More money to find missing girl

[BikeBikeBIke]

Muzzer79 said:

Biggy Stardust said:

BikeBikeBIke said:

Biggy Stardust said:

It's not a case of what's more likely-

It is.

Why are you desperate to dismiss evidence?

Why are you desperate to amplify evidence which is, at best, circumstantial and, at worst, irrelevant?

Investigations are all about what is more likely. People are convicted in court on the basis of ‘beyond reasonable doubt’

Indeed, and Biggy himself doesn't think the parents stabbed the girl to death leaving blood behind so he's dismissing the dog evidence himself because it doesn't fit his opinion.

[RB Will]

I don’t think anyone thinks the parents actively murdered her. Just them covering up after Maddie had an incident by herself.

Much as I want to believe all the dog “evidence” I too struggle with the thought of them hiding her body and moving it weeks later in the hire car.
Also wonder what the dog handler / U.K. police had to gain from “forcing” the alerts. The U.K. police general stance has always been in support of the parents so manufacturing the most damaging piece of evidence against them seems mad.

And of course Gerry didn’t help things with his story of carrying rotting meat around in the car, should have just come out with saying the dog evidence is bullst straight off.

[Muzzer79]

RB Will said:

I don’t think anyone thinks the parents actively murdered her. Just them covering up after Maddie had an incident by herself.

Even this though is completely fantastical when you think about the emotions, practicality and logistics of them actually disposing of a body in the full glare of the media.

RB Will said:

Much as I want to believe all the dog “evidence”

Why do you want to believe the dog evidence?

What's wrong with being objective about the whole thing?

[RB Will]

Muzzer79 said:

RB Will said:

I don’t think anyone thinks the parents actively murdered her. Just them covering up after Maddie had an incident by herself.

Even this though is completely fantastical when you think about the emotions, practicality and logistics of them actually disposing of a body in the full glare of the media.

RB Will said:

Much as I want to believe all the dog “evidence”

Why do you want to believe the dog evidence?

What's wrong with being objective about the whole thing?

They were not under media spotlight when it first happened, so had opportunity then. I agree doing it later under media spotlight would be vanishingly unlikely. Not my position on the matter anyway, I was just pointing out the working hypothesis.

I'd like to believe the dog evidence just because I'd like to think it wasn't made up, the dogs nor UK police had any reason to manufacture the result they got. Maybe the alerts in the apartment were genuine and the car forced, who knows.

I feel I am pretty objective about the whole case, I'm not into any of the wild utterly implausible theories but like to explain or explain away evidence or behavior rather than just say well x is likely when nothing about this case is likely.

[Lotusgone]

For the cadaver dog to indicate the presence of cadaverine - which it did, in the apartment + the hire car + Kate McCann's clothing + Madeleine's cuddly toy, a dead body would have been dead for at least 90 minutes to produce cadaverine. Or so I have read.

FWIW, here's my theory. The McCanns and their friends (the Tapas 7) administered sedatives to their children so they could go to the restaurant without tired kids misbehaving. Madeleine overdosed, possibly injuring herself while staggering around having woken, such that the injury or the sedative ended her life. The McCanns return to the apartment and suddenly have to come up with a story, as well as hiding the body.

If you were to return to your holiday apartment expecting to find sleeping children and one of them was missing, you would - dare I say - run around searching frantically, calling out her name. Running back to your friends at the restaurant shouting "they've taken her" (they?) sounds a bit odd.

There are so many things about the kidnapping-paedo line that do not fit with the evidence.

[Muzzer79]

RB Will said:

Muzzer79 said:

RB Will said:

I don’t think anyone thinks the parents actively murdered her. Just them covering up after Maddie had an incident by herself.

Even this though is completely fantastical when you think about the emotions, practicality and logistics of them actually disposing of a body in the full glare of the media.

RB Will said:

Much as I want to believe all the dog “evidence”

Why do you want to believe the dog evidence?

What's wrong with being objective about the whole thing?

They were not under media spotlight when it first happened, so had opportunity then. I agree doing it later under media spotlight would be vanishingly unlikely. Not my position on the matter anyway, I was just pointing out the working hypothesis.

I'd like to believe the dog evidence just because I'd like to think it wasn't made up, the dogs nor UK police had any reason to manufacture the result they got. Maybe the alerts in the apartment were genuine and the car forced, who knows.

I feel I am pretty objective about the whole case, I'm not into any of the wild utterly implausible theories but like to explain or explain away evidence or behavior rather than just say well x is likely when nothing about this case is likely.

But if we're working on the basis that they had to use a car to transport and then dispose of her body then records show they only hired their car, the same car the dogs went through, on May 27 2007 - 24 days after the child went missing.

It's fair to say that they were firmly under the spotlight at that point.

Even if we remove our brains and consider the theory that they disposed of her body on foot, in the dark, to a location that they hadn't recced, in an area they didn't know, on the night of her disappearance - they had half of Praia da Luz out looking for her with them until 0430 in the morning. The following days were spent searching with their friends on site and with the Police. There's simply no realistic opportunity to swan off for a while and dispose of a body.

I don't think the dog evidence was made up - it's just flawed and not really an indicator of much.

I agree that saying (x) is likely is not plausible as this case is such a mystery, but it is plausible to say (y) is too unlikely to be realistic.

[sugerbear]

Biggy Stardust said:

Muzzer79 said:

Why are you desperate to amplify evidence which is, at best, circumstantial and, at worst, irrelevant?

Investigations are all about what is more likely. People are convicted in court on the basis of ‘beyond reasonable doubt’

So prosecute for child neglect if the police need to justify their frequent trips abroad. The evidence consists of parental confessions to that effect.

Did you actually think this through before posting or do i meed to write a very long reponse to explain why you are wrong.

[Muzzer79]

Lotusgone said:

FWIW, here's my theory. The McCanns and their friends (the Tapas 7) administered sedatives to their children so they could go to the restaurant without tired kids misbehaving. Madeleine overdosed, possibly injuring herself while staggering around having woken, such that the injury or the sedative ended her life. The McCanns return to the apartment and suddenly have to come up with a story, as well as hiding the body.

I'm genuinely mystified how people correlate any of the events of what actually happened and come up with this theory. If you look at it objectively, it's beyond reasoning.

Anyway, apparently the people searching the reservoir found something potentially useful and are analysing it. Clearly they weren't looking for the child herself, but related evidence.

[Biggy Stardust]

sugerbear said:

Biggy Stardust said:

So prosecute for child neglect if the police need to justify their frequent trips abroad. The evidence consists of parental confessions to that effect.

Did you actually think this through before posting or do i meed to write a very long reponse to explain why you are wrong.

I'm sure you feel that they were thoroughly attentive & dutiful parents despite evidence to the contrary, including the parents' statements. I respect your right to belive as you do.

[WilliamWoollard]

Muzzer79 said:

RB Will said:

Muzzer79 said:

RB Will said:

I don’t think anyone thinks the parents actively murdered her. Just them covering up after Maddie had an incident by herself.

Even this though is completely fantastical when you think about the emotions, practicality and logistics of them actually disposing of a body in the full glare of the media.

RB Will said:

Much as I want to believe all the dog “evidence”

Why do you want to believe the dog evidence?

What's wrong with being objective about the whole thing?

They were not under media spotlight when it first happened, so had opportunity then. I agree doing it later under media spotlight would be vanishingly unlikely. Not my position on the matter anyway, I was just pointing out the working hypothesis.

I'd like to believe the dog evidence just because I'd like to think it wasn't made up, the dogs nor UK police had any reason to manufacture the result they got. Maybe the alerts in the apartment were genuine and the car forced, who knows.

I feel I am pretty objective about the whole case, I'm not into any of the wild utterly implausible theories but like to explain or explain away evidence or behavior rather than just say well x is likely when nothing about this case is likely.

But if we're working on the basis that they had to use a car to transport and then dispose of her body then records show they only hired their car, the same car the dogs went through, on May 27 2007 - 24 days after the child went missing.

It's fair to say that they were firmly under the spotlight at that point.

Even if we remove our brains and consider the theory that they disposed of her body on foot, in the dark, to a location that they hadn't recced, in an area they didn't know, on the night of her disappearance - they had half of Praia da Luz out looking for her with them until 0430 in the morning. The following days were spent searching with their friends on site and with the Police. There's simply no realistic opportunity to swan off for a while and dispose of a body.

I don't think the dog evidence was made up - it's just flawed and not really an indicator of much.

I agree that saying (x) is likely is not plausible as this case is such a mystery, but it is plausible to say (y) is too unlikely to be realistic.

Or, just pick the body up and take a walk down to the sea. No-ones going to look twice at a man carrying his tired daughter home to bed for the evening, it would explain the Smith family sighting which, as far as we know, no one has come forward to say it was me.

[Caddyshack]

Muzzer79 said:

RB Will said:

Muzzer79 said:

RB Will said:

I don’t think anyone thinks the parents actively murdered her. Just them covering up after Maddie had an incident by herself.

Even this though is completely fantastical when you think about the emotions, practicality and logistics of them actually disposing of a body in the full glare of the media.

RB Will said:

Much as I want to believe all the dog “evidence”

Why do you want to believe the dog evidence?

What's wrong with being objective about the whole thing?

They were not under media spotlight when it first happened, so had opportunity then. I agree doing it later under media spotlight would be vanishingly unlikely. Not my position on the matter anyway, I was just pointing out the working hypothesis.

I'd like to believe the dog evidence just because I'd like to think it wasn't made up, the dogs nor UK police had any reason to manufacture the result they got. Maybe the alerts in the apartment were genuine and the car forced, who knows.

I feel I am pretty objective about the whole case, I'm not into any of the wild utterly implausible theories but like to explain or explain away evidence or behavior rather than just say well x is likely when nothing about this case is likely.

But if we're working on the basis that they had to use a car to transport and then dispose of her body then records show they only hired their car, the same car the dogs went through, on May 27 2007 - 24 days after the child went missing.

It's fair to say that they were firmly under the spotlight at that point.

Even if we remove our brains and consider the theory that they disposed of her body on foot, in the dark, to a location that they hadn't recced, in an area they didn't know, on the night of her disappearance - they had half of Praia da Luz out looking for her with them until 0430 in the morning. The following days were spent searching with their friends on site and with the Police. There's simply no realistic opportunity to swan off for a while and dispose of a body.

I don't think the dog evidence was made up - it's just flawed and not really an indicator of much.

I agree that saying (x) is likely is not plausible as this case is such a mystery, but it is plausible to say (y) is too unlikely to be realistic.

It is a very regular sight to see a Parent carrying a floppy sleeping child whilst on holiday...I carried my sleeping child quite long distances when she was little and conked out. I expect the parents could have easily walked with her to a place to dispose of her well before they called the alarm.

I do not have any theory though - I believe it COULD be them or it COULD be an abduction or just a wandering child.

[Dr Interceptor]

Lotusgone said:

For the cadaver dog to indicate the presence of cadaverine - which it did, in the apartment + the hire car + Kate McCann's clothing + Madeleine's cuddly toy, a dead body would have been dead for at least 90 minutes to produce cadaverine. Or so I have read.

FWIW, here's my theory. The McCanns and their friends (the Tapas 7) administered sedatives to their children so they could go to the restaurant without tired kids misbehaving. Madeleine overdosed, possibly injuring herself while staggering around having woken, such that the injury or the sedative ended her life. The McCanns return to the apartment and suddenly have to come up with a story, as well as hiding the body.

If you were to return to your holiday apartment expecting to find sleeping children and one of them was missing, you would - dare I say - run around searching frantically, calling out her name. Running back to your friends at the restaurant shouting "they've taken her" (they?) sounds a bit odd.

There are so many things about the kidnapping-paedo line that do not fit with the evidence.

Pretty much what I've said/thought all along... quite possible she simply rolled out of bed onto a hard tiled floor.

[sugerbear]

Dr Interceptor said:

Lotusgone said:

For the cadaver dog to indicate the presence of cadaverine - which it did, in the apartment + the hire car + Kate McCann's clothing + Madeleine's cuddly toy, a dead body would have been dead for at least 90 minutes to produce cadaverine. Or so I have read.

FWIW, here's my theory. The McCanns and their friends (the Tapas 7) administered sedatives to their children so they could go to the restaurant without tired kids misbehaving. Madeleine overdosed, possibly injuring herself while staggering around having woken, such that the injury or the sedative ended her life. The McCanns return to the apartment and suddenly have to come up with a story, as well as hiding the body.

If you were to return to your holiday apartment expecting to find sleeping children and one of them was missing, you would - dare I say - run around searching frantically, calling out her name. Running back to your friends at the restaurant shouting "they've taken her" (they?) sounds a bit odd.

There are so many things about the kidnapping-paedo line that do not fit with the evidence.

Pretty much what I've said/thought all along... quite possible she simply rolled out of bed onto a hard tiled floor.

Or maybe it was aliens

[Muzzer79]

Caddyshack said:

It is a very regular sight to see a Parent carrying a floppy sleeping child whilst on holiday...I carried my sleeping child quite long distances when she was little and conked out. I expect the parents could have easily walked with her to a place to dispose of her well before they called the alarm.

So we're suggesting that in the 10 minutes between Kate's room check at 2200 and Gerry sending his friend to reception to call the police, they carried her out of the room and disposed of the body?

The timeline just doesn't add up to this theory - they had no time or opportunity to make such a move unless all of their friends were in on it too, which is even more fantastical.

[PurpleTurtle]

Muzzer79 said:

Lotusgone said:

FWIW, here's my theory. The McCanns and their friends (the Tapas 7) administered sedatives to their children so they could go to the restaurant without tired kids misbehaving. Madeleine overdosed, possibly injuring herself while staggering around having woken, such that the injury or the sedative ended her life. The McCanns return to the apartment and suddenly have to come up with a story, as well as hiding the body.

I'm genuinely mystified how people correlate any of the events of what actually happened and come up with this theory. If you look at it objectively, it's beyond reasoning.

Anyway, apparently the people searching the reservoir found something potentially useful and are analysing it. Clearly they weren't looking for the child herself, but related evidence.

Not really.

The last time MM was seen in person by anyone other than her parents was 6pm when she departed the Kid's Club. The alarm was raised over her disappearance at 10pm.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2008/apr/11/madelei...

There is a 4hr window there where she was now seen by anyone else. The events described above, however seemingly unlikely, could have happened. I'm not saying that they did.

Personally I see the flaw in this theory that they somehow temporarily secreted her body away in that relatively short time window, only to return and dispose of it at a later date using a rental car, all whilst being followed by the world's media in a frenzy, would have been near impossible.

My own theories are either 1) stranger abduction, or 2) she simply wandered off having woken, exited via the unlocked patio door then came to harm by accidental means (see the plot of 'The Missing' Series 1).

[Caddyshack]

Muzzer79 said:

Caddyshack said:

It is a very regular sight to see a Parent carrying a floppy sleeping child whilst on holiday...I carried my sleeping child quite long distances when she was little and conked out. I expect the parents could have easily walked with her to a place to dispose of her well before they called the alarm.

So we're suggesting that in the 10 minutes between Kate's room check at 2200 and Gerry sending his friend to reception to call the police, they carried her out of the room and disposed of the body?

The timeline just doesn't add up to this theory - they had no time or opportunity to make such a move unless all of their friends were in on it too, which is even more fantastical.

I was wondering if She may have come to harm before the 2200 - in theory, it could have happened the day before? I have not followed enough to see if there was cctv evidence or other witnesses. What if she was already dealt with before 2200?

[Muzzer79]

PurpleTurtle said:

Muzzer79 said:

Lotusgone said:

FWIW, here's my theory. The McCanns and their friends (the Tapas 7) administered sedatives to their children so they could go to the restaurant without tired kids misbehaving. Madeleine overdosed, possibly injuring herself while staggering around having woken, such that the injury or the sedative ended her life. The McCanns return to the apartment and suddenly have to come up with a story, as well as hiding the body.

I'm genuinely mystified how people correlate any of the events of what actually happened and come up with this theory. If you look at it objectively, it's beyond reasoning.

Anyway, apparently the people searching the reservoir found something potentially useful and are analysing it. Clearly they weren't looking for the child herself, but related evidence.

Not really.

The last time MM was seen in person by anyone other than her parents was 6pm when she departed the Kid's Club. The alarm was raised over her disappearance at 10pm.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2008/apr/11/madelei...

There is a 4hr window there where she was now seen by anyone else. The events described above, however seemingly unlikely, could have happened. I'm not saying that they did.

Personally I see the flaw in this theory that they somehow temporarily secreted her body away in that relatively short time window, only to return and dispose of it at a later date using a rental car, all whilst being followed by the world's media in a frenzy, would have been near impossible.

Gerry went for a tennis lesson at 1800 whilst Kate picked the children up. So, the "McCanns drugged the kids" theory gives us a window of, say, 1830 to 2030 (when they left for the restaurant)

Reason for this is that the 'Tapas 7' were checking on each other's children that evening aswell as their own. Matthew Oldfield offered to check on the McCann children at 2130, which Kate accepted for him to do. He did a cursory check, without actually peering far enough into the bedroom to see if Madeleine was actually there.

So, under this theory, Kate and Gerry would only agree to that if they knew that one of their friends wouldn't find Madeleine in the room and the alarm would then be raised - so she had to not be in the room by the time they left for the restaurant.

So, between 1830 and 2030:

The children were got ready for bed
Sedatives were administered
Children fell asleep
Something happened - overdose/accident
Parents establish what has happened
Parents emotionally process that their child has died
One of the parents suggests that they cover this up
A discussion on the cover up takes place - they must wrestle with the notion, I find it impossible to believe that they both agreed on that idea immediately.
Parents create and agree a plan on how to do execute said cover up.
Parents source a place to hide the body where it won't be found (in an area they don't know)
Parents return to apartment, get ready to go out
Parent arrive to dine with their friends, who notice nothing unusual in their behaviour.
Alarm is raised at 2200 - Kate and Gerry put an Oscar-winning performance on, feigning surprise that their daughter has gone. The inevitable emotion deriving from the fact that their child died less than 4 hours ago is sidelined and replaced by fear and uncertainty.


I mean.....it's possible. A lot of things are possible. But it's pretty thin to say the least and I still don't get why seemingly so many people buy it, rather than the more obvious other possibilities.

PurpleTurtle said:

My own theories are either 1) stranger abduction, or 2) she simply wandered off having woken, exited via the unlocked patio door then came to harm by accidental means

I agree that either of these are much, much more likely.

[Lotusgone]

Muzzer79 said:

PurpleTurtle said:

Reason for this is that the 'Tapas 7' were checking on each other's children that evening aswell as their own. Matthew Oldfield offered to check on the McCann children at 2130, which Kate accepted for him to do. He did a cursory check, without actually peering far enough into the bedroom to see if Madeleine was actually there.

So, under this theory, Kate and Gerry would only agree to that if they knew that one of their friends wouldn't find Madeleine in the room and the alarm would then be raised - so she had to not be in the room by the time they left for the restaurant.

So, between 1830 and 2030:

The children were got ready for bed
Sedatives were administered
Children fell asleep
Something happened - overdose/accident
Parents establish what has happened
Parents emotionally process that their child has died
One of the parents suggests that they cover this up
A discussion on the cover up takes place - they must wrestle with the notion, I find it impossible to believe that they both agreed on that idea immediately.
Parents create and agree a plan on how to do execute said cover up.
Parents source a place to hide the body where it won't be found (in an area they don't know)
Parents return to apartment, get ready to go out
Parent arrive to dine with their friends, who notice nothing unusual in their behaviour.
Alarm is raised at 2200 - Kate and Gerry put an Oscar-winning performance on, feigning surprise that their daughter has gone. The inevitable emotion deriving from the fact that their child died less than 4 hours ago is sidelined and replaced by fear and uncertainty.


I mean.....it's possible. A lot of things are possible. But it's pretty thin to say the least and I still don't get why seemingly so many people buy it, rather than the more obvious other possibilities.

PurpleTurtle said:

My own theories are either 1) stranger abduction, or 2) she simply wandered off having woken, exited via the unlocked patio door then came to harm by accidental means

I agree that either of these are much, much more likely.

The McCanns were not the only medics amongst the whole party. Assume for the moment that all the parents were complicit in the sedation of their respective children.

On whose evidence is it taken as fact, that any checking of the children took place after 2030? Indeed, if Mr Oldfield did so at 2130, all he would have seen was a non-moving body. Madeleine could have been sedated at 2000 and died of over-sedation before her parents left. That would give enough time for cadavarene to be produced.

When did the parents return to the apartment and by whose evidence? If it was 2145, that allows some time for panic, rapid thinking and subterfuge. I'm not sure when the other witnesses were aware of the emotional return to the restaurant, maybe it was 2200. If that was Kate McCann on her own, that leaves Gerry McCann free to hide the body in the car.

[anonymous-user]

I haven't posted in this thread previously, and I'm not interested in the McCann's, the ongoing case, or the conspiracy theories, but I just find it absolutely staggering that these apparently intelligent people would leave children of that age alone in a holiday apartment, or any property.

My parents never did it with me or my brother, and I have zero intention of ever doing it to my son. It is absolutely bonkers and completely irresponsible.

My little boy is only 15 months old, yet he can walk and run, climb things, has worked out how to open doors, open drawers, open cupboards, and if left unattended for mere seconds, he would find a way to attempt escaping and run down our driveway and out onto the road to look at the cars, or open cupboards and drawers, remove the contents, and likely injure himself on ordinary household objects.

My brothers boy has always been car-mad, and by the age of 2.5-3 he could sneak off, find car keys in a drawer, know which car they were for, let himself out of the house by unlocking the house door, unlock the car with the correct button in the fob, climb in, and be sat there trying to put the key in the ignition and start it.

You would have to be certifiably insane to leave kids of that age in a residential property without close adult supervision, especially if it was a strange environment such as a holiday apartment.

As far as I'm concerned, the McCanns have utterly failed as parents in their basic responsibilities to ensure the safety of their kids, and their daughter has sadly paid the ultimate price for their utterly feckless and selfish behaviour.

I do not know anyone who would do what they did. Everyone I know, including myself, my brother, and my friends, all take their kids out to dinner with them, at a time that suits the kids, or occasionally they will get a trusted friend or family babysitter. No one I know has ever left their kids of that age alone in a house while they just popped out somewhere, no matter how nearby.

Edited by anonymous-user on Thursday 1st June 16:34

[sugerbear]

So you think the obvious answer from seven people to “i have killed my child” is - “yeah we will help you cover it up”

Jesus christ.