENT with children inside while you get blackout drunk nearby.

            It looks to me that they very much believed Maddie was missing...

            I base this on the fact that Gerry was seen by a witness running around play areas (exactly what you'd expect of a man looking for his daughter who was not in the apartment) and other areas you might expect a child to go.

            What I think is this:

            The children were ALL sedated. Maddie got up, woozy etc. from the drug and while leaning across to look out of the window (possibly looking for her parents), she fell down behind the small space that you see between the back of the couch and the window, breaking her neck... IIRC I believe there was something consistent with a neck break, maybe miniscule blood patterning indicative of that, it's something really obscure I read and don't remember well so DON'T take my word on it... But either way I think she fell behind there and died.

            Kate or someone checked the apartment and could not find Madeleine, they called her name, but of course she did not reply. Naturally - after looking in all the rooms and getting no response, they believe she has been taken or left the apartment. Gerry etc. now begin searching frantically... All the while, Madeleine is lying dead behind the couch... At some point, someone finally finds her body there.

            The parents - in order to keep custody of their remaining two children (especially since any autopsy would show Madeleine was hopped up on sedatives) - decide to get rid of her body. They move her to a temporary location. At a later stage, once they have the hire car, they pick her up from that temporary location and drive her and place her somewhere much more permanent.

            ---

            That is, what I believe happened.
            Hi WWH
            interesting-never thought of that scenario before. But it raises many questions.
            How soon were there friends in the apartment after Kate raised the alarm? did they notice the discovery of the body too and are therefore complicit in the coverup?
            How could the parents have known her death was an accident so quickly?
            how soon were the police there?
            "Is all that we see or seem
            but a dream within a dream?"

            -Edgar Allan Poe


            "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
            quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

            -Frederick G. Abberline

            Comment


            • Originally posted by caz View Post
              Hi Abby,

              I think you misunderstood me there. I was asking how quick and easy it would have been to cart not one, but two sleeping toddlers off to the tapas bar; I wasn't saying it would have been a doddle. I'm actually far from convinced it would have been the breeze you suggest, for the slightly built Kate to scoop them both up in her arms and dash round the pool area to alert Gerry and their friends. They were not babies any more and their combined weight and bulk would have slowed her down at the very least. If she truly believed Madeleine had been snatched [for instance, if she couldn't see how she could have got out of the apartment unaided], she may have presumed - rightly or wrongly - that the abductor would not still be hanging around outside with his prize, but would have taken off immediately to avoid being caught in the act by the next parent to come checking.

              I'm not trying to defend Kate in any way for how the events unfolded that night, because I do believe she and Gerry were entirely responsible for leaving their children vulnerable. I'm actually trying to see if their behaviour after the fact is necessarily indicative of their direct involvement. Panic and guilt would both have been natural enough emotions in the circumstances, making either of them act in ways we might not like or might find suspicious, but that would have applied whether they were only guilty of neglect or of something far worse.

              Love,

              Caz
              X
              hi caz. I didn't misunderstood you I don't think-I believe I answered the questions. But ill try again-yes it would have been easy for her to scoop up the twins as she left to raise the alarm. adrenaline alone and fear for there safety would have been foremost IMHO.
              No I don't think an innocent parent under those circumstances would have left them alone.

              Yes I believe there behavior after the fact indicates direct involvement:

              She leaves the twins alone, eventhough abductor/s may still be nearby
              First words out of her mouth was-shes been taken as she runs immediately back to the restuarant! did she look around the apartment calling her name? did she look around the immediate environs outside the apartment calling her name?-one of my first thoughts would be did Maddie wake up again and wander outside the apartment, fall in the pool?
              They originally told police a lie-that the doors were locked.
              They quickly refused to cooperate fully with police.
              They BOTH left while the investigation was still going on.
              They used it to profit personally afterwards.
              No real tears or emotion I can see in the numerous TV interviews.
              kate wrote a book about it in which she said something to the affect of imagining her daughters perfect little vagina ripped up. Bizzare to say the least.
              Constant suing activity.

              so yes IMHO I do believe these behaviours are indicative of direct involvement.
              "Is all that we see or seem
              but a dream within a dream?"

              -Edgar Allan Poe


              "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
              quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

              -Frederick G. Abberline

              Comment


              • One thing I was wondering about was the open window. Did the mother shut it before running off to get help ? Or did she shut it then open it again to show police ?
                She would have been forensically aware surely to know if the window was the means of the abductors entrance it should not be disturbed. Or take everybody back to their flat. Just seems strange, I could be wrong though just going on a gut feeling...

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Paddy View Post
                  One thing I was wondering about was the open window. Did the mother shut it before running off to get help ? Or did she shut it then open it again to show police ?
                  She would have been forensically aware surely to know if the window was the means of the abductors entrance it should not be disturbed. Or take everybody back to their flat. Just seems strange, I could be wrong though just going on a gut feeling...
                  Even if innocent, they have a vested interest to cover up their neglect. I wouldn't read too much into certain factors.

                  Comment


                  • I do think there were too many certain factors. I admit I dont know how I would react in their situation, but one would think with their intelligence they would have got their facts co-ordinated. I do pity them though as I feel it may not have been intentional. I felt Mr Mccann came over very controlling.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Paddy View Post
                      I do think there were too many certain factors. I admit I dont know how I would react in their situation, but one would think with their intelligence they would have got their facts co-ordinated. I do pity them though as I feel it may not have been intentional. I felt Mr Mccann came over very controlling.
                      Gerry is assuredly controlling. Kate seems like a woman totally under his thumb. They had a bunch of call logs on the Maddie night between the two of them, they deleted these logs. Why?

                      Comment


                      • A new prime suspect has been identified. From this article on him we have the quote "Yesterday, police said they have "almost enough evidence" to charge the convicted paedophile with McCann's kidnapping and murder." But what "almost enough evidence" means is hard to say, but later we have "Brueckner left Portugal after Madeleine disappeared on May 3, 2007. The previous month, he had moved out of the villa and into a VW Westfalia campervan. Police have now linked this vehicle to Maddie's disappearance.", suggesting it's the link to his vehicle. Doesn't say how the vehicle is linked to Maddie's disappearance, though, and it would be an unjustified leap to suggest it was anything like a DNA finding. Rather, it could just mean his vehicle, or one like it, was known to be in the area at the the time. So, whether this lead will fizzle or lead to a resolution remains to be seen, but something to keep an eye out for. If you find any further reports on this in either direction, do include them.

                        - Jeff

                        https://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/new...ectid=12337492

                        Comment


                        • Oh, and the Guardian article below also indicates that a cell phone linked to the suspect was used in the immediate area shortly before Maddie went missing. Again, while seemingly specific, there are no actual details, such as "what does shortly before" mean? and "what constitutes the immediate area"?, do they mean within a minutes, an hour, the same day, and was it on the same street or just in the same town? Again, time will tell, but at least with a suspect to investigate there will be leads to follow. Let's just not presuppose the destination, though I admit, there are some interesting implications based upon what is in the news right now.

                          - Jeff

                          https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...st-suspect-yet

                          Comment


                          • The dog alerts are hard to reconcile. She must have been injured or dead before he even took her away... The children I also feel are sedated, though, which would make his job easier - to not have a screaming child or whatever.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by WallaceWackedHer View Post
                              The dog alerts are hard to reconcile. She must have been injured or dead before he even took her away... The children I also feel are sedated, though, which would make his job easier - to not have a screaming child or whatever.
                              Hey, who let you out of the Wallace thread? As is, this is a fascinating development. It's years too late, but hell, someone snatched her.
                              Them's the vagaries.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post
                                Oh, and the Guardian article below also indicates that a cell phone linked to the suspect was used in the immediate area shortly before Maddie went missing. Again, while seemingly specific, there are no actual details, such as "what does shortly before" mean? and "what constitutes the immediate area"?, do they mean within a minutes, an hour, the same day, and was it on the same street or just in the same town? Again, time will tell, but at least with a suspect to investigate there will be leads to follow. Let's just not presuppose the destination, though I admit, there are some interesting implications based upon what is in the news right now.

                                - Jeff

                                https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...st-suspect-yet

                                Hi Jeff. This guy does seem to be very interesting in regards being a lead. It seems he was a burglar who had a couple of convictions from his teenage years for exposing himself to a child and committing acts of an indecent nature. It also seems that his phone records can place him in PDL at half 7 on the fateful night. That is not significant in itself but it certainly means he cannot be discounted as being in a different country or location. The theory seems to be that he was robbing local hotels with the help of employees who would tip him off. He received such a tip the night Madeleine McCann went missing, broke in to rob the place but his paedo 'instincts' took over and he took Madeleine on a spur of the moment.

                                It has always been that type of theory that has seemed most likely to me. It may have been a billion to one chance that it happened but it did. So we have a local burglar with convictions for indecency with children who can be placed in PDL that night and who it is suggested was working with hotel employees in order to rob the rooms. If anything he should be worthy of a really close look.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X