Madeleine Mccann Missing Girl

[Zen Archer (Raconteur)]

4 minutes ago, MONKMAN said:

while being the most heavily surveilled couple on the planet.

Were they the subject of an MTV docuseries like The Osbournes at the time?

[Gordon EF]

Watching the Netflix series. What absolute bellends that guy Kennedy and his son are. The son's the sort that would turn up in one of these pedo-hunter groups acting like he's in Line of Duty.

Edited June 6, 2020 by Gordon EF

[MONKMAN]

Were they the subject of an MTV docuseries like The Osbournes at the time?

No, they weren’t part of a staged reality tv show. They were followed and harassed 24/7 for months on end by the media though. Not really practical to sneak off and dispose of a body, while the entire worlds media and the local police are watching your every move.

Doesn’t really fit the narrative for the conspiracy theory weirdos though, so let’s not mention it.

[Dee Man]

Turns out Christian's surname is Brueckner. Benteke is off the hook. For now. 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8393361/Police-link-Madeleine-McCann-suspect-disappearance-schoolboy-6.html

[Boo Khaki]

1 hour ago, MONKMAN said:

 

No, they weren’t part of a staged reality tv show. They were followed and harassed 24/7 for months on end by the media though. Not really practical to sneak off and dispose of a body, while the entire worlds media and the local police are watching your every move.

Doesn’t really fit the narrative for the conspiracy theory weirdos though, so let’s not mention it.

 

There are umpteen different 'conspiracy theories' on what might have happened to her, and a lot of room between 'she was abducted' and 'she was murdered by her parents'. A lot of people believe she died as the result of an accident, inside the villa, and her parents conspired with others to cover it up because the circumstances of her death would have been catastrophic for their professional credibility as well as perhaps their liberty. There are also theories that her body was removed from the villa at some point on the evening of the 3rd, deposited somewhere in/around Luz, and then only much later disposed of for good. It's simply not the case that the McCanns were followed around 24/7 for months on end, they also had plenty of other people working with them that could have colluded in the hiding and disposal of a body, if they had sufficient interest and motive to do so.

The Smiths' sighting of the man running through Estrela de Luz carrying a limp child, which Mr Smith said he was '60-80% sure' was Gerry McCann, has never been adequately investigated or explained. Robert Murat's motive and involvement is still shrouded in mystery. His behaviours and the McCanns interactions with him before, during, and since are odd to say the least, his employment history suggests there's much more to him than simply being a concerned person, familiar with Luz, who felt compelled to offer his help out of kindness and nothing else.  Gerry McCann flat-out lied to the Portuguese police about his prior knowledge and interaction with Murat, and there's a strong suggestion the reason his mobile was switched off for an extended period was to facilitate an encounter between the two that could then be denied if queried in future. Staff at Murat's golf club told the police that they had witnessed the two of them together, yet McCann denied all prior knowledge of Murat when questioned.

It's fine to go claiming that people who don't believe this is a simple case of child abduction are 'conspiracy theory weirdos'. What is also true is that the claim that she was abducted is also a 'conspiracy theory'. There's no evidence whatsoever that suggests it aside from the girl being missing, yet there are plenty enough discrepancies and oddities in the 'official' version of events to suggest that there might well be far more to it than a simple case of the child being snatched by a stranger. The Portuguese police do not believe there was any abduction, you can't credibly claim that is simply down to incompetence and justify it by using the UK police's pursuit of an abduction theory as proof when the UK police have been expressly prohibited from pursuing the case as anything other than an abduction. That in itself is extremely odd. To be honest, the constant referral to the intransigence of Portuguese police just stinks to high heaven of good old fashioned British xenophobia. Yes, the GNR screwed up by not immediately securing the scene when they were informed this was a case of abduction and not simply a child wandering off, but I've always found it a bit rich that so many British people are willing to write off the PJ as bumbling incompetents when the last 30 years in the UK has been a litany of embarrassment, incompetence, and institutionalised prejudice in our own police forces. Amaral was punted off the case due of pressure by the UK authorities because he insisted on pursuing the most prudent line of investigation, not because the Portuguese themselves had doubts about his competence.

I find it strange that people will insist the child was abducted in spite of there being nothing whatsoever that suggests that, yet are content to totally ignore the discrepancies in the McCanns version of events, don't seem to question the strange behaviours and backgrounds of some of the characters involved, and are willing to write off an entire country's investigative police force as incompetent simply because they had the temerity to investigate a white, middle-class couple and their friends, when they were the by far and away the people of most obvious interest to the enquiry. It's almost as if folk expect that if the UK police had been on the scene first they'd have just immediately dismissed the McCanns as potential persons of interest simply because they're far too 'nice', and therefore above suspicion.

There are so many small discrepancies in the McCann's version of events, and their behaviours since, that I think it's only natural that people begin to question their sincerity. Personally I'm completely undecided on whether they are complicit or not, but I'm intrigued as to why so many people are utterly adamant they could not be complicit in any way when there are so many questions that are unaddressed. Maddies pyjamas have always puzzled me. The pair presented as being 'like the ones Maddie was wearing when she went missing' were obviously well worn and had recently been washed when they were paraded to the media as they were still damp and had loose threads at the seams. The McCanns first claimed that they belonged to Maddie's younger sister, but because they were the same as Maddies they were used as stand in. This is palpably ridiculous as they were several sizes too large for a child of the twins age, and they would have to have been purchased months earlier, which makes the claim they were a pair belonging to the twins even more ridiculous. This then changed to a claim that the pyjamas were supplied by M&S to the couple for the express purpose of showing them to the press. This was denied by M&S themselves, as they couldn't supply them as they had been out of production/stock for months, and they could not have been bought in a local M&S as all branches in Portugal had been closed well before 2007. The McCanns have never adequately explained how they came to be in possession of a worn, damp pair of pyjamas identical in size to those they allege she was wearing when she vanished. Also, when first issued to the media shortly after her disappearance, the metadata contained in the infamous 'pool' photo showed that it could not possibly have been taken when the McCanns claimed. The photo was then reissued at a later date to the UK media with altered metadata. Why? If it's an honest case of mistaking the time it was taken, why have someone doctor the data? If there was a proper explanation to these discrepancies forthcoming, it would go a long way to dismissing doubts about their honesty, but instead they withdraw and threaten legal action on people who dare to question them.  

Edited June 6, 2020 by Boo Khaki

[MONKMAN]

3 minutes ago, Boo Khaki said:

There are umpteen different 'conspiracy theories' on what might have happened to her, and a lot of room between 'she was abducted' and 'she was murdered by her parents'. A lot of people believe she died as the result of an accident, inside the villa, and her parents conspired with others to cover it up because the circumstances of her death would have been catastrophic for their professional credibility as well as perhaps their liberty. There are also theories that her body was removed from the villa at some point on the evening of the 3rd, deposited somewhere in/around Luz, and then only much later disposed of for good. It's simply not the case that the McCanns were followed around 24/7 for months on end, they also had plenty of other people working with them that could have colluded in the hiding and disposal of a body, if they had sufficient interest and motive to do so.

 

This was my cue to leave.

[Boo Khaki]

Just now, MONKMAN said:

This was my cue to leave.

Yup, because there has never, in the history of humanity, been a single example of someone being involved in something criminal because of motivation by compassion, occupation, monetary gain, or simply as a favour to a friend.

Another example of dismissing something out of hand 'just because'.

[Jacksgranda]

40 minutes ago, Boo Khaki said:

There are umpteen different 'conspiracy theories' on what might have happened to her, and a lot of room between 'she was abducted' and 'she was murdered by her parents'. A lot of people believe she died as the result of an accident, inside the villa, and her parents conspired with others to cover it up because the circumstances of her death would have been catastrophic for their professional credibility as well as perhaps their liberty. There are also theories that her body was removed from the villa at some point on the evening of the 3rd, deposited somewhere in/around Luz, and then only much later disposed of for good. It's simply not the case that the McCanns were followed around 24/7 for months on end, they also had plenty of other people working with them that could have colluded in the hiding and disposal of a body, if they had sufficient interest and motive to do so.

 

 

34 minutes ago, MONKMAN said:

This was my cue to leave.

I think he worded it a bit awkwardly - "they had plenty of other people working with them, one of whom might have colluded in the hiding and disposing of a body", no?

31 minutes ago, Boo Khaki said:

Yup, because there has never, in the history of humanity, been a single example of someone being involved in something criminal because of motivation by compassion, occupation, monetary gain, or simply as a favour to a friend.

Another example of dismissing something out of hand 'just because'.

Never heard the story about the pyjamas before.

[Billy Jean King]

There are umpteen different 'conspiracy theories' on what might have happened to her, and a lot of room between 'she was abducted' and 'she was murdered by her parents'. A lot of people believe she died as the result of an accident, inside the villa, and her parents conspired with others to cover it up because the circumstances of her death would have been catastrophic for their professional credibility as well as perhaps their liberty. There are also theories that her body was removed from the villa at some point on the evening of the 3rd, deposited somewhere in/around Luz, and then only much later disposed of for good. It's simply not the case that the McCanns were followed around 24/7 for months on end, they also had plenty of other people working with them that could have colluded in the hiding and disposal of a body, if they had sufficient interest and motive to do so.
The Smiths' sighting of the man running through Estrela de Luz carrying a limp child, which Mr Smith said he was '60-80% sure' was Gerry McCann, has never been adequately investigated or explained. Robert Murat's motive and involvement is still shrouded in mystery. His behaviours and the McCanns interactions with him before, during, and since are odd to say the least, his employment history suggests there's much more to him than simply being a concerned person, familiar with Luz, who felt compelled to offer his help out of kindness and nothing else.  Gerry McCann flat-out lied to the Portuguese police about his prior knowledge and interaction with Murat, and there's a strong suggestion the reason his mobile was switched off for an extended period was to facilitate an encounter between the two that could then be denied if queried in future. Staff at Murat's golf club told the police that they had witnessed the two of them together, yet McCann denied all prior knowledge of Murat when questioned.
It's fine to go claiming that people who don't believe this is a simple case of child abduction are 'conspiracy theory weirdos'. What is also true is that the claim that she was abducted is also a 'conspiracy theory'. There's no evidence whatsoever that suggests it aside from the girl being missing, yet there are plenty enough discrepancies and oddities in the 'official' version of events to suggest that there might well be far more to it than a simple case of the child being snatched by a stranger. The Portuguese police do not believe there was any abduction, you can't credibly claim that is simply down to incompetence and justify it by using the UK police's pursuit of an abduction theory as proof when the UK police have been expressly prohibited from pursuing the case as anything other than an abduction. That in itself is extremely odd. To be honest, the constant referral to the intransigence of Portuguese police just stinks to high heaven of good old fashioned British xenophobia. Yes, the GNR screwed up by not immediately securing the scene when they were informed this was a case of abduction and not simply a child wandering off, but I've always found it a bit rich that so many British people are willing to write off the PJ as bumbling incompetents when the last 30 years in the UK has been a litany of embarrassment, incompetence, and institutionalised prejudice in our own police forces. Amaral was punted off the case due of pressure by the UK authorities because he insisted on pursuing the most prudent line of investigation, not because the Portuguese themselves had doubts about his competence.
I find it strange that people will insist the child was abducted in spite of there being nothing whatsoever that suggests that, yet are content to totally ignore the discrepancies in the McCanns version of events, don't seem to question the strange behaviours and backgrounds of some of the characters involved, and are willing to write off an entire country's investigative police force as incompetent simply because they had the temerity to investigate a white, middle-class couple and their friends, when they were the by far and away the people of most obvious interest to the enquiry. It's almost as if folk expect that if the UK police had been on the scene first they'd have just immediately dismissed the McCanns as potential persons of interest simply because they're far too 'nice', and therefore above suspicion.
There are so many small discrepancies in the McCann's version of events, and their behaviours since, that I think it's only natural that people begin to question their sincerity. Personally I'm completely undecided on whether they are complicit or not, but I'm intrigued as to why so many people are utterly adamant they could not be complicit in any way when there are so many questions that are unaddressed. Maddies pyjamas have always puzzled me. The pair presented as being 'like the ones Maddie was wearing when she went missing' were obviously well worn and had recently been washed when they were paraded to the media as they were still damp and had loose threads at the seams. The McCanns first claimed that they belonged to Maddie's younger sister, but because they were the same as Maddies they were used as stand in. This is palpably ridiculous as they were several sizes too large for a child of the twins age, and they would have to have been purchased months earlier, which makes the claim they were a pair belonging to the twins even more ridiculous. This then changed to a claim that the pyjamas were supplied by M&S to the couple for the express purpose of showing them to the press. This was denied by M&S themselves, as they couldn't supply them as they had been out of production/stock for months, and they could not have been bought in a local M&S as all branches in Portugal had been closed well before 2007. The McCanns have never adequately explained how they came to be in possession of a worn, damp pair of pyjamas identical in size to those they allege she was wearing when she vanished. Also, when first issued to the media shortly after her disappearance, the metadata contained in the infamous 'pool' photo showed that it could not possibly have been taken when the McCanns claimed. The photo was then reissued at a later date to the UK media with altered metadata. Why? If it's an honest case of mistaking the time it was taken, why have someone doctor the data? If there was a proper explanation to these discrepancies forthcoming, it would go a long way to dismissing doubts about their honesty, but instead they withdraw and threaten legal action on people who dare to question them.  

The biggest issue with all of that is you are simply regurgitating info that was already 2nd hand ie reported via the media and therefore none of it can be fact checked. Only the investigating officers know whether any of that is true, Chinese whispers or hearsay. The lead investigator then wrote a book again no one knows whether that was written to suit the "facts" as he saw them (to relieve the pressure he was under) or whether it was an accurate account. It's probably a mixture of all of the above. It's the genuine mystery of the case that both fascinates and lends itself to all sort of theories as there is so little evidence either way. To my mind if she was killed / died and disposed of, those involved must have been damn good at it and that alone suggests it wasn't carried out by parents who would have been in blind panic and presumably had never done anything like that before, it's simply not credible but it's also not fully impossible hence speculation will continue unless her remains are found and identified. As for this new suspect it remains to be seen if there is anything beyond purely circumstantial evidence.

[welshbairn]

What is impossible about what I think is the most likely narrative? Maddie wakes up and wants her mummy and daddy, goes outside and looks for them, opportunist paedo thinks it's Christmas and chucks her in the back of the van.  

[Boo Khaki]

1 hour ago, welshbairn said:

What is impossible about what I think is the most likely narrative? Maddie wakes up and wants her mummy and daddy, goes outside and looks for them, opportunist paedo thinks it's Christmas and chucks her in the back of the van.  

I think this is far more likely than the nonsense about someone climbing in the window, lifting her from her bed, then climbing back through it again. Not only does that look extremely physically unlikely because of the height and dimensions of the window, but I don't think it could have been achieved without waking the child, or perhaps her siblings, and to me it only seems plausible if there was more than one person involved so the child could be passed through the window to someone waiting outside. Again, no evidence at all that the window was used as an access point to the apartment, on the contrary. I think the McCanns just invented the window intruder theory because they couldn't accept the degree of their own intransigence required for the child to have simply wandered off/encountered an accident. They couldn't even agree on which doors to the apartment were open/locked/used when they last came and went. Gerry also lied about seeing Madeleine in her bed at the 9pm approx visit. This story about 'how perfect she was' was months after the event, yet in the aftermath he told the police that he hadn't even entered the room properly, at least not to the point where he could clearly see Madeleine was in her bed.

Again, personally I do not believe that they 'murdered' their child and disposed of the body, but I do think there are enough inconsistencies and discrepancies that it can't be ruled out that they were more complicit in what happened to her than simply being a bit neglectful by buggering off for a piss-up while the kids were in bed. 

Apparently one of the places where the Portuguese police found traces of human blood was on the tiled floor beneath the front room window. The sofa was positioned a few inches out from the wall underneath the window. I don't think it's outlandish to suggest that a sleepy child might have woken up, wondered where her parents were, climbed up on the sofa to try and see out of the window, and toppled over into the gap. As you say though, if the adults were in the habit of leaving doors unlocked, and evidently they were, it's also perfectly possible she simply walked out of the apartment and into some sort of harm.

[throbber]

1 hour ago, Boo Khaki said:

Yup, because there has never, in the history of humanity, been a single example of someone being involved in something criminal because of motivation by compassion, occupation, monetary gain, or simply as a favour to a friend.

Another example of dismissing something out of hand 'just because'.

But all you did was raise a few question marks about things that may or may not have happened at the time. A guy was 60%-80% sure he saw Gerry carrying a child that night, Murat and Gerry were suspected of having met before the disappearance, there was a “suggestion” of Murats phone being turned off to enable a meeting between him and Gerry. All absolute pish. You then talk about discrepancies in statements as if it’s another smoking gun when it really isn’t, some stories don’t always add up. The tapas 7 have discrepancies in their stories which is totally normal for when you get a group of people together enjoying a meal, drinking and letting their guard down, they aren’t going to remember everything and the statements will vary. If everyone’s statement completely added up it definitely would be a smoking gun.  I’m not sure about Kate and Gerry’s statements but I’m pretty sure they weren’t thinking 100% straight on the night they discovered her missing.
 

Regardless of all the murkiness there is still the gigantic matter of the time frame in question. Madeline was last seen about 6 o clock eating at the kids club when Kate then took the kids back to the apartment, Gerry played tennis until 7 and asked a friend to check on the wife and kids at 630. They went to the Tapas restaurant at 835 so is it suggested Madeline was killed in this 90 minute window? If it was an accident and she banged her head why wouldn’t they raise the alarm? why would it effect their careers in any way if she slipped behind the couch? Also the theory that 2 doctors would somehow manage to botch their dosage when drugging their own toddler to sleep doesn’t add up either. If  they put their kids down to bed at 7, it probably would have taken a good hour to be certain Maddie was dead so they would have had to formulate a plan to dispose of her body within about half an hour whilst also showing up to their dinner at half 8 completely poker faced and happily letting other members of the tapas 7 enter their apartment to check on their kids during the meal? You also talk about people who the Mccanns has “working for them” - do you really think they would gladly jump on board when it came to covering up the death of their 3 year old? Why would anyone lie for them and cover it up for them and risk possible jail time for themselves as well as the moral implications involved? The Mccanns aren’t that rich, they can’t just buy and sell people at the drop of a hat to do what they want or threaten them into it. 
 

Nothing about the theory the parents killed her and disposed of her body works, it always boils down to pishy arguments about discrepancies in statements and Gerry coming across as a sketchy b*****d.
 

 

 

 

[Shandon Par]

2 hours ago, welshbairn said:

What is impossible about what I think is the most likely narrative? Maddie wakes up and wants her mummy and daddy, goes outside and looks for them, opportunist paedo thinks it's Christmas and chucks her in the back of the van.  

And there speaketh the voice of experience.

[Boo Khaki]

15 minutes ago, throbber said:

But all you did was raise a few question marks about things that may or may not have happened at the time. A guy was 60%-80% sure he saw Gerry carrying a child that night, Murat and Gerry were suspected of having met before the disappearance, there was a “suggestion” of Murats phone being turned off to enable a meeting between him and Gerry. All absolute pish. You then talk about discrepancies in statements as if it’s another smoking gun when it really isn’t, some stories don’t always add up. The tapas 7 have discrepancies in their stories which is totally normal for when you get a group of people together enjoying a meal, drinking and letting their guard down, they aren’t going to remember everything and the statements will vary. If everyone’s statement completely added up it definitely would be a smoking gun.  I’m not sure about Kate and Gerry’s statements but I’m pretty sure they weren’t thinking 100% straight on the night they discovered her missing.
 

Regardless of all the murkiness there is still the gigantic matter of the time frame in question. Madeline was last seen about 6 o clock eating at the kids club when Kate then took the kids back to the apartment, Gerry played tennis until 7 and asked a friend to check on the wife and kids at 630. They went to the Tapas restaurant at 835 so is it suggested Madeline was killed in this 90 minute window? If it was an accident and she banged her head why wouldn’t they raise the alarm? why would it effect their careers in any way if she slipped behind the couch? Also the theory that 2 doctors would somehow manage to botch their dosage when drugging their own toddler to sleep doesn’t add up either. If  they put their kids down to bed at 7, it probably would have taken a good hour to be certain Maddie was dead so they would have had to formulate a plan to dispose of her body within about half an hour whilst also showing up to their dinner at half 8 completely poker faced and happily letting other members of the tapas 7 enter their apartment to check on their kids during the meal? You also talk about people who the Mccanns has “working for them” - do you really think they would gladly jump on board when it came to covering up the death of their 3 year old? Why would anyone lie for them and cover it up for them and risk possible jail time for themselves as well as the moral implications involved? The Mccanns aren’t that rich, they can’t just buy and sell people at the drop of a hat to do what they want or threaten them into it. 
 

Nothing about the theory the parents killed her and disposed of her body works, it always boils down to pishy arguments about discrepancies in statements and Gerry coming across as a sketchy b*****d.
 

 

 

 

I've never once claimed any of these things are a 'smoking gun' ffs 

Quite simply, there are enough unanswered questions, inconsistencies, and discrepancies that I'm not willing to totally discount the possibility that the parents aren't somehow complicit in her disappearance.

I didn't claim the McCanns had people 'working for them', in that these people were in the personal employ of Kate and Gerry. I said they had people 'working with them', i.e. assisting them in a multitude of ways. There were people in and around the McCanns right from the night of the incident that have links to security services, both state and private, who I'm sure would have no compunction whatsoever being involved in illegal and immoral activities. It kinda goes with the job.

I don't think you have to get into an argument about dosages either. If they were in the habit of administering their kids just for a bit of peace and quiet, that in itself raises a huge red flag about their suitability to be parents and practising doctors. The dosage seems rather immaterial.

Edited June 6, 2020 by Boo Khaki

[welshbairn]

3 minutes ago, Shandon Par said:

And there speaketh the voice of experience.

I'm advised to say no comment. But the simplest explanation is nearly always what happened. Apart from the Shannon Matthews case.

[welshbairn]

2 minutes ago, Boo Khaki said:

There were people in and around the McCanns right from the night of the incident that have links to security services, both state and private, who I'm sure would have no compunction whatsoever being involved in illegal and immoral activities. It kinda goes with the job.

Oh aye, run of the mill getting rid of dead kids for those types.

[Boo Khaki]

Just now, welshbairn said:

Oh aye, run of the mill getting rid of dead kids for those types.

I didn't suggest it's the sort of thing that would be, only that people in the employ of state/private security firms tend to do what's asked of them at the time. They don't stay employed long otherwise.

[welshbairn]

1 minute ago, Boo Khaki said:

I didn't suggest it's the sort of thing that would be, only that people in the employ of state/private security firms tend to do what's asked of them at the time. They don't stay employed long otherwise.

Why would a couple of no name doctors nobody had heard of be employing private or state security contractors when they're on a family holiday?

[throbber]

5 minutes ago, Boo Khaki said:

I didn't suggest it's the sort of thing that would be, only that people in the employ of state/private security firms tend to do what's asked of them at the time. They don't stay employed long otherwise.

So upon discovering his daughter dead, Gerry was able to make a few calls and the right people came running to the scene to hide the body of a 3 year old and cover the entire thing up? Is that what you think happened? 

[Boo Khaki]

4 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

Why would a couple of no name doctors nobody had heard of be employing private or state security contractors when they're on a family holiday?

I've already said I'm not claiming they were in the direct employ of the McCanns, at least, not on 3rd May 2007.  Robert Murat was on the scene immediately, for motivations known only to him, and the McCanns then had at least three different firms in their employment at later dates ostensibly to investigate their missing daughter. 

i.e. they had people with links to both state and private security around them from May 3rd 2007