Madeleine McCann: Vector Addition.

Disclaimer: The following is speculation only. The public are not privy to all details in the case of the disappearance of Madeleine McCann.

There is much that is open to public view, but in criminal investigations ongoing, police always withold important facts from the public in order to screen suspects and eliminate the innocent.

Similarly, decisions taken behind closed doors by political figures or decisions assumed to have been taken, can only be speculated upon.

No imputations of guilt can validly be taken from what follows.

Reiterating, because of uncertainty as to the complete facts of this case, the following is posted here in the spirit of speculative discussion only. It is not to be taken as an allegation of wrongdoing.

Anyone who has taken more than a casual glance at the case of the missing Madeleine McCann, the little girl who disappeared on the night of May 3, 2007, in Prahia da Luz, Portugal, in the Algarve region, has been exposed to a number of confusing and counter-intuitive circumstantial indicators.

This post is an attempt to do some "vector addition" on these indicators to see if evident indirection leads to evidence of direction.

Let's look at the sniffer dog "testimony":

"Ask the dogs, Sandra." Gerry's well known response to a question about the sniffer dog indications points to the obvious drawback of relying too heavily on evidence from sniffer dogs.

Sensitive they might be but loquacious they are not.

The cadaver dog, Eddy, indicated the scent of death on articles of clothing belonging to Madeleine and Kate and on a shelf in a closet and behind a couch in the living/sitting room. He found the scent on the key to their rental vehicle and in a flowerbed at the foot of the stairs leading to the sliding doors of the apartment. He found it on Madeleine's plush toy, Cuddle Cat.

No scent was found on any bed or on any of Gerry's clothing.

The one indicator that is almost never discussed among the collection is the one in the flowerbed. Occasionally it is mentioned that Madeleine might have fallen off the landing at the top of the stairs, into the flower bed below, where she died.

But that would mean that she couldn't have died behind the couch, usually seen as the most likely place where her death might be supposed to have occurred and if she died in the flower bed, surely they wouldn't have taken her inside and stuffed her behind the couch, where the scent was found.

However, her body could have been found behind the couch and later deposited briefly in the flowerbed, enroute to being concealed in some other place. The flowerbed indication was characterized as faint, by the dog handler.

If that is what happened, why was the scent also indicated on a shelf in a cupboard in the parent's bedroom? Was Madeleine also hidden there? Was she in the missing blue kit bag, sitting on that shelf, as people frantically searched the apartment and neighborhood?

One could argue that it might be possible for the police to plant the cadaver scent everywhere it was found, in an effort to frame the McCanns. I'm not sure if they could have done that, but for the sake of argument let's say that it is true.

Why the flowerbed? Why plant scent there and why was the indication faint? It seems a whimsical choice for a frame-up. Would a cop framing them be smart enough to realize someone carrying Madeleine's body out of 5A, might put it down in the flowerbed, briefly while they check to see that the coast was clear for a brisk walk down the allyway just over the wall?

Maybe. The unlikliest people can be much smarter than we credit.

If a frame-up is in fact what happened, it was done very carefully, with a whole scenario and sequence of movements in mind. The discovery of the body behind the couch, the concealment of the body in the cupboard, the brief deposit of the body in the flowerbed, prior to transport elsewhere.

To plant evidence that paints a detailed, complex picture like that would require high intelligence. Personally, I doubt that a policeman that intelligent, would go to those lengths in a case like this. But that doesn't mean it's impossible.

This move to frame them would have been a reaction to the peculiar behavior of the McCanns following the abduction, the statements made by Kate McCann about the bedroom window and shutter being broken and on the McCann's refusal to follow police advice against advertising Madeleine's distinctive eye, the mark of the coloboma. These behaviors might well signal guilt to the police, well before the appearance of the sniffer dogs.

It could, as well, have been a reaction to British diplomatic interference in the case and British press criticism of the Policia Judiciaria. This is not nice but it is comprehensible on an emotional level.

It still seems an incredible stretch for all of the above to be ingredients of a frame-up. Wouldn't a policeman trying to frame the couple leave the scent on something of Gerry's? Maybe not.

Maybe this hypothetical and diabolical frame-up artist stacked the evidence against one person to try to split the couple, to encourage one to testify against the other.

One particular fact emerges clearly and unequivocally from the sniffer dog indications, though.

The dogs are not dumb. Not one of their indications points away from the McCanns. There is complete consistency in what they find. The margin of error involved with them is zero. They did not alert to anything or any place that is not connected with the McCanns.

Just to elaborate a little on that, one could say that if they had alerted to one of the other cars assembled the day they sniffed at cars, or to one of the other apartments at the Ocean Club or to some random individual on the street, who could be proven to have had nothing to do with Madeleine's disappearance, then one could admit a shadow of a doubt that Madeleine had died in apartment 5A.

One could say, "Well see, these dogs are not always right, and more importantly, they are going astray in this particular case."

But no, while it is true that the dogs may not always be right, in this case their consistency on multiple alerts argues against error. It argues against any element of chance figuring at all in their indications.

I really don't believe there is an argument against this.

One of three things happened in this case:

1. Madeleine died in the apartment or near it (and was carried into the apartment) and then removed and hidden by her parents.

2. Madeleine died in the apartment and was removed by an unknown criminal.

3. Madeleine was abducted, alive, by a criminal but the scent of death was planted in the apartment by the police because they were convinced that the parents were culpable in the case.

Taking these options in reverse order:

The third option can be eliminated, in my opinion, because the scent of death was found on the "Cuddle Cat" toy when the villa, rented by the McCanns after they moved out of Ocean Club 5A, was searched by the sniffer dogs.

In other words, the Cuddle Cat was never out of the McCann's custody. It appears from the videos of sniffer dog, Eddy, working, that the police had custody of some of the McCann's clothing, but not the Cuddle Cat. Hence, it appears there was no opportunity by the police to contaminate Cuddle Cat.

Kate has said that she had contact with dead bodies in the course of her work in the period before the trip to the Algarve and could have transmitted the scent to Cuddle Cat herself in a way that had nothing to do with Madeleine. But surely, if that were the case, the scent should be on any number of other items in Kate's possession and not only on the small number of articles of clothing where it was found. Surely it would be on things belonging to Gerry.

The few instances of the death scent indicated by the dogs argues against contamination from Kate's medical practice. There should be more of them if that were the route through which the scent got to the McCann's things.

On the other hand, the instance of the scent on Cuddle Cat argues against contamination by the police, since they didn't have access to Cuddle Cat.

(The notion that Martin Grime, the dog handler, might be involved in a frame up is way too far fetched in this case, although, to be fair, there is a well known case in the US of a corrupt sniffer dog handler.)

The logic of these considerations, argues against contamination by the police as a reason for the instances of detection of the scent of death in this case.


The second option, Madeleine's death in the apartment and removal by an unknown criminal is a reasonable possibility.

Perhaps a kidnapper was unable to get her out of the apartment without waking her up. Perhaps a chase ensued. Perhaps Madeleine was killed as a result of rough treatment in that process, or some accident. Perhaps the kidnapper did not realize that she was dead, in his haste, and simply scooped up the inert body and took it away with him.

This sequence of events harmonizes well with the reported sitings of a person or persons carrying a child who appeared to be asleep.

This scenario is completely believable, except for the distribution of the scent of death on Kate's clothing and in the cupboard in the parent's bedroom. It is difficult to see how the scent of Madeleine's dead body could get to those things and that place in such a scenario.

This is particularly true of the scent in the cupboard. Surely a kidnapper would not lug the victim's body around with him as he rummaged through articles of clothing and looked in one cupboard.

On those grounds, I would eliminate option two.

The first option is a touchy subject. Many of the great and good and wealthy have lent support to the notion that option one is not what happened. The British government and the British press, by and large seem to be of the view that option one could not be what happened.

Against that we have the famous quotation spoken by Sherlock Holmes:

www.quotationspage.com...

...when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.

Crime is a terrible thing, particularly for it's victims and it's victims' relatives and their children and society as a whole. Even criminals are victims of their own crimes. Criminals relatives and children are also victims.

Taking the long view, it can be argued that some crimes are not worth solving. It can be argued, but is the argument a just and wise one?

Suppose a criminal were let off, by the authorities, because they believed the greater good would be served by moving on, and not inquiring too deeply into a situation where more harm might be done by the truth than would be done by ignoring the truth, since there was little likelihood of a repeat of the offense.

Would this be the wisest course of action for the authorities?

Suppose, out of vanity and a desire to raise himself above any appearance of stain relative to the crime in question, the criminal, then undertook to raise funds among the public to carry on in pursuit of a fictitious perpetrator of the crime that he himself had comitted.

Suppose, because of an outpuring of public sympathy, a huge amount of money were raised and spent in rediculous ways that attracted even more criminals to profit on what would be a wild goose chase. Would that be in the public good?

What could the authorities who willingly turned a blind eye to the truth do about such a fraud?

Is this a theme we see over and over in this thick witted world in which we live? Public officials handcuffed by their own stupidity, unable to expose the perps because in doing so, they expose themselves.

Is this what happened in the case of 9/11? Is it what happened in the case of the famous American political assassinations of the 1960's.

In law, a person who helps a perpetrator of a crime to escape due process under the law, can be charged as an accessory after the fact.

Such a person, if he were also the holder of great judicial or political authority would have abundant reason to make every effort to prevent justice from being done in such a case.

The proliferation of mischief of all sorts in a society, stemming from circumstances like this argues strongly that prosecution under the law take place. There is ample time to extend mercy and allow for special circumstances after adjudication of the original offense.

You have taken time and effort with this and its an excellent post. I especially appreciate the caveat at the beginning. When she disappeared I thought immediately at the time that a lot of what the parents said and did seemed very wrong to me. The whole thing stank. My personal view, and its just that - not evidence but my view, is that little Madeline died in the apartment and her parents freaked out when they got home after leaving her alone and panicked, knowing they would be blamed. They then disposed of her body and turned the whole thing into a media circus. But i could be wrong.

reply to post by 3finjo


Thanks. There is more coming on another aspect of the case. It's not as important as the first post but I think it bears commenting upon.

Incidentally, I found it fascinating recently when Goncalo Amaral revealed, in relation to the sighting by the Smith family, that the police narrowly missed getting CCTV footage of the man the Smiths sighted as he carried the child on the street where they saw him.

The tape from a hotel surveillance camera had been wiped before the police, who were attempting to collect all such footage in Prahia da Luz, made their way round to the hotel in question. Of course, at the time, there was no knowledge of the Smith's sighting and no reason to go to the hotel first. It's just a bad break.

People and events and karma certainly seem to be against the judicial authorities in this case. It smacks of destiny. I've been in situations before where just everything goes wrong in a cascade of calamity. This case is like that.

The disclaimer which applies to my first post in this thread also applies to this post. Because all of the facts of the case of the missing Madeleine McCann are not known, no allegations of wrongdoing should be taken from what I am writing here. I am making no allegations or assertions regarding the conduct of anybody. I am writing in the spirit of speculative discussion only.


As I said in my first post in this thread, there is another aspect of this case which I think needs commentary. It is a part of the case which is difficult to write about because it touches so closely on the person of the missing Madeleine. The issue is the "Find Madeleine" campaign and it's use of her distinctive right iris as a logo and focal point of it's alerts.

This is an early example of how control of the investigation into Madeleine's disappearance was taken out of police hands. There are other instances of parts of the case where the police investigators do not set the agenda of the investigation.

In the simplest terms, control of the agenda of the investigation has been a point of contention between Kate and Gerry McCann and the police agencies virtually from the arrival of the first police officer on the scene at the Ocean Club.

I won't go into all the back and forth of that, fascinating as it is, but let's for the sake of speculative discussion focus on one issue where the priority and tone of how the investigation went forward was clearly set by the McCanns and not by the police.

I am talking about Madeleine's distinctive right iris, her so-called coloboma and the use made of it as a logo and focal point of it's alerts by the "Find Madeleine" campaign.

The Portugese Policia Judiciaria advised against such an approach on the grounds that widely publicizing Madeleine's coloboma might cause the kidnappers to murder her as a way of getting rid of an easily and fatally (to them) identifiable piece of merchandise.

It would appear that the McCanns didn't agree with this and decided to go ahead with an ad campaign focusing on the coloboma.

Why?

Well, obviously if a kidnapper were seen in public with Madeleine, a passerby might notice a little girl with a coloboma and alert the police, thus ending the ordeal, quickly and neatly.

I can imagine the exasperation and consternation in Goncalo Amaral's office among his fellow detectives when they heard that theory of how to procede with the hunt for Madeleine.

In fairness to the McCanns, if Madeleine had been abducted by a mentally unbalanced or challenged person or one of those crazed women who steal other people's children because they don't have one of their own, or if she had wandered off on her own for some reason and had been picked up by a child-coveting passerby, a campaign like the "Find Madeleine" campaign might bear fruit.

Police thinking on this would be different, though. The police would be expected to plan the hunt based on the worst case scenario, kidnapping by a pervert or by an underworld child marketing organization. In medical practice this would be seen as triage-ing the situation.

It is important to note at this point that at the moment the investigation began, the police were suggesting that Madeleine had just wandered off but the parents, Kate and Gerry were insisting that Madeleine had been "taken" and that a wide ranging dragnet should be initiated immediately.

From that point on, the police attempted to treat Madeleine's disappearance as a serious crime, as characterized by the parents, while the "Find Madeleine" campaign proceded as if Madeleine had not been taken by a serious predator and would eventually be spotted, with enough publicity.

Why?

This is very peculiar. I doubt if in the annals of child disappearances, there has ever been a case where the parents of the missing child have been so at odds with the authorities, almost, to the casual observer, appearing to change their stance on the case from time to time, simply to counter the police at any particular moment.

A case in point would be the saga of the attempt to stage a "reconstruction" of the crime. Yes, no, yes, no, yes on our terms but no unless specific assurances can be obtained and then only with those of the "tapas 7" who can make time to be there.

It might be well to note at this point something that is apparent to anyone looking into this case. The McCanns enrage people. The writings of otherwise sane and sober commentators just drip with acid and vitriol as they describe the perceived attitudes or report the statements of the McCanns. This is unfortunate because it does hinder sober and clear analysis of the case.

But getting back to the coloboma, if as the McCanns believe, Madeleine had been abducted by a serious predator or criminal organization, publicizing the coloboma would be tantamount to signing her death warrant.

Why would they do this? Why would they ignore the advice of the experts, the police, in this matter?

During the "Find Madeleine" campaign was even one child with a coloboma sighted?

Even one? Not to my knowledge. There were quite a few little blonde tots sighted, but no colobomas that I am aware of.

If something serious is at stake, the natural inclination of a sane person, is to move cautiously and to put one's fortune in the hands of experts. On the other hand if there is nothing at stake, except a need to raise clouds of confusion, one could act heedlessly, ignoring potential consequences.

I would like to underline here that I am not asserting that this was the thinking of the McCanns.

I am merely speculating as to possible reasons, in theory, as it relates to criminal investigation, for such a contra-indicated procedure as the "Find Madeleine" campaign.

Isn't it conceivable that the only parent who would base a campaign hunting for a missing child on the child's coloboma would be a parent who either did not suspect kidnapping or who knew that their child was already dead and who was really campaigning, not to find the child but to rally public sympathy and support as a buttress against prosecution?

I'm not asserting that this is what the McCanns have done. They may simply have been strong willed, out of control parents, beyond the influence of experienced experts, who had the energy and resources to turn the hunt for Madeleine into what it has become.

I don't personally believe that Madeleine is alive, but if she is alive and discovered years down the road, it stretches credulity to be asked to believe that her coloboma will be one of her distinguishing characteristics. I don't want to write more.

Again, excellent research done. A lot of cops in the UK believe that Madeline was either killed by her parents (not likely) or, died accidently while they were out enjoying themselves then they panicked and after a prolonged delay, called the police. You are dead right about her eye - they signed her death warrant with that one, and the whole scale of the campaign (if she had been abducted). I don't think we will ever get to the bottom of this case as she is almost certainly dead, and evidence is lacking.

I for one think we need to look no further than her parents.

reply to post by 3finjo

I tend to agree.

The one possibility open at this point to clarification of the case, is if Madeleine's body is discovered. The big conundrum, if the parents hid the body and then later retrieved it for final disposal, is where did they hide it.

It's possible that the person the Smiths sighted on their way home from their night out, carrying a child, passed them in the street and then doubled back to a destination he had already passed. That part of the scenario has to be driving Amaral crazy.

Anyone reading through this thread will realize that the key issue in this mystery is "Did the police introduce the "scent of death" into the crime scene to frame the McCanns?"

Chain of custody is vitally important, with respect to how items of the McCanns were handled by the police. "Cuddle Cat" is of particular interest. Earlier I said that Cuddle Cat was never in the custody of the police, but very early in the case, before the appearance of the sniffer dogs, I believe that tests were done on the plush toy to determine if any traces of a kidnapper could be found on it. I don't believe these tests revealed anything. The toy was then returned to the McCanns and remained in their custody until their rented villa was searched at the end of July '07.

The Policia Judiciaria had, early in the case, refused the assistance of English sniffer dogs.

I'm assuming that at the time when the police had Cuddle Cat, the notion of bringing a cadaver dog into the picture had not even entered people's minds.

Whatever the case, were the McCanns to be brought to trial, it is a certainty that chain of custody issues in connection with the discovery of the scent of death on various items of clothing or objects belonging to the McCanns will be crucial. The Policia Judiciaria will have to have iron clad chains of custody, hopefully with mutiple witnesses along the way, to affirm that there was no opportunity to fabricate evidence against the McCanns.

If they can do that, it seems to me that the McCanns would be in serious jeopardy in a trial.

Of course everything ultimately depends on finding a jury that can understand the law of averages. Uh . . . oh, oh.

I really would like a cigarette.

I've just had my morning coffee and usually have a cigarette with it. I may still have one. I'm going to have another cup of coffee and I might have the cigarette with that cup. There is nothing like a cigarette in the morning.

I am trying to quit smoking.

That's why I am making such a big deal about it. I guess, since I haven't already had my morning smoke, I am feeling just a little anxious about it. Maybe I'm feeling the effects of nicotine deprivation.

It would be such a relief to have a cigarette. I would love it. I would be smiling. It would cheer me up and put me back in my own good graces. I would bask in it. I would radiate in the limelight of it.

I love the old slogan for Camel brand cigarettes, "I would walk a mile for a Camel."

Nicotine deprived, I totally understand that sentiment. Hey, it's a truth.

By the way, have you heard the joke about the medical doctor who died and went to heaven?

He popped up on a cloud in front of the "pearly gates" and saw a long line up with people being processed past St. Peter's desk. Naturally, he walked to the front of the line and started to walk through the gate into heaven.

St. Peter said, "Hey you! Where are you going?"

The doctor said, "Into heaven."

St. Peter said, "Get back in line, we have some paperwork to take care of before you go through the gates."

The doctor said, "But I'm a doctor. I always go to the front of the line."

St. Peter gave him a look. Then he said, "Doctor, up here we're all the same. Please get back in line."

The doctor shrugged and got back in line. A minute later another doctor popped up, wearing a stethoscope and green scrubs. He also headed for the front of the line, but this time St. Peter hardly looked up as the doctor went through the gates.

The first doctor rushed up to St. Peter's desk and demanded to be let through the gates like the other doctor. St. Peter gave him a disgusted look.

"That wasn't a doctor. That was God. He thinks he's a doctor."


I wonder if veneration is addictive? Could there be such a thing as veneration deprivation?

Is it felt within first, as acknowledgment of imperfection?

Would it act like nicotine deprivation?

Would one be willing to "walk a mile" for it?


Is psychopathology an important player in this case?

S&F

Great thread and great info, you have clearly looked into this quite deeply. Im actually quite jealous you have found out so much and might have to do a bit of digging myself.

I thought the way the whole thing was conducted was a shambles. The police should have taken charge from the start and they should have let the English police assist them. I felt sorry for the first guy who got blamed for it.

I didn't really understand how the questioning of Gerry and Kate didn't take longer and didn't help remotely. The way you have written this makes the McCanns look guilty and they should have been arrested and questioned more. It all seemed to be over so quickly. I was disgusted that they had left their children on their own anyway. There was always a possibility that Maddie could have got up and walked off anyway.

Im not sure who is to blame, or what happened still but I do believe it looks so suspicious from a Gerry and Kate point of view. Seems to me that there is still a long way to go and to honest, everytime I hear there is more news on the Maddie case, I'm expecting it to be an arrest warrant put out for Kate and Gerry McCann. There is no evidence apart from an unreliable witness to suggest anything else happened other than she died at the apartment. They have to be the main suspects.

Thank you for sharing this, you really have made some incredibly valid points, its a shame the police haven't thought about this in as much depth as urself OP.

Originally posted by jexmo
S&F

Great thread and great info, you have clearly looked into this quite deeply. Im actually quite jealous you have found out so much and might have to do a bit of digging myself. . . .

Thank you for sharing this, you really have made some incredibly valid points, its a shame the police haven't thought about this in as much depth as urself OP.

Thanks. I do appreciate your comments. This case is a fascinating case. There is no doubt about it. It is going to be studied from numerous angles in the future because it reveals a lot about us. The most disturbing thing about this case to me is how a large segment of the public apparently believes that a highly trained cadaver dog doesn't know what it is doing.

Another thing that bothers me is the behaviour of the "Tapas 7". These are not stupid people. The type of solidarity that they are showing with the McCanns borders on obstruction of justice. If the McCanns are ever arrested in this case and found guilty of concealing Madeleine's body, I think the Tapas 7 should be arrested too as accessories. They are already acting like co-defendants and I am beginning to regard them in that light.

Obviously the Policia Judiciaria were caught off guard by this case and were slow to bring their full weight into the scenario. I do sympathize with them though, faced with that initial "wall of hysteria" put up by the parents.

The PJ made numerous mistakes, including not doing drug tests on all of the McCanns, since there was reason to wonder if all of them were on some sort of drugs, the twins on sedatives and the parents on some sort of stimulants.

Anyway. Spilt milk.

I'm just going to ask one thing. Why would Kate wash Cuddlecat? Her daughters beloved toy and with the scent of her daughter still on it.

Frankly I find this whole thread, based on mere speculation, in extremely bad taste. It should come under the heading of prurience, IMO.

Wow, excellent thread!

After reading it, I now really think I have a plausible theory for what happened that night. For my theory, I will basically discount witness testimony (I believe it was a little too "convenient") and go along with the information presented in this thread.

Madeleine was found dead by her parents. Her mother, acting as a distraught mother would, rushed to her daughter's body and began hugging the corpse, crying hysterically. That would explain the scent on Kate. Gerry, who strikes me as someone quite calculating and ruthless, would have been in shock himself, however, if the truth gets out, it's not going to end well; The young children were possibly drugged and left alone and unsupervised at night in a foreign country so that the parents could enjoy a meal and drinks with friends unfettered. Yeah, that's not good.

At this point, Madeleine is already dead, so self preservation kicks in and he begins trying to think of a plan to dispose of the body and minimize their role in her death. Obviously, people are going to notice that their eldest daughter has suddenly disappeared off the face of the planet. With their considerable resources, wouldn't it make sense that some crazed Portuguese might have kidnapped Madeleine, intending to make some money via ransom?

The plan is formulated - they will drive Madeline to an unknown location and dispose of her body. If anyone finds her, it would be reasonable to assume that the kidnapper murdered her.

Now, the scent left on shelf, I agree with the OP's assessment: "If that is what happened, why was the scent also indicated on a shelf in a cupboard in the parent's bedroom? Was Madeleine also hidden there? Was she in the missing blue kit bag, sitting on that shelf, as people frantically searched the apartment and neighborhood?"

Gerry may have tried to comfort his wife, would would have still been clutching at the body... Then there was a knock at the door from the club nanny, Charlotte Pennington. The parents, having decided on the kidnap story, screamed that she'd been kidnapped, meanwhile she had been hastily hidden in the cupboard, the fastest way they could think to hide the corpse.

I feel like maybe they tossed her body out of the window into the flowerbed soon after. During the search surely someone would have checked EVERYTHING in the room incase she was just playing hide and seek. It would have been noticed by some passerby later if they'd been seen carrying her, looking as though she were asleep. Several hours after beginning the frantic searching either or both of the parents could have put the body into the car and driven off to "search" for her. The body would have been well hidden in the flower bed at night, especially if she were hidden in the bag.

I think the behaviour of the Kate and Gerry reflect people on the edge. Of course, it might not necessarily be guilt over having murdered her, intentionally or otherwise, or the guilt of having left the children unsupervised. Atleast someone in their circle of friends would know that they were somehow responsible for the death of Madeleine. Gerry seemed to be afraid that his wife would say or do the wrong thing and give away their secret.

Edit; Just wanted to add that this is purely speculation, I sincerely hope that the parents were not involved in her disappearance. But the facts and information we have been privy to are suspicious as best. I hope I haven't offended anyone, I was just hoping to offer another view point.

reply to post by wcitizen


No its based on the reports. Because you don't necasserily agree with it, it doesn't make it not real. What the OP has done is provide us with information which has been released. The rest is done with speculation but before you started whinging, you should have read the disclaimer. You are in the minority.

It annoys me how much support they are getting because the only evidence found of any sort of foul play or anything at all, was the scent of death. There is nothing else, so they have support from people on blind faith. Im not saying they had anything to do with it, Im just surprised at how much support they have considering the circumstances.

Originally posted by wcitizen
Frankly I find this whole thread, based on mere speculation, in extremely bad taste. It should come under the heading of prurience, IMO.

Well it's one of the mysteries of our time and the Mcanns courting publicity with a book deal will not see it laid to rest I'm afraid.
It's been said many times before, that if this had happened in the UK to a working class couple (just popped across to the road to the pub your honour) they would have been done for child neglect. And they never, ever, acknowledged any guilt - apart from the guilt of having made the wrong call.
Lets put it this way. Would you leave a few thousand pounds lying on the bed of your holiday apartment while you go out on your jollies? No you would take better care of your money than the Mcanns did of their children. I hope they rot. Sorry.

Originally posted by wcitizen
Frankly I find this whole thread, based on mere speculation, in extremely bad taste. It should come under the heading of prurience, IMO.

You may be, but I am not titillated by this.

Where does good taste fit in a discussion of the disappearance of a child, particularly when preceded by the appearance of child neglect and when supplemented by the discovery by a cadaver dog of the scent of death in the family's apartment?

You want good taste? Kate and Gerry are an attractive, well turned out couple with lovely children, what's left of them. See, it's not easy, even when trying to keep the discussion within the bounds of "good taste". The bounds of good taste are too narrowly circumscribed in this case to be a useful perimeter for discussion.

And now they get a cushy book deal - they are playing this to the hilt. One day they will have to answer for it - whether that be leaving her alone, or covering up her death. I doubt it will ever reach a court room, though.

For some time now I have wanted to subject the various rogotory statements given, to the Leicestershire PD and to the Policia Judiciaria, to a rigorous and painstaking comparative analysis. I would love to do it but it is a big job and I have other demands on my time.

But . . . good news.

Someone else seems to have done it. Their posts on the following linked (German/English) page make fascinating reading to anyone familiar with this case. This material should be read carefully. It is the best attempt at a reconstruction of what the McCanns may have done on the 2nd and 3rd of May, 2007, that I have read. It is plausible as far as I can tell without doing an independant analysis of the rogotory statements and other evidence and makes a lot of psychological/behavioral sense in the sort of details it brings out.

Obviously only the culprit/s know the whole story, but this reconstruction makes a lot of sense to me.

Unterdenteppichgekehrt means Sweptunderthecarpet.

unterdenteppichgekehrt.blogspot.com...

These posts make a nice companion to the first post in this thread.

There are some good repositories of research devoted to the case of the missing Madeleine McCann, mccannfiles.com and others. Some blogs contain information that one doesn't see often, if ever. One poster to a Madeleine forum, Truth for Madeleine, writing as bugalugs tracked down the first mainstream press story about this case.

truthformadeleine.com...

The current URL of the story in question is:

www.telegraph.co.uk...

Three year-old feared abducted in Portugal

By staff and agencies

12:01AM BST 04 May 2007 Comments

A three-year-old British girl has gone missing while on a family holiday in Portugal, the Foreign Office said today.

Portuguese police are investigating the disappearance from a holiday complex in Praia da Luz in the western Algarve.

A Foreign Office spokesman said that he understood the girl's parents had gone to have dinner once their children were asleep last night, but returned to check on them only to find the girl had gone missing.

"They reported it straight away," he said, adding that consular assistance was being offered.

The dateline of this story is 12:01AM BST 04 May 2007. In Portugal the time would have been the same 12:01 AM, because that country is in the same timezone as the UK.

There is some dispute as to the exact time that Madeleine's disappearance was discovered and reported by Kate McCann. For the sake of discussion, let's say that the disappearance was reported at 10:00 PM on May 3, 07.

A British child goes missing in Portugal and exactly 121 minutes later a press story appears on the website of the Telegraph newspaper announcing that there is a child missing in Portugal and this announcement is made by the British Foreign Office.

121 minutes!!!

Let's try to construct a timeline of events working backward from the precise moment at 12:01 AM when someone pressed the key on their computer to upload the story to the web.

12:01 AM 04 May 07: Story is uploaded.

11:58 PM 03 May 07: Story is typed up and proofread.

11:45 PM 03 May 07: Data entry staff receives email from editor containing story after having been phoned and alerted to situation.

11:35 PM 03 May 07: Night editor of Telegraph receives phone call from publisher or editor in chief informing him of the details of the story which he takes down over the phone. There is minimal discussion. He relays story and instructions to publish immediately to his staff.

11:15 PM 03 May 07: Foreign Office press officer phones Telegraph publisher and relates the substance of the story and requests immediate publication of it. He agrees to accept attribution of the story to the Foreign Office. There is some minimal discussion. The publisher agrees to print the story in accordance with long established protocols between the press and the FO.

11:13 PM 03 May 07: Mr. X, a functionary of the British Foreign Office at a level somewhere in support of the Minister of State for Europe, Geoffrey Hoon (in 2007), gives instructions to the FO press officer, above.

11:00 PM 03 May 07: Mr. X is instructed by a superior in the Foreign Office to relay the substance of the story of the disappearance of Madeleine McCann to the Telegraph through established channels.

This is irregular and it is difficult to understand the purpose of it. Mr. X would have remarked this undoubtedly. Usually such stories would be "broken" independantly by the press itself or through official statements from Interpol or other police agencies.

The "Foreign Office" attribution for the story is the sticking point.

Keep in mind that only a little over an hour has passed since the disappearance of the child! What if the child were to be found? Twenty minutes later the British Foreign Office might have to issue another press release with the happy news.

If the British ambassador in Portugal were the first member of the British Civil Service to hear of this story and wished to expedite press coverage of it, he would normally use backchannels of his own to alert the press and ask for an "unnamed sources" attribution of the story.

Keep in mind that even a quickly solved child disappearance is a winner in press circles. The ambassador would not have to twist arms to get the story published, or would he?

Does the press normally publish stories about children who have been missing only for a little over an hour?

10:XX - 11:00PM: Information and a request for assistance in the matter of the disappearance of Madeleine McCann moved from Portugal to a ministerial level in the UK where discussions took place and a decision was made to issue an alert to the press, with Foreign Office attribution, for a child who had been reported missing less than an hour before.

10:00 - 10:XX Madeleine was discovered to be missing and after searching for less than an hour, political help in the situation was sought in the UK and received.

This is truly impressive. Rule Britannia! Congratulations to the FO.

Over here in the boondocks of Canada our "External Affairs Department" doesn't have the balls to issue a press release when a child goes missing for an hour. Shame shame you "two bit" ex-colony of woodchoppers and fur traders. Take a leaf from the FO's book. Not a sparrow falls from a foreign limb without being observed and aided by the FO. And on such short notice too. Less than an hour and they are on the case. Truly incredible.

Strange though, that one doesn't hear the constant praise of the FO being sung by British travellers around the globe. I'm inclined, myself to believe that they are much like any other government department. Wily, but slow and deliberate.

www.dailymail.co.uk...

But according to a secret U.S. diplomatic cable, Britain refused to speak to Mr Dyer or his captors in the weeks before his execution - and were aware that the Briton was facing a death sentence unless the terrorist's demands were met.
The cable, published in The Daily Telegraph, reads: 'In January ould Mataly offered to put British officials in telephone contact with the British hostage - an offer the British apparently never accepted out of fear that speaking to the hostage could put them into a position of having to negotiate with terrorists.'

If the British Foreign Office and its masters are wily, but slow and deliberate, isn't it more likely that the timetable for their deliberations and actions, actually started a day earlier than advertised, and that they only seem to be alert, quick and decisive, not to say impetuous, gallant and slightly hysterical?

But that is precisely the claim being made by the blog Unterdenteppichgekehrt, that Madeleine died on the 2nd. of May, 07, a day before the public became aware that something was wrong in Prahia da Luz.

I've always been of the opinion since it happened that the parents did it, covered it up and then demanded money and sympathy from Britain for their own needs while stopping books released that lay blame at their door to stop people discovering the truth while their side of it claims to be "horrible misrepresentation and outright lies about us".

They know who killed her, they know where she is and the people that did it stare at them every time they look in the mirror.