Madeleine McCann #7

1
I've just read Gonçalo Amaral's first book. That was an eye opener! Until now all I've known about him was from the British press and it's interesting to hear his words rather than tabloid headlines! Has anyone here read his second book?

Re Madeleine injuring herself I can believe it's possible. We stayed in a Villa once with tile floors and I was terrified that my daughter who was 18 months at the time would fall off the sofa and crack her head open (or that someone would come in and abduct her so she slept in her cot, next to us at all times!) so I can see how a child could seriously injure themselves in a fall . I find it hard to believe that on suddenly finding their child dead, the McCann's first thought is that of their careers and reputations although could the entire group could have placed pressure I guess as they were all negligent parents but that does seem quite "out there".

For me I think the McCanns deffo fudged the facts and timelines to make themselves look less negligent, they were arrogant and I think they gave the kids sleep aids. I really do not have any clue what happened to the poor mite though. I found Kate shouting "we've let her down Gerry" a bit odd and her insistence straight away that the window was open "to the left" was oddly precise for a woman gripped by panic and their lack of urgency re the photo that looked a lot like Maddie in Morocco. Very strange goings on. I think I will read her book now and see how her account reads.

What a weird thing for poor Sean and Amelie to grow up with though. I'm sure when they have kids of their own they will face some very difficult thoughts and emotions about their parents poor decisions that night.
 
just to let anyone know that is interested know, its just been announced that James English - The anything goes show, is doing an interview with
Bernt Stellander on his book "The Sudden Impulse" on his investigation and theory about what happened to the little girl, its is being released on Thursday 1st August 5pm I believe it will be available on Youtube.
 
da1sycha1n said:
for anyone interested,
Click to expand...

I have to say I didn’t like this interview. I prefer it when the interviewer has some knowledge of the subject or has at least read the material being discussed beforehand. My sense is that James English knows little about the case so he couldn’t really press Bernt Stellander on the details of his investigation. As a result he let him get away with rambling, jumping around between topics and some completely vague non-answers throughout. As for his theory: it is just so vague. Maybe the book is clearer but after this I can’t be bothered to read it.

For those who haven’t watched or read the book: it seems that this guy, Bernt, has identified several different spots in the same area above Praia de Luz where Madeleine might be buried, set up cameras and tried to lure the McCanns to turn up at the real burial spot by sending them anonymous emails which he refers to as “a cat and mouse game”. I got vaguely narcissistic vibes from him, or at least the impression that he’s thoroughly enjoying himself.

So did the McCanns turn up? Maybe, maybe not, there might be a video of something but “he’s not going to give the game away”. Why not? Some friends of theirs might have turned up instead. Who? He won’t say.

He has also wandered around the area looking for clues that this is a burial site like “things in nature that looked placed by hand” like a pink flower that shouldn't have been there, stones, the letter M (obvious only if you know what you’re looking for apparently) and other random things. This is not evidence. It is in the eye of the beholder, and entirely subjective.

I got the impression that the PJ has given him the brush-off. Nobody seems to be turning up to dig the area up, anyway. He seems to think his book will have a real impact on the PJ, Operation Grange and the McCanns. I highly doubt it.

He’s also of the opinion that Madeleine died on the 2nd May rather than 3rd. I’ve always found this a completely bonkers theory as the McCanns would have then had to rely on the discretion of 7 other people plus the nanny (who would have had to pretend Maddie was at the nursery when she wasn’t) to go along with this in full knowledge that Maddie was dead, act normal for the whole day, then go out and get happily pissed at the Tapas bar, and then fake surprise and shock at learning of her disappearance and pretend to search. Of course the group DID end up going along with the story after the fact, possibly in either full or partial knowledge of what had happened, but that’s quite a different scenario I think.

Compare this to Pat Brown’s (also Amaral’s) profile on the disappearance of Madeline which is so logical, clear and simple and can be understood by absolutely anyone. She has now made her audiobook available free on youtube and it is a fantastic listen.

 
Last edited:
da1sycha1n said:
https://whatreallyhappenedtomadeleinemccann.blogspot.com
this a link to an ebook by a retired British policeman for anyone interested there is an
extremely interesting end chapter released today,
I hope the link opens for you
Click to expand...
just giving a little bump for
this above book by Peter Mac as well as Bernt Stellander's interview with James English and his book now available to download on kindle and other digital sources is well worth a read
 
da1sycha1n said:
just giving a little bump for
this above book by Peter Mac as well as Bernt Stellander's interview with James English and his book now available to download on kindle and other digital sources is well worth a read
Click to expand...
The Peter Mac blog is interesting, thanks for that. The detail is amazing. It is so completely obvious when you look at the way they kept changing their statements, and the complete lack of evidence of a break-in, and the ever-changing nonsense about doors, windows, shutters and curtains, that there was no abduction.

That said, I am sure he is a very smart and experienced guy but he totally lost me with his theory that she died on the Sunday night (April 29th) and that the entire group collaborated for 3 days to cover it up. He seems obsessed with the timing of the “last photo” and the weather, and has based his whole theory around it.

Any of these theories about her dying on a different day COULD have happened, of course. But they just don’t correlate (IMO) with the way normal human beings actually work.

I do not believe that 9 people would all agree to “act normal” for 3 days and concoct a complicated cover-up story when a child they know lies dead in a bag, and then play-act searching and being devastated at the appropriate time, just to help out their friends. And if they’d had all that time to plan, why on earth didn’t they come up with a better story - one that didn’t involve the constant statement changes?
 
Last edited:
da1sycha1n said:
just giving a little bump for
this above book by Peter Mac as well as Bernt Stellander's interview with James English and his book now available to download on kindle and other digital sources is well worth a read
Click to expand...
to add Peter Mac served with Nottinghamshire Police for 28 years, he reached the rank of Chief Inspector, he also served before he retired as temporary Superintendent at West Bridgford Police

Bernt Stellander also has experience as Military Police in the Norwegian army and in the UN forces in Lebanon

Both have researched information from the Portuguese Police case files of the investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine Mccann, which were released to the public on 4th August 2008 see link below=

www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk
 
Lady_H said:
The Peter Mac blog is interesting, thanks for that. The detail is amazing. It is so completely obvious when you look at the way they kept changing their statements, and the complete lack of evidence of a break-in, and the ever-changing nonsense about doors, windows, shutters and curtains, that there was no abduction.

That said, I am sure he is a very smart and experienced guy but he totally lost me with his theory that she died on the Sunday night (April 29th) and that the entire group collaborated for 3 days to cover it up. He seems obsessed with the timing of the “last photo” and the weather, and has based his whole theory around it.

Any of these theories about her dying on a different day COULD have happened, of course. But they just don’t correlate (IMO) with the way normal human beings actually work.

I do not believe that 9 people would all agree to “act normal” for 3 days and concoct a complicated cover-up story when a child they know lies dead in a bag, and then play-act searching and being devastated at the appropriate time, just to help out their friends. And if they’d had all that time to plan, why on earth didn’t they come up with a better story - one that didn’t involve the constant statement changes?
Click to expand...
It does open up discussion on what possibly might motivate someone to go along with that though? You can’t win one side of an argument without considering and discrediting the other.
 
I think Bernt’s book has highlighted quite a few red flags when it comes to the timeline of the alleged abduction. Such as Gerry having his proud father moment and being able to see Madeleine in the bed to Kate not being able to make out if she was there or not due to the darkness of the room. The 5 minute window that the alleged abduction took place between Gerry’s 9pm check and Jane seeing Tannerman. The numerous changes in stories that were never questioned by the British police. The jemmied shutters etc, the list goes on.
 
griftalo said:
It does open up discussion on what possibly might motivate someone to go along with that though? You can’t win one side of an argument without considering and discrediting the other.
Click to expand...
The motivation of the Tapas 7 to get involved in a cover-up was always one of the most confusing parts of this. I don’t know about “winning an argument”, there are only theories and then you have to pick the one you find most credible!

Pat Brown (and Amaral’s, and James Bogart’s) theory is that you can only understand the motivation if you think about it happening in real time, in a state of panic, with events unfolding minute to minute on May 3rd.

The theory suggests that probably only some of the Tapas 7 actually knew exactly what had happened that night, with the others sort of going along with it in a half-knowing, but half not wanting to know kind of way, and perhaps some of the party even actually believing in the abduction. And for some of them maybe only later, perhaps after they left Portugal, properly thinking it through. Who knows.

The motivation, for the people who did know, would have been a sudden shocking realisation (perhaps spelled out clearly by Gerry) that the police would very quickly establish that Madeleine had died due to her parents’ negligence. They would then launch an investigation that would immediately implicate everyone else. They had all been leaving their kids alone while they got pissed at the Tapas night after night. And the ramifications of that could be enormous.

I think this is understandable if you put yourself in their shoes on that night in that state of panic. Suddenly everyone realises the implications, everyone is looking down the gun of police investigation and scandal, possible prosecution, and who knows what. The guilt and reality and stupidity of their choices to leave the kids alone every night suddenly kicks in and they are faced with the possibility of losing their own freedom, careers, kids.

The argument people sometimes give is that “that would never have happened”. I think one has to remember that in the moment, nobody knew what would happen. They were making minute to minute decisions, which is why their statements kept changing and didn’t match up. They were in a foreign country, not speaking the language, not knowing the legal system, realising they had really screwed up, and were desperate not to implicate themselves.

The other argument is “how did they know that the police wouldn’t launch an investigation into everyone else because of the abduction?” I guess the answer to that is that they didn’t know, exactly, but they would have known that it would certainly have taken the police in a different direction at least to begin with. And a few hours later the world’s press had arrived and the McCann juggernaut had started its endless journey.

This to me is the only sensible explanation of motivation for the group to help the McCanns.
 
Last edited:
Lady_H said:
The motivation of the Tapas 7 to get involved in a cover-up was always one of the most confusing parts of this. I don’t know about “winning an argument”, there are only theories and then you have to pick the one you find most credible!

Pat Brown (and Amaral’s, and James Bogart’s) theory is that you can only understand the motivation if you think about it happening in real time, in a state of panic, with events unfolding minute to minute on May 3rd.

The theory suggests that probably only some of the Tapas 7 actually knew exactly what had happened that night, with the others sort of going along with it in a half-knowing, but half not wanting to know kind of way, and perhaps some of the party even actually believing in the abduction. And for some of them maybe only later, perhaps after they left Portugal, properly thinking it through. Who knows.

The motivation, for the people who did know, would have been a sudden shocking realisation (perhaps spelled out clearly by Gerry) that the police would very quickly establish that Madeleine had died due to her parents’ negligence. They would then launch an investigation that would immediately implicate everyone else. They had all been leaving their kids alone while they got pissed at the Tapas night after night. And the ramifications of that could be enormous.

I think this is understandable if you put yourself in their shoes on that night in that state of panic. Suddenly everyone realises the implications, everyone is looking down the gun of police investigation and scandal, possible prosecution, and who knows what. The guilt and reality and stupidity of their choices to leave the kids alone every night suddenly kicks in and they are faced with the possibility of losing their own freedom, careers, kids.

The argument people sometimes give is that “that would never have happened”. I think one has to remember that in the moment, nobody knew what would happen. They were making minute to minute decisions, which is why their statements kept changing and didn’t match up. They were in a foreign country, not speaking the language, not knowing the legal system, realising they had really screwed up, and were desperate not to implicate themselves.

The other argument is “how did they know that the police wouldn’t launch an investigation into everyone else because of the abduction?” I guess the answer to that is that they didn’t know, exactly, but they would have known that it would certainly have taken the police in a different direction at least to begin with. And a few hours later the world’s press had arrived and the McCann juggernaut had started its endless journey.

This to me is the only sensible explanation of motivation for the group to help the McCanns.
Click to expand...

I agree with this. Possibly even none of them knew - I could imagine everyone getting caught up in it and not even giving any thought to whether what they were being told wasn’t true until they flew home.
 
Lady_H said:
The motivation of the Tapas 7 to get involved in a cover-up was always one of the most confusing parts of this. I don’t know about “winning an argument”, there are only theories and then you have to pick the one you find most credible!

Pat Brown (and Amaral’s, and James Bogart’s) theory is that you can only understand the motivation if you think about it happening in real time, in a state of panic, with events unfolding minute to minute on May 3rd.

The theory suggests that probably only some of the Tapas 7 actually knew exactly what had happened that night, with the others sort of going along with it in a half-knowing, but half not wanting to know kind of way, and perhaps some of the party even actually believing in the abduction. And for some of them maybe only later, perhaps after they left Portugal, properly thinking it through. Who knows.

The motivation, for the people who did know, would have been a sudden shocking realisation (perhaps spelled out clearly by Gerry) that the police would very quickly establish that Madeleine had died due to her parents’ negligence. They would then launch an investigation that would immediately implicate everyone else. They had all been leaving their kids alone while they got pissed at the Tapas night after night. And the ramifications of that could be enormous.

I think this is understandable if you put yourself in their shoes on that night in that state of panic. Suddenly everyone realises the implications, everyone is looking down the gun of police investigation and scandal, possible prosecution, and who knows what. The guilt and reality and stupidity of their choices to leave the kids alone every night suddenly kicks in and they are faced with the possibility of losing their own freedom, careers, kids.

The argument people sometimes give is that “that would never have happened”. I think one has to remember that in the moment, nobody knew what would happen. They were making minute to minute decisions, which is why their statements kept changing and didn’t match up. They were in a foreign country, not speaking the language, not knowing the legal system, realising they had really screwed up, and were desperate not to implicate themselves.

The other argument is “how did they know that the police wouldn’t launch an investigation into everyone else because of the abduction?” I guess the answer to that is that they didn’t know, exactly, but they would have known that it would certainly have taken the police in a different direction at least to begin with. And a few hours later the world’s press had arrived and the McCann juggernaut had started its endless journey.

This to me is the only sensible explanation of motivation for the group to help the McCanns.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure exactly what you are saying that the Tapas 7 covered up, but I get the gist of it happening in real time.

But to me, the idea of a conspiracy involving 7 people is never going to fly - a lie will never hold together under scrutiny, 7 people would never keep their story straight and why would someone get themselves involved in the serious crime of concealing a child's death/disappearance just to hide the fact that they left their own child alone to go to dinner?
I can understand that someone could initially get involved and support the McCanns but once the seriousness of it all set in you would tell the truth, like 'no, it is all on you, this is what happened'. And it was all played out in public, so there would be witnesses from the waiting on staff, bar staff, childrens club staff etc. So the idea of a conspiracy just doesn't add up to me.

I don't see any conspiracy - 7 people over an hour or so and add in vino and you will not have consistent accounts from everyone involved.
 
Last edited:
griftalo said:
I think it depends on what they actually had been up to rather than just leaving their kid alone, which isn’t even proven anyway. Based on the gaspar statement I think something far worse was involved
Click to expand...
What do you they had been up to, what makes you think that?
 
Nelly's mum said:
I'm not sure exactly what you are saying that the Tapas 7 covered up, but I get the gist of it happening in real time.

But to me, the idea of a conspiracy involving 7 people is never going to fly - a lie will never hold together under scrutiny, 7 people would never keep their story straight and why would someone get themselves involved in the serious crime of concealing a child's death/disappearance just to hide the fact that they left their own child alone to go to dinner?
I can understand that someone could initially get involved and support the McCanns but once the seriousness of it all set in you would tell the truth, like 'no, it is all on you, this is what happened'. And it was all played out in public, so there would be witnesses from the waiting on staff, bar staff, childrens club staff etc. So the idea of a conspiracy just doesn't add up to me.

I don't see any conspiracy - 7 people over an hour or so and add in vino and you will not have consistent accounts from everyone involved.
Click to expand...
Then you are making exactly the same point as me: that the lack of consistency and endless contradictions in their statements don’t point to planned conspiracy but to a bunch of people in blind panic and shock, desperately trying to cover their own arses moment by moment as the evening unfolded.

I think it’s worth remembering it wasn’t just “leaving their child to go out to dinner”: it was a group of doctors who should have known much better, whose lives were supposedly devoted to caring for others or at the very least doing no harm, repeatedly leaving several extremely young children alone, with the end result that one of them ended up dead. And the sudden realisation of the reality of that situation which I’ve tried to explain above.

I’m afraid I don’t agree with you that “you would tell the truth” after thinking about the facts. Or maybe you would, but most people tend to do what is easiest and most expedient and in the case of the Tapas 7 that would mean getting the hell out of Portugal, keeping your head down as much as possible and probably doing your best not to think about it. In my opinion that is how most people would behave. “Telling the truth” would involve admitting perjury, police involvement, trips back to Portugal, upsetting people, endless uncertainty and family upset and who knows what else. Who would put themselves through that? It’s not going to bring Madeleine back.

But then again it depends which theory one supports, and if it you go along with the abduction theory then you will have a very different take.
 
Last edited:
Lady_H said:
Then you are making exactly the same point as me: that the lack of consistency and endless contradictions in their statements don’t point to planned conspiracy but to a bunch of people in blind panic and shock, desperately trying to cover their own arses moment by moment as the evening unfolded.

I think it’s worth remembering it wasn’t just “leaving their child to go out to dinner”: it was a group of doctors who should have known much better, whose lives were supposedly devoted to caring for others or at the very least doing no harm, repeatedly leaving several extremely young children alone, with the end result that one of them ended up dead. And the sudden realisation of the reality of that situation which I’ve tried to explain above.

I’m afraid I don’t agree with you that “you would tell the truth” after thinking about the facts. Or maybe you would, but most people tend to do what is easiest and most expedient and in the case of the Tapas 7 that would mean getting the hell out of Portugal, keeping your head down as much as possible and probably doing your best not to think about it. In my opinion that is how most people would behave.

But then again it depends which theory one supports, and if it you go along with the abduction theory then you will have a very different take.
Click to expand...
As a parent your job is to look after your child, it doesn't matter if you are a doctor or window cleaner.
I could imagine stretching the truth a little initially to support a friend, but when it became clear that the tit is hitting the fan I cannot see a motivation for a friend/Tapas 7 to continue to lie for the McCanns. Like why would they, when they're gonna get dragged into a whole load of trouble and would get found out anyway?
I haven't seen anything that points to an accidental fall and MM passing away and the parents and/or Tapas 7 concealing it. Similarly I don't see anything that indicates CSA rings, this seems to be another theme that gets discussed. I've seen some convoluted theories to implicate the parents such as concealing MM in a fridge, there doesn't seem to be any basis for this.

MM was heard crying the previous night, she may have asked her parents where they where - I think she could have left the apartment to look for her parents and she was abducted or someone let themself into the apartment looking for stuff to steal and abducted her.
So much time has passed but I do the think the truth will come out about what happened to MM.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top