Madeleine McCann

[cobalt]

I am now a grandparent and can confirm the ability of young children to sleep through noise. However I am also aware that they are likely to wake up at any odd moment which is why they should not be left alone. No education is required to know this, merely parental instinct, which is why I distrust the McCanns' account.

'What particularly grates me about many peoples view on the case was that any inconsistency or anomaly was immediately pounced upon as evidence of some sort of cover up. In many ways inconsistency is exactly what one should expect from people when recollecting events that at the time appeared unimportant or insignificant but subsequently have a great deal of importance. People rack their brains, pour over every minute, think to themselves oh I might be wrong on that or 5 mins out. It happens. It's natural.'

I can't argue with any of that. Too many armchair detectives like to focus on small discrepancies. But there are some very large discrepancies as well.
The last sighting of Madeleine McCann was by David Payne, around 6pm. He remembers the meeting as being 30 minutes (for what was a quick 'check' on something vague) whereas Kate McCann remembers this as lasting merely 30 seconds. There is something seriously wrong here, and I tend to favour the Mrs. McCann version since Payne had a touch of amnesia when asked to describe what the three children were wearing. Granted, men are often blind to such matters, but it was he who had painted the rosy picture of family life he observed before being asked for detail.

The time of 'checks' on the children are another example of serious discrepancies, even if we accept the hare-brained game of musical chairs that it required. 15 minutes, 30 minutes and 60 minutes have all been offered up at various times to various parties.

And of course whether the patio doors were locked or unlocked, an extremely important point for the investigation which wasted crucial time on the 'intruder through window' theory that proved unfounded.

[Darryl Kenyon]

I can't take the sedation idea seriously. They said they made a mental note about what Madeleine had said. Gerry seems a very cold person to me and although I have no doubt he loved his children leaving them whilst he went for dinner I don't think would have bothered him. Kate I think is different but these are only my perceptions.

Hi Sunny

Leicestershire Police interview with Dianne Webster - "The twins were still asleep in the cot and I, with all the noise going on I don’t know how they slept through it which makes me think there was, they must have been err drugged with something.”

Later on - ”Did you get any sleep that night?”
”Err well eventually err the twins were brought up into our apartment err and that again to me was err a very odd thing because they were fast asleep, they did not wake up.”

”Were they brought up, so had they been taken out of their cots and brought up?”
”Yeah, yeah. They were being carried, I think Fiona and Dave carried them up.”

”And they were still not awake?”
”Still not awake, and the cots were, because they were travel cots they brought up, you know and err put in the living room and they were put into the cots and they just carried on sleeping.”

Regards Darryl

[caz]

No I don't believe you are correct. The Jane Tanner sighting has been discounted yes as a father carrying his child. A GP from England with a remarkable likeness to the Tanner description. The MET stated they felt extremely confident that this was not the abductor. The man seen by the Smiths has never been traced, this despite the MET accessing the night creche records. This was how they discovered the man seen by Jane Tanner.

There are a number of indicators in regards the man seen by the Smiths which make him an intriguing 'suspect'.

- The child he was carrying was a young girl with blonde hair according to the Smiths between 3-4 years of age.

- The girl was wearing pink pyjamas. She was not covered by a blanket nor a coat despite it being only 10 degrees Celsius or 50 degrees Fahrenheit.

- The man was carrying the child through the street at around 10pm. He was not using a buggy. He has not been found via a search of the night creche records. Where had he come from and where was he going?

- The sighting was at 10pm or so as stated and only around 400 yards from the McCanns apartment. At almost the exact same time Kate found Madeleine missing. To walk such a distance from the apartment would take 5-7 minutes meaning an abduction around 9:50-9:55 pm. The timings match quite well with what we know.

As I say I am not convinced this was not some dad with his daughter but there are some questions around the sighting which are very intriguing.

Hi Sunny,

That would have been a very audacious abduction, to carry a child through the streets when other people were out and about and enjoying their evening. Assuming Madeleine was asleep when she was snatched and taken from the apartment, the abductor could not have known if the cool outside air would instantly or gradually rouse her, causing her to cry out in alarm and struggle at finding herself in the arms of a strange man.

I don't think the original intention was burglary either. An active child abuser will look for opportunities and take what they are offered, so a child in an unattended apartment, while her parents can be seen dining elsewhere, would be seen as the star prize. Nothing else was wanted or taken, so I see a bit of planning here and a getaway vehicle, for the simple reason it was only 10pm and this was a holiday resort, not an isolated farmhouse.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Hi RJ

Jane Tanner also said that the person she saw carrying the child was Robert Murat after suspicions against him were first raised . Where as before she acknowledged she couldn't give a recollection of the man's face .

Factor that in and I would imagine why doubts were raised about what she did see . That doesn't mean she was lying of course . But the fact she said the man was Murat [ when he had an alibi ] , would make some people question her story

Here is an extract of her interview to Leicestershire police - ”I don’t think it was him that I saw. But I just thought that it was” A year later.

Makes you wonder if she would have persisted with her sighting being Murat if he hadn't been cleared ?

Regards Darryl

Quite scary, as I just happen to live in the house in East Devon where Robert Murat used to spend his summer holidays as a child! When his grandmother died in 2006, his mother inherited the house and Robert returned from Portugal temporarily to do a bit of renovation work before it was sold on. I actually met him recently when he delivered a parcel to us and we still occasionally get junk mail addressed to him. Thank goodness he was cleared early on, or there could have been a terrible miscarriage of justice.

Witnesses can be vital, and most are not lying about what they have seen, but there are so many ways in which a sighting can prove unreliable.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

What particularly grates me about many peoples view on the case was that any inconsistency or anomaly was immediately pounced upon as evidence of some sort of cover up. In many ways inconsistency is exactly what one should expect from people when recollecting events that at the time appeared unimportant or insignificant but subsequently have a great deal of importance. People rack their brains, pour over every minute, think to themselves oh I might be wrong on that or 5 mins out. It happens. It's natural.

Absolutely right, Sunny.

There is more reason to suspect something amiss if all the witnesses to an event are note perfect and never differ from each other or have any doubts over time about what they experienced individually.

A true story would be one where there is an inconsistent consistency - if that makes sense.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Just out of interest have you ever taken young children on holiday? They be absolutely shattered after playing all day. I took my 3 year to Spain a few years ago and by 8 o'clock he was out cold and I don't even think a bomb would have woken him.

A fair point, except that in Madeleine's case she did wake up, the night before she disappeared, and nobody was there to comfort her when she cried. I can't help but wonder if this may be significant. Would her abductor have had such an easy time of it on that occasion if faced with a crying child?

Love,

Caz
X

[rjpalmer]

Leicestershire Police interview with Dianne Webster - "The twins were still asleep in the cot and I, with all the noise going on I don’t know how they slept through it which makes me think there was, they must have been err drugged with something.”

For those who believe the McCanns sedated their children--what is the scenario? Did they bring syringes and sedatives along with them on this holiday to Portugal, anticipating doing this?

If so, why didn't they use them the previous night, when Madeleine woke up readily enough?

If not, are we supposed to believe the McCanns went down to the local chemist shop and secured a prescription and some hypodermics, yet despite the massive media coverage and the probing of Goncalo Amaral, everyone failed to trace this transaction?

Someone in the PJ apparently leaked a bogus story that traces of sedatives were found in a blonde hair in the McCann's apartment, but a doctor in the UK dismissed this as nonsensical because if someone was accidently killed with a sedative there wouldn't be time for the drug to metabolize and leave traces in the hair follicles.

[Darryl Kenyon]

Hi RJ

Who said anything about an accidental overdose ? That may have been the Portuguese Police's working theory but not mine . The fact is that at least one of the Tapas seven thought it was really strange neither twin woke up . She was there we where not. She would know about all the noise, the coming and goings in the flat which everyone readily admits. Plus we have reports of both Maddie's parents screaming and howling that evening. The twins also were carried to the Payne's apartment yet never woke. And what about Maddie ? No one heard a noise of her being abducted, her crying or anything.

As I pointed out in a previous post, the Mcann's had their own tests done on hair fibres supposedly off the twins via their lawyers . Strange ? Why not insist on independent tests if they had nothing to hide. It's like giving yourself a lie detector test and saying you passed.

The Mcann's knew two of their children were crying the night before . They knew they left the patio doors unlocked every night and why ? Well I have read that they could only be ,locked from the inside . So why not go out the front doors and lock them ? Too far to walk round perhaps and couldn't be bothered with the extra yardage ? Plus there is a chance they may have even left the bedroom window unlocked . And as for the checks Oldfield certainly didn't check on the Mcann's children, he says so . And we only have his word that he entered the apartment at all . And for Kate her check wasn't exactly thorough. She only became aware of Maddie missing and the open window when the door slammed shut.

Kate Mcann graduated with a degree in medicine . Other Doctor's were part of the Tapas 7 . Bearing in mind all the above , leaving their children alone in a strange room, two of them crying the night before etc Is it beyond the bounds of possibility that the children were given a mild sedative to help or make [ depending on your point of view ],them sleep by one or both parents, which thus then enabled the abductor to carry Maddie away more easily , which the Mcann's may be in self denial about ? Not in my book it isn't.

Regards Darryl

[rjpalmer]

As I pointed out in a previous post, the Mcann's had their own tests done on hair fibres supposedly off the twins via their lawyers . Strange ? Why not insist on independent tests if they had nothing to hide. It's like giving yourself a lie detector test and saying you passed.

Hi Darryl.

Personally, I've seen very few specifics about this hair analysis, other than it was conducted by Rachel Woods, the manager of an independent company, TrichoTech. I'm skeptical that the McCanns would have thought it appropriate to simply hand in some random hair samples for testing rather than having it taken directly from the children in front of an independent eyewitness or notary, but perhaps you have some information that states otherwise? I don't know; I'm asking. If all the t's were crossed and the i's dotted, why wouldn't the tests be considered "independent"?

The reason they had the tests commissioned was in direct response to extensive reports in the tabloids, particularly in Portugal, that the PJ found sedatives in hair samples taken from the twins. The McCanns were disputing these reports, hence the test by TrichnoTech. I've never been in the McCanns' position, and don't know how I would react, but I don't find it strange. Due to the Portuguese doctrine of "Judicial Secrecy," the PJ cannot publicly discuss an ongoing criminal investigation, so these drippings that made it into the press weren't supposed to carry an official stamp of accuracy, but some journalists claimed they did, and others repeated these claims as fact.

I realize that the grandparents, members of the Tapas 7, people accusing the McCanns, and all sorts of others were repeating the 'sedated' theory, but I'd prefer to have some evidence that this was the case, instead of theories.

One thing I will stress is that to challenge the theories of Goncalo Amaral is not a defense of the McCanns' parenting skills, though some seem to take it that way.

I just don't feel there is anything to gain by telescoping questionable parenting into questionable police theories. I realize you do not endorse Amaral's theory, but others here clearly do.

I think time will prove him wrong, possibly sooner rather than later, but I admit this remains to be seen. I don't think this is the Constance Kent case, and I don't think anyone will ever write a book about the maligned detective that had it right all along and call it The Suspicions of Mr. Amaral.

[Darryl Kenyon]

Hi Darryl.

Personally, I've seen very few specifics about this hair analysis, other than it was conducted by Rachel Woods, the manager of an independent company, TrichoTech. I'm skeptical that the McCanns would have thought it appropriate to simply hand in some random hair samples for testing rather than having it taken directly from the children in front of an independent eyewitness or notary, but perhaps you have some information that states otherwise? I don't know; I'm asking. If all the t's were crossed and the i's dotted, why wouldn't the tests be considered "independent"?

The reason they had the tests commissioned was in direct response to extensive reports in the tabloids, particularly in Portugal, that the PJ found sedatives in hair samples taken from the twins. The McCanns were disputing these reports, hence the test by TrichnoTech. I've never been in the McCanns' position, and don't know how I would react, but I don't find it strange. Due to the Portuguese doctrine of "Judicial Secrecy," the PJ cannot publicly discuss an ongoing criminal investigation, so these drippings that made it into the press weren't supposed to carry an official stamp of accuracy, but some journalists claimed they did, and others repeated these claims as fact.

I realize that the grandparents, members of the Tapas 7, people accusing the McCanns, and all sorts of others were repeating the 'sedated' theory, but I'd prefer to have some evidence that this was the case, instead of theories.

One thing I will stress is that to challenge the theories of Goncalo Amaral is not a defense of the McCanns' parenting skills, though some seem to take it that way.

I just don't feel there is anything to gain by telescoping questionable parenting into questionable police theories. I realize you do not endorse Amaral's theory, but others here clearly do.

I think time will prove him wrong, possibly sooner rather than later, but I admit this remains to be seen. I don't think this is the Constance Kent case, and I don't think anyone will ever write a book about the maligned detective that had it right all along and call it The Suspicions of Mr. Amaral.

Hi RJ

I have read the tests done on the hair follicles were done five months later . I don't know if this is true but it would tie in with the results being known in October .

But from the Tricho tech website were the tests were done - We are the leading UK provider of drug and alcohol testing services specialising in hair and oral fluids analysis. Hair provides a long term profile of drug use (typically 3 months)

If this is true the results would probably turn up negative regardless .

I have also read [ though that doesn't mean proof ], that early in the investigation the Portuguese police [ before the Mcann's were made suspect ] wanted to take urine samples off the twins to see if an abductor could have drugged them and thus Madeline . But the Mcann's refused.

Like I say I don't know if this is 100% true, but you would think it may be a, probably simple test any police force would want to conduct to rule if an abductor had inside knowledge on the Mcann children for instance.

Regards Darryl

[Sunny Delight]

Hi Sunny,

That would have been a very audacious abduction, to carry a child through the streets when other people were out and about and enjoying their evening. Assuming Madeleine was asleep when she was snatched and taken from the apartment, the abductor could not have known if the cool outside air would instantly or gradually rouse her, causing her to cry out in alarm and struggle at finding herself in the arms of a strange man.

I don't think the original intention was burglary either. An active child abuser will look for opportunities and take what they are offered, so a child in an unattended apartment, while her parents can be seen dining elsewhere, would be seen as the star prize. Nothing else was wanted or taken, so I see a bit of planning here and a getaway vehicle, for the simple reason it was only 10pm and this was a holiday resort, not an isolated farmhouse.

Love,

Caz
X

These type of offenders tend to be spontaneous or in the moment. I am minded of the horrific murder of Aleisha McPhail in Scotland. I have mentioned this before. Initial motive was robbery, crime was the murder of a six year old girl.

'Alesha, from Airdrie, North Lanarkshire, was three days into a stay with her grandparents on the Isle of Bute when Campbell entered their unlocked home at approximately 02:00 am. The teenager had previously bought cannabis from Alesha's father Robert, who lived in the house, and initially went to steal the drug.'

'Intending to steal cannabis, Campbell left his house at 01:54 armed with a kitchen knife.He entered the MacPhail property, roughly a five-minute walk away, where MacPhail's room was closest to the front door. When he found the sleeping girl, Campbell saw a "moment of opportunity", later claiming, "All I thought about was killing her once I saw her." He lifted a drowsy MacPhail from her bed, left the house without anyone noticing, and walked with her along the ocean shore. The child awoke in his arms during this walk and asked who he was; Campbell replied that he knew her father and was taking her home. He carried MacPhail to a secluded location then raped and murdered her. He threw his clothes into the sea, went home for a shower, then returned to the murder site to retrieve his phone.'

My own 'theory' is that someone intent on burglary saw an opportunity and like Campbell in the Aleisha McPhail case was so disturbed and evil that this was an opportunity he could not pass. It to my mind is probably that the man seen by the Smiths was carrying Madeleine just as Campbell had carried poor Aleisha McPhail. I think this may play into your point in regards a crying child as well. Could an awakened Madeleine have been pacified by someone saying I am taking you to mummy or daddy. Kate did state that Madeleine was totally shattered after being collected from the Creche and looked so drained and tired. As I say children on holidays particularly after 3-4 days get to a stage of exhaustion where they haven't stopped all week and then just sleep like logs. A very tired and sleepy 4 year old being told she is being taken to her mummy may not put up much of a struggle?

[cobalt]

The paedophile murderer Campbell lived around 5 minutes from where he lifted the child. He made little effort to hide the body. In such a despicable scenario speed is of the essence, I would presume.

None of this seems to chime with what we know of the McCann case. The PJ surely checked all properties within walking distance of the apartment and drew a blank. (Save Murrell, who had been 'fingered' by some members of the Tapas group.) Campbell had been in the property from where he lifted the child; there is no evidence that any 'abductor' had ever been inside the McCanns' apartment. And most revealingly, no trace of the missing McCann child has been seen since. The 'abductor' did not merely dispose of the child, he hid it for eternity. Which is quite an achievement in what was apparently a spontaneous crime.

[Pcdunn]

In post #1468, by erobitha, the news story about letters by the chief suspect, Brueckner, seem to support the idea that Madeleine did not "scream." Whether he was saying this from personal knowledge or not, remains to be seen.

[Sunny Delight]

The paedophile murderer Campbell lived around 5 minutes from where he lifted the child. He made little effort to hide the body. In such a despicable scenario speed is of the essence, I would presume.

None of this seems to chime with what we know of the McCann case. The PJ surely checked all properties within walking distance of the apartment and drew a blank. (Save Murrell, who had been 'fingered' by some members of the Tapas group.) Campbell had been in the property from where he lifted the child; there is no evidence that any 'abductor' had ever been inside the McCanns' apartment. And most revealingly, no trace of the missing McCann child has been seen since. The 'abductor' did not merely dispose of the child, he hid it for eternity. Which is quite an achievement in what was apparently a spontaneous crime.

No two crimes are the same. What the Aleisha McPhail case showed however was that this type of offender is spontaneous and may have a completely different reason for entering a property. But they are opportunists. It showed that this type of crime is possible. I would not expect every facet of the Campbell case to correspond with the McCann case but those who dismiss the burglar turned abductor based on it being too audacious or risky, requiring sedation of the child or nothing being stolen need only look at that case to see how it can occur.

I would also suggestsuggest much more likely an abductor knew Luz very well. I would certainly be much more convinced that someone in the locality who lived there would be much more capable of hiding a body than Gerry McCann who was in the country less than a week.

[cobalt]

'I would certainly be much more convinced that someone in the locality who lived there would be much more capable of hiding a body than Gerry McCann who was in the country less than a week.'

This is undoubtedly true and a real issue for those like myself who believe the McCanns were involved in their daughter's death. It's not an insurmountable problem but any solutions I have encountered are very far-fetched.

If there was an abductor and he had local knowledge then such a person would clearly have an advantage when it came to concealing a body. But an opportunist, if he was such, would most likely be thinking short term and hoping to conceal the body to give him time to leave the area.

Either way, it is puzzling that no trace of the child has been discovered as yet.