Theory (English)

An attempt at a reconstruction of a  theoretically possible course of events, based on the evidence from the files and the rogatory interviews trying to incorporate all oddities such as the supply of an old photo for search purposes, the supply of a wrong height of the almost 4 year old, the confusion about when Maddie had played tennis, the change of routine of the Thursday at breakfast, lunch, dinner and after-dinner activities, the apparently unused bed, the moved cot, and many more :

A holiday in spring after a bleak winter will surely be loaded with lots of happy expectations. Sunbathing, beach excursions, balmy nights with friends and finally time with your partner.

What happens when reality is so far from your expectations and your urgent needs? When the weather is cold and cloudy and instead of getting better, deteriorates with rain on the 5th day? When the daily chores with 3 kids under 4 years of age are not equally distributed but are left to one partner as always, especially the bathing and the difficulty of bringing them all to bed while the husband takes part in the tennis events every evening? And when he then asks the good-looking young employee to sit at the table ignoring the wife which leads to a flurry of furious messages to her best friend? When the child that is the most difficult and that alerts the neighbours with nightly crying for the father throws a tantrum on Wednesday on the playground forcing the mother to take her back to the apartment of course alone again? When this child then cannot be convinced to go to sleep and is asking for its Daddy who is already heading again towards the Restaurant with a friend after a quick shower leaving his wife alone in this stressful situation? When the child jumps onto the sofa to catch a look at the father who just passes by the window with his friend, joking as always while being responsible for the misery of the wife?

I believe that Madeleine died some time after 20:00 on May 2nd. It had been a disastrous week with bad weather and without support from Gerry for Kate with the difficult task of bringing the children to bed. Gerry, who preferred to play tennis in the evening, had ignored Kate at dinner and flirted with the aerobics teacher on Tuesday. When he left the apartment again, after only being there for a quick shower after his "Beating the Pro" tennis event until 19:30, heading off again to the Tapas and leaving Kate behind with screaming kids, the situation escalated on Wednesday. IMO Madeleine threw an extraordinary tantrum on the playground that carried on in the apartment, an incident Jane Tanner attributed to her own daughter and which was mentioned for the first time in her rogatory interview. According to her statement the crying stopped abruptly. IMO Madeleine died at this moment as a result of a blow while standing on the sofa trying to see her father who passed the window via the road below with his friend Russell. Presumably she hit her head on the windowsill or when hitting the floor behind the sofa. The crying stopped abruptly.

This special crying incident had never been mentioned before because it was just too dangerous. But they knew that a Mrs. Fenn had contacted the Police regarding the crying at Tuesday night. When the rogatories were conducted, the files had not yet been released and so they did not know that Mrs. Fenn had not been at home on the Wednesday. They suspected that she had heard the crying of the Wednesday as well and with Jane's statement wanted to pre-empt the Police should this question arise.

During the night of May 2nd it was decided to cover-up the death. The children needed their mother,who would possibly be charged with manslaughter, their careers would be ruined, the insufficient child monitoring, the nightly crying, everything would become apparent. That would make the whole group accomplices, since they all had the same relaxed attitude towards the monitoring of their children some much younger than Madeleine. Their futures would be ruined as well. With this reasoning the other parents could have been pressurised to support the cover-up. Dianne Webster though, was not trusted, she would be kept out of the know. With the initial plan there was no need for lies or deception by the friends. They would just have to act as staffage in a staged show the next evening. All they needed to do was pretend to not know. No lies would be necessary for the friends according to the initial plan. An easy way out for them. This imo applies at least for the couples Tanner/O'Brien and Oldfield who did not have a baby monitor with them. Unlike the Payne's who still complied with the cover-up although they were the proud owners of such a device. As to their reasons I can guess but won't elaborate.

Possibly, Kate had not turned up for dinner that night. To cover for her absence Rachael later claimed she had been sick that night and had stayed in the apartment. In case a waiter had remembered the number of people or men and women at the table. That Rachael was not missing at dinner is evident from the statement by Jane who claimed to have listened at the Oldfield's window that night for their daughter. Had Rachael been in the apartment this would have been an absurd act. To avoid that somebody had seen Gerry coming back alone to the apartment, Kate stated that she arrived 5 minutes after him. A more sinister scenario would be that Kate did take part in the dinner but left it to Gerry to detect the body behind the sofa by giving him a 5 minute headstart. This would explain Gerry's "cryptic" statement in a spanish interview saying nothing had been as hard as the "night we found her".

It was decided to stage an abduction the following evening. The body was therefore stored in the wardrobe in the parent's bedroom. The one cot, which had been standing in the parent's bedroom all week according to the statement of the cleaner and which probably had been used by one of the twins to avoid too many children in one room waking each other up, was placed in the children's bedroom. Kate could not fathom to sleep in the same room as her dead daughter and stayed in the bed unter the window in the children's bedroom, which had been unused on Wednesday morning but used on Thursday.

On the following morning the McCanns were not able to attend the usual breakfast. Six employees of the Millenium restaurant stated that they had attended regularly. Dianne Webster also said that she saw them on the Wednesday, the only day she attended since tennis was postponed due to the weather. The McCanns however claimed in their interviews that they had only attended the breakfast once on the Sunday, never again. The fairytale about the missing buggy that hindered them from walking the distance to the Millenium was spread via the media to enforce it. Free breakfast for 5 people not taken advantage of? Knowing Gerry it is hardly believable. And statements of seven people contradicting them. Had it emerged that they had been in the restaurant every day except the Thursday the police would have probed this evidence much more thorough. Buggies – in plural – were readily available for the excursion to the beach on Monday or Tuesday according to their own statements.

To fake an entry in the crèche records without actually leaving a child there cannot be that difficult.

There were kids from three groups, including the Junior Group, in the one room above the main reception and quite a number of nannies with changing shifts. Jane was talking about 4 or 5 nannies responsible in this room. It was not the 1 nanny with 6 children scenario Mark Warner wanted to portray. And certainly not the 1 nanny for 3 kids ratio the McCanns claimed in order to give more credit to the nanny's statement.

IMO Gerry entered the kids club together with at least one other father who happened to drop his daughter off at 9:10, signed when nobody looked and possibly chatted with one of the nannies that were present. Maybe he asked one of those that were not responsible for Maddie if she could attend the tennis again instead of the sailing, because sailing seemed a bit dangerous. Such was born the myth that Madeleine attended the Thursday tennis although she was there already on the Tuesday. In the beginning most of the friends stated that Madeleine had attended the Thursday morning tennis, Rachael even still stated this in her rogatories. The photo with Maddie on the tennis court was launched in the press as the first „last“ picture, although there had been concerns about showing the bruise on her lower right arm. Kate claimed it was a sunburn.

Kate had to attend the tennis lesson in the morning because Dianne Webster would have noticed her missing. Afterwards she went together with Fiona Payne, who collected her youngest daughter from the same building where Maddie's crèche was, to sign Maddie out of the crèche again. Possibly Russell also collected his daughter at the same time and both created enough diversion for her to do this unnoticed.

Lunchtime was used to organise the course of events for the evening. I am sure that at least Gerry took part. To avoid the only person not in the know – Dianne Webster – the usual lunch at the Payne's balcony was cancelled. For once they met at Jane and Russel's place. Most probably the only deviation from the lunch routine this week.

It was important to keep Dianne Webster away from the children's dinner at 17:00 therefore a group outing was organised without the McCanns to the beach restaurant Paraiso. Russell O'Brien first claimed to had seen his daughter in the Tapas restaurant at dinner then got his statement changed to read that he had collected her at 16:45 from the Kid's Club to take her to the beach restaurant. But he also claimed that he sailed until 16:30 and then went for a swim. He only appeared on the restaurant's CCTV at 17:52 together with his eldest daughter. Plenty of time to collect her from the children's dinner at 17:30 where she might have eaten in the presence of Gerry, the twins and possibly Kate. Then signed out as Madeleine. It would certainly have fooled the restaurant worker especially if shown an old photo of Madeleine the next day.

How can it be explained that Maddie's main nanny Catriona Baker was fooled? First of all, contrary to the statements she was not solely responsible for a little group of six children but was together with at least 2 other nannies responsible for a much larger group. They went together to the beach outings and her colleague was not sure if Madeleine had been with them on one day. So it was possible to get the days confused and the children. Secondly, Mark Warner only supplied 2 nannies for the first interviews with the police citing ONLY from the possibly faked crèche records. All other details were added much later, culminating in Cat's very vivid narration about the boat trip in her rogatories.

Her story gave me a feeling of a well-rehearsed narrative, full of unnecessary detail and with some strange words, like the colors of the boats and the expression "return to the port." This may be because we only have the condensed version available, which was also translated twice. Still, this feeling never quite left me, maybe because she was invited to the McCann's house before the rogatory interviews, so I had another close look at her report especially in light of her description of the sailing trip she gave to officer Manuel Pinho in an on-site inspection on 10th May 2007.From this latter description, the following course of events can be concluded:

Catriona Baker accompanied
5-6 children - she does not give an exact number - holding onto “Sammy snake” from the OC to the beach. Alice Stanley, a sailing instructor, occupied a little yellow sailing boat and waited for Chris Unsworth, another sailing instructor, to ferry the first 3 children with the red safety boat from the beach towards her. The remaining children stayed with Catriona on the beach. Alice did a few sailing turns before the three children returned back to the beach with Chris who then took the remaining children to Alice and the sailing boat. Meanwhile, the first group was of course with Catriona on the beach waiting for the last group to return. The trip was scheduled for roughly half an hour from 10:30 bis 11:00 clock and would have allowed for only one sailing trip for each group of three.

How can this described process now be reconciled with the statements from Catriona's rogatory interview?

In it she describes in detail that Madeleine had
cried anxiously during the crossing to the sailing boat while sitting on her lap. Did Catriona leave the other kids alone back on the beach? Certainly not. She also states that Madeleine had a second round on the sailing boat. Was one child left out on this trip? If there had been 6 children it would only permit one trip for each child. Had there been only 5 children, without Madeleine, a second round would have been possible for one child.

Unfortunately, the two sailing instructors Alice and Chris were interviewed only informally. Surely they could only confirm the trip and perhaps the fact that one child was allowed to make
a second trip. They would not have been able though to identify Madeleine also because the children wore life jackets and possibly helmets.

So either the crying on Catriona's lap in the boat never happened like this, or perhaps there was a second nanny present who remained with the remaining children on the beach. But why then was she never mentioned? Could she perhaps have defined the number of children more accurately and could not remember Madeleine? The picture of a nanny who went alone with 6 children to the beach seems either implausible or extremely negligent.

In both cases, this raises serious doubts about the rogatory statement concerning the course of events at the sailing trip, and therefore also about the participation of Madeleine.

I pointed out this discrepancy in the nanny's statement as early as January 2011 and it might have been seen by the McCanns and their team. To my huge surprise I have to read now in Kate's book that she herself suddenly throws suspicion on the sailing trip and the nanny's statement. With a daring back-pedalling action she now claims that Fiona had NOT seen Madeleine at the sailing trip, totally discrediting poor Jane who explicitly stated the opposite.

After the crèche records had been set in stone, no nanny would have dared to voice doubt afterwards in the face of grieving parents and the world's press. And should they have given some odd statements to the police (or Dianne Webster), their initial statements could have been ripped apart in a court by their lawyers when shown that it was an ARGUIDO who had translated them. Was this the reason for the framing of Murat?

What about the other witnesses that had allegedly seen Madeleine that day? There was Charlotte Pennington, who was visited by Metodo 3 and then helped to frame Murat months after the disappearance - telling a story about telling a story to Maddie that day. But storystelling was a day earlier on the agenda according to the activity sheet. There was the cook who claimed to have seen Madeleine but at the same time placed her in the creche for the much younger children after having been shown the at least 6 month old photo. There was the barman who completely retracted his initial statement of having seen her that day. And we should not forget, that the nannies were all shipped to Greece less than a fortnight after the disappearance by Mark Warner making them unavailable for additional statements.

In the afternoon of the 3rd the usual get-together as on the previous evenings had to be cancelled for Kate and the twins because Dianne would have noticed the missing child. David had to act as the witness that ALL the children were too tired but alive and well. He and Kate made a right mess out of this story that was supposed to support the fact that Madeleine was still alive at that time. How long did he really stay? Did he go in and see the kids or was he just standing at the door with Kate obscuring his view? Why could he not remember what Kate was wearing, even though she was clad in a towel according to her? Why did he talk about “ALL the children“?

The evening at the Tapas restaurant was planned as the time where the abduction should take place, giving them all an alibi via the waiters and Dianne Webster. It was because of her that the rush from the table had to be staged before the actual disposal of the body took place because she would have noticed an earlier absence of Gerry. A risky plan. As early as 21:30 - 21:45 it was instigated by Kate who came running to the Tapas area entrance shouting at the group. Gerry immediately sprinted off for his meeting with the Smith family. The others followed not before Fiona had instructed Dianne to stay at the table “in case Madeleine would come to look for them“.

Dianne talked to the waiter a fact which later produced the statements about an early alarm way before 22:00. After about 5 minutes Dianne went into the McCann's apartment where she did not encounter Gerry who was still on his way towards the rocks. She spent about 10 minutes in the apartment, before being sent off again by Fiona to collect their belongings at the Tapas again. By now Gerry was back and possibly did a quick „search“ around the pool area to account for his previous whereabouts. When Dianne came back to the apartment the second time he was also there and never went on a search again. At around 22:30 (almost an hour after the first rush from the table) Mrs. Fenn heard Kate screaming from the balcony - a cry which had followed the second alarm – the official one – that led to the phone call to the police. The early rush from the table and the late second alarm explain why different person's statements varied almost about an hour in the time they had heard of the disappearance.

The encounter with the Smith family had been a disaster. Suddenly Gerry needed an alibi because he had been away from the table at the time of the meeting. The time of the actual alarm had to be confused so much that they could boldly place it at 22:00, the time of the Smith sighting. Therefore Kate's screaming from the balcony. But this was not enough. A completely independent witness had to give Gerry an alibi at the exact time of the abduction. The only independent witness that night had been Jeremy Wilkins and the time Gerry had met him was nowhere near the time of the Smith encounter. But it had to do... Poor Jane Tanner had to tell the police of her sighting of the abductor at the exact same time she had also seen Gerry and Jez talking together. In order to make her "vision" less obvious Gerry placed his meeting with Jez at the other side of the road further down. This made way for Jane's sighting, would explain why Jez did not see her and would also purport the theory that 3 witnesses never completely agree in their statements. The fact that the poor abductor had to wander the streets of Praia da Luz in search for the sea for 45 minutes was a fact the police should rack their brains about. Matthew's badly concocted statement about his visit in 5A served as additional “evidence“ that she was taken away between Gerry's and Matthew's check, thus by Jane's egg-man.

To explain this check by Matt in the light of Dianne's strict statement that all parents checked on their own children alone, additional checks had to be invented for the previous days. Russell had to state in his rogatory interview that he had checked on the McCann's and Oldfield's children on the Sunday with a key to the front door, which he later changed to a check in 5A via the patio door and in 5B via the front door with a key. ALTHOUGH Matt was supposedly sick that evening and inside the apartment.

This shows how devastating the Smith encounter was, how many "explanations" had to be created because of this stupid coincidence in a usually deserted dark alleyway.

What happened now during dinner? A time frame that had been under special scrutiny by the PJ because of the many discrepancies of those involved and the reconstruction of which had been denied by the same party.

During the day, a plan had been hatched. The kidnapping was to take place at the only time during the day when all friends would be together. At the dinner. Dianne Webster, as the only uninitiated witness, was supposed to confirm this to the police.

The plan was to remove the body from the apartment at 21:00, a time when parents, who dined at the tapas restaurant usually picked up their children from the children's club, often carrying them sleeping in their arms. Gerry had witnessed it live the night before with the parents at the next table and it would be a good disguise for him carrying Madeleine in the open. The kidnapping was planned for the period between 21:30 and 22:00, Matthew Oldfield's alleged check at 21:30 should confirm that at that time everything was still fine.The original plan possibly involved a different route to the beach, one that would be consistent with the comings and goings of parents carrying their children. Possibly through the little lanes of the "shortcut" Gerry had described to the police.

At 21:00 almost all the friends were gathered in the restaurant. Matthew, of whom Dianne Webster was not sure to have seen him there, was in the process of checking the usually deserted streets and roads around the apartment block and returned shortly after 21:00 back to the table with the message that all was clear. Therefore Gerry immediately stood up to allegedly perform another check on the children. A meaningless endeavour, if it had been true. In fact, he was now going to bring the body to a pre-defined location, reachable within 30 minutes maximum including the return trip. When he was in the garden behind the house, he noticed Jeremy Wilkins coming up the street with his son in a buggy. Matt had not seen him before as Jeremy had been circling the block while trying to persuade his son to sleep.

Gerry had to cancel his trip and layed Maddie quickly down in a flower bed under the porch where later on cadaver odour was found. Gerry stepped out of the garden gate to chat with Jeremy and to distract him. When Jeremy moved on Gerry went back to the table in the restaurant.

Now, it was Russell O'Brien's turn to search the streets for pedestrians but it was getting late. After the end of the meal Dianne Webster would be the first to go into her apartment like the evenings before and would not be available as a witness any longer. Therefore they decided to keep to the schedule of an abduction between 21:30 and 22:00 but to dispose of the body AFTER Kate's enacted discovery that was triggered by Russell's return. The schedule would not change, the "kidnapping" would still have happened between 21:30 and 22:00 with Gerry at the table during that time. Only Dianne had to be prevented from storming with the others to the apartment and seeing Gerry as he disappeared with Maddie towards the sea. Therefore, Dianne's daughter gave her the order to stay at the table in case Maddie should appear there. The whole thing went ahead shortly before 22:00 and Gerry hurried with Maddie in his arms straight into the group of the Smith family. He tried a different, more quiet route now - to no avail.

Now the situation changed radically. Gerry had no alibi any more for the time of the encounter with the family. Jane Tanner, in panic of being sued for neglect in Portugal agreed to tell the story of the hijacker who was crossing the street at exactly the time when the only independent witness was talking with Gerry. The man who thwarted the plan the first time, had now to serve as an alibi witness.

The tension that resulted from the change in plans shows clearly in the first police interview of Gerry when he erroneously told them details of the original plan, namely, that Matthew had noticed the blinds closed during his alleged check at 21:30, although under the new plan the abduction should already have happened at that time. A change in the statement was later made on 10 May. Suddenly Matt had seen a little more light in the room than could be expected with lowered shutters. A meagre attempt to change an originally positive sighting into evidence that she had already been abducted at that time.

What happened now when Gerry ran into the group of the Smith family? He could be sure that at least one of them would remember the encounter when the media reports came in the next day. Furthermore he did not have an alibi for this time because officially he was searching for Madeleine around the resort. He had to return to the apartment immediately to show himself in front of Dianne and other persons. The 30 minutes planned for the removal would be far too long, so an intermediate place had to be found that would withstand the first searches and would have been relatively close to the Smith sighting. There was an abandoned house right at the crossing that has recently been mentioned by Goncalo Amaral in a newspaper interview.

The body might have been placed there or in one of the other abandoned houses, but these places would not withstand a thorough search. In any case Gerry would have to be back at the Ocean's Club and was then seen by Dianne Webster when she entered the apartment for the second time that evening. During her first visit he had not been there.

Jane Tanner had now to be informed to give Gerry an alibi for the time of the abduction. The man she was supposed to describe had to resemble Gerry enough to correlate both sightings but had to be different enough to not be Gerry. Therefore especially the hair had to be changed. Egg-man got long hair at the back that would not have been noticed by the Smiths since they only saw the abductor with the child from the front.

During the search by police, staff, holidaymakers and residents the parents must have been desperate until the search finally died down at 4 am. They had now 2 hours during which everything was quiet.

Around 5 am. Gerry and Kate headed for the beach to allegedly do their first own search after their daughter's disappearance. There is nothing in the files about the locations they went. But there is a statement made by a George Brooks who was heading by car from Lagos to Praia da Luz and saw a couple carrying a child in his headlight who took a flight towards a side street when he approached. This tallies perfectly with the statement of Yvonne Martin saying that Kate told her on the morning of May 4th that Maddie had been abducted by a couple. At this time Kate could hardly have known about this sighting by George Brooks and Gerry had been talking about a paedophile abduction the evening before.

In my humble opinion the body was now in a place that should give shelter for a longer period of time.

Edited to add:

In her book released on 12th May Kate suddenly acknowledged that Madeleine might NOT have taken part in the sailing trip. She completely contradicts Jane Tanner's statement that Fiona and herself had seen Maddie at the sailing trip and she herself now sheds doubt about Maddie's participation in the sailing trip by claiming that Fiona had only seen Ella and not Madeleine. An amazing U-turn that threatens the nanny and Mark Warner apart from again rendering Jane's statement useless. 


In a court of law you will need foolproof evidence for a conviction. The terms and conditions under which this evidence is allowed in a court of law vary greatly from country to country depending on its legislature. E.g. the required number of matching alleles in a DNA sample can vary or whether dog alerts are admitted as circumstantial evidence. Sometimes it even varies from case to case as we can just witness in the trial of little Caylee Anthony's mother.

Now I am neither Judge nor Jury. My opinion does not have to follow the rules of the courts of a certain country. An opinion can be solely based on "gut feeling" but imo should at least be based on common sense and the available facts. The more facts and research are the basis of an opinion the better. I am entitled to one and I am entitled to express it publicly as long as I make it clear that it is an opinion or a theory. Slander without basis is libel but an opinion developed on facts is just that, an opinion. And we should not forget that the opinion of the PJ is close to mine, only that the evidence was not sufficient for charges in said court of law.

Having cleared that point I would like to describe how I arrived at the main point of interest in my blog, my theory regarding the disappearance of Madeleine McCann.

My interest in the case initially was minute, an abduction in a foreign country did not capture my curiosity. Only when a German journalist addressed the parents at a press conference in Germany and expressed her suspicion I got baited. How could she accuse the grieving parents?

The first year I visited the Mirror Forum and tried to get hold of the most basic facts, a difficult task because everything was tainted either by good or bad spin. Only when the files were released was it possible to form an unbiased opinion.

After wading through the translated parts and waiting for new translations it soon became obvious that there were three distinct factors apart from the complete absence of evidence for an abduction that justified the suspicion of the PJ. The dogs on the one hand, signalling at 10 different locations and items all related to the family and not once at one of the other apartments or cars. The discrepancies and changes in their statements that were so plenty and bold that they could just not be put down to translation errors or normal discrepancies. An example: If there is an initial statement that access for the check of the children was via the front door with a key and later changed to the open patio doors, then this is no mistake. One of both is an untruth.

So I started off with the statements one by one, of Kate, Gerry and the 7 friends. Especially in relation to the timeline of the evening it soon became clear that the friends had not always been telling the truth and nothing but. For example a comparison with the interior of the apartments 5A and 5D in connection with the statement of Matthew Oldfield showed the possibility that he had never been inside 5A but had used the description of 5D in his rogatory interview. One by one the accounts of the friends fell apart.

The last person I looked at was the turning point in my research. Going through the statements of Dianne Webster I could not find any discrepancies. She even contradicted important pillars of the course of events stated by the others. I came to the conclusion that she was the one person telling the truth. With this I had the fixed point in the sea of confusion with which the case could be cracked. Her most important statement was the time she gave for her last sighting of Madeleine. Whereas the others all remained amazingly vague she was pretty sure it had been the Wednesday evening. From there it was child's play. Puzzle pieces slid into place where confusion had reigned before. All the changes in routine for the Thursday suddenly made sense in so far as to avoid Dianne noticing that one person was missing. The previously as unimportant regarded statement by Jane about a tantrum on the playground and a child having hysterics in the apartment led the way.

Having explained all this, I have still not addressed the third point that to me indicates a very probable involvement of the Tapas 8 in the cover-up of the death of a little girl. And the malice and ruthlessness frightens me. The way in which an innocent man whose only fault was his helpfulness had been drawn into the sorry saga with the help of the media, overenthusiastic profiling by CEOP and at least 3 of the friends is something that makes me shudder. My analysis of the computer logs of Robert Murat shows clearly that he was at home that evening on May 3rd when almost 2 weeks later three of the friends in a concerted effort claimed he had been at the Ocean's Club although nobody else had seen him there. And I don't give any credence to the nannie and the sisters who SEVEN months later, after having been visited by the crooks from Metodo 3, suddenly remembered having seen him there as well.


  1. Excellently thought out and clearly explained.

    Brit A.

  2. Thanks Brit A. - It is a compilation of the blog entries of the past 6 months knitted together. Was not sure if it is coherent.

    To everybody reading. Please spread. Might be the last chance.

  3. What a preposterous theory - this person must surely write make believe stories to have thought this one up. How on earth did the McCanns ever get all the people involved to corroberate with each other. this version of events means that practically everyone in the Ocean Club knew about Madeleine's 'demise' 24 hours before it was announced to the world's press. May I ask what did they do with her body after storing it in the wardrobe? I also reiterate my point - if the McCanns committed such a heinous crime, why are they still courting the world, asking for help to find Madeleine, instead of breathing a sigh of relief that they had 'got away with it'. No one has yet answered that very important question. If anyone believes this far fetched theory, you want your head examining!!

  4. thanks jean for your comment. Maybe read it again. Only the 3 couples would have been in the know on Thursday, nobody else. Remember the "pact" they spoke about?

    I think I described the various removal attempts pretty clear.

    As to why they won't hide in their cupboards and finally shut up? I wish they would, but they can't shut up their critics and know that one day their story will come to light. And that might be pretty close. And of course there is always a lot of money to be made with their daughter, giving her an eye defect that never was just for the sake of a marketing logo.

  5. May I add that I have not published this lightly but after a research of 3 years since the files were released. There are theories aplenty ranging from such farfetched ones as abduction, cloning and a child that never existed.

    To this day I have yet to see one that incorporates all the evidence from the files including all these niggling oddities, like the supply of an old photo, giving a wrong height to the police, explaining why they all tried to place her at the children's tennis instead of the sailing, the cadaver odour in the flowerbed, the lies about checks by DP, MO, ROB, JT. Why we have never learned anything about Thursday afternoon creche and why the nannies were shipped to Greece. Why the cot had been moved and why Madeleine's bed looks almost untouched although she had allegedly slept in there for 1.5 nights.

    All explained in one theory...

  6. OK but how did they hide it from Sean and Amelie for a day?

    1. Easy. They sleep most of the time, are at crèche the rest of the time and are barely old enough to cobble two sentences together.
      S and A were not questioned by the Police or PJ. How could they be?

  7. Not sure if I understand the question? S and A were never questioned because allegedly they were not able to speak properly yet at that time. Or do you mean physically hide it?

  8. Yes, I mean physically hide it. Where were S & A on 3rd May?

    Although what difference would one day make? At some stage they would have to explain why Madeleine was missing.

  9. They were in the creche morning and afternoon as every single previous day. During lunch and at bedtime the parent's bedroom would have to have been off limits. Hardly a problem. The reason why the cot that used to be in the parent's bedroom was moved to the children's bedroom, to keep them out of the room. Same reason why Kate refused to sleep in there.

  10. Johanna, i agree with 99% of your theory but i believe gm was responsible for maddies death. There are many vidio interviews with the couple where it is very apparent where body language shows that km is absolutely abhorent of her husband. Just remember the little weasel covered his own ass by asking DP to look in on kM and the kids,,,,,,crafty move or what?

  11. Thanks for your comment, interesting and not very common view. He only told that little lie on 10th May when questioned for hours, probably panicking when the PJ probed her whereabouts on Thursday. He knew DP would not be questioned that day so could instruct him afterwards. Regarding the psychological side of the crime I support Daniela Prousa's analysis of the personalities of the couple. She sees Gerry as the "hero" supporting his wife organising the removal.

  12. anonym - to your post 0f 02.07 above - yes I have always thought that Gerry's behaviour is strange, so much so I was surprised when Kate came under suspicion. To me she did always look like a grieving mother.

  13. Did you read her book? Blameshifting big time under the disguise of grief. And trying to portray herself as a perfect mother she just can not have been since she left them alone every single night even after Madeleine cried for more than an hour. Since I detected that Kate is behind what I would call the fundamental pros, together with her female relatives, I am convinced that she is a much better actor than her husband will ever be. Full of hate against anybody questioning her, even slagging poor Mrs. Fenn, blaming everybody but herself. A pure narcissist if I have ever encountered one.

    1. Very true indeed. Jean reminds me of her venomous turn of phrase. There is one way this conspiracy could stop from unraveling.That fraternity that swears to pervert justice for a Brother while singing of their own virtues, and claims to make good men better as they invade and mass murder sovereign states that refuse the central banks compound interest scam and the worlds social order devolves by design.London to a brick. I've seen it over and over, and the thing that stinks here, and it really pongs rotten, has their scent all over it.


    Johanna, check out this video and watch Kates reaction at 1.48. when Gerry buts in.

  15. This scenario fits all the known (and unknown) facts in my opinion.

  16. Whose blood and bodily fluid was found in McCann's apartment and hire car if not Madeleine's?

  17. It was just, but not quite, Maddies DNA mixed in with 3-5 people all in the tiny spot that was so minute that it never got noticed in the first sweep.

  18. Is it possible that Kate believes Madleine was abducted? E.g. suppose Madeleine was injured, hitting her head on the night of the 2nd while left alone and had an undetected brain injury or clot. On the Thursday, she was unexpectedly found dead by Gerry or possibly by someone checking on her who alerted him. Realising the consequences he decides to keep this from Kate and hides the body. This would explain why Kate is so keen to have the case re-opened and to continue the search for Madeleine?

  19. Kate knows exactly what happened to Madeleine. If you ever needed proof, her book would finally give it. Every single discrepancy she tries to iron out in the book with innocent explanations laying blame on everybody but herself, the translator, the staff, the nannies, the friends. She does not want the case reopened, she wants a "review", a whitewash like the Jersey case had one, she wants to come out smelling of roses and the portuguese police rubbished by the "superior" SY who are specialists in such "reviews"

  20. Her location is being withheld on the request of the McCanns.

    Read more:

    Living in Manhattan with wealthy clients. A rewarding job.

  21. I think you've been watching too many crime dramas. Firstly Madeleine cried on the boat trip and sat on the nannys lap, do you think she would have mixed up a child who did that? also I think the child if she wasn't Madeleine would have said if she had been called Madeleine. Secondly wouldn't the childs body have been covered in blood being taken to the sea and wouldn't the Smith family have noticed? or did they change Madeleine out of her clothes? Lastly if Madeleine had fallen off the settee as you say, why concoct an abduction? why not just say she had fallen during the night? No I don't believe this.

  22. Not guilty about watching crime dramas but about intensively reading the original police files. And you should at least read the article you are commenting on. The crying episode on the boat was only added one year later in the rogatories and the nanny could not have been ON the boat and AT the beach with the remaining children simultaneously. There was no substitute for Maddie. The nanny could not tell if there were 5 or 6 children in the group at the beach outing. Had there been blood they had a whole day to clean it. I never said it was a fall, if a mother hitting her child and the child consequently dies, then this is not a simple accident. And we don't know what else might have been found at an autopsy. I am going by the files, and they don't give evidence about the parent's REASONING.

  23. Excellent, this is probably what happened to Madeleine so well thought out. Thank you.

  24. Do you think that the twins were sedated? Would this have been to let them sleep through the 'fake' abduction and all the screaming and noise and to avoid them being awake when police were there so they were not asked "did you see anyone take Maddie?" to which they might have responded "Maddie wasnt there tonight" - once they got over the first night they were home & dry, not like they would bring 2 year olds in for official questionning!

  25. Yes I think the twins were sedated that staged night. I doubt there was any sedation previously neither of the twins nor Maddie. Had she died as a result of sedation they would not have dared to sedate the twins again.

    But on the Thursday they had to be sedated to avoid them venturing in the parent's bedroom and accidentally discovering their sister or seeing Maddie being taken away.

  26. 100% agree with everything ,lots of which are my theories too

  27. i agree with the 1st part about their careers and lifestyle, on yahoo answers in america 4 years ago sum1 (that sounded well "clued up") made comment to that effect, i bookmarked it as it made good sense. Reading your "theory" is interesting and fills in with bagss of logical conclusions. With the recent phone hacking in britain it now seems even more plausible as to why poor maddie was a marvellous reason for every1 to make money and win. IMO i think gerry to probably be more narcissitic then kate as she appears more submissive to his nature. There's no doubt it was an accident, by whom probably kate - now gerry the man who promised her a married life of bliss taking control of family matters. sounds nearly like a best selling novel at times, but thats when the phone hacking occured IMO and thats when the News INtl first popped by, mr freud is the key maybe the rest is very now near future history me thinx....

  28. This theory is not logicasl, it is exactly the oppsoite, because it relies on discarding the testimony of almost everyone involved, in order to make your ideas fit.

    That isn't sleuthing or investigatory work, it's a vanity project.

  29. In case you missed it, the orangy bits are the links to the files and statements of those concerned. The theory is solely based on the evidence that is in the files and the rogatory interviews. Nothing added.

    But why don't you explain in your own 10 words how an abduction could have happened when Matt had listened at the closed shutters at 21:05 and Gerry got up at 21:04 to do his own check and left the apartment at 21:10 at the same time as the abductor? Abduction is the only impossibility in the whole case.

  30. Your timings are wrong. The statements quite clearly say that Matt was back at the table before Gerry even left. Therefore your version as stated above cannot be right because you have Gerry leaving before Matt is back. There is even quite a bit of discussion about why Gerry still wants to go - I can't imagine how you missed it. Go check.

  31. No idea what you are talking about. This is what I wrote:

    ""Matthew, of whom Dianne Webster was not sure to have seen him there, was in the process of checking the usually deserted streets and roads around the apartment block and returned shortly after 21:00 back to the table with the message that all was clear. Therefore Gerry immediately stood up to allegedly perform another check on the children. A meaningless endeavour, if it had been true""

    So I kept it perfectly according to the statements you mentioned. Not that we can take them on face value, but I did.

  32. Very well thought out and logical. A few questions if you don't mind:
    Why would Gerry not have concealed body (eg in tennis bag) rather than carry it openly through the streets?
    Why would Mark Warner send nannies away? Why would MW want to cover it up?
    Do you believe British establishment is protecting them? If so, why?
    Thank you for your time.

  33. Thank you Anonym 00:32

    We don't even know if he had a tennis bag. The black/blue bag seen in the wardrobe was probably too small. Carrying a suitcase would be too suspicious. He got the idea on the evening of the 2nd when Jeremy Wilkins told him how the nighttime creche worked and when he had to leave to carry his child back to the apartment from the creche. I am quite sure the first plan involved a route similar to the short-cut he took to the creche during the day, but after the alarm had been raised that was too dangerous.

    Regarding MW, I am sure that they were not complicit in the cover-up of a child's death but had their very own agenda. They had bad publicity before regarding their childcare arrangements and since we now know that the 1/3 or even 1/6 ratio of nannies to children was not quite the rule, but that the groups were sometimes so big that nannies might just not notice how many children they were supervising it is understandable that they sent only 2 nannies (those related to the McCann children) to the PJ interview and instructed them to simply cite from the creche records. When the PJ insisted on interviewing every single nanny and every member of staff not once but more often, they probably decided it would be best to get the nannies to a different location, to Greece.

    Yes they have been protected. But I am not sure to what extend and for what reason. The only party obviously obfuscating the facts seems to be CEOP with their total disregard of the evidence, their more than normal support and their fatal "profile" of Robert Murat. As to the why, one can only guess...

  34. Impressed by the effort you have put in to reading the actual files - you certainly know the details. I don't know what or who to believe but am sure they are hiding something. Whether it is just guilt at lying about the timeline and their neglect of childcare or hiding the body I am not sure. I find it hard to believe any mother could not be overcome by a wish to confess the truth if she truly knew her child were dead. Especially one with a Catholic upbringing. How could she lie continuously without breaking down? Or any father for that matter?
    But the theory is plausible -could you explain your comment about CEOP please?
    Thank you for your work.

  35. There seems to have been a concerted effort by various people and supporting entities to present a patsy to the PJ in the form of Robert Murat. Lori Campbell started it, her connections to Mitchell are obvious. Then 3 of the tapasniks framed Murat by claiming he had been around the apartment during the night of the 3rd. Jane Tanner allegedly recognised him as eggman. Half a year later Metodo3 "visited" 3 witnesses who suddenly remembered seeing him as well. At least that is what the papers claimed. And the worst bit came from CEOP who did a profile on Murat that described him as a sociopath at best. CEOP also invited Gerry as a speaker to a conference about abducted and abused children and never commented on any of the obvious discrepancies in their statements. Instead they pushed the "abduction" theory pro-actively.

  36. Johanna
    Am speaking as someone whom whilst have read quite a bit of background to the case. But have no where near the same depth of knowledge as the likes of you.
    For what its worth heres a few of my thoughts and apologies in advance if I am repeating what might have been written before....
    Firstly, what suprises me is an apparent lack of any defintive evidence from the crime scene to implement anyone? You read of cases where even the smallest piece of forensic evidence can result in someone being convicted. But in this case,seems the PJ and British police have nothing substantial? Unless,it is being deliberately being withheld? If there had been an "incident" in the appartment, surely some evidence would have been left behind? Even if a "clean up" had been carried out?
    Secondly, if something bad, had happened to Maddie and I hope this is not the case. There is the issue of the disposal of her body? Personally, think that the theory of a hire car being used to carry out such a task. Would entail a huge risk for someone to take, especially if thought to be a suspect? And even if this were the case, very strange that to date, no body has ever been discovered?
    As to the Tapas 7 and whether any or all were involved in someway in the dissapearance? Could be the case. But again huge risk for individuals to act in such a way and still remain silent? Having to carry with them the dreadful consequences of their actions, for all this time? What would be interesting to know,is what the atmosphere of the dinner party was, that particular night? Would have thought it would have been very subdued. Unlike an apparent "party" atmosphere that entailed the drinking of large amounts of wine?
    Any views on what I have written, as would be interested to here your views?

  37. @firstly
    In Theory: They were doctors, they knew where possible DNA might be found and - importantly - they had a whole day to clean up possible traces. The DNA evidence from a british lab shows traces of her DNA but all allegedly contaminated by third persons. The hire car evidence allegedly showed 15 out of 19 alleles but that was not good enough in Portugal. I like to compare this case with the case at the Jersey's children's home, it does have astounding similarities. Here, as well, a forensic lab played an important part in the ridicule of the case, now mostly remembered because of an alleged coocnut and not because of all the teeth and scarred bones in the cellars, that allegedly were no cellars.

    IMO the body was moved at least 3 times. Once during the fateful night when the body did not reach its designated hiding place due to at least TWO hindrances. Once from the temporal to the designated hiding place very early on May 4th and a third time with the help of the car possibly shortly before the arrival of the "CSI" dogs.

    Talking of CSI: As we have seen recently with the Casey Anthony case life is not a tv series and what they show us on tv is not what is reality. The jury apparently expected some drumroll revelations from the forensics and when it did not happen and/or they did not understand what was presented to them they felt cheated out of their happy ending. Real crime is not a tv series.

  38. Johanna
    Many thanks for your reply. Just for the record, any comments I have made or might make. Are not questioning your possible version of events. They are just questions which puzzle me. As I said previously yhe likes of yourself and others have far more knowledge as to the case, than I have. One thing I am not niave enough to do though, is to think that such a case as this one, can be resolved based in techniques used in far fetched series, such as CSI! It was more a case of having read and watched documentaries of true life crimes. Where cases, even many years old, have been resolved via foresenic science.
    As you rightly say, the parents are both Doctors and as such could well have carried out a "clean up" operation. The thought I had, was that even with a thorough "clean up", be it in the appartment or car. Some evidence would have remained or evidence that a "clean up" had occurred? But who am I to say.
    Interested re your theory as to possible movement of any body. Again I am not discounting it. Just as I said previously. Big risks for someone to take and any hiding place must have been quite secure and unlikely to be found easily. Not an easy task to do, even someone had already planned to hide and dispose of a body? A body which may well have been badly decomposed after being left for many weeks. Prior to the final move?
    As to the Tapas 7 and there possible involvement or have suspicions? One would hope, that sooner rather than later. One of them will finally come forward?
    As to what exactly happened and the possible abduction theory. The most interesting thing about the case, i feel. Seems to be that an intruder or intruders would have an immense task on there hands. Carrying out the kidnap at just the right time i.e. in between the alleged regular checks? Taking Maddie without waking her or her twins? Without leaving some clues as to there means of entry to the appartment? Carrying her away and her still remaining fast asleep? Particularly, as she appears to be a very active child and understand that she cried for over an hour for her parents previously(?)
    As previously, would be interested in your views?

  39. Regarding an abductor: If Matt as alleged listened at the CLOSED shutter shortly after 21:00 and Gerry left for the apartment at exactly 21:04 as he states, entering through the front door (shutters still closed), looks into ALL the rooms in the apartment, then leaves through the patio door to meet Wilkins, then there is not even a tiny window of oportunity left for an abductor to have entered through the window, door or patio door. The allegedly opened window never made sense in the first place but even with an entry/exit through a different door it is just impossible. The only possible way out of this dilemma would now be to discredit Jane's sighting, move it to a later time. That might be their ultimate change of story should they ever see a court from the inside. I always wondered why Gerry did not confirm Jane to have passed them, but this leaves them room for yet another change in the story.

  40. Johanna
    Thanks again for your reply. Am sorry if I am or have been going over "old ground" with you, as to what you have already written. however, couple more points please...
    I find the version of events as to the alleged regular checking on the various sleeping children on the night, to be somewhat improbable? The evening dinner had become a regular event and as such, it could well have been that frequency and depth of checks diminished as the week went on? Individuals might let intervals slip or even miss them completely when they should have occurred? Particularly when alcohol is involved, making persons more relaxed (complacent) as to there responsibilities? If the version of events portrayed is correct. It is almost as if the dinner table was a constant of hub of “coming’s and going’s”, all in a regimented fashion. Whereas, in practice, it may have been a far more relaxed regime? Possibly with some of the “checks”, coinciding with a need to go to the bathroom?
    As to Jane and having passed Gerry when he was talking? Firstly, seems some contradiction as to the precise location that they passed each other? But very much a key point as to which side of the road they were on, given her alleged sighting of the abductor? Secondly, I would have thought they would have been some acknowledgement of each other, from either party when they passed, even just a nod of the head or a smile? Finally, a quiet night on a fairly isolated road. Sound will travel and conversations would be easy to listen into and overhear even if only by accident? But appears that this also didn’t happen and Jane has no recollection as to what Gerry was talking to “Jez” about? May have been a very trivial conversation, but am sure Jane would have caught at least some snippets of it? One explanation of course might be that she had some headphones in and was listening to music at the time? But have seen no reference to this being the case, up until now?!

  41. IMO (and everything on here is of course educated guessing) their child care arrangelments were one of the few truths they told, up until Thursday. The Payne's had the monitir and the three other couples agreed to do do listening checks. One person of the group would go and listen on all three downstairs bedroom windows where the 5 children were sleeping. But you are correct, whereas it might have started with a 30 minute timespan (not the 15 minutes the tapasniks insisted on)it had definitely slackened down to much longer periods of time, and hour or more. Otherwise Mrs. Fenn would not have heard a child crying for 75 minutes on the Tuesday.

    There was definitely never a check done by any of them inside the other's apartments. When it became necessary for Matt to "do" a check in 5A because otherwise he would have noticed the "jemmied" shutters, it was a unique incident that aroused the PJ's suspicions. Therefore they later claimed that it had been a regular practice and that Russell had gone into 5A and Matt's apartment with a KEY on Sunday(although Matt was allegedly sick in bed). Laughable. No idea why Leicestershire Police did not pounce on that if they were conversant with the facts.

    As to the Jane Tanner fiasco. It became only necessary when the Smith sighting had occurred. So far they were not very kind to Jane and allowed her to be ridiculed by the world in order to save their skins. In her bewk Kate again made Jane out to be completely loony because she suddenly contradicted her seeing Madeleine during the children's sailing trip on Thursday morning. If I were Jane I would have long lost any wish to support them...

  42. Johanna
    I agree with you that some form of monitoring was in place that Thursday and on previous nights. All be it in a rudimentary ad hoc form i.e. very erractic and not an in-depth check? Such as just listening from outside, as you describe?
    I personally feel that the evidence of Mrs Fenn is very significant. And I have seen nothing to doubt her word as to what she heard/witnessed on the Tuesday night? A child, almost certainly Madeline, crying for 75 minutes. If 15, 30 or even 75 minute regular checks were carried out on the children that night. Then unless the crying was just ignored (again doubtful) then even on the Tuesday, checks were already very sporadic and infrequent? It also begs the question as to what action, if any, the parents took to prevent their child repeating the incident on following nights. They would have clearly have seen that their daughter was or had been very distressed by there absence, when they finally returned to the appartment? One could even argue the case that this would have made them even more concerned to ensure a rigid pattern of checks on their children and/or employ a baby sitter etc? Of course other "steps" may have been taken to ensure that the children did sleep well and wouldn't wake on subsequent nights?
    As to the questioning of the Tapas 7 by Leicestershire police. The transcripts of the interviews carried out, dont come over to me as there being very vigorous and probing questioning occuring? Especially, as we are dealing with an extremely high profile case, which entails at least abduction if not murder? Would have seemed common sense and essential to examine all statements that were given, for any discrepancies. And then reinterview all parties again, to clarify matters. But this appears, not to have happened?

  43. Just to say that I do enjoy this exchange very much ;)

    Regarding Tuesday night. They arrived at the apartment and found a child crying. Now they did not know for how long it had been crying. Mrs. Fenn did not contact them and her statement was only available to them AFTER the files were released. She was very much in their focus but imo more for the fact that she might have heard something on the WEDNESDAY, something that had to be explained in the rogatories by 1) Jane's child throwing a tantrum and if that was too far away by 2) E*** O'Brien bathing together with the Oldfield baby (you know the one that had diarrhoe). Both statements, given without a trigger from the police, seem strange after a year and the bathing especially seems not credible. An almost 4 year old bathing with a baby??

    I know what you are hinting at, but I don't think that the Tuesday incident was prominently in their minds at all, and I doubt they used sedatives to keep her/them quiet. Imo they only used sedatives once and that was on the Thursday to prevent the twins waking up and finding/seeing her sister being removed.

    Regarding the rogatories and the questioning by LP. Yes it is hairraising what was going on in those interviews. The fact that Russell was allowed to changed at least 34 points in his original statement due to an alleged malfunctioning recording system is breathtaking. But then the rogatories were never meant to get to the public anyway. They were not included in the files and only reached us through some unknown helpful friends I guess at the PJ. (speculation)

  44. Johanna
    Some years back I had the misfortune of having my house burgled. Fortunately my family and I were not in the house at the time. The offender entered the house via a back window. But then proceeded to lock from inside the front door. To avoid being caught/disturbed And no doubt would have also ensured that, if we had patio doors, they were also locked from the inside. They were reasonably professional. But still left evidence as to there means of entry i.e. via the window. So think it would be strange, if not impossible that in this case, entry and escape being made solely through a window? Similarly, someone being inside the appartment, when checks were being made? And this seems to be confirmed by all the evidence available.
    I might have also missed something? But did the cadaver dogs "screen" any uninhabitated buildings in the vicinity for signs of a body?
    Finally, and this is in no way, disputing your theory. The sighting of the Smiths seems interesting. The reason I say this. Is that someone appeared to be taking a huge risk to continue walking down a street when 7 potential witnesses were heading up it? Particularly if they had something to hide? Even in a darkened street? Why not turn around and go another route?
    Just some thoughts and as per usual would be interested in your views?

  45. The search report does say nothing about uninhabitated houses but they searched the whole beach area between the western rocks and the eastern Black Rock and there might have been buildings included.

    The Smith sighting is important. If the carrier, as I think, had already had to postpone the removal at least once due to Jeremy Wilkins and possibly a second time on his way via the "shortcut" then he had very little time left for this attempt. This was the last possible chance to stay within the agreed upon plan and timeline. It was a very dark lane and he possibly did not see the whole group at once since they were scattered along the road. At the time he noticed that he would run into the second part of the group under the lights of the crossing he had already reached the first members of the family.

  46. Johanna
    Have just read on your home page your Appreciation message and in particular about some individuals maybe wishing to make donations to assist with the likes of the maintenance and upkeep of sites such as yours and others? Wasn't sure as to how to directly respond to it as appears to be no message forum on the Home page, nor ways and means of directly contacting you? So writing here.
    I feel you are very modest as to your achievements in puting together the site. It comes over as being a highly professional, well researched and clearly has entailed you in much time and effort. With you not being "driven" by thoughts of financial reward or kudos for what you have published. I have often found it strange that individuals are happy to pay £20+ for a book regarding the case (be it puting forward the side of the McCann's or against it). But then in turn, forgetting that whilst access to sites on the web is mainly free. There is is a cost involved in puting together such sites. If only in terms of personal time and effort that this entails? After reading Pat Brown's book (admittedly at a cost of only $3) I have read nothing more in it than I have read on here and in many ways see the site as being more comprehensive and detailed than her pubication? Not a criticism of Pat Brown's book just a statement of fact.
    Personally I would prefer to make a direct contribution to you maintaining and keeping this site running. But also respect your wishes and will make a contribution to the sites you have listed on your Home page. At the risk of speaking out of turn. I would encourage other readers to consider to do the same. But also appreciate at the same time, that this is everyone's prerogative. My rationale, is partly to ensure that a "free" debate continues with the McCann case. And is not one where just one view pervades?
    Just some thoughts

  47. Have you seen the video where Gerry says "the night we found her"? Assuming this is what he said and the tape was not cut before the word "missing", then does this fit your theory? After the fall did Kate fetch Gerry or just go to Tapas meal? "Found her" sounds like they came back and discovered an accident IMO.
    Could you comment - I am sure you are near the truth but not sure exactly how they could carry on with meals and tennis lessons after such a tragedy. Thank you!

  48. Sorry Johanna - just read theory again and found your comments on "the night we found her.". Ignore previous comment.
    Tho do you think that was Gerry's real statement or has someone cut tape?
    If he did say that it sounds like case closed really!

  49. IMO the interview with the spanish tv was not cut to omit a possible "missing". Voice does drop after he said "we found her". The translation says "the night of the disappearance" and not "the night we found her missing" as if deliberately misleading and covering-up what he had said. This was a series of I think 3 consecutive shows on spanish TV and they stopped airing it after the second part. Possibly because of this blunder?

  50. Johanna
    I would like to come back to you re Jane Tanner and the alleged sightings of Madeline being carried away from the apartment. I personally feel that this sighting is a complete smokescreen? Not only as to flimsiness of her evidence i.e. that Gerry and Jez didnt see her pass, there is conflicting evidence as to which side of the road they were on, the extreme difficulties in given a detailed description of the alleged abductor from where she was in a darkened street some distance away etc. But also feel that the picture she portrayed as to the manner in which the child was being carried in a man's arms to be completely unrealistic.
    As a parent I have carried my children in the past many times when they were young. Fair enough I might have carried them with outstretched arms when they were babies. But too carry a child of nearly 4 years in such a manner is quite a remarkable physical feat? Almost certainly someone would carry them in an upright position, with their head over one shoulder? Would be interested to hear yours and other readers of the blog views on this? And if I am wrong in my assumptions happy to be corrected.
    I also don't concur with your sympathy as to the position she has been put in by the McC's. To my mind it is something of her own making and whether she might subsequently have wished to correct her version. A huge amount of damage was done to the investigation and innocent people were made suspects. Just to compound matters she then continued with her story and positively identified the possible suspect. One of the key facts being the way this individual (RM) walked?! Maybe someone with a limp would stand out. But to say a defining factor in positively recognising someone by the manner in which they walk! Doesn't stand up to scrutiny to my mind.

  51. To Graham and others.
    I am of the opinion that Jane Tanner's sighting was a complete fabrication, she might have gone up that road to check her children but not at the same time as Gerry and Jez were standing there. Nor did she see eggman, Robert or anybody else. It was an emergency sighting when the carrier ran into the Smith family. She immediately had a picture in her head that was subconciously related to the carrying of a dead child. Why? Because she knew she was dead.

    Regarding rigor mortis: In children it is usually much shorter not as well developed and can be overcome by massaging the limbs. 12 hours is a time when it can already be lessening from what I have read.

    eta: every blog entry on the main page has the option to comment, just click on the orange "Kommentare" below the article. If somebody wants to send me private messages please follow me on twitter or facebook. I will follow back usually and especially if I am notified on here.

  52. Johanna
    Sorry to speak about some what of a macabre subject. But have read on another site relating to the case, that the issue of rigor mortis could be relevant? Although, am sure that speaking for everyone whom reads this forum, one would hope that this isin't the case. However, now seems to be the most likely scenerio(?)
    With your theory it would be a factor to be considered (unless death occurred very shortly before 9/10 pm on May 3rd. The implication being that any sighting which might entail Madeline having died and then being carried by someone, could well show a "tell tale" sign in the form of stiffness in the body? In fact I have seen it as an argument to counter your theory? And if i am honest I did think along similar lines, but more in terms of any accident being on the 3rd rather than the 2nd as you suggest.
    Did a bit of research earlier and the situation regarding rigor mortis in children seems to be unclear? But also found this quote ...
    "Many infant and child corpses will not exhibit perceptible rigor mortis. This decreased perceptible stiffness may be due to their smaller muscle mass".
    The link to the article is.....
    (although some individuals might prefer not to read it, given the graphic nature of the subject matter).
    Apologies once again for posting on such a gruesome subject matter. But feel it might have relevance to this case?

  53. You may have covered this elsewhere but please could you give you opinion on the tea stain. Was it real or a distraction? Why did the McCanns draw attention to it? Was it supposed to be on the pyjama top now lost with her?

  54. In Fiona's rogatory interview she states that as they sat at the Tapas table on Thursday Kate asked her opinion on whether it was better to leave the patio doors open so Madeleine could COME AND FIND THEM IF SHE WOKE UP or lock them and have her find them locked, because M had been crying one evening. But Gerry had told Kate it would be fine ...
    This does not fit at all with:
    Kate saying she never had a moment's doubt about safety issues.
    Kate saying M would never wander out - hence Kate knew it was abduction.
    Any ideas as to what this discrepancy indicates?

  55. Re: Tea stain
    Officially we only know of a crying on Tuesday, but the important crying happened on Wednesday imo, that is why they put a lot of emphasis on explaining it away right from the beginning. The tea stain was only mentioned in September so they had plenty of time to think of a possible scenario for the Wednesday crying. The scene was set for what Kate hints in her book as the abductor doing a (not so) dry run, leaving a stain (of either sedative or worse) on Maddie's top. Since the pyjama is gone with the body it can not be proven. It explains the crying as not being their fault and enforces the abduction theory in the most ridiculous manner. If only Mrs. Fenn had been in that day and could have given a statement regarding the Wednesday...

  56. @anon 20:06
    The patio door imo was never left open (or at least they never would have admitted to it) but had to be open when the thwarted plan forced the check by Oldfield to take place INSIDE the apartment instead of outside listening at the shutters. So they had to introduce the open patio door and explain it with reasons for the children's "welfare".
    Of course it contradicts Kate's "immediate" belief that she had been taken, but these contraditions are unavoidable if you have to alter an original plan and turn it around completely.

  57. Could you bear with me - just for a moment please - and assume a similar tragedy occurred but on the Thursday, whilst Gerry was still at tennis and Kate on her own in apartment trying to cope with all 3?
    Most of your theory would still fit but it just means less deception needed (eg nannies at kids club, Dianne Webster at tennis).
    Do you feel it is a crucial part of your theory that it happened on Weds? If so what are the main objections to a Thursday tragedy?
    I don't have a strong opinion one way or the other but I do find it difficult to believe they could all be so cold as to act normally for 24 hours whereas in the sheer panic of one evening I feel they could have cobbled together the abduction story on the spur of the moment. Please do not take this as criticism - just interested in your views on all angles! Thanks!

  58. Of course I have contemplated the same occurrences on the Thursday and apart from the following "unaccounted for evidence" nothing contradicts that it happened on Thursday evening. Although to me it seems impossible to plan the staged evening, disposal and abduction in such a short period of time when shock and grief is at it's height. But the following points are not covered by the Thursday theory and they are important points that would be left unlinked to the saga:

    - The "last photo" that turned up much later and that was the only photo ever to be released with its exif data showing date and timestamp. Why? To prove she was there on Thursday

    - The indications of Plan B should Cat Baker have insisted that Madeleine had not taken part in the sailing. Plan B was the tennis on Thursday morning and the whole group initially claimed Maddie had taken part in this activity, culminating in the absurd scene when they all watched the tennis lesson in which none of their children took part, while it would have been normal to go down to the beach and watch Maddie and E*** during sailing.

    - The additional checks Gerry invented to prove she was alive Wednesday night (allegedly DP went INTO 5A to check on the children) and Thursday afternoon (again DP who gave the most contradictory statements)

    - The complete change in routing on Thursday

    - The fact that nobody from the group convincingly committed himself to having seen Maddie on Thursday.

    - The complete absence of any story about Maddie during her creche attendance on Thursday afternoon. Allegedly swimming, but we know nothing about where and how.

    - The need to lie about the tennis lesson in the afternoon to disguise at least 2 hours neither Gerry nor Kate are accounted for.

    - The two tales about crying children on the Wednesday that only emerged without being asked for in the rogatories. Jane's daughter throwing a tantrum and then "crashing" and Rachael's baby daughter allegedly bathing together with the same child that was throwing a tantrum 2 doors down.

    And and and... There remains too much unexplained in a Thursday evening theory. And now that Kate herself throws doubt on the sailing trip in her book I see it as the final confirmation. As to acting normally for 24 hours, we don't know that. They had to act as long as they were together with Dianne but as to the remaining time we don't know how they reacted. IMO Kate might have been drugged during the Thursday. The story by Bridget O'Donnell describing Kate that morning could suggest that.

  59. Thank you for taking the time to explain all details to me. Your reasoning is clearer to me when the indications for Weds are listed like that.
    I will now go and try to digest it all - cannot promise I won't have another question but for now, thank you for your interesting work.

  60. Johanna, this is a very convincing explanation, but I have 2 questions, which I hope you can help with:

    1. Why didn't Gerry and Kate remove the body on the Wednesday night under cover of darkness, if Madeleine died that day. They would surely have realised that the body would leave more traces, the longer it remained in the apartment. It would have been crucial to remove it urgently.

    2. Isn't it the case that the body would have had to be in contact with the floor behind the sofa for at least 1½ hours after death occurred in order for cadaverine to be present on the floor? If so, we can presume that neither parent was in the apartment when Madeleine died - i.e. Gerry and Kate were both at dinner on the Wednesday (you suggest Kate was not).

    Looking forward to your response!

  61. 1. If the body was only detected after the late night at the Tapas Bar with plenty of drinks they would have needed time to think the whole thing through. In any case I think a removal a day earlier than the abduction would have been too dangerous. In case of a detection of a body without an alarm having been raised, they would immediately have been implicated.

    2. I have given 2 scenarios above. The development of cadaver odour is immediate, the question is how good is the dog at work. How long does he need a body to have been lying there. That seems to differ greatly. Of course an accident while they were at dinner would explain it convincingly, but the insistence on the crying on Wednesday, the tantrum story by Jane and the bathing story by Rachael indicate an incident BEFORE dinner. Again in her book Kate seems to feel the need to explain why it was that Gerry had the 5 minute headstart. When somebody explains such an unimportant incident at great length while the allegedly "last completely happy day" with her daughter only receives a meagre paragraph with no special mentioning of the daughter in question then we know, that it is again an important point that needs "clarification".

    All imho of course

  62. Johanna
    One thing I have never really come to terms with re the case, is how the McCann's, appear to have reacted at the time to the disappearance of there daughter and indeed how they have acted since. Think it is very easy to jump to conclusions as to how individuals react to such events, especially with out being privy to the full facts as to the personalities involved and/or what may be happening "behind the scenes"? However, I feel that the reaction of the McCanns at the time, gives credence to your theory that an "incident" did occur on the 2nd as opposed to the 3rd? To my mind, any parent would react with horror to the death of a child and feel very remorseful, even if they didn't play a direct role in what happened and it was an accident? Even if a parent played a direct role in a death. Say by losing their temper or suffering from a condition such as Munchhausen's by proxy. One would hope that the person would still be very distressed and similarly there partner, after discovering what had happened? Would be very difficult to continue with a routine as if nothing had happened, especially if the "incident" had just occurred, knowing full well the real truth? But if given a period of time, even just a day, would give individuals time to "compose" themselves, so as to act out a scene which in turn gave an alibi? Also time to put in place a "clean up" operation at the scene and stage an event such as a (alledged) abduction?

  63. Dear Johanna

    Thanks for your prompt response to my points 1. and 2. above. I hope the McCanns will soon be brought to justice.

  64. @Graham

    That is one of the reasons I have always rejected the PJ theory that an accident might have happened before dinner on the evening of Thursday. I doubt even the most desperate and hardminded parents would not have had the mind to immediately think and act out a plan of abduction within hours of their child's death. For me it was always a day in between or a panic reaction after finding her during one of the checks of the same evening. But all evidence points to the former and none to the latter.

  65. Very well researched, thank you. Do you think that mitchell is in the know?

  66. He would have to be wouldn't he?

    His role is intriguing given the fact that he was involved in most of the dodgier criminal cases in recent history. Milly Dowler, Jill Dando, Fred and Rosemary West, Ian Huntley....

  67. Truth for Madeleine website reports Gerry may have a girlfriend (August 2011). If so, others may feel able to tell the whole truth - whatever that is - instead of being bound by false loyalties. Whether just a few lies about the timeline/ frequency of checks or something more serious, it must be a heavy burden to carry for life. Once they can speak as individuals instead of The Tapas Group the truth may come out and free them and Madeleine's memory.

  68. Interesting post about Gerry and maybe having a girlfriend. Especially if correct and as you suggest. It might give rise to a break in the case.
    Do you have a source or a link to your information?

  69. Hi Graham. website. Go into Famous Articles, select Kate's Handwriting at Ocean Club ...
    Look at comment no 8 by Cookie. Site admin's reply at the very end says that recent intelligence has been received that Gerry has a girlfriend. Not seen any other references to that anywhere - who knows if it is true? If it is it means the close image is (another) act.
    Don't want to judge - relationships are hard enough without the huge pressure McCanns have been through, but it may be harder to keep story together once group dynamics change. Do you know anything about that website?

  70. Thanks for the link to the quote. Sorry don't know a great deal about the site or its Admin. Seems the first hint that such a relationship might be going on? Not sure what to make of it? Just a "one liner" and seems no sign of on any on the many McCann websites that discuss the case. So difficult to comment on its authenticity? Although like many things that surround the case, doesn't mean it is untrue? As the media and websites with there pro-Mccann stance are unlikely to publish the fact?!

    What I find very interesting about your post is hinting that relationships which were involved in the case, may lead to a breakthrough as to what exactly happened that night? I am sorry to say that I am cynic and think Madeleine is definitely dead. I also think that the only way the truth will finally come out. Is in one of two ways. Firstly, if her body is discovered? But even then, think that all the "smokescreens" that have been put up surrounding the case, would make it extremely difficult to prove who exactly was the perpetrator?

    This leaves a confession, as the only realist alternative? Through feelings of "guilt" being too much and a need to confess and finally tell the truth? Such a thing often occurring when there has been a "falling out" in a relationship? There are obviously, a number of other possible alternatives to resolving the case? Such as Madeleine turns up alive and well. The PJ arrest the "alledged" intruder(s). Or SY make a breakthrough in the case. But I put the chances of either of these things happening as being all equally improbable?

    Would be interested in yours, Johanna's and fellow posters views.


  71. Outstanding analysis. I would hate to be your spouse. I would never get away with anything. Great job though. If you are bored you should read "The Decipherment of Linear B" by Michael Ventris. You and he are in the same league as puzzle solvers. Congratulations.

    Do you think they were given help or coaching from England via telephone (record deleted)?

  72. I very much suspect an EARLY involvement of News Int. who with their "contacts" that slowly came to light only recently, helped to pave a lot of ways. But in the very beginning? No I doubt that anybody apart from the small circle of friends knew what really happened. And there might only be one or two persons who know where the body is. Much safer that way.

  73. There is a hilarious answer given by David Payne to the Leicestershire police when they ask him what time his children usually went to bed.

    1485 ”And what sort of time would you generally put them to sleep?”

    Reply ”Err I mean we would, so they, I mean they had the you know if they ate at the err kids club you know and again it’s just difficult what happened after, you know for the weeks after because we ate at the kids club then, did we eat before, how often did we eat, ours were a bit fussy on the eating and from what I can remember sometimes we ate you know in the, in the room, but that could’ve been mixed up with my recollections of you know what we did after. Err but that was generally around five, five thirty so we wouldn’t certainly get back to the room till six, we often went to the play area you know that seemed to be quite another time of the day where we, you know most people would be there and the children were there err you know played, sometimes you know there was a social tennis bit in the evening err certainly we tended to watch a little bit of that if we hadn’t played, you know, ourselves and then from err from there you know say right okay it’s time to go up, so perhaps you go up around six thirty, seven o’ clock, then they’d have you know the, most nights we liked to give ours baths because you know we just felt that we liked to get them into as much of a routine in a strange environment as possible. Err you know so probably we’re looking at trying to get them down about seven thirty, somewhere around there.”

    Payne gives the impression of being very nervous and of trying very hard to disclose nothing.

    This is quite revealing of the attitudes of the Tapas 7.

    I think this case could have been concluded successfully if the Portugese police had been able to arrest the Tapas 7 as soon as they had learned what the arrangements had been for looking after the children while the parents were out in the evenings.

    The arrests would have given them some bargaining chips to trade for the truth of what had happened.

  74. This is why the rogatories are so crucial. Conducted to perfection straight from the book they encouraged such waffling and even recorded it on video. So much more revealing than the PJ interviews could ever be. They were not even verbatim transcripts but narrative statements (or whatever you call that style)

    The rogatories revealed so much, but were never used by Paulo Rebelo. IMO they cracked the case, at least for me, but he even returned to Portugal before they were finished, the schmock.

  75. As I reread Payne's response to the question about the children's usual bedtime, I realized that he was probably waffling so that he could carefully think what the consequences of the answer (7:30) would be. Far from a bumbling fool, Payne is a "research fellow" in medicine and undoubtedly, very sharp intellectually.

    But the fact of the matter is, his delayed response (7:30) to the question, makes it appear that he is aware, in the back of his mind, of some sequence of events, probably fictitious, that he must be careful not to contradict.

    I believe that Payne is one of the people that the police must put under some pressure to tell what he knows.

    Jane Tanner also. In the McCann's documentary, Madeleine Was Here, I believe she mentions that Gerry was missing from the Tapas table for some time on the evening of May 3, and that Kate had said that he was "watching football".

    Quite an interesting remark and never explored, to my knowledge.

    Do you know if Aoife Smith has done an "E-fit" drawing for the police? She alone, of the Smith family, got a look at the face of the man carrying the little girl that night.

    I have never seen a reproduction of this E-fit drawing, if it has been made.

  76. Aoife did not do an E-fit drawing, none of them did.

    My interpretation of the longer absence of Gerry lies in the first attempt at a removal that was thwarted by JW. It was not important at first since the hour was clearly structured in 2 halfs. The abduction was staged for the second half after Matt's alleged check at 21:30. Only after the Smith sighting and the necessary sighting by Jane did the first half become important - hence the sudden alleged football game - taken from the musings of various boards imo

    1. We know now that both Mr. and Mrs. Smith helped to make an e-fit for the McCanns private investigators, which looks very much like Gerry.

  77. Personally, I believe that there was someone in England strategizing for them before 10:00PM on May 3, 2007, when Kate McCann is popularly believed to have announced that Madeleine was missing.

    I think the deleted phone records are relevant to this.

    The first press report of Madeleine's disappearance that I am aware of was at approximately midnight of the 3rd/4th, and was released by the British Foreign Office, no less, to the Telegraph newspaper's website.

    It is very difficult for me to believe that this was not arranged in advance of Kate's announcement at 10:00PM. The logistics involved in getting such a press release from the Foreign office, surely would take more than two hours minus time taken in Praia da Luz, to be sure that Madeleine was truly missing.

    I find the time table which includes the press release to be impossible to believe.

    Someone associated with the McCanns was also very shrewd in going to the top rung of the British Establishment for support at such an early moment in the affair. Once given, that support would be very difficult to withdraw without huge embarassment to the officials concerned.

    I think this is a key factor in why the case has gone the way it has from the point of view of the British authorities. At this point it is in nobody's interest to investigate the McCanns seriously.

    Nobody but the public, of course, but who cares about them?

  78. Hi, I just stumbled on your site and skimmed over the theory you assembled. Very, very intriguing and it all does seem to make sense.

    I've been studying several interviews and based on the facial expressions, my gut feeling is that they are both lying/concealing and showing many slips of emotional composure while they speak.

    One question that keeps me busy (and I might have overlooked this in your theory articles, as I only just read them):

    The theory implies that several others know the actual truth and are playing along to hide it. What could their motives be to do so?

    My instinct tells me that it must be very difficult for people to lie about such a horrible situation, so there must be very strong incentives for each "accomplice" in the cover-up to play along.

    Could it be that they as friends want to be helpful, or are they threatened/blackmailed in any way, or possibly offered compensation of any kind?

    Is there any indication how this may have been achieved and how durable these incentives are in the long run?

  79. Thank you for your comment.

    It is a rather complex question and not easily answered. In my opinion there are 6 people who were involved in the cover-up of her death. Not necessarily in the know about the way she died. 2 couples were most probably frightened because of their poor childcare arrangements in a foreign country and might not have needed much convincing to just play along a staged abduction. After all the plan did not ask them to lie to police, just to take part in the dinner. Only when the original plan was thwarted twice did they have to take a more active role in the game. But at that stage it was already too late, Madeleine had been dead already for 24 hours and admitting to that would have implicated them heavily.

    One strong indication for their fear of a prosecution for neglect is the mystery baby monitor allegedly brought to Portugal by Jane Tanner that only entered the scene a year later. Obviously she was very scared of the media, the police and of Social Services.

    Why the couple that actually did have a baby monitor with them and apparently used it during the holiday, did also take part in the cover-up is a mystery. They were their best friends or might have had other reasons to comply with the staging.

  80. Been watching some YouTube interview clips of the McCanns to see how they speak and what facial expressions and body language they make.

    I found this clip: , which shows Kate reminiscing about Madeleine.

    Her final remark struck me as awkward and possibly a Freudian slip.

    While looking at a drawing Madeleine made, Kate tells it was made the year before they went to Portugal. She continues to say: "And I look back and think, oh why can't I just rewind the clock."

    The figure of speech of "rewinding the clock" is used when people regret a decision they made.

    For someone whose child was abducted, it would seem very strange to regard the abduction as a result of a decision they had made themselves (what decision would that be? going on holiday to Portugal?)

    I would expect her to condemn the abductors instead and attribute full responsibility and blame for their actions to them.

    By making that remark it seems Kate feels responsibility for whatever happened to her daughter. Could it be she reacts to her feelings of guilt for (accidentally) killing her?

    Speculation and amateur psychology of course, but just something I'd like to share.

  81. very good site,didnt realize it was so comprehensive ,but have used it to read jeannws remarks over at mad. case files ,obviosly closed too soon joyce1938


    There are a lot of possibilities in this case. I think that the most thorough effort to reconstruct the events surrounding the disappearance of Madeleine McCann has been undertaken by the blogger at:

    The Unterdenteppichgekehrt (Sweptunderthecarpet) blogger has given us an example of detective work, in the painstaking analysis of the rogatory statements, that is on the level of Sherlock Holmes or Hercule Poirot. It is really first class work. Scotland Yard or the FBI or the RCMP should sign this person up.

    When I was at university, I read a book called The Decipherment of Linear B, by Michael Ventris. Ventris deciphered a species of Greek script that had baffled experts for years, through an outstanding application of logic to a fairly large data set with only few things known for certain. He did this in his head, when computers still needed forklifts to move them around and weren't available to him.

    The Unterdeteppichgekehrt blogger had an incredible breakthrough in reading the rogatory statements of the Tapas 9 when he/she came to the conclusion that only one of them, Dianne Webster, Fiona Payne's mother, was telling the truth.

    The reconstruction at the above link makes great and startling reading for followers of this case. This reconstruction may not be absolutely correct in every detail, but it does shed a huge amount of light on a hitherto murky sequence of events.

  83. Johanna, what do you make of the rogatory statement given to the PJ by Emma Wilding?

    I know that the statements written down by the PJ are not too confidence inspiring, and they never seem to have asked the question "When did you last see Madeleine?", but the following statement seems pretty solid witness testimony to Madeleine's presence at the children's club on May 3, '07.

    "When questioned she states that on May 3, 2007 it was the father that took Madeleine, as was customary, between 0900 and 0930; she remembers that she just said 'hello' to him, because as Madeline (sic) did not belong to her group she did not talk to him very much.

    She only noticed Madeleine and not her father, and nothing seemed abnormal or unusual.

    She is not sure whether during the morning Madeleine's group had outdoor activities, mainly at the pool; she does remember that around 1230 Madelew's (sic) father went to fetch her for lunch.

    When questioned, she states that on Wednesday May 2, her group and Madeleine's group went to the beach, but she is not sure if Madeleine was in the group or not, and does not remember having seen anybody specifically taking direct and close-up photographs of the children.

    She remembers that during the afternoon of May 3 Madeleine was at the Mini Club, but she does not remember at what time she arrived, and if on that day Madeleine accompanied the other children at 1645 as was customary."

    The statement was given on May 7.

  84. Emma Wilding claimed to have seen her with her father on the Thursday morning but also claims he collected her, although it was Kate who signed her out. I am sure Gerry was at the creche that morning and that he drew attention to himself to get noticed.

    She is a very inaccurate witness, if she was wrong about who collected her, she might have been wrong about the morning as well. Possibly a mix-up of dates.

  85. Wednesday crying
    But someone was right behind the bedroom's wall that night and heard no crying. And we know they could easily hear what happened next door, like bath noises...

  86. None of them stayed in the apartment on any night. Just one of their lies to avoid neglect charges.

    Remember Jane claimed in her rogatory interview that she had listened at the Oldfields' windows Wednesday night ALTHOUGH Rachael was allegedly inside. Same goes for Matt's "sickness" on Sunday. Russell even claimed to have checked INSIDE the Oldfields' apartment by key while Matt was allegedly sick inside.

    Lies whereever you look

  87. If the idea was to avoid neglect charges, why didn't those who stayed behind one night or another just pretended the point was at least one of them to be close by (as JT thought they would do) ? Why instead pretend they were feeling sick ?
    They obviously invented some checking without even crossing their lies with facts, just to protect themselves. "Innocently", because then they were yet convinced Madeleine had been
    abducted (I don't think they were asked to lie nor informed about the death)

  88. Johanna, I know this doesn't really touch the body of your reconstruction of the events of May 2/3,2007, but I was wondering if you had seen this thread page on the website,

    . . . in which it is alleged that Martin Grime falsified the sniffer dog alert to "Cuddle Cat" at Vista Mar Villa and that the police in the UK have been covering it up.

    A video entitled, Search of Vista Mar Villa, 02 August 2007, viewable at the at the following URL:

    . . . shows Eddy the sniffer dog alerting to something on the counter top in the kitchen at Vista Mar Villa, then shows him failing to alert to "Cuddle Cat" and then shows Martin Grime removing "Cuddle Cat" from the cupboard beneath the counter top, as if the dog had alerted to "Cuddle Cat", even though the video has already shown that "Cuddle Cat" was in another room, when Eddy alerted to the counter top.

    It seems to me that this might well call into question all of the sniffer dog alerts, at least as far as the McCann's publicity machine is concerned and might well raise doubt as to whether Madeleine actually died in apartment 5A.

    I was wondering what your reaction is to the idea that Eddy, the sniffer dog, might not be as infallible as we have been led to believe.

    Personally, I don't think it alters the overall complexion of the case, but it certainly damages the police credibility in the case in a very demonstrable way.

    1. I am not a dog trainer. I have watched the dog videos carefully, this is my interpretation of the cuddle cat alert video.
      Eddie spends time in the area of the left part of the patio door, nose up, down and around, he then picks cuddle cat out of a ? box/container, carries it a short distance and drops it on the floor. The video then shows Eddie again in the room round the table then the cupboard/sideboard on the right wall, nose up and down, he then jumps up at the far corner on the cupboard/side board and then barks his alert.
      I think Eddies initial interest in the patio door area was the scent emanating from something, he then picks out cuddle cat as the source but ? scent not strong enough for alert. My complete guess (as it is not shown how or why) is Martin Grime took this behaviour as a clue and cuddle cat was placed in the cupboard to concentrate the scent. Eddie then jumped up the cupboard and gave his alert. I think the alert was to the scent emanating up out of the top of the cupboard door where cuddle cat had been placed.
      Watching the video of the vehicle checks by Eddie also shows him responding to scent rising/emanating from a source... he runs past the car and runs in circles with his nose in the air. Martin Grime then directs him to check out the car and he alerts.

      I see nothing to suggest either of the dogs were cued. I find the evidence of the dogs utterly convincing. They are highly trained to detect specific human scents but not which human is the source of the scent.

  89. I have read your theory many times and amongst many theories that I have read on different blogs (including AG) I would say that this theory makes sense to me, I also believe that the little girl died on 2nd May when Mrs Fenn heard the crying. You have done a great job!

  90. Thank you but Mrs. Fenn heard her crying on the 1st May. She was not at home on the 2nd to hear her crying, but that was not known until the release of the files. :)

  91. I too am very impressed with the amount of work you have put into trying to understand this mystery and whilst I do agree with nearly everything you write, I am unsure of how one might persuade a number of people to participate in such a horrible act. What if Gerry and Kate had suggested the body disposal and one of the friends had refused to be involved? It was one hell of a risk to take. If Gerry and Kate did dispose of poor M, then there must be a very good reason they don't want her body found or for any post mortem to take place. This I can accept particularly if they had been using sedatives or if there were any non-accidental injuries, either fresh or old. However, it is a big step to move from themselves committing a crime, to involving and securing the loyalty of the friends, and for so long after the event. Does anyone know if they are still friends with each other? I can see how they would have to go along with the story once they had agreed to take the first step. However, taking that first step is a huge ask from the McCanns, and I understood that Kate and Gerry weren't necessarily that close to all of the group? What do you think Johanna, I would be interested to hear from you.

  92. I heard that SY were using two investigation teams - one to consider the abduction possibility and the other to consider the body disposal possibility. They have made much of the abduction side of their review but we haven't heard anything about the findings of the other team. Perhaps when the abduction investigation is exhausted, and the McCanns are lulled into a false sense of security, we will hear more about the investigation proper? Or am I being optimistic......

  93. When I started reading your theory, at first I thought that this was totally far-fetched. But when I continued reading, everything fell into place.
    However, I am a disbeliever of either conspiracy-theories (man was never on the moon, 9/11 was staged by the Americans, etc) or the functionality of conspiracies per se, when you consider that even 2 persons can rarely keep a secret for themselves for long time let alone 8 adults under massive police/media-pressure.

    Here are my thoughts about the case:

    The McCanns are innocent - pros:

    - I still find it hard to believe that 6+2 adults cover up a crime / accident. What would be the benefit for the 6 uninvolved? Just that they also did not watch their children? Giving wrong statements to the police and lying to the public is a far more serious thing than just leaving your own kids alone in a hotel-room.

    - If the McCanns were involved, why would they continue to get more attention, even today, 5 years after the disappearance? Especially, why did they involve politicians to get Scotland Yard to investigate again? If guilty, they would be rather content if the focus shifts away from them. Also, why take the pressure again with publishing a book?

    Neither pro nor con:

    - I do not believe in an accident as a cause for Madeleines death. The entire muskulosceletal system of very young children is pretty flexible and a fall from a low height, like a couch would not cause a young child to die. A head injury that leads to cerebral bleeding would need an enormous impact (car accident, fall from a tree to a concrete floor, etc). Thus, if she died, IMHO it must have been with force/intention/accidental violence, etc.

    I know, this is not really sorted in any way, but the case still intrigues and puzzles me...I would be happy, if you could comment...

  94. If the McCanns were involved, why would they continue to get more attention, even today, 5 years after the disappearance? Especially, why did they involve politicians to get Scotland Yard to investigate again? If guilty, they would be rather content if the focus shifts away from them. Also, why take the pressure again with publishing a book?
    They asked for a review of the case, not for the case to be re-opened. Perhaps they thought their request for a review would be denied or perhaps they thought that they could get Scotland Yard to give them the conclusion they desire. That remains to be seen but Andy Redwood, Scotland Yard's spokesman ,looks like a rabbit caught in headlights. Re; publishing a book: they were paid for the book and they need their 'fighting fund' to squash 'unhelpful' rumours, pay their expensive 'reputation management' solicitors etc They have had help from people in 'high places'. Conspiracies do happen,e.g.the Masons do exist! It's as naive to think that conspiracies never occur as to think that everything is a conspiracy. One theory is that the Mccann's phones were hacked,and the newspapers know what happened to Madeleine but don't want to admit they hacked the phones and have paid 'compensation' for this. Re an accident - she could have fallen down the steps outside the apartments or unintentionally been
    given an overdose of sleeping medication - or yes it could be more sinister. Re why they continue to court more attention - they want to convince and they want a conclusion that is favourable to them. The children of the Tapas 9 will soon be old enought to surf the net.

  95. Hi there great blog and great theory. I find your theory the most probable that I have read , however the only problem I have with it is the amount of people that seemed to have coped with carrying the guilt of knowing what happened to Madeline. Has there been any reports of any of the Tapas 9 being suicidal or behaving abnormally ? I find it hard to swallow that as parents they would be so passive about a child's death and be so barefaced infront of what was ultimately the whole world when this story first came to light.

    This is the only thing that seems improbable to me.

  96. @The last 3 posters, I would bear in mind that this is a group of doctors - the oath is to their fellow professionals, not to the public.

    If there's one group where 'you don't snitch on your friends' applies as much as with mobsters it's doctors!

  97. Congratulations, Johanna. Your theory certainly explains how they managed to stage the "abduction" and dispose of the body in the time available, and many aspects of the Tapas7 that were unclear earlier. I too became interested in this case only when the McCanns became arguidos, but as soon as I looked at the details it was blatantly obvious the "abduction" was fake. What amazes me is that so many apparently intelligent people, including some famous names who should know better, cannot see through this deception! All they need to do is look properly at the facts - as you have done par excellence.

    I have Mr Amaral's book (in German - it was not available in English, of course) but the one thing I could not fathom (not having read the rogatories) was how they discovered the body and staged the abduction all on the same evening. Now you have explained that they didn't - thank you! (For anyone who hasn't read his beautifully written analyses, Dr Martin Roberts on also examines how they faked Madeleine's presence all day on 3 May.)

    One thing I'm still not sure about is how and when exactly Madeleine died. There was the crying fit that stopped abruptly, but there was also Gerry's blunder when he said "when we found her". If Kate had been there and seen her fall behind the sofa (or even caused that fall), would she not at least have picked her up and given first aid, probably preventing any cadaverine from forming where the dog found it? (It's unlikely Madeleine died the moment she hit the ground - she was probably unconscious at first and died slightly later.) Somehow I can't imagine anyone hitting a child while she is standing on the back of a sofa, as she would have had to be in order to fall behind it with sufficient impact to kill her. Kate would have been more likely to drag her back down and then (perhaps) smack her. That too makes me think it happened more or less as Dr Amaral said, but a day earlier - while they were both absent, and very likely with Gerry outside the window, his voice tempting Maddy (half sedated?) onto the back of the sofa.
    Also, an accident happening with a parent present (and giving first aid and presumably raising the alarm) would not necessarily be grounds for prosecution, and the details of their leaving the children alone at night need never have come out - hence no need for this extremely elaborate, stressful and long-term deception. Madeleine could have fallen from the back of the sofa with her head impacting the tiled floor accidentally, as I believe she did - in their absence. That would have implicated both parents and been ample grounds for a prosecution for child neglect, with all its consequences for their family and careers.

    Explaining away the crying fit could have been simply a way of distracting attention from the family's problems with Madeleine.

    I'm sure anyone who takes an interest in this case must ask themselves why they do, as it scarcely affects us personally. For me - as for you, I am sure - it's simply an interest in truth. There is a huge amount of deception perpetrated before the eyes of the public, but the truth does usually come out - at least for those prepared to accept it.
    Regards, Martin

  98. Der Kommentar wurde von einem Blog-Administrator entfernt.

  99. Johanna, this is an incredible piece of work. It's clear that you've invested a lot of research and effort. Your theory is logical and believable, and resolves discrepancies in the timelines and evidence.

  100. Haven't been to your site in a while. I intend to re-read your construction of events again. Do you still actively look at the evidence in order to fill in more detail? The whole thing is so absorbing.

    I recently began to wonder if perhaps the Smith family have been paid off to be silent. The way the police have handled them is completely incomprehensible. I'm beginning to think that they are purposefully uncooperative and possibly that they have been paid off.

    Any reaction to that?

  101. Re the Smiths

    How can somebody be purposefully uncooperative when he never gets interviewed by SY in the first place? From what there is in the files one can deduct that the Smiths are not likely to get paid off. They even complained about Brian Kennedy visiting them while they cooperated with the PJ to the fullest, flying with 3 people to Portugal to do a reconstruction.

    They and Cat Baker are the key witnesses and I very much hope that now after the review has been turned into an investigation they will be questioned again.

  102. Doesn't this question answer itself?

    "How can somebody be purposefully uncooperative when he never gets interviewed by SY in the first place?"

    If, at this point, Scotland Yard really has not questioned the Smiths, it must be because they have refused to cooperate with British police. Being Irish, they are not required to cooperate with Scotland Yard. It would be strictly voluntary.

    They cooperated with the PJ early in the game, but have lain pretty low since then. I have never even seen a photograph of them and that in itself is odd enough to raise suspicions regarding them. Who has the power to keep the mad dog British press from running photographs of key witnesses in a case like this one?

    Doesn't the treatment of the Smiths put you in mind of the treatment of the McCanns themselves? They seem to be in that club of untouchables at the heart of this affair.

  103. Sorry but this is illogical reasoning. From what we know so far, SY haven't interviewed ANYBODY during the review. It was reportet that it has to be turned into a full investigation to do so.

    I suspect an discrediting attempt of the family who were the only decent witnesses, refusing to talk to the press, refusing to be forced into one of those stupid photofit sessions by the McCann "Investigators" and truely concerned about the case and upset about what they thought they had seen.

  104. Fascinating blog. There must have been foul-play involved - or at least actions that would discredit/severely embarrass the perpetrator(s) for the group to go to such lengths to match your analysis.
    A run-of-the-mill accident by dropping a child, or by the child falling down whilst under inadequate supervision stretches my imagination (but admittedly not beyond the bounds of plausibility, given the obvious narcissism of the actors) I can only currently imagine it was either using their medical knowledge for "illicit" sedation (that went wrong), or something much more sinister. The tireless cohesion of the group at the time and subsequently leads me to believe that at the very least, most of the group was "in on it" (whatever "it" was), thereby feeling a group complicity when the tragedy unfolded. The best I can come up with is sedation of their children, but this is admittedly a rather weak explanation and has holes, poses questions. Finally, the professional planning and execution of the cover-up has to be given consideration. This lends credence to a group effort, I *cannot* believe two doctors from a middling university (even from a top university - or even Einstein!) could come up with such a plan so fast. I can just about believe that a team of doctors could do so given 12-24 hours. An other alternative is that they had help from a source familiar with such operations. The only two groups I can think of with such knowledge would be 1. Organised crime or 2. MI5/MI6. Possibly a member of the group was part of MI5/MI6 (or had a close affilliation). Given their firm middle-class credentials, this is not implausible.This would also go some way to explain the phone record manipulation and subsequent "manipulation" (and I do not necessarily mean this in a directly-pejorative sense) of the media.

  105. I think it is possible that she was molested - perhaps on the night of Tuesday 2nd May when a neighbour reported hearing crying coming from the Mc Cann's apartment from around 10,30pm until 11.45pm. The neighbour was concerned enough to contact a friend about it and I think she may also have reported it to Mark Warner reception. She thinks it was a child older than 2 - therefore not the twins but Maddie. The child sounded quite distressed and apparently became more so.

    She says that the crying stopped 'when she heard the parents come back at 11.45' but she didn't actually see the parents come back, she just heard someone come through the shutters.

    So - why was Maddie crying for so long and why was she calling out 'Daddy, Daddy?' That is a very long time for a child of that age, who one would reasonably expect to be very tired at that time in the evening after a busy day, to be crying. I cannot ever, not once, remember any of my children crying for so long at night at that age.

    Was she alone in the apartment and crying for her parents (who claimed that they checked on the children every 30 minutes). Was she with one or both of her parents? Or did someone else enter the apartment (either known to the parents or not) and do something that caused her to cry in distress for an hour and a quarter?

    Whatever happened, Madeleine was not comforted for an hour and a quarter that night. That is an unacceptable length of time to leave a child in distress.

    I am not clear whether there are any reliable reports of Madeleine been seen after that fateful night. From what I have read, there are inconsistencies, cover-ups, fake accounts and so on.

    It is, of course, possible that there was an accident or violent act during that evening or another time.

    As for why the parents have carried on in their 'search' for so long. Complicated reasons, probably. They want to believe their own lies and fabrications. They are narcissistic and enjoy the attention. They have got away with a crime and enjoy the frisson of continuing with a charade. They want to divert attention away from the true nature of what happened to Maddie. They have set up an elaborate fund which has garnered millions of pounds ostensibly to 'search' for Maddie but in reality which works to silence their critics. They have used money from the fund to sue critics of the abduction theory. They employ detectives, lawyers and spin doctors who support their abduction theory, silencing others. Some of these have shady pasts with experience in money laundering. I would suggest that the fund is, in fact, a form of money laundering. If you look closely at the detective agencies they have used, they look more like gangsters. Plus they use the most feared libel lawyer. Plus very quickly hired a lawyer who is an expert in extradition.

    It is all so shady.

  106. Also of interest in this case is the testimony of Katherine Gaspar and her husband who made a police statement after Maddie went missing saying that Gerry McCann and another member of the party, Dr David Payne, had made lewd comments and gestures on a previous family holiday which they were concerned related to Maddie and which had paedophile implications. They were concerned enough to make sure that their children were not alone with either of them - especially at bath time.

    Another person of interest, who again has not been quoted in the British Press as far as I am aware is a social worker who in involved in child protection - Yvonne Martin. She was near the resort when Maddie disappeared and she went over on the night of the 3rd May and introduced herself to the McCanns and to David Payne. When they learned of her job title, they did not want to have anything to do with her and David Payne said that they had a pact between themselves.

    If the McCann's believed that their child had been abducted by a paedophile, as they claimed they did, then why would they refuse assistance from someone who has expert credentials in the field of protecting children from abuse?

    Instead of assisting with police searches and enlisting the help of agencies who are specialists in missing children and in child abuse they enlisted the help of lawyers/detectives and others who did not have expertise in this area but instead had expertise in 'reputation management', extradition procedures and influencing the British media.

    The fact that they are doctors is also crucial to this case in my opinion. Doctors in general have quite high status in the UK, particularly if they are consultants. People do not want to believe that doctors could do anything to harm their children. The medical profession also has a very strong tendency to cover up medical mishaps and mistakes so if there had been an accident or the children had accidentally been overdosed, say with sleeping pills, the default mode could well be to cover up the mistake.

    Of course, if the reason for Maddie's disappearance was even more sinister - she had been molested, say, by one or more of the group or perhaps other/s of the groups acquaintance (and given that the children were left alone without responsible adult supervision at night, that is not an impossible scenario) then there would be even more reason to cover up what had happened to her and even more reason for a massive fabrication.

  107. You also have to ask yourself why the group were so quick to advance the theory that Madeleine had been abducted by a paedophile ring. This is not consistent with parents who felt it was safe to leave their children unattended at night time, only checking on them every half an hour. Either they are worried about abduction from an apartment, in which case do not leave your children unattended, or they consider abduction by a stranger to be very unlikely (which statistically it is) in which case you would not jump to that conclusion at the very outset that your child goes missing. And that very night inform the media that a child had been abducted by a stranger.

    So which is it? They can't have it both ways.

    Oh, I get it - they weren't worried about abduction by a stranger. But given the almighty mess that they got themselves into, they use the paranoia surrounding paedophile abduction by a stranger as a smoke screen for.....

  108. What I find extraordinary about this case, is that if you analyse carefully the body language and language used by the McCann's in interviews after Maddie's disappearance, it is incredibly damning. There have been quite a few analyses of their statements by those who are skilled in these matters and it is extraordinary that detectives working on the case have not examined these more closely.

    Kate McCann's description of her putting Maddie to bed (allegedly) on the evening she disappeared is rich in sybolism and evasion. They appear not to have gone through what one would expect to be the natural grieving process of the loss of a child in that their facial and body expressions and indeed often what they say is not that different now to what it was not long after Maddie went missing. Surely one would expect some kind of process to evolve whereby the initial shock would be replaced by a range of different emotions?

    You do not really see this. It is the same script. Similar facial expressions. As so much credence has been given to their abduction story, their version of events and the inconsistencies has never been robustly challenged by an interviewer.

    They are allowed to get away with bluster and fake self-righteousness, claiming that to suggest they had any had in their daughter's disappearance is 'ridiculous' and 'hurtful'. At the very least this shows that they have failed to take responsibility for the fact that they left their children unattended at night which exposed them to potential risks and harm. So on that level they are responsible for what happened. But they continually minimize the importance of their own parental responsibilities, claiming that 'everyone' must keep looking, 'someone' has Maddie, 'someone holds the key'. It is all everyone else's fault, never their own.

  109. Another point - in a few interviews, Kate stumbles over the question of when she last saw her daughter. I think this is because there are two 'last times'. The last time she saw her alive (which I think could have been Tuesday 1st May) and the last time she saw her dead - probably Wed 3rd May. This would also explain her running out of the apartment and crying out 'they have taken her'. This would explain why she was not concerned about the twins (I suspect they did not wake because they had been sedated.)

  110. Excellent blog. Something bothering me about the possibility of Gerry being the man in the Smith sighting. Why didn't the cadaver dog alert to his clothes as they did Kate's?

  111. ich fände es super, wenn der englische text ins deutsche übersetzt werden könnte. die deutsche theorie ist nicht mal ansatzweise so ausführlich wie die englische. der google translator ist hierfür leider keine alternative.

  112. Interesting read but it seems like you have taken a thousand puzzle pieces and tired to form them into a piece of art. There is no accounting for the psychology behind the crimes. There is no reason to suspect that the mother was ever violent with the child. Your whole story is pinned on the idea that she purposefully hurt her. It is much more likely that Madeleine died as a result of falling while being left alone and the implications of this would drive a group of people to cover it up much more than an act of aggression. The chances of Madeleine being found to not have been in attendance at the crèche and suspicious behaviour on the part of the adults were way too risky for anyone to take and seems like the work of fiction. There were too many tangents that could have gone wrong. The whole reason it was covered up was because the children were left alone and all the adults were implicated in it. With Kate on her own, she is the only adult who would have been implicated in a serious way and even then, it would have been much easier for them to lie their way out of that then by creating a whole new situations that relied on so many people and so many coverups. They could never have known that their friends would back them unless they themselves has something to lose.

  113. I read the part in Kate Mccanns book where she decribes the thoughts and feelings she had when the police showed her the videos of the sniffer dogs reactions in her appartment. According to Kate the sniffer dogs only gave signs when they got a signal from the man who was with them. I watched the videos afterwards and realized that this was incorrect. There is one situation where it could be assumed that the man gave the dog, which was specialized in dead people, a signal when he assigned the dog to have a sniff around the sofa. However, the dog barked on the other side of the sofa and exactly at the same location, where the dog that was specialized in blood also gave a signal. Since the dogs worked independantly from each other and likely did not have the chance to discuss the right location where exactly around the sofa to bark, this can not be coincidence. Why does Kate Mccann not describe the situation with the sniffer dogs correctly? Why do the couple not take the reaction of the sniffer dogs seriously? Why would Kate feel relief when she pretends to believe that the reaction of the dogs can not be taken seriously?

    1. I'm glad you're not a doctor if that was your reading of these videos! I have watched them too, and Kate is 100 percent correct. It is obvious from every moment of the dog's so called 'findings' that they are merely picking up the unconscious bias of their trainer. You're just not smart, or observant enough to see the more subtle aspects of the video. You only see the surface.

    2. To answer your last question, she felt relief because she knew the PJ were trying to implicate her in this whole thing, and she also felt relief because she knew that the dogs were only responding to their owner, and not to anything related to an actual cadaver. Therefore, Kate knew that Madeline wasn't dead. What is so difficult to understand about that?

  114. If Gerry removed the body himself, why then did the cadaver dogs only mark Kate's clothing? Surely the cadaver smell would have been all over him and his own clothes? Or did I miss something?

    1. One possbility would be that he got rid of the cothes he wore on that night because he was aware that the Smith family had seen him.

  115. I think they confessed in Church... i think dna in the car may have been when they say they went shopping to a near by village with the twins and that is why there has been no body found.they knew the place well and knew the caves around the coastline would hide a body stated by one of the locals. Your take on it is exactly as ive thought but i could never have put it like you have.very well investigated and you have all the answers to questions i wasnt sure about.

  116. The mother IS violent though. She admits that she smashed a bed headboard, and banged her arms which were seen covered in bruises right after Madeleine disappeared. That is not normal behaviour for one who has lost someone. She also wanted to " kill" Robert Murat and wanted Mr Amaral to "feel fear". I have no rose coloured glasses on with this woman. She appears on camera drugged or drunk. She admits to chanting f-ing tosser, f-ing tosser to a Policeman. Both her and her husband are rough as they come, dressed up to fool the Public.

    1. She is not violent. She was violent in that moment, and not to any other person. She was in PAIN you pathetic excuse for a human being. I hope you never have to go through something like this. She could not bear the emotional pain that was surging through her body, which is why she lashed out to hurt herself, in order to stop the pain. This was an extreme situation, and Kate clearly shocked herself. It was not a common way for her to behave, and she did not hurt anyone.

    2. The bruises on her arms could have been caused by being restrained ? by Gerry.
      It's very difficult to take at face value anything the McCanns claim. We cannot know for certain how the bruises were caused.

  117. I have honestly never read anything as pathetic as this in my life.
    If she did actually die the day before and Gerry moved her body the night of the abduction, passers by would have noticed something wasn't right.
    You don't look or smell the same that long after dying, considering it's a hot country and would still be in the stages of rigor-mortis.
    As for people saying their emotions not being right, with what 'supposedly' happened, everyone deals with things differently, no one knows how they are when alone.
    And the pictures taken of them smiling or laughing, they have 2 other bloody children, you can't expect them to never smile, laugh, or to show their sadness all the time and the pictures aren't exactly an every day occurrence, it's like people wait for a smile, take a quick snap, then come to the conclusion that they must have killed her because they've smiled or laughed.

    1. It might be a hot country in summer, but it was really cold during these early May days. No noticable smell would have developed within 24 hours, and rigor mortis can be reduced by certain techniques.

      I agree though with you re judging them by their behaviour.

    2. The passer-by Mr Smith noted that the carrier wasn't at ease holding the child. He attributed it to the carrier instead of the carried one.
      Any first helper knows that the total lack of muscular tension makes the difference between a dead body and a body in coma.

  118. Yeah that's true about the rigor mortis thing, but unless she was put into a freezer or something, you can't delay it too long as it sets in 3-4 hours after death and lasts up to 48-60 hours depending on age and what not.
    The smell is hard to say really, where I live in England, an old man that lived next door to me at the time, died in his flat and it was during the winter.
    He had apparently been dead for almost 2 weeks before he was discovered, there was a slight smell that started the day after he supposedly died and got worse just before he was found.
    But he was found in the bath, so that could be why.
    Her skin colour would of changed also, but then again it would of been dark at the time she was moved so people may have not noticed.
    Anyway, hopefully we will find out soon what really happened, or we may never know.

  119. I think that there are a number of possibilities as to what happened. An accident is certainly possible. An adult losing his or her temper and striking out on the spur of the moment is possible. I think what is also more than possible is that the McCann's sedated their children and there was an overdose/adverse reaction with Madeleine.

    Perhaps this happened after the hour and a quarter crying incident or even during it. If Madeleine came to harm that night it is possible they sedated her to keep her quiet and cover it up. She could have been sedated for other, darker reasons, either by one or other of the parents or one or other of the group or even a wider acquaintance - adults had ready access to the apartment at night.

    The parents themselves brought up the sedation theory claiming that the abductor could have done it but I think this is highly unlikely - especially given the time frames.

    Sedation of the children on the night Maddie 'went missing' would keep the twins asleep through whatever was happening. It would keep them out of the chaos. The parents would not, we hope, have wanted to start screaming hysterically if the twins had been awake. So they had to make sure that they stayed asleep.

    In any case, if the parents truly believed that sedation by the abductor was a possibility, then surely they would have woken up the twins? They would have demanded toxicology tests plus medical aid for the twins. They would have wanted to know what drugs had been used and in what quantities. They would have wanted an antidote, for instance. In any event, if they felt that Madeleine had been abducted by a paedophile, surely they would have wanted the twins to be examined in hospital? If a paedophile had been in their apartment, possibly for two nights in succession, as they claimed?

    However, it it had been they or their friends who had sedated the children, that would account for why they 'knew' that Madeleine had not wandered off of her own accord. It was not possible. And they 'knew' that the twins would not wake up. They wouldn't have wanted to try to wake them up as it would have been clear that they were sedated. And then the twins would have been taken to hospital and medics there could have found out what drugs had been used and might have been able to link the drugs used with the McCann parents or their friends.It could have been a type of drug not used in Portugal, for instance

    If they had sedated the children, the McCanns would have been very careful to get rid of any evidence. It would also account for the tidiness of the rooms. Nothing was in disarray, no toys strewn about etc. It would also account for Gerry's call - to one of his parents? that night, saying 'there has been a disaster'.

    Maybe the parents had a row that evening, the evening that Madeleine cried for an hour and a quarter, and one of other struck out in anger. It is possible. Who knows what the status of their marriage was? With a three year old and twin two year olds, they would certainly have not been having much 'us' time. Children of this age are incredibly demanding - especially if there are twins - and it is highly likely that Madeleine would have needed to compete for attention with the twins, which could have caused a great deal of stress to the family dynamic. And they had no extra help with them such as a nanny or parent or family member.

    1. What a warped human being you must be to think this way. Yes, children this age are very demanding, but that doesn't make most parents get rid of them! Also, the McCanns had the money to get more assistance in the home, pay for more creche sessions- even have a live in nanny 'if' this parenting was so stressful as to result in them lashing out at one of their children. They have never denied the stresses and strains of having three small children close in age, but they have also chosen - yes CHOSEN- (Because they did have a financial choice) - to do the bulk of the parenting themselves.
      They were obviously in profound shock when Madeleine went missing, and she was their prime concern. Kate regularly put her hands on the twins, to check their breathing, and being a trained anaesthetist, she would have known that they were in fact, fine. Hence, she may have thought they'd been sedated, but not at a dangerous level, which would have shown through their breathing patterns.
      Don't you have any love at all in your life? You don't seem to understand it at all.

  120. I am also intrigued by the suggestion that Gerry may have had a mistress. It is perfectly possible and the ages of the children would mean that there was precious little time in their domestic lives for themselves to enjoy themselves. Apart from anything, the children would wake up at night and cry and come into their bed, which tends to put a dampner on a couples' sex life.

    1. Is this some kind of fantasy of yours? Does every man in this situation go out and have an affair? It seems that YOU think it's a perfectly normal, and justifiable solution for stresses with one's partner and small children.
      I had five children under seven, and yes - my husband and I had very little 'us' time, but we didn't go out and have affairs.
      The trouble with all these paranoid, speculative posts, is that people merely project themselves all over the McCanns. There's never been any evidence whatsoever, that Gerry McCann has a mistress.

  121. Another thought - if one of the friend's had supplied drugs, say, or had given advice as to the dosage or been involved in sedating one or more of the McCann children, then that would explain why they would be prepared to go along with the abduction theory. Because otherwise they might be implicated in Madeleine's disappearance/her coming to harm. Now, what was Jane Tanner's job - was she not an anesthetist?

    1. No, that was Fiona Payne, Kate's best friend ...

  122. First of all, all what I am going to write is solely based on assumptions and my interpretations of the known facts.... more as a brainstroming session to explore possible scenarios. Above all, one must not alter the principle that no person should be declared guilty unless the opposite is proven.

    I am surprised that the testimony of Katherine Gaspar and her husband about the behaviour of Dr David Payne caught so little attention. If her statements are true (and I personally do not have any reason to doubt her story), it tells us a lot about what people/characters we are dealing with. Which father (Gerry) would accept these disgusting "jokes" about your own daughter? Which person must you be (D. Payne) to make sexual statements/referrals about your own daughter? Which person must you be to make these kind of statements in a group of adults? In my opinion, you only display this kind of behaviour when you feel among peers and mates who you think share your beliefs, preferences and character. Apparently the Gaspar couple did not fit in there, especially Katherine Gaspar (maybe the reason why they were not part of the holiday after the Majorca experience?). The fact that she- as a caring mother- did not want her child alone with David Payne gives a very clear message.

    If (!) (some) the Tapas 7- as suggested in the blog's theory- were part of a conspiracy, then I think they must have had much stronger incentives than just being afraid of debatable babysitter/child caring arrangements during dinner times. In this case much darker scenarios come to my mind- almost too disturbing to describe.

  123. I have asked myself why do particular newspapers in England only write articles in favour of the Mccanns? In an interview with Gerry he was asked by portugese interviewer named Sandra if he knew Gordon Brown. Gerry denied, but nodded while he did that, so his words and his bodylanguage were in contrast. If Gerries reaction to David Paynes pedophile gesture indicates that Gerry himself is pedophil and there are rumors about Gordon Brown that point in the direction that Gordon Brown may be peodophil and Gordon Brown protects Gerry because D Payne, Gerry, Gordon belong to the same peodophil ring, then this would explain why the english press who in turn would be influenced by Gordon Brown only writes as pleases the Mccanns. There are pedophile rings out there that rank high into politics, governemnt, etc. as can be studied in the Dutroux case, possbily the Natascha Kampusch case and there are many others. Typical things that happen to truthseekers when trying to cover up those crimes are killings in car accidents, killings that look like suicides and being sued until they run out of money as happens to Goncalo Amaral amongst others in that case. I also find it interesting that Goncalo Amarals book is hard to get and that facebook closed down any antimccann sites and that the guy from Scotland yard pretending to investigate must be part of the covering up what whatever happend that lead to Madeleines death or he is completely wrong in his job. A good case to see how politics, the press, the police are part of the same spidernet.

  124. What are all you nut-case conspiracy theorists going to do when this mystery is solved? Say you're sorry? Probably not. This has to be one the most unintelligent, paranoid piece of writing I've seen on the subject. It reveals a lot about the author's own sick mind. The notion that eight people would risk their careers and children, for a couple that, for some of them, were not even close friends, is just ludicrous. And the thought that they would lie to protect themselves is just as ridiculous. "If" Madeleine died as a result of an accident, this group of people would know that it would be far safer to admit that the kids were left alone, than to attempt to hide a dead body, pervert the cause of justice, waste tax payers money etc.... That you could even think that people as smart as this group would risk the consequences of the kind of sentence they'd all serve if found guilty of such extraordinary criminal deviousness, is a symptom of your sick mind, and not theirs. Psychopaths don't just emerge in their late thirties, *as most of these people were at the time. They have histories, and graduate to greater levels of crimes as time goes on. "If" the so called Taps Nine were capable of all that you accuse them of, there would be people coming out of the woodworks now, to tell of their 'other' crimes. But no- Nothing- Not One Credible thing! Whoever wrote this blog should see a good psychiatrist, and GET A LIFE!

    1. You are absolutely right. I can't "see" either so many people putting their lives on line to not being accused of neglect. If you're accused of neglect, but nothing wrong happened to your child, you will be only finned. So...why risk all of that to stay behind such gruesome story? PEDOPHILIA. Think a bit. If the corpse were examined, they would find the signs of abuse. And by connection they would request a court order to examine the siblings, and probably all the other children of their group. No one could afford nothing like that. For me, That was their motivation for lying.

    2. Thanks for agreeing that I should see a psychiatrist, Maria.

  125. Brilliant blog , wish the truth would come out, but dont think it will :0(. Poor madeleine. It seems like pro mcann troll gurney has been here judging by some of the rabid type of comments lol. i hope the mcanns et al dont evade justice for ever

  126. This blog is incredible. Well researched and well written. I have a few comments and questions. I realize some of these may have been covered in other comments, but please consider that there are three years worth of comments to go through.

    I am almost (99%) convinced that there was no abduction by a stranger. I keep wondering why the parents would cover something up, AND be able to get some of their friends to cover it up as well.

    If an accident occurred, why wouldn't Kate and Gerry report it? Even if they were out at the time, who would know? They could explain "I went to the loo for a minute, and she fell..." No one would know about the lack of supervision. However, there may have been a post-mortem examination that uncovered something more damaging to the parents.

    If an overdose of anesthesia was the cause of death, how would Kate and Gerry convince their friends to go along with the abduction scheme? Why would their friends need to get involved? I would think that all the focus would be on the McCanns (I could be wrong). I can't imagine covering up this type of death for a friend. But, maybe that's just my personality.

    Which leads me to my last option. Something bad happened that would also get the authorities to look into the McCann's friends, or at least some of them. I don't what to speculate what could have happened to cause Madeleine's death. I figure that the friends got involved in the cover up to protect their selves, not just the McCanns.

    Keep up the good work!

  127. I personally think of it as a chain of events. IMO Kate as the perpetrator was scared stiff of Gerry and wanted him to find Madeleine because she could not face up to what had happened. But when Gerry found her after she gave him a headstart back to the apartment on Wednesday night, she had been dead for roughly 4 hours, a timespan that would incriminate all of them because nobody had checked on the 7 children all evening. In a foreign country, with a lot of pressure and the prospect of losing jobs and possibly the other children everybody might be scared into pretending that nothing had happened.

    Initially nobody was asked to lie. Only to "not know" what had happened. When the plan went wrong they could not go back but only forward...

  128. Excellent blog!

    I apologize if this has been addressed before, but I didn't have time to read all the comments. I have two observations.

    I am truly baffled by this case. I don't see enough evidence for an abduction by a stranger, at the same time, the alternative theory has some holes in it.

    First, I find it difficult to think of a strong reason to get the other couples to go along with the McCann's. In my opinion, an accident due to neglect is not enough to convince them to aid in the cover-up. I would think that something more drastic had to happen to get the group to go along with the plan. Perhaps only a few of the friends knew what was going on?

    Second, Mrs. Fenn's statement is interesting. I'm not sure how she knew the child was older than two. Could it have been one of the siblings crying "Maddy, Maddy?" and nod Madeleine crying for her Daddy? I've been reading the official files trying to track down when the last independent sighting of Madeleine actually occurred.

    Keep up the good work!

  129. Re: your first objection
    It is a matter of individual perception but when you read Jane Tanner's rogatory and her answer to the question how her relation to Gerry was, you can sense the terryfying pressure he put on her to invent Tannerman (and it was an invention for sure). A foreign country, foreign police, neglect of all children all week... And an intimidating person who tells you, you will lose your children and career if you don't comply with the plan. And all you needed to do was to consent to attending the dinner performance. Before the plan was thwarted.

    Re the second point
    Mrs Fenn's statement first and foremost showed that there was no checking of the children in the first place which devaluates your first objection. At some stage I thought it could have been Sean in the red T-shirt the dogs alerted to, crying for Maddie. But the crying Mrs.Fenn witnessed was on Tuesday and I doubt that her absence from the creche could have been gone unnoticed for more than one day. Especially if activities were within the creche and not on the beach or in the inside pool.

  130. Have you sent this to Scotland Yard?

  131. No. I did send some info over the years to both forces but not this theory. I am sure they are able to google if they feel the need to do so. They either have read it or they have come to mainly the same conclusions because the current search points seem to comply with the Smith sighting and the Brooks sighting.

    It is not rocket science. It is all in the original PJ Files and the rogatory interviews.

  132. Let's hope they are on the right lines. It might still be a good thing to send your theory to them since you make many valid points.

  133. I agree with your theory. I only disagree with the motif why they hide the body. Actually your theory doesn't explain, other than the fear of being accused of neglect, the reason why they did not called the EMT immediately. For me, and reading statements given to the police, on further occasions, and from other people related somehow with the family, I think they couldn't report the child dead. Because if they did it, they and perhaps some of their friends would be arrested on the spot. The medical examiner would, I'm quite sure of it, have found signs of sexual abuse on the child. I think all this theater mounted upon her dead, by her own parents and their deard friends is related with this fact. They were only covering their own asses.

    1. There is nothing to suggest anything in that direction apart from the Gaspar statements which were given to the police and investigated. I am not convinced that they are genuine. This is what I wrote about them:

  134. Your theory is excellent and well worked out. However, it does not account for a very important factor. It does not explain the high level of diplomatic and government assistance and their expedited cover up of the case. MI5/MI6/Special Branch are not bothered about cases like this unless it involves some national security issues or issues likely to expose the elite. How do you explain away that aspect? Personally I think your theory still works but the death was not as simple as a slip/fall accident. That part would not involve the elite. The reason the elite got involved is because there were high-end clients of sexual activities who could be traced back to the McCanns/Payne. Death occurred during such a sexual activity and they had to stop the touch-paper igniting the more explosive information that would be exposed by an in-depth investigation. The McCanns had clients in high places.

    1. I have yet to find the evidence for the alleged cover up of the case. Assistance yes. PR by News International yes. But active cover-up? no.

      I wrote in another comment:

      We know that the dog's alerts were never dismissed, in fact it was the British police who suggested them, drew up the search plan and brought them over. Unfortunately the evidence they led to was too weak to warrant a trial without a body only on circumstantial evidence.

      We know from Ambassador Ellis that "it was the British police that developed the current evidence against Madeleine McCann's parents in the high-profile case that has captured international attention."

      They were onto them from the start although the parents' high-profile PR effectively blamed solely the Portuguese. Why should they now spend millions of public money into covering it up after it had been shelved for years? There is just no logic to it.

  135. Has Philip Edmonds lied when he says he was with Maddie on the afternoon of the 3rd?

    1. Iirc he did not say he was with Madeleine on the afternoon of the 3rd. He only said he has photograph(s) from allegedly the 3rd of his boys with Maddie in the background which he sent to the parents. If it was really Madeleine and not Ella O'Brien why were these photos never released. It would have put an end to speculations about the presence of her on the 3rd...

      I doubt he lied

  136. Could the others have been doping their children as well, or could one of the other tapas crowd have been the suppliers of the dope? Thus giving them all an active interest in hiding the truth? A lot of careers could have been on the line

  137. A lot is possible. But I doubt the sedation theory. Not with Maddie crying for an hour and a half on Tuesday....

  138. Thank you for an interesting read.
    Not sure if you are aware of this group (70's and 80's) and positions members held (and still hold) in society across ALL walks of life ...
    "The group's stated aim was "to alleviate [the] suffering of many adults and children" by campaigning to abolish the age of consent thus legalising sex between adults and children."
    I could not quite believe my eyes when I read up on this group, their activities, involvement with NCCL, and that they received government funding!! HORRIFYING & TRUE.
    In my humble opinion this type of group would have need to be top secret and definitely have the power to "protect" one another. I think this small group grew considerably, and anyone who is part of this group would have considerable protection (spin doctors/PR/legal) so as to ensure group and members remain a hidden/kept secret.

  139. It might be a possibility but I think that a clever, highrisk loving, bold and ruthless person can achieve this all by himself.

  140. One thing is for sure, and that is, the McCann's know where Madeleine is, that is 100% sure, no doubt in my mind about that.

  141. the best analysis I've read

  142. "Maria Santos10. Juni 2014 17:49
    I agree with your theory. I only disagree with the motif why they hide the body."

    I surmise to avoid post mortem examination. It may have shown physical indicators of some sort (bruising or head injury or eg.) or drug/sedatives as a cause/contributing factor to death. Findings that would implicate the parents. I don't believe death by natural causes would be a cause to hide the body. If an accident was a cause of death I suppose there is reason to hide it to protect oneself and others. Once started down that road of lies/deception there is no turning back and the goal remains self preservation/protection always.

    I think this is the best theory I have read to date Johanna.

  143. Thanks. I am unsure myself as to the circumstances of her death. IMO it has got something to do with what the media has been trying to tell us for 7 years. The FURY of the McCanns, or rather Kate...

  144. You may have a point. Kate does appear to feel negative emotions very intensely.

    I have long felt Kate is the weak link. Since my renewed interest this has been affirmed when I read Gerry was apparently allowed into Kate's first formal interview (sitting behind Kate giving reassuring shoulder squeezes!) and of course her refusal to answer the 48 questions when she was an arguido.

    I put a great deal of significance on Eddie's alerts in 5A. Of course dogs are not able to say who the source of their alerts is. Keela's alerts in 5A don't appear to have yielded useful forensic evidence so I wonder if there was little, if any, blood spilled... speed and thoroughness of clean up could be a factor.

    I personally have a lot of faith in these particular dogs and Martin Grime as a team, unlike some.

  145. Yes if the dogs had not alerted there would be no case. They are the basis of any suspicion towards the parents. And they cannot be dismissed. Not with all the spots they have alerted to and the "body fluids" being subsequently found. In the US there was a father convicted on this evidence alone, without a body having been found, solely on the testimony of Martin Grime and his dogs.

    But then the father was black and not a white doctor with good connections...

  146. The dogs certainly cannot be dismissed. Eddie had had advanced training at a USA body farm before being deployed in the McCann case.
    A reminder how good these dogs are and that they are trained to alert ONLY to the scent of human cadaver not fish, meat or nappies. .

    Do we know which child the small tee shirt belonged to? I have wondered if it was Seans.

  147. Apologies, I'm thinking aloud.
    If the tee shirt was Madeleine's perhaps she was wearing it? That could mean she was undressed and possibly redressed. Or she was lying on or touching the tee shirt.

  148. The files say it belonged to Madeleine but we have seen Sean in it as well after May 3rd.
    If her death occured BEFORE bath- and bedtime she could well have been wearing it.

    1. We are assuming Madeleine was bathed. If distressed/ having a tantrum she may not have been. Eddie picked out the tee shirt first so I am surmising it had the strongest scent so may have been in contact with the body for the longest period?

  149. Very solid reasoning Jo.