The Madeleine McCann Disappearance

Stormkhan

Disturbingly familiar
Joined
May 28, 2003
Messages
4,928
If it's so easy for a You Tube documentary maker to assert 'what really happened', then I'm sure that the authorities - either Portuguese or UK - with more resources would've solved it by now. Unless they also allege official cover-up (the usual go-to for unsolved crimes) or claim specialist knowledge, which they really should present to the police.

The one thing about all this terrible affair that concerns me is the life and upbringing of their remaining children. Of course, it's understandable that the parents wish to keep them from overexposure in the media and public attention. But I'm concerned over their own emotional condition, constantly living in the shadow of their sister's disappearance and their parent's single-minded concentration over a sister they might barely remember.
 

Earthly oddity

Ephemeral Spectre
Joined
Dec 19, 2021
Messages
315
If my memory is correct, it was suggested the children had been drugged so they slept soundly.

One accidental death scenario is of accidentally overdosing the eldest child with drugs (or the child choking on vomit in their sleep).

Or child managing to wake up, but drowsy/dizzily having a fatal accident/fall.

All these could have happened inside the property.

Accidental overdose given by 2 doctors. How would this be received by police/courts etc. Would it be perceived as accidental or deliberate action, given they were doctors?

I think they would have been better to come clean had this been the scenario. But they probably would have lost their other children.

I don't think we will ever know unless someone gives a deathbed confession leading to the discovery of remains or evidence, or there is a cooling off in relationships of persons keeping knowledge secret.
 

Stormkhan

Disturbingly familiar
Joined
May 28, 2003
Messages
4,928
I'm also surprised their marriage has survived the strain all this time. Each to their own, and so on, but the emotional strain is significant on any relationship in similar circs.
 

queenofwands

Junior Acolyte
Joined
Jan 24, 2022
Messages
88
I know several doctors and think that they could come with a dozen better ways to explain away a child's death than having to go to the lengths here. Even a simple 'we left the top off the medicine bottle, she drank it all, nobody realised, and when we came back to check on her she was dead.'

Doctors would be absolutely the best placed people to cover up a death. But if it really was an accident, why would they need to? And I don't think anyone is saying that they could have killed her deliberately.
That's assuming she died from a drug overdose. That's not necessarily what happened. Some of the questions the police asked of k , that she refused to answer , were relating to the facts they'd found out , that she was struggling to cope with Maddy , who was said to be hyperactive , and 2 young babies . They had found , during their investigations that K had been considering handing custody of Maddy ,over to a relative. It's possible that there were signs of injury or neglect on maddy , that they could not risk, being discovered by a coroner.
 

Earthly oddity

Ephemeral Spectre
Joined
Dec 19, 2021
Messages
315
If it's so easy for a You Tube documentary maker to assert 'what really happened', then I'm sure that the authorities - either Portuguese or UK - with more resources would've solved it by now. Unless they also allege official cover-up (the usual go-to for unsolved crimes) or claim specialist knowledge, which they really should present to the police.

The one thing about all this terrible affair that concerns me is the life and upbringing of their remaining children. Of course, it's understandable that the parents wish to keep them from overexposure in the media and public attention. But I'm concerned over their own emotional condition, constantly living in the shadow of their sister's disappearance and their parent's single-minded concentration over a sister they might barely remember.
I also wonder about the other children.

I wonder if they have always grown up thinking it could have happened to one of them instead of Madeline?

None of us have any choice over who our parents are. Who knows how they really feel? They probably don't talk about it to anyone - anything they might say could end up being sold to a newspaper or used against the parents.
 

queenofwands

Junior Acolyte
Joined
Jan 24, 2022
Messages
88
If it's so easy for a You Tube documentary maker to assert 'what really happened', then I'm sure that the authorities - either Portuguese or UK - with more resources would've solved it by now. Unless they also allege official cover-up (the usual go-to for unsolved crimes) or claim specialist knowledge, which they really should present to the police.

The one thing about all this terrible affair that concerns me is the life and upbringing of their remaining children. Of course, it's understandable that the parents wish to keep them from overexposure in the media and public attention. But I'm concerned over their own emotional condition, constantly living in the shadow of their sister's disappearance and their parent's single-minded concentration over a sister they might barely remember.
it's easy to assume , without really watching the documentaries , that the maker is just another you tube person spouting there opinion. Actually this Richard Hall is a highly credible researcher , with several successful documentaries under his belt and his own show. His documentaries are considered to be excellent and the madeleine ones , are the most in depth , and well researched , that exist . He brings to light , factual based evidence that mainstream media , tried to cover up , or ignore .
 

Spookdaddy

Cuckoo
Joined
May 24, 2006
Messages
7,168
Location
Midwich
it's easy to assume , without really watching the documentaries , that the maker is just another you tube person spouting there opinion. Actually this Richard Hall is a highly credible researcher , with several successful documentaries under his belt and his own show. His documentaries are considered to be excellent and the madeleine ones , are the most in depth , and well researched , that exist . He brings to light , factual based evidence that mainstream media , tried to cover up , or ignore .

'His documentaries are considered to be excellent'?

By some maybe.

I first came across Richard D Hall in the context of Holocaust denial (not him, to be fair - but one of his barking regulars). He believes Jo Cox was abducted (and/or murdered - I think he shifts on that one) by the British state, and her killer framed, that the 99 London nail bombings and 7/7 etc were faked, and that the RSPCA are involved in covering up cattle mutilations, and that virtually every single media outlet, personality and publication (including such things as True Crime magazines) are operating at the behest of the government.

There's loads more - and I mean...hours and hours and hours of it - but most people could probably predict exactly what without even bothering to look.

it's easy to assume , without really watching the documentaries , that the maker is just another you tube person spouting there opinion...

In my opinion, he literally is precisely this. Just another conspiracy hack peddling Quasi QAnon, button pushing, dog-whistle cobblers - but then I'm probably one of the sheeple.

(Oh, and he's now an expert on gender. We're all being groomed apparently.)
 

queenofwands

Junior Acolyte
Joined
Jan 24, 2022
Messages
88
There is evidence , shown irrefutably , in the documentary , that whatever happened to Maddy didn't happen on the day they said it did. Whatever happened occured on 29th April , and they had 5 days to prepare a story and get rid of the body
 

queenofwands

Junior Acolyte
Joined
Jan 24, 2022
Messages
88
'His documentaries are considered to be excellent'?

By some maybe.

I first came across Richard D Hall in the context of Holocaust denial (not him, to be fair - but one of his barking regulars). He believes Jo Cox was abducted (and/or murdered - I think he shifts on that one) by the British state, and her killer framed, that the 99 London nail bombings and 7/7 etc were faked, and that the RSPCA are involved in covering up cattle mutilations, and that virtually every single media outlet, personality and publication (including such things as True Crime magazines) are operating at the behest of the government.

There's loads more - and I mean...hours and hours and hours of it - but most people could probably predict exactly what without even bothering to look.



In my opinion, he literally is precisely this. Just another conspiracy hack peddling Quasi QAnon, button pushing, dog-whistle cobblers - but then I'm probably one of the sheeple.

(Oh, and he's now an expert on gender. We're all being groomed apparently.)
you said it
 

Spookdaddy

Cuckoo
Joined
May 24, 2006
Messages
7,168
Location
Midwich
you said it

Or possibly, you just did.

I mean, seriously - I'm not saying that, among all the bloat, some of the details he picks up aren't valid or worthy of investigation (although, as far as I can see, none are original to him), but even the merest flick through his back catalogue should indicate that he has a seriously vested interest in promoting a very particular slant in any case he covers - a vested interest based on reputation and revenue, and entirely reliant on pushing a particular agenda to his core audience. I'm always amazed that people who see 'agenda' everywhere when it suits don't recognise it in their own back yard.
 
Last edited:

queenofwands

Junior Acolyte
Joined
Jan 24, 2022
Messages
88
Or possibly, you just did.

I mean, seriously - I'm not saying that, among all the bloat, some of the details he picks up aren't valid or worthy of investigation (although, as far as I can see, none are original to him), but even the merest flick through his back catalogue should indicate that he has a seriously vested interest in promoting a very particular slant in any case he covers - a vested interest based on reputation and revenue, and entirely reliant on pushing a particular agenda to his core audience. I'm always amazed that people who see 'agenda' everywhere when it suits don't recognise it in their own back yard.
No. The blurb at the start of the documentaries all clearly state , that he wants no payment , and anyone is free to upload them on to any platform , or distribute them as they see fit.. He is interested in the truth. That's all. So you clearly can't have watched them , because it clearly states that , at the very beginning . There are many others who have researched this case , and have come to similar conclusions. Not just Richard Hall. The Judicial Reports made by the portugese police , report the inconsistencies and statement changes made by the people involved , and came to the obvious conclusion , that the mc'c's , were lying.
 

catseye

Old lady trouser-smell with yesterday's knickers
Joined
Feb 1, 2010
Messages
5,441
Location
York
it's easy to assume , without really watching the documentaries , that the maker is just another you tube person spouting there opinion. Actually this Richard Hall is a highly credible researcher , with several successful documentaries under his belt and his own show. His documentaries are considered to be excellent and the madeleine ones , are the most in depth , and well researched , that exist . He brings to light , factual based evidence that mainstream media , tried to cover up , or ignore .
I prefer to source my information from a whole tranche of places rather than pick on one viewpoint (which could be biased for reasons of its own). People are always keen to push their own viewpoint, as this entire thread shows. The only thing worth trusting is one's own instinct and an entire library's worth of varied sources.
 

queenofwands

Junior Acolyte
Joined
Jan 24, 2022
Messages
88
I prefer to source my information from a whole tranche of places rather than pick on one viewpoint (which could be biased for reasons of its own). People are always keen to push their own viewpoint, as this entire thread shows. The only thing worth trusting is one's own instinct and an entire library's worth of varied sources.
I agree . I always do look at a variety of scources. I mention the Richard D H all documentaries purely because they are well researched and go into the case in much greater depth than any other. There are 8 documentaries in total , all with several parts and cover many aspects of the case that have not been covered by others
 

Spookdaddy

Cuckoo
Joined
May 24, 2006
Messages
7,168
Location
Midwich
No. The blurb at the start of the documentaries all clearly state , that he wants no payment , and anyone is free to upload them on to any platform , or distribute them as they see fit.. He is interested in the truth. That's all. So you clearly can't have watched them , because it clearly states that , at the very beginning...

He sells DVD's and books, and accepts donations (£10.00 per month rising to £500.00 per month !!!) - I dare say there's a charge for his talks and advertising revenue for his own channel.

And yes, I did see that - I just choose not to take everything at face value, as you (and he) would probably also claim.
 

queenofwands

Junior Acolyte
Joined
Jan 24, 2022
Messages
88
He sells DVD's and books, and accepts donations (£10.00 per month rising to £500.00 per month !!!) - I dare say there's a charge for his talks and advertising revenue for his own channel.

And yes, I did see that - I just choose not to take everything at face value, as you (and he) claim to do also.
Are'nt donations a matter of personal choice? The Madeleine documentaries are free and if anyone wants to donate , its up to them.As for his talks , well everyone makes a living , don't they? including msm reporters and the tabloids they work for , that get paid, far more than the likes of Hall, for brainwashing people with a load of codswallop . You have your viewpoints and I have mine. And that's fine by me. Let's leave this now , its getting boring
 

Spookdaddy

Cuckoo
Joined
May 24, 2006
Messages
7,168
Location
Midwich
Are'nt donations a matter of personal choice? The Madeleine documentaries are free and if anyone wants to donate , its up to them.As for his talks , well everyone makes a living , don't they? including msm reporters and the tabloids they work for , that get paid, far more than the likes of Hall, for brainwashing people with a load of codswallop...

I never implied he forces anyone to pay - just like Alex Jones (or anyone in the MSM for that matter) doesn't hold a gun to anyone's head to put money in his (their) pocket. I'm saying he - and people like him - make revenue from this stuff. Which they do.

...Let's leave this now , its getting boring

You're probably right. But if you make a statement which invites a response then you don't really get to make the old 'I'm having the last word' call. It's not a game of knock a door run.
 
Last edited:

Endlessly Amazed

Endlessly, you know, amazed
Joined
Aug 6, 2020
Messages
956
Location
Arizona, USA
The McCanns have raised a lot more than he ever will. Their grift is on an entirely different order of magnitude.
? i don't actually understand your comment. What money did the McCann couple raise which was used for personal gain? The only money I recall used for personal gain, and I am not well-informed on this, was for two mortgage payments.

I do understand you think they are guilty, sociopathic, and so on, but some of these comments are confusing to me as I have neither your perspective nor your conclusions.
 
Last edited:

DrPaulLee

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Aug 7, 2002
Messages
1,607
Didn't the McScams say that they wouldn't leave Portugal without Maddie, but the day after they were declared official suspects, they hurridely fled the country? I'm not 100% sure but I think it was a private jet paid for by Richard Branson. I'm probably misremembering. I've studiously avoided the case for years as it pisses me off no end that there was no investigation into the negligence of the parents. Or, if there was an investigation, there were no penalties.
 

maximus otter

Recovering policeman
Joined
Aug 9, 2001
Messages
10,911
Just for context:

“There were 594 homicide victims in the year ending March 2021.

The term “homicide” covers the offences of murder, manslaughter and infanticide.

It is very rare for those aged under 16 years to be killed by a stranger, with one such offence in the last year, similar to previous years.”

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopula...homicideinenglandandwales/yearendingmarch2021

So homicide - including the inadvertent killing - of all children by a “stranger”, in the most recent year for which figures are available for the UK, amounted to 0.17% of the total figure.

maximus otter
 

Spookdaddy

Cuckoo
Joined
May 24, 2006
Messages
7,168
Location
Midwich
Just for context:

“There were 594 homicide victims in the year ending March 2021.

The term “homicide” covers the offences of murder, manslaughter and infanticide.

It is very rare for those aged under 16 years to be killed by a stranger, with one such offence in the last year, similar to previous years.”

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopula...homicideinenglandandwales/yearendingmarch2021

So homicide - including the inadvertent killing - of all children by a “stranger”, in the most recent year for which figures are available for the UK, amounted to 0.17% of the total figure.

maximus otter

I don't quite understand that.

I mean, I know that's what it says, but just before it states that, it also states:

There were 59 victims of homicide aged under 16 years in the year ending March 2021. As in previous years, the most common suspect was a parent or step-parent (42%, 25 offences). However, as at 10 December 2021, there were 27 victims aged under 16 years (46%) for whom no suspect had been charged (this includes homicide offences where all suspects have been acquitted). This number will fall as police investigations continue. For example, for the year ending March 2020, 44% of victims aged under 16 years had no suspect charged as at 15 December 2020; this has now fallen to 35% and the proportion where the suspect was a parent or step-parent has increased from 27% to 35% (as at 10 December 2021).

I'm normally okay with statistics, but I'm clearly missing something here. (If it's something to do with the difference between 'suspect' and convicted individuals, it really doesn't make that clear.)
 
Last edited:

Spookdaddy

Cuckoo
Joined
May 24, 2006
Messages
7,168
Location
Midwich
From the NSPCC (PDF from this page). Data, I think, from 2019:

Child homicides are most commonly (27%) perpetrated by the child’s parent or step-parent. • The victim was known to have been killed by a stranger in 16% of the offences in the year ending March 2020. • As of 15 December 2020, there were 20 victims aged under 16 years (44%) for whom no suspect had been identified. This number is likely to fall as police investigations continue.

Obviously the 44% unknown could sway the figures one way or the other, or balance between the two.

There's absolutely no doubt that there is a statistical likelihood that a parent or guardian is very likely to be the killer - I'm not arguing that point at all - but that apparent 0.17% exception to the rule looks completely off, although I can see how Max got there. Very confusing.
 
Last edited:

Endlessly Amazed

Endlessly, you know, amazed
Joined
Aug 6, 2020
Messages
956
Location
Arizona, USA
I wanted to present US information as a comparison to the UK. I have found it surprisingly difficult to get good, current information on this for the US. Different definitions of murder; solved or unsolved, racial sensitivity, etc.

None of these statistics below have bearing on whether the McCann parents killed their daughter, either intentionally or by accident.

In the US, for 2005, 8.7% of all solved murders of children under age 18 were committed by strangers. This is 1.1% of all solved murders of victims of all age groups. The rates of children murdered by strangers is very low - almost zero – for under 2 years of age of victim, and steadily increase every year. Boys are murdered by strangers more often than girls. 6.5% of children under age 18 were murdered by other children under age 18.

Almost all children whose murders are solved are killed by family members or acquaintances. The majority of murdered children are boys.

Family Violence Statistics: Including Statistics on Strangers and Acquaintances: Fatal family violence (ojp.gov)
Homicides of Children and Youth (ojp.gov)

Off-topic and promise of a write up sometime in the future….For a few months in my checkered career, I did a consulting project for the California Youth Authority maximum security “facility” in Stockton for violent sexual youthful offenders who had murdered their victims in addition to sexual assault. Chaderjian. The inmate population has changed since then to include more nonviolent ones. But in 2000, the inmate population profile was astonishing. The outrage and conviction of some fellow Forteans that the McCann parents did it reminded me of my own outrage reading through the family histories of these youthful offenders. (If and when I post this, I really don’t want to read any non-US-based finger-pointing at how fucked up my country is, thank you very much. You guys know who you are :) )
 

catseye

Old lady trouser-smell with yesterday's knickers
Joined
Feb 1, 2010
Messages
5,441
Location
York
Just for context:

“There were 594 homicide victims in the year ending March 2021.

The term “homicide” covers the offences of murder, manslaughter and infanticide.

It is very rare for those aged under 16 years to be killed by a stranger, with one such offence in the last year, similar to previous years.”

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopula...homicideinenglandandwales/yearendingmarch2021

So homicide - including the inadvertent killing - of all children by a “stranger”, in the most recent year for which figures are available for the UK, amounted to 0.17% of the total figure.

maximus otter
And also - it could have been an accident. See my 'woke up, wandered off' theory.
 

OrsonSwells

Devoted Cultist
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
210
Location
Manchester
I don't know a lot about this case, but all this talk of the McCann's reaction to their daughter's death actually reminds me of Camus' The Outsider (or, The Stranger) where the protagonist's reaction to his mother's death is seen by "normal" society as being emotionally indifferent. I am also reminded of how people on the spectrum can be judged for their apparently inappropriate reactions to certain, particularly emotional, events. I don't really think a person's reaction to such an event is necessarily an indication of guilt, or of being a sociopath, or anything really.
 

maximus otter

Recovering policeman
Joined
Aug 9, 2001
Messages
10,911
I don't quite understand that.

I mean, I know that's what it says, but just before it states that, it also states:



I'm normally okay with statistics, but I'm clearly missing something here. (If it's something to do with the difference between 'suspect' and convicted individuals, it really doesn't make that clear.)

It’s - IMHO - poorly written.

They are, however, talking about something not germane to our discussion, i.e. we are debating “stranger killings” of children.

My stat is - l believe - for killings with known/convicted murderers who were PID’d as “strangers”.

They are talking about a period of a year, during which continuing investigations have reduced the number of unknown suspects, and revealed that the newly-discovered offenders included a higher proportion of step/parents than formerly believed.

This doesn’t affect the thrust of my post: Stranger murders of children are very, very rare, despite what the Mirror/Mail/Record would have us believe.

maximus otter
 

Spookdaddy

Cuckoo
Joined
May 24, 2006
Messages
7,168
Location
Midwich
...My stat is - l believe - for killings with known/convicted murderers who were PID’d as “strangers”...

Yes - in the sense of the McCann's at this time, their relationship to the data is moot, and any implications are based on what is effectively a begged question (in its proper sense); in relation to the statistics - we'll only know where they fit into the results, when we know where they fit into the data, if that makes sense.

But aside from that:

This doesn’t affect the thrust of my post: Stranger murders of children are very, very rare, despite what the Mirror/Mail/Record would have us believe.

Yes, absolutely.

I don't know a lot about this case, but all this talk of the McCann's reaction to their daughter's death actually reminds me of Camus' The Outsider (or, The Stranger) where the protagonist's reaction to his mother's death is seen by "normal" society as being emotionally indifferent. I am also reminded of how people on the spectrum can be judged for their apparently inappropriate reactions to certain, particularly emotional, events. I don't really think a person's reaction to such an event is necessarily an indication of guilt, or of being a sociopath, or anything really.

Oh, this is so true. I'm reminded of Amanda Knox being portrayed as quite obviously guilty because she ate pizza and did exercise in prison. Christine Villemin (and her partner - but her especially), the mother of Grégory Villemin - subject of the not at all bad Netflix documentary Who Killed Little Gregory - was utterly vilified by a howling French media (and public) in a way which makes the McCanns treatment look like a stroll in the park. I read an article on the case in which one policeman actually seemed to suggest the fact that he found Christine attractive was suspicious - presumably because grieving mothers should not be attractive (and it was literally that: not that she was dressing provocatively, but simply that he found her attractive). And the thing is, even if they were guilty as sin - eating pizza, doing cartwheels and giving chaps a tingly feeling in their pants, still wouldn't be evidence of anything.

I've said before that, where a quick simple and obvious conclusion does not apply itself to a case, you could probably write a mathematical equation predicting the precise moment media/public sympathy with those close to the victim will morph into the glare of accusation. There is, as we've seen, some statistical basis to this focus, but the barrage and baying tone of the attention usually goes well beyond any reasoned statistical analysis. (And god help you if you're female, especially if the case has anything to do with children.)

We just aren't very good at reading other people - we almost always do it with reference to self, without factoring in the vast array of differences there are between selves. It's one reason why I find so-called 'body-language experts' a modern blight (especially the ones who apparently stare at British royals all day long - just fuck off and get a real job guys.)
 
Last edited:

catseye

Old lady trouser-smell with yesterday's knickers
Joined
Feb 1, 2010
Messages
5,441
Location
York
On the day my mum died, I went into work and told them that I would need time off in a week or so, to travel down and help arrange the funeral. They were concerned and asked me if I wanted a couple of days off there and then. My reply? 'There's no point, she's not going to get any deader.'

I loved my mum (and definitely didn't kill her) and my reply could be seen as inappropriate by some. But she'd been ill a long time, her death was a release for her and I would rather have been at work than sitting alone at home. So responses to things are VERY individual and should never be seen as an indication of anything other than one person's processing of an event.
 

pandacracker

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Jan 16, 2004
Messages
1,505
A little while ago I seem to remember the German police saying they had good evidence against Christian Brueckner but heard nothing since.

What's that all about?
 
Top