UK Justice Forum 🇬🇧
Disappeared and Abducted Children and Young Adults => Madeleine McCann (3) disappeared from her parent's holiday apartment at Ocean Club, Praia da Luz, Portugal on 3 May 2007. No trace of her has ever been found. => Topic started by: Admin on June 03, 2013, 04:01:21 AM
-
This was the theory offered by the Portuguese police who undertook the initial investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann. It was their belief that Madeleine met some sort of an accident in her holiday apartment and for whatever reason the parents panicked and covered it up with a story of abduction.
There is no proof however that this ever occurred, it is purely a theory, a speculation.
-
Yes, we're all capable of it. But, and I'm not pretending that this is what happened, how many, realizing that the child fell from the balcony because the sliding window was open, i.e realizing they're at least guilty of lack of imagination, would deny the accident ?
-
Yes, we're all capable of it. But, and I'm not pretending that this is what happened, how many, realizing that the child fell from the balcony because the sliding window was open, i.e realizing they're at least guilty of lack of imagination, would deny the accident ?
If that sort of accident occurred why would the McCanns not react like any other parents and immediately ring the Emergency services?
-
If that sort of accident occurred why would the McCanns not react like any other parents and immediately ring the Emergency services?
Still speculating... It likely didn't happen this way but could have. When Mr McCann found her, she was already cold because a certain time had passed, the temperature was low (12°C) and it was windy (a data not taken into account in measuring temperature). He feared the consequences : the emergency service would notify discovery of death or emergency call was differed, authorities would question the child being alone on the balcony instead of in her bed and an autopsy would likely be required. In the UK any accidental death or suicide is the object of an inquiry and a hearing, but in Portugal if the coroner states the manner of death without ambiguity in the certidão de óbito, it is usually accepted.
Doctors aren't exactly like you and me, if they can't be casual, they desist of clinics and become searchers. Madeleine was lost, there was nothing her father could do except for saving his family, his career, etc.
-
Still speculating... It likely didn't happen this way but could have. When Mr McCann found her, she was already cold because a certain time had passed, the temperature was low (12°C) and it was windy (a data not taken into account in measuring temperature). He feared the consequences : the emergency service would notify discovery of death or emergency call was differed, authorities would question the child being alone on the balcony instead of in her bed and an autopsy would likely be required. In the UK any accidental death or suicide is the object of an inquiry and a hearing, but in Portugal if the coroner states the manner of death without ambiguity in the certidão de óbito, it is usually accepted.
Doctors aren't exactly like you and me, if they can't be casual, they desist of clinics and become searchers. Madeleine was lost, there was nothing her father could do except for saving his family, his career, etc.
[/b]
Poppycock Anne. Doctors as parents are no different to any other parents. The very idea that they put their careers before anything else in their lives because they were doctors is ridiculous. Madeleine was not born as the result of an accidental pregnancy, she was a long awaited adored child who was conceived via IVF - proof of how desperate her parents were to have her.
The idea that they could turn into monsters at the drop of a hat and treat her as an inconvenient obstacle to their future careers is completely unbelievable to anyone with an ounce of common sense or who has any idea of how strong the love is that parents have for their children.
Your suggestion that if Madeleine died as a result of an accident then her parents would somehow know that a Portuguese coroner would approach the case more favourably to them than his British counterpart is truly ludicrous.
Sorry Anne your 'theory' is a non starter IMO. It would never happen.
-
[/b]
Your suggestion that if Madeleine died as a result of an accident then her parents would somehow know that a Portuguese coroner would approach the case more favourably to them than his British counterpart is truly ludicrous.
Please, Benice, read what I wrote
1) I said "it likely didn't happened this way".
2) I didn't say a Portuguese coroner would approach the case more favourably. I see that in the UK a child found hanged by a belt tied to his bunk bed motives an inquiry of sometimes a year, a hearing and possibly a narrative verdict. In France, nothing of the kind, the death certificate states "suicide", in the best of cases with a ?, and that's all.
3) You asked me a question : why wouldn't they alert the emergency service if Madeleine had accidentally died. Didn't you ?
I suggested (it wasn't a theory) one thing is your child having an accident and dying in your arms, another to find the cold body of your child.
If you don't agree with this remark, please tell why.
-
This is an appalling hypothesis - that a loving father who is also a medical professional would be tempted to conceal the accidental death of his beloved daughter out of fear for his reputation and future career. That it has been proposed by someone with claims to intelligence and education is shocking - it belongs to one of the wilder idiotic hate sites, not in a forum with pretensions to serious discussion of this case.
There is not a scintilla of evidence or indication that Madeleine died from any kind of accident, or by design, in the apartment, despite Amaral's unsubstantiated theories of this nature.
In the highly improbable event that such a thing happened, why on earth would her father wish to conceal it? Doing so would be infinitely more damaging to his medical career when found out than reporting it, no matter where in the world he was when the accident occurred.
Speculations of this nature do nothing to enhance discussions of this case, and are damaging to the credibility of this forum, as well as to members who propose such repugnant nonsense.
-
This is an appalling hypothesis - that a loving father who is also a medical professional would be tempted to conceal the accidental death of his beloved daughter out of fear for his reputation and future career. That it has been proposed by someone with claims to intelligence and education is shocking - it belongs to one of the wilder idiotic hate sites, not in a forum with pretensions to serious discussion of this case.
There is not a scintilla of evidence or indication that Madeleine died from any kind of accident, or by design, in the apartment, despite Amaral's unsubstantiated theories of this nature.
In the highly improbable event that such a thing happened, why on earth would her father wish to conceal it? Doing so would be infinitely more damaging to his medical career when found out than reporting it, no matter where in the world he was when the accident occurred.
Speculations of this nature do nothing to enhance discussions of this case, and are damaging to the credibility of this forum, as well as to members who propose such repugnant nonsense.
What medical career would the Mccanns have had if Madeleine had died of an accident in the apartment, whilst they left her unattended ?
I'm sure you're aware of the CRB check in this country, and on the basis of neglect, and that's what it was, they would never be allowed to work with children or vulnerable adults again.
As to 'normal' people not 'covering up', don't you watch the news. Self protection is a very strong motive, so don't kid yourself.
-
Nonsense. Whether she died from an accident or was abducted (which is in fact what happened), no neglect was or ever will be attributed to her parents. UK authorities confirmed this to the McCanns way back in 2007.
Gerry McCann is still practising as a consultant cardiologist, and there are no restrictions on who his patients are.
-
Nonsense. Whether she died from an accident or was abducted (which is in fact what happened), no neglect was or ever will be attributed to her parents. UK authorities confirmed this to the McCanns way back in 2007.
Gerry McCann is still practising as a consultant cardiologist, and there are no restrictions on who his patients are.
Rubbish.
If Madeleine had been found dead as a result of an accident, whilst they left her unprotected along with her siblings, whilst out drinking and eating, and leaving them in an unlocked apartment job over.
With the CRB check, they would never be allowed to work with children again.
-
So you are suggesting that an accident is worse than an abduction? Six of one and half-a-dozen of the other, in my book!
-
This is an appalling hypothesis - that a loving father who is also a medical professional would be tempted to conceal the accidental death of his beloved daughter out of fear for his reputation and future career. That it has been proposed by someone with claims to intelligence and education is shocking - it belongs to one of the wilder idiotic hate sites, not in a forum with pretensions to serious discussion of this case.
There is not a scintilla of evidence or indication that Madeleine died from any kind of accident, or by design, in the apartment, despite Amaral's unsubstantiated theories of this nature.
In the highly improbable event that such a thing happened, why on earth would her father wish to conceal it? Doing so would be infinitely more damaging to his medical career when found out than reporting it, no matter where in the world he was when the accident occurred.
Speculations of this nature do nothing to enhance discussions of this case, and are damaging to the credibility of this forum, as well as to members who propose such repugnant nonsense.
Oh do come off it with faux outrage. That was the hypotheis put forward by the official PJ investigation both under Amaral's watch AND under Rebelo's command.
The fact that Menezes chose to interpret the facts differently is a matter for him but the theory put forward by Amaral (and Rebelo) was validated as one of equal merit given the facts of the case according to the Judges in the book case.
You may believe it is an appalling theory but that does not change the fact it was a valid interpretation of the facts gathered according to a Court.
To suggest that a Court validated official PJ theory, backed by two different lead investigators / co-ordinaters in this case, damages the credibility of a forum discussing the case is quite frankly preposterous and condasceding to the extreme.
To suggest it doesn't belong here implies you simply want this forum to be like all the others, either for or against the McCann's with no debate from both sides.
There are plenty of forums like that already.
How you believe the prevention of debating both sides "enhances discussions about the case" i have no idea.
You seem to want a closed talking shop where everyone can agree how wonderful the McCann's are and how beastly Amaral is.
If that is indeed how the owners and moderators feel they want this forum to go that is fine, i will leave and not post again on here.
However if the owners and moderators want a proper discussion forum, where issues can be debated back and forth you should expect to hear posts which outline the theory put forward by the official investigation.
-
Oh do come off it with faux outrage. That was the hypotheis put forward by the official PJ investigation both under Amaral's watch AND under Rebelo's command.
The fact that Menezes chose to interpret the facts differently is a matter for him but the theory put forward by Amaral (and Rebelo) was validated as one of equal merit given the facts of the case according to the Judges in the book case.
You may believe it is an appalling theory but that does not change the fact it was a valid interpretation of the facts gathered according to a Court.
To suggest that a Court validated offical PJ theory, backed by two different lead investigators / co-ordinaters in this case, damages the credibility of a forum discussing the case is quite frankly preposterous and condasceding to the extreme.
To suggest it doesn't belong here implies you simply want this forum to be like all the others, either for or against the McCann's with no debate from both sides.
There are plenty of forums like that already.
How you believe the prevention of debating both sides "enhances discussions about the case" i have no idea.
You seem to want a closed talking shop where everyone can agree how wonderful the McCann's are and how beastly Amaral is.
If that is indeed how the owners and moderators feel they want this forum to go that is fine, i will leave and not post again on here.
However if the owners and moderators want a proper discussion forum, where issues can be debated back and forth you should expect to hear posts which outline the theory put forward by the official investigation.
Well put Albertini.
-
So you are suggesting that an accident is worse than an abduction? Six of one and half-a-dozen of the other, in my book!
No, I'm not.
Try to understand, that by leaving their children in the way they did, they failed as parents and guardians in their legal responsibilities.
If they had done what they did in the UK it would be counted as neglect.
-
Oh do come off it with faux outrage. That was the hypotheis put forward by the official PJ investigation both under Amaral's watch AND under Rebelo's command.
The fact that Menezes chose to interpret the facts differently is a matter for him but the theory put forward by Amaral (and Rebelo) was validated as one of equal merit given the facts of the case according to the Judges in the book case.
You may believe it is an appalling theory but that does not change the fact it was a valid interpretation of the facts gathered according to a Court.
To suggest that a Court validated official PJ theory, backed by two different lead investigators / co-ordinaters in this case, damages the credibility of a forum discussing the case is quite frankly preposterous and condasceding to the extreme.
To suggest it doesn't belong here implies you simply want this forum to be like all the others, either for or against the McCann's with no debate from both sides.
There are plenty of forums like that already.
How you believe the prevention of debating both sides "enhances discussions about the case" i have no idea.
You seem to want a closed talking shop where everyone can agree how wonderful the McCann's are and how beastly Amaral is.
If that is indeed how the owners and moderators feel they want this forum to go that is fine, i will leave and not post again on here.
However if the owners and moderators want a proper discussion forum, where issues can be debated back and forth you should expect to hear posts which outline the theory put forward by the official investigation.
If any of the 'facts gathered' were 'valid' the McCanns would have been arrested and charged. There was no evidence whatsoever to support this 'theory'. And the AG's Final report very clearly overruled the flawed Interim report.
If you agree with the 'accident' theory - then feel free to tell us how it was done.
-
If any of the 'facts gathered' were 'valid' the McCanns would have been arrested and charged. There was no evidence whatsoever to support this 'theory'. And the AG's Final report very clearly overruled the flawed Interim report.
If you agree with the 'accident' theory - then feel free to tell us how it was done.
Benice.
As you are well aware, the D.N.A. evidence was inconclusive, but there is nothing else on the horizon.
So as it stands, if you want the abduction thesis to be accepted as one possibility you should also accept the alternative, and SY have clearly not explained why they have apparently rejected that.
-
I could go with the accident theory except for one big problem and that is that the other seven would have to have been in on the cover up and that for me is most definitely a step too far.
-
Rubbish.
If Madeleine had been found dead as a result of an accident, whilst they left her unprotected along with her siblings, whilst out drinking and eating, and leaving them in an unlocked apartment job over.
With the CRB check, they would never be allowed to work with children again.
Who amongst them worked with children?
-
I could go with the accident theory except for one big problem and that is that the other seven would have to have been in on the cover up and that for me is most definitely a step too far.
I agree with this. The planned cover up by the seven isn't plausible.
-
Who would know that Madeleine McCann ever existed if - pure hypothesis - her parents had called the emergency service following a fatal fall from the balcony ? The local British newspaper would probably have warned about the danger to leave unlocked an exit to a balcony or to leave the rail of the balcony without protection against falls. No details about the particular case, journalists respect grief.
-
If any of the 'facts gathered' were 'valid' the McCanns would have been arrested and charged. There was no evidence whatsoever to support this 'theory'. And the AG's Final report very clearly overruled the flawed Interim report.
If you agree with the 'accident' theory - then feel free to tell us how it was done.
Once again let us see the summary of the JUDGES in the book/libel trial:
What is certain is that since the start of the investigation, there were incongruent and even contradictory situations concerning the witness statements, the telephone records of calls that were made and received on mobile phones that belonged to the couple and to the group of friends that were on holidays with them, the movements of people immediately after the disappearance of the little girl was noticed, concerning the state in which the bedroom from where the child disappeared from was found (closed window? open window? partially open window?), etc., and the mystery would only become even thicker due to the clues that were left by the aforementioned sniffer dogs."
"Where Amaral differs from the Prosecutors who wrote the dispatch, is in the logical, police-work-related and investigative interpretation that he [Amaral] makes of those facts."
"We need, to stress the following: the facts that led to the applicants' constitution as arguidos within the inquiry were later on not sufficiently valued by the Public Ministry's Prosecutors to lead to a criminal accusation, but those very same facts, seen from a different angle, may lead to a different conclusion from that of the prosecutors."
I have stated on here before i do not have all the facts with which to come up with a definitive account of how an accident occured and was subsequently covered up.
That is because the investigation was incomplete at the point of archiving and if i was an investigator on the case my next step would have been to carry out the reconstruction as well, to test the timings and theories of the statements.
What i do know is that the dogs alerted to something ONLY in the McCann's apartment and possessions and nowhere else. If you extrapolate the probability of error correctly on each alert, and on each alert being only related to the Mccann's the chances of false alert probability are slim to none in my view.
So we have uncorrobarated dog alerts (which we saw in the case in the Prout case as well by the way, with the same dogs), we have, as the judges say, incogurant and contradictory statements from the witnesses and last people to see Madeleine alive and well.
We have DNA form ther which whilst inconclusive were never ruled out as not coming from Madeleine.
The chances of coincidence of the alerts coupled with DNA material which could not be ruled out as Madeleine in an apartment where Madeleine was last seen is too high for me personally, and for the PJ as well.
We have strange telephone and creche records.
We have an unconvincing sighting by Jane Tanner.
We have a sighiting identifying clothes we know Gerry had an ID of Gerry by one of the witnesses to 60-80% certainty.
We have a window of abduction of less than two minutes (according to the statements) and no evidence of break in.
So we have at the point of archving a number of factors, based on the released files that I have seen, which warrant further investigation.
-
Who amongst them worked with children?
You are kidding me ??????
-
Benice.
As you are well aware, the D.N.A. evidence was inconclusive, but there is nothing else on the horizon.
So as it stands, if you want the abduction thesis to be accepted as one possibility you should also accept the alternative, and SY have clearly not explained why they have apparently rejected that.
There is no evidence that Madeleine died in the apartment. And if she did - there is no way two psychopaths - because that is what BOTH McCanns would have to be to dispose of her body, would come up with such a ridiculously super-complicated cover story involving 7 really stupid people - cos that's what the Tapas 7 would have to be to agree to be involved - when there were obviously much simpler easier ways to overcome this threat to their careers. The whole idea is utterly preposterous.
And you wonder why SY have rejected it? The answer is obvious Stephen - it's because they're not simple-minded idiots.
-
There is no evidence that Madeleine died in the apartment.
Wasn't there no evidence Kate Prout died in her living room?
-
There is no evidence that Madeleine died in the apartment. And if she did - there is no way two psychopaths - because that is what BOTH McCanns would have to be to dispose of her body, would come up with such a ridiculously super-complicated cover story involving 7 really stupid people - cos that's what the Tapas 7 would have to be to agree to be involved - when there were obviously much simpler easier ways to overcome this threat to their careers. The whole idea is utterly preposterous.
And you wonder why SY have rejected it? The answer is obvious Stephen - it's because they're not simple-minded idiots.
You don't have to be a psychopath to cover up a death, unless you know something different.
As to SY, well you said it. Remember,, it's the same team empirically from the Jill Dando case, and you know what happened there don't you ?
However, I've been through all this before, so what is your point other than wasting comments, yet again ?
-
Wasn't there no evidence Kate Prout died in her living room?
She wasn't in any event as she was murdered in the game lodge and then wrapped in one of its curtains before being put in the back of a Land Rover.
http://www.thisisgloucestershire.co.uk/Kate-Prout-murder-inquest-reveals-husband-killed/story-15992487-detail/story.html#axzz2ZOXTjXvh
-
I have stated on here before i do not have all the facts
Now there's a surprise ...
-
two psychopaths - because that is what BOTH McCanns would have to be to dispose of her body, would come up with such a ridiculously super-complicated cover story involving 7 really stupid people - cos that's what the Tapas 7 would have to be to agree to be involved - when there were obviously much simpler easier ways to overcome this threat to their careers. The whole idea is utterly preposterous.
You insist, Benice, in presenting a caricature as a supposed theory. Nobody here ever claimed the McCanns were psychopaths and nobody here ever claimed they involved their companions. So why do you ridicule an hypothesis nobody here sustains ?
-
Now there's a surprise ...
Oh ok, so you do then?
If you are in possession of all the facts why have you not told Scotland Yard and why haven't we seen abductors being arrested?
The answer to most normal people is because no one has all the facts of an incomplete and unsolved investigation.
But don't let your clear bias get in the way of constructive and civil debate.
-
Oh ok, so you do then?
If you are in possession of all the facts why have you not told Scotland Yard and why haven't we seen abductors being arrested?
The answer to most normal people is because no one has all the facts of an incomplete and unsolved investigation.
But don't let your clear bias get in the way of constructive and civil debate.
Unfortunately ferryman implies here and elsewhere that he knows everything about the case, and takes particular delight in attacking Martin Grimes.
-
If Madeleine had had an accident in the apartment and was found dead when Gerry looked in on the children. If as which as been suggested, they had to cover up the accident, what was stopping the McCann's of going home straight after dinner, saying that they went to bed got up in the night to go to the toilet and looked in on the children to find Madeleine missing from her bed and then found her dead?
-
what was stopping the McCann's of going home straight after dinner, saying that they went to bed got up in the night to go to the toilet and looked in on the children to find Madeleine missing from her bed and then found her dead?
Rigor mortis.
-
Rigor mortis.
Not a problem.
quote
Rigor mortis (Latin: rigor "stiffness", mortis "of death") is one of the recognizable signs of death, caused by chemical changes in the muscles after death, causing the limbs of the corpse to become stiff and difficult to move or manipulate.[1] In humans, it commences after about three to four hours, reaches maximum stiffness after 12 hours, and gradually dissipates until approximately 48 to 60 hours after death.[2]
unquote
----------------------------------------------------------
Plenty of room for manouvre there Anne - with the times being approximate.
-
If Madeleine had had an accident in the apartment and was found dead when Gerry looked in on the children. If as which as been suggested, they had to cover up the accident, what was stopping the McCann's of going home straight after dinner, saying that they went to bed got up in the night to go to the toilet and looked in on the children to find Madeleine missing from her bed and then found her dead?
Quite so. There are numerous simple 'stories' they could have come up with Lace, instead of one which is on the scale of 'War & Peace' - requiring a cast of thousands - and all with Oscar winning acting skills. It's just too ludicrous for words.
-
Plenty of room for manouvre there Anne - with the times being approximate.
Rigor mortis depends on involving temperature. It's quicker when someone dies and remains outside (12°C)
Before midnight it would start being noticeable.
Besides livor mortis appears between the 2nd and the 4th hour after death.
-
Rigor mortis depends on involving temperature. It's quicker when someone dies and remains outside (12°C)
Before midnight it would start being noticeable.
Besides livor mortis appears between the 2nd and the 4th hour after death.
So if the McCann's said they found her about 1 o'clock, then as you say Rigor mortis starts about 2-4 hours after death then, it would tally with them coming home at about 10ish going to bed and then getting up and finding her.
-
Quite so. There are numerous simple 'stories' they could have come up with Lace, instead of one which is on the scale of 'War & Peace' - requiring a cast of thousands - and all with Oscar winning acting skills. It's just too ludicrous for words.
Bearing in mind there is fluck all proof of abduction, yet you ask others to believe in that.
As we know the D.N.A. analysis from the flat was inconclusive, but nothing else has turned up yet.
-
Rigor mortis depends on involving temperature. It's quicker when someone dies and remains outside (12°C)
Before midnight it would start being noticeable.
Besides livor mortis appears between the 2nd and the 4th hour after death.
None of those times would invalidate Lace's suggestion of a cover story: i.e.
Quote
''If Madeleine had had an accident in the apartment and was found dead when Gerry looked in on the children. If as which as been suggested, they had to cover up the accident, what was stopping the McCann's of going home straight after dinner, saying that they went to bed got up in the night to go to the toilet and looked in on the children to find Madeleine missing from her bed and then found her dead?''
-
Bearing in mind there is fluck all proof of abduction, yet you ask others to believe in that.
As we know the D.N.A. analysis from the flat was inconclusive, but nothing else has turned up yet.
There's plenty of evidence Stephen, you just choose to ignore it. Fortunately SY have not - and they are the people who matter - not p/t amateur armchair detectives.
-
None of those times would invalidate Lace's suggestion of a cover story: i.e.
Livor mortis is visible, no emergency service would have failed to look for it if the body was cold. So pretending they found her acidentally dead in the middle of the night would have been no cover story but a patent lie.
-
There's plenty of evidence Stephen, you just choose to ignore it. Fortunately SY have not - and they are the people who matter - not p/t amateur armchair detectives.
Let's try again.
A child in someone's arms is no proof of abduction.
-
Let's try again.
A child in someone's arms is no proof of abduction.
You are ignoring the other points Stephen.
1. The man was carrying the child awkwardly.
2. The child was uncovered on a chilly night, yet the man was warmly clad.
3. The Smith's saw a man very similar to Jane Tanner's again uncovered, the man warmly clad.
4. No one has come forward to say that they were that person carrying a child.
-
You are ignoring the other points Stephen.
1. The man was carrying the child awkwardly.
2. The child was uncovered on a chilly night, yet the man was warmly clad.
3. The Smith's saw a man very similar to Jane Tanner's again uncovered, the man warmly clad.
4. No one has come forward to say that they were that person carrying a child.
Awkwardly ?
In the same way gm carried one of his other children off a plane.
How do you know the man was 'warmly clad' ?
So what was he wearing ?
The Smith sighting and 'tanner' contradict each other and are in different areas.
Apparently, a lot of people got out of PDL and didn't want to get involved, but that doesn't make them abductors.
Then we come to the rather large reward on offer and not one taker, now why is that ?
-
Awkwardly ?
In the same way gm carried one of his other children off a plane.
How do you know the man was 'warmly clad' ?
So what was he wearing ?
The Smith sighting and 'tanner' contradict each other and are in different areas.
Apparently, a lot of people got out of PDL and didn't want to get involved, but that doesn't make them abductors.
Then we come to the rather large reward on offer and not one taker, now why is that ?
The man Jane Tanner saw carried the child in out stretched arms, now why carry a child like that?
Both men were wearing a jacket.
Well if the man was holidaying there, someone would recognise who they were surely!! especially if this person had picked their child up from the creche.
The reward was for the person who led them to Madeleine Stephen.
Unfortunately Madeleine was said to be dead by Amaral and so a lot of sightings were probably not reported.
-
If Madeleine had had an accident in the apartment and was found dead when Gerry looked in on the children. If as which as been suggested, they had to cover up the accident, what was stopping the McCann's of going home straight after dinner, saying that they went to bed got up in the night to go to the toilet and looked in on the children to find Madeleine missing from her bed and then found her dead?
The Smith sighting ?
-
I think Lace means it would have been easier to "discover" Madeleine in the dead of night, serendipitylike, than to fake she had disappeared whereas Mr McCann had to hurry for crossing the Smiths on time.
-
The man Jane Tanner saw carried the child in out stretched arms, now why carry a child like that?
Both men were wearing a jacket.
Well if the man was holidaying there, someone would recognise who they were surely!! especially if this person had picked their child up from the creche.
The reward was for the person who led them to Madeleine Stephen.
Unfortunately Madeleine was said to be dead by Amaral and so a lot of sightings were probably not reported.
Now get into the real world.
This case has had worldwide publicity.
The result..........
NOT ONE TRACE OF MADELEINE.
Again the sightings contradict each other and an abductor would not want to advertise their presence.
-
Now get into the real world.
This case has had worldwide publicity.
The result..........
NOT ONE TRACE OF MADELEINE.
Again the sightings contradict each other and an abductor would not want to advertise their presence.
That still doesn't mean she wasn't abducted Stephen.
-
The Smith sighting ?
I was giving a possible scenerio faith, asking why if the McCann's found Madeleine dead, if fearing for their jobs, they had to hide the body.
Of course I don't believe that they did hide the body, she was abducted.
-
I think Lace means it would have been easier to "discover" Madeleine in the dead of night, serendipitylike, than to fake she had disappeared whereas Mr McCann had to hurry for crossing the Smiths on time.
The heading of this thread is 'Some speculating- What would you do if your 3 yr-old had a fatal accident while on holiday'
Speculating, Anne.
It does in no means mean I believe that is what happened, my belief is that Madeleine was abducted.
-
The heading of this thread is 'Some speculating- What would you do if your 3 yr-old had a fatal accident while on holiday'
Speculating, Anne.
It does in no means mean I believe that is what happened, my belief is that Madeleine was abducted.
Of course, I had no doubt !
I don't think career was at stake, but life as it was, or the closest to what it was.
-
This was the theory offered by the Portuguese police who undertook the initial investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann. It was their belief that Madeleine met some sort of an accident in her holiday apartment and for whatever reason the parents panicked and covered it up with a story of abduction.
There is no proof however that this ever occurred, it is purely a theory, a speculation.
I will address the thread title itself, rather than the dismissive post that follows
"What would you do if your 3-yr-old had a fatal accident while on holiday abroad ?"
It really does depend on of whom you ask the question
If you were asking it of me, and my ordinary, regular, family, ( there is no-one of importance who's phone number is in our book ) then I would answer, honestly ... I don't know ... I think back to when our kids were that age ( although, in truth, they were never left in those circumstances ) and I cannot imagine the horror of a 'fatal accident' occuring ... on holiday, or anywhere else ( it's just too unthinkable )
But you have put the unthinkable 'out there' now ... and we must adress it
Not as 'ourselves' ... because the question is not one we have to anwser, is it ? Rather, we have to put ourselves in the McCann's position in order to answer this question, from their perspective
So, the REAL question is not what 'WE' would do, but, rather, what we think the McCanns may have done on discovering that their 3-yr old had suffered a fatal accident
That is the question here, surely ?
-
The title of this thread is "What would you do if your 3-yr old had a fatal accident while on holiday?"
Nothing to do with the McCanns, Madeleine's fate, or the SY or PT investigation.
-
The title of this thread is "What would you do if your 3-yr old had a fatal accident while on holiday?"
Nothing to do with the McCanns, Madeleine's fate, or the SY or PT investigation.
The off topic posts relating to Scotland Yard and any potential investigation have now been removed to a new thread. TY
-
Coincidentally, my youngest had an accident aged 3 when we were abroad and we immediately took him to the Spanish clinic where he was treated for a bump on the head.
I find it very hard to contemplate a situation whereby the response to a tragic accident abroad would be to hide the child and fabricate an abduction rather than summon medical assistance.
Only a monster could do such a thing imo.
-
Now that this thread is back on topic I can answer the question of what I would do in the event of a fatal accident befalling my child while on holiday in a foreign country. First, I would immediately contact the management of the resort to report what I had found, and ask them to contact the relevant police department. Second, I would contact the British embassy or consulate for help and advice.
If the child were injured, but not dead, I would still contact the resort management to request them to call for an ambulance.
The very last thing I would consider is to conceal the corpse, no matter the circumstances of the accident.
-
Coincidentally, my youngest had an accident aged 3 when we were abroad and we immediately took him to the Spanish clinic where he was treated for a bump on the head.
I find it very hard to contemplate a situation whereby the response to a tragic accident abroad would be to hide the child and fabricate an abduction rather than summon medical assistance.
Only a monster could do such a thing imo.
I agree with you and Chinagirl about what i would do.
I can only speculate and say in the event of a child injuring themselves but being alive every right minded person would do the same.
But what if you discovered the child dead, and the child was dead because of your perceived neglect?
I would still do the same and suffer the consequences but i could imagine a scenario where some people may conclude:
"We cannot do anymore for our child, he/she is now dead, so going to prison or splitting up our family, losing our life, jobs, homes and careers and the remainder of our family does nothing to help bring the child back to life".
And against such a backdrop of stress, fear, panic and confusion i can envisage some people taking the decision to conceal the circumstances of their child's fatal accident.
That does not mean they did not love their child, nor does it mean they could not give their child a proper and respectful place of rest.
I could not do it but i certainly feel there are people out there who could do it and justify on the basis of what i have outlined above.
-
I agree with you and Chinagirl about what i would do.
I can only speculate and say in the event of a child injuring themselves but being alive every right minded person would do the same.
But what if you discovered the child dead, and the child was dead because of your perceived neglect?
I would still do the same and suffer the consequences but i could imagine a scenario where some people may conclude:
"We cannot do anymore for our child, he/she is now dead, so going to prison or splitting up our family, losing our life, jobs, homes and careers and the remainder of our family does nothing to help bring the child back to life".
And against such a backdrop of stress, fear, panic and confusion i can envisage some people taking the decision to conceal the circumstances of their child's fatal accident.
That does not mean they did not love their child, nor does it mean they could not give their child a proper and respectful place of rest.
I could not do it but i certainly feel there are people out there who could do it and justify on the basis of what i have outlined above.
No normal loving parents finding their child dead would immediately start weighing up what impact this was going to have on their careers - or on anything else in their future lives for that matter. That would be the last thing on their minds. They would be too consumed with grief and shock to think of anything except what had just happened.
The idea that any normal parent would be able to look at their dead child and think - 'Oh dear - this is going to be awkward' - (which is basically what is being suggested) is preposterous. IMO
-
No normal loving parents finding their child dead would immediately start weighing up what impact this was going to have on their careers - or on anything else in their future lives for that matter. That would be the last thing on their minds. They would be too consumed with grief and shock to think of anything except what had just happened.
The idea that any normal parent would be able to look at their dead child and think - 'Oh dear - this is going to be awkward' - (which is basically what is being suggested) is preposterous. IMO
That is fine and i respect your opinion. I do not share it because i think by definition what some people think normal parents "would" do does not automatically mean that all parents (or people in general) would think and do the same.
The idea of murdering someone or indeed committing any serious crime is repugnant to most normal people, but it happens every day in the Uk and around the world.
In terms of a hypothesis or a motive for concealing a body whilst the idea of the PJ's hypothesis may be repugnant to most right minded people, it is not an impossibility, far from it and should therefore, given the evidence that was uncovered during the investigation, be considered as a possibility.
'How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?'
-
That is fine and i respect your opinion. I do not share it because i think by definition what some people think normal parents "would" do does not automatically mean that all parents (or people in general) would think and do the same.
That's a valid point Albertini. The supporters tell us on the one hand that normal parents wouldn't act in a certain way if they found their child dead yet on the other hand that we can have no idea how we would act if it happened to us. They simply can't have it both ways.
-
The "career" or "ambition" motive is ludicrous (I don't think the GMC would have struck them off). What was at stake was just keeping life normal by denying painful reality, keeping life as close to what it was before, for the sake of their children and of those they loved.
To preserve their social and family image, they had to be seen as innocent victims. The shutters, broken 2500 km away, did easily the job.
-
That is fine and i respect your opinion. I do not share it because i think by definition what some people think normal parents "would" do does not automatically mean that all parents (or people in general) would think and do the same.
The idea of murdering someone or indeed committing any serious crime is repugnant to most normal people, but it happens every day in the Uk and around the world.
In terms of a hypothesis or a motive for concealing a body whilst the idea of the PJ's hypothesis may be repugnant to most right minded people, it is not an impossibility, far from it and should therefore, given the evidence that was uncovered during the investigation, be considered as a possibility.
You did say you wouldn't be able to do it. I take it you are speaking as a normal loving parent.
Everything we know about the McCanns as people and parents from neighbours, relatives, friends, work colleagues, nursery staff etc etc strongly confirms that they are also normal loving parents.
Since Madeleine disappeared we also have the opinions formed of them by experts like Alan Pike, and other counsellors. These are the people who know them - or have come to know them personally, and in six years not a soul has come forward to say anything other than they are loving parents who would never knowingly do anything to harm their children.
I would rather take the word of people who know them personally - than the speculations of people who have never met them or spoken to them or ever seen them in a private capacity.
As normal loving parents, I do not believe they were capable of disposing of their beloved daughter's body.
-
they are loving parents who would never knowingly do anything to harm their children.
Is disposing of its body harming your child ?
This is also a very restricted definition of what a loving parent is.
-
Nonsense. Whether she died from an accident or was abducted (which is in fact what happened), no neglect was or ever will be attributed to her parents. UK authorities confirmed this to the McCanns way back in 2007.
Gerry McCann is still practising as a consultant cardiologist, and there are no restrictions on who his patients are.
@)(++(*
Only just seen this! Remarkably funny. What position are you in to state anything like this as FACT? not even the police authorities have gone that far! in fact both the PJ and thr LP have intimated the opposite! And SY via Redwood have said nothing of substance in this regard.
None, whatsoever,as far as I know....NO ONE apart from the Mccanns and the alledged abductor knows, not YOU, an anonymous random poster on the web
jesus wept