madeleine mccann, did it all happened on that evening?

what if; all happened on that evening.

i have wandered around in all kinds of starting points. the problem is, there are hardly any starting points that include a beginning, the act and the endgame. and when i get some doubts i always go back to the consensus of the first portuguese investigation.

not only from a kind of respect, but this was the only one, that team had almost all the direct contacts and information to work from. even it never became a complete investigation, and many information came well after that.
for me it means, all other theories and viewpoints must at least be of the same quality.
i do include the book of goncalo amaral in this too.

and i must admit my personal bias, that is still there, that starts from seeing the press conference of the mccanns that been replayed on the bbc news and i saw on saturday. may 5, 2007.

my own doubts by all theories i have seen or started out myself, was usually simply time, but after reading up on more recent studies, that resolved itself too. such studies do not bring new possible events, only new ways to look at what already is known by field experiences and other studies. the matter that such studies look into do not exclude the same happening or be possible in a much older case. it was already there and happening, only we had not get into the aspects deep enough.

the write up still needs a lot of speculation, soft information, so it must be read as just my opinion about how it could have happened if it did. it is not its first outing on the internet.
it is also not a finished piece. the concealment of the body has no information to make use of. at all. so do not expect a map with a cross where to find it.
it also have bits that are only my personal impression of people.

it is also the easiest theory, it means there is nothing happening before this one evening in may 2007.

so my starting point is when the parents left unit 5a to walk to the table in the tapas restaurant around 20.30 hours.

madeleine was a healthy looking and by the pictures we know also an active child, of almost 4 years of age, she was a bit on the short side with the given 90 cm. on average that is a height already reached on the age of 2.5 years of age for a female child in the uk.

i never have seen anything that would make me think this was a murder case, or a death as a result of violence in the home itself. there never surfaced much that would give an indication of abuse in any way or kind.

accidents do happen to children, even fatal ones. a fall from a height is a known possible cause for a fatal accident, more rare as often thought, but they do happen, in this case there is no body to give information needed to bring a conclusion about a possible fatal fall.

it is my own experience not unknown that young children have a great feeling for finding the moment their parents left the house.

if madeleine wanted to look out, because of her height that would not be easy, the patio itself with the green foliage growing over the railing would block everything beyond that out of her view. most children already know on a young age how to solve that, by just climbing on furniture.

the blue sofa or the small side table in the corner would be easy to make use of, the same area the dogs later would alert to, behind the sofa must usually had some room, because of the long draping curtains behind it, with that soaf directly placed to the wall behind it, it would not practical to use these curtains, on the pictures in the pj files made after arrival of the pj officers, these curtains are at least partly closed, the half on the patio side pretty neatly, the other on the side of the kitchen was not tucked fully behind the sofa.
not in a way most guest would leave it in such a non-orderly fashion.

so that area could very well fitted for a accident that just happened, in a way, even when you was sitting on that sofa, or standing almost next to the child, it could hardly be blocked from happening.

the combination of the height of the backrest of that sofa, the windowsill behind it, and a hard tiled floor good all in all certainly a place for a fatal accident, there is no need for other complications even as sedatives given before. the majority of such falls would not end up fatal, but that is why we call it accidental, and some end sadly fatal.

the kind of trauma would not easily lead to massive blood loss, depending on the specific trauma, death can be instant, or a bit slower shutdown of functions, serious trauma to the skull, can lead to late bloodloss, through eyes, ears, mouth and nose after the body already landed on the floor.
during the fall itself there will be no blood loss, hitting an object can break the skin, but still the energy of a fall is still pretty high and most wounds take a moment before blood loss gets on. clothes and hair can cover even most of it.

a body that did not move again, can form some pooling blood, enough to explain the blood found in the grout, and under the tiles. a bit larger amount of blood would not easily dried in situ, but can certainly decompose, it usually will easily stops decomposition, usually when less than 20% moisture is there decomposition through bacteria and other micro-organismen shall stop. new contact that brings on moisture could start a next cycle of decomposition up again. and in such porous grout it would be impossible to clean it fully out.

if such a fatal fall occurred shortly after the parents left for the restaurant, and the father found her during his check of 21.05 hours. there is no good science to explain if that period of time itself can fit with a much later alert of a cadaver dog. there are no usable studies about young children to point that into a yes or no. health, age and gender all can have their influences, but from understandable ethical reason little research is done on young children.
there is done a lot of research about decomposition, also in direct relation to cadaver dogs.
from that we can get that blood that decomposes on a porous substrate like concrete and wood in a outdoor setting can still be recognized by a cadaver dog up to a month.
inside it would be much more protected against direct sunlight, the wetter and other interference. cleaning could certainly restart decomposition until it reaches less than 20% moisture content, and because unit 5a was certainly cleaned after it was given back the first time, and had been used for renting out again, and that also multiple cleaning moments made plausible to restart such decomposition cycles.

but back to that first check, the father finds his daughter already succumbed, he has enough basic medical training to understand it was beyond saving.

with all the pressure of the moment, and already some drinks that would surely would not help in straight thinking, there is instant fear of what could be the result, for him, for his family. he was already quite a bit underway in a sound medical career, they had a house to pay for, and they have been so stupid to agree in that stupid do it ourselves baby listen service, and just like the public would know take that, it was abroad, the law, the media, the family, work, all would be inflicted, and the father decides to take a chance, and first clean the area from most blood visible. and brings the body out of 5a.

it is not a given that it was a one time transporting the body was to hide it forever, or that it just was enough at first to bring it outside unit 5a, to simply break that connection.

if it was just the last many nearby places would do, even inside block 5, but many residences in praia da luz, that only be used for periods of the year, and any one with a gate that could not easily be managed by a young child, but accessible by an adult could be used. roofs, trees, places with gates and no trespassing signs could work too.

as long as that the body was no longer in unit 5a, there could be a story made to tell about a third party.

it is not unknown that people in difficult situations under high pressure just do stupid things, and later on, invest deeply to hide at least and sometimes most of all that stupidity itself. and many do not see a way out.

so a first storing area could easily be found in minutes. and all he had to do next was play dumb for just half an hour to the next check by kate, the conversation with jez w. just outside the gate of unit 5a, could even helped to calm down more. it would also shorten the time to the next step.

it is unknown if there was a check where matt replaced kate or not, but it would mean that kate had not to act and indeed was a mother who could not find her daughter.

the story around the alarm, was that all made a hasty exit from the restaurant to unit 5a, but that never happened, jane was still in unit 5d, dianne stayed behind. going by the words, only gerry and kate got back into unit 5a, the rest stayed outside on the patio and all took of to search for the child in the areas around block 5.

fiona got back as the first, but the behaviour of the mother looked very real, and maybe because it was real, not that of the mother of a missing child, but one who just heard her daughter was no longer alive, and they had to say it was an abduction.
nothing after that in the behaviour of the mother was in any way to be understood as the mother of a missing child in her emotions. the anger she showed by hurting herself is very uncommon in a missing child situation. however it does fit with a mother who lost a child, anger is a common emotion in that. fiona stayed with kate, just before that david was also back at unit 5a.

gerry got out to search again, rachel met him on the upstairs gallery, unclear if he was seen near the pool before or after that.

so there has not been any of the friends in the known, not even kate was directly told. it would only be one single person that had to play a role. and kate only after that she was told.
she kept herself after that with fiona and on times with david, later gerry too, silvia batista and emma knight been there too.
kate was through fiona het statements with fiona outside around the car park in front of building 5.

there was no instant interference of a government in that moment. that was still one or two hours in the future.

both know from their professions what death means, how final it is, that it cannot be changed anymore, that there is nothing left that could help the child now dead. but the situation for themselves, their lives, their connections in family, work and future could be helped with setting the stage into that of an abduction.

that night they both stayed in unit 5h with the paynes, but by first light both parents left the twins and did their own search. what with the same energy be just saying goodbye to their child, brought her to a place she would be even better hidden, until a final solution was reached. they been seen coming back to building 5 around 07.00 hours by an officer of the gnr, that was stationed outside unit 5a.

did it happened as written down, i do not know, is it possible, yes, there is nothing that a human can not do, and that had not done it before.

to be continued…….

I've seen it said time and time again, it would be impossible to clean-up after a tragic accident in a matter of an hour or so - I beg to differ.

When trauma, tragedy and panic hit, human beings can be very capable and very speedy. As you rightly point out, a tragic accident doesn't necessarily lead to blood and gore, indeed there doesn't need to be any evidence of fatality visible to the naked eye - apart from a corpse of course.

The discovery, the body removal and temporary concealment could be easily achieved within minutes.

Events throughout the week have been scrutinized to the ninth degree, seemingly to suggest or prove something suspicious that might lead to the construction of a multifarious batiment without foundations. A theory to fit the imagination rather than an evaluation of known evidence of human behaviour and the documented investigation into the case of Madeleine McCann's disappearance.

Sometimes, if not always, the simplest explanations are the most probable.

Gerry McCann is certainly a man capable of thinking on his feet, I don't think he would be fazed by emotions.

this is on its one just a sketch that could be possible. i can make them from every point someone says this is the point to say go. i never was content with any version, and this one is absolutely not perfect. but doing such write ups for yourself and work with them to see what the points are you need to cover, can also tell where and how to look for the answer to that.

and in this case too much has to rest on words, there is so very little to connect one step into the next, so you can only but speculate about other possible events than only those you know as told. this write up is not even very specific written on the real people, but just to show myself that it could happen indeed all just on that single evening.

can it be proven, and has it to be proven, the first is a no, the second is a yes. but the information to change the first into a yes is simply not there to work from. and proving a case is not a true part of an investigation, that can only be done in court.
and the question was can it all be doable on that single thursday evening, and i think that can be a simple yes.

and this has to be seen without a connection to a later court case, proven is a much too hard word for the investigation stage in all cases. there is not even a need to prove anything, or decide about guilty or innocent at all, that is restricted to a court, that would not work during an investigation at all. a reasonable amount of suspicion is enough during an investigation.

It works just like in our schooldays, you gather information, work with it, it will be checked from time to time, but it only will be during your exams you have to prove you have that covered. Investigations are like your school days with checks in place too, but the court will be the exams, that is where it is all tried and tested.

humans and words are a difficult combination, they can be used so versatile, from true to completely made up. most people do not like telling the full naked truth, and also do not like to made all up, so most times a story is a bit of both. it is even very much accepted in daily life.
asked a question, it can make us easily in a state of wanting to defend ourselves. even a simple question as; how are you doing? we will look usually for a more functional answer than a trueful one. who asked it, does it really needs an answer. what will the other one do with your answer.

that does happen in an investigation too, with all questions asked. so it is always nice to have other matter that backs up the words.

in common we are a bit primed to think that a scene must be horrible, when horrible things happen. even more when it is called a crime scene, but with a true accidental death, there is for that part no crime scene inside unit 5a at all. it can be a starting point as a crime scene when we put concealment of the body in the case, because that would start there, and also the third point of the consensus of the first investigation staging a crime scene of abduction will make one starting there, but the area where the accidental death happened is not a crime scene, because in that part there is no criminal offence happened.

as far as is understood, even if a crime about neglect would have to be investigated under portuguese law, that needs a body en it could be that the kind of accident that happened here is not even fit to be the result of neglecting at all. if the autopsy concludes in a result that could agree with a fall as i used here, it could mean even if there was adult supervision very near, it could not be prevented. it would not make it into a case, and they already walked out of the neglect offence because in the words of the possible suspect they could not detect intent, and that as an element has to be proven too.

and for myself there is much more thinking in it than can be written out in a single piece.
certainly when thinking about the kind of fatal trauma, as both parents are medical professionals, they could much earlier both have understood what kind of trauma there was, and i think if one or both are in enough agreement, that this trauma meant even when they had been directly near the child, they or any other could never have saved it from death.
they could lose out the guilty feelings and emotions, and more easily accept and agree in covering their other responsibilities in life.

emotions they both had and both showed emotions could easily be understood from a missing child. and in common they got away with it, the world is now believing that missing is expressed by the emotions of grieving. where grieving emotions always been seen as restricted for a final goodbye, this case mixed that up. missing is a temporary state, so it was strange to see the very strong emotions of grieving so early on, and for so short too.
you can not put guilty on people because of that, but i do think that this is what put out the doubt about this story as it was told.

and people are quite famous for making strange or stupid decisions and acting on them, it is not reserved to the youth, or the more simple minded. emotions can do that to all of us. most of them will not have such long shadows, and most of the results from doing it are easy to repair again. even when your profession has trained you to take split second decisions and acting from them, it still does not work perfectly in private settings.

to be continued…

the big thing with working out a theory is usually at first if it is possible.
and after that if there are indeed people as an individual that could have taken it off.

what follows is just an opinion of my own, formed on impressions these people made on me.

i have little problems to write about it, it are still real people, but in this case most of them have chosen to make their words heard and showing their behaviour freely in public.
even way beyond that would be seen as needed to ask people about their daughter, or witnesses of anything.

and if you want to look into a case to understand it, the people are just sources of information, and information has no need for your own feelings and emotions, they have their own places of use.

why i think a simple and easy event like i started out with, on that single thursday evening is a possibility for me is because of my impression of the parents.

first they are not good at acting at all, they are not experienced criminals either.

i never seen much room for being nasty parents to their children, no signs that could tell about abuse, and that is hard to find out, because the victims of child abuse, in all kinds and forms itself are usually growing in being very good in acting. so it can be hard to recognize.

nothing and no one ever made it an obligation to me to like or hate the parents, or other people that found themselves ending up in this case.

if i start with the father, my impression is mostly of someone who lacks the natural ability and feel to behave appropriately when under pressure or a newish situation. others call him out as very social, but not always nice to have around, he likes the attention and can be a bit too full of himself. going by his profession he already has proven to be able to work for years to a set goal. he seems a fair bit egocentric. and he likes to escape by the use of language.

the mother shows much easier all kinds of emotions, is more in a we centric when voicing out. more aware of social standings. a very bad actress too. step more easily behind others, and is easy to get angry or overly emotional when she does not accept what is said, or the way it is used against her.
my impression of her is always been that i would not expect her to cover a plan over multiple days, even multiple hours and play the nothing is wrong here card for long.
but she will defend her own corners and the ones her husband ends up in with effort.

for both, going by their profession it is quite remarkable how childish both can react about serious questions.
both are very invested in what they have to lose.

do not expect a profile , behaviour analysis or speech analysis about them, all have some use, but there are still no systems to make findings into usable information. i have worked many times myself together in cases with a psych that was of the kind with a medical degree, a true mind doctor, but more as an extra set of eyes and ears, from his background, than to expect to tell who did what on moves and words. and i had at first in a lot of cases that are outside my basic expertises i had my badge for, to do that too, just being a fresh pair of eyes and ears and mind, to give an opinion as the outsider.

that outsider perspective is what makes the world of armchair detectives a great one, and certainly on forum style boards, so many different people, of all ages, backgrounds and a full mix of life experiences can be of help in looking into things a bit differently, when trying to understand a case.

what i like is looking to the words said and spoken in different ways. i am used to listen to others and painting that into a picture in my mind. inside unit 5 a, and the surroundings are well known, still the people who took their time to make videos from bits more in perspective of this case have been of great help to paint in the background where it all played out.

the mother is well known for quite spicy words at times, and i often have the strong impression she is not lying at such moments, she comes out as very invested in often small sentences. also i like to look a bit better what people put out with stronger emotions.
she give me the impression to not keep silent when what is said or written give her very strong negative emotions such as disappointment or even full anger, i get the idea that when she thinks she is truly innocent in a specific point, she just gets mad.

and she made a lot of them. they do not tell a full story, but i think it is very possible in such moments she is truthful. and i like from there to think her behaviour is very real too.

often it are just bits from what she says. and i think she is not a type that could play out a fake scene of setting an alarm of a missing daughter. if she did she choose the wrong emotions to get that off.

and there could be true emotions, a decision to change the story, still could mean both had true feelings of guilt, mourning and overall sadness and even anger, changing the outlook for the outsider, does not mean you can exclude your feeling that still are there because you just lost your child.

it can not harm at all to look again with the idea that such words are true words, not the full story around it, but little bits of what is said.

the easiest way to let the mother open her mouth is when someone implicated the possibility that they killed their daughter. and say that in a way, as having a direct hand in that happening. when we think an accident happened that meaning of killing is of course complicated. it could be mean by a direct action, but many countries have also another meaning, when you have a duty of care to another person, and that duty of case is not what is happening you can be still be responsible if that person died as a result of the lack of that care. for the first the accused must be near the victim, for the second that is not needed.

the mother used at a time words, and it is not a full citation, that what happened was not because they left their children sleeping behind in unit 5a, but that it happened differently, and that she knows that, because she was there. that was very strong language. still it can mean different things, still said in the same words. first something happened under her eyes, and that was not in that same moment.
it could also mean, her belief in only a possible abduction is so strong in her mindset, and being there means not so much under her direct line of sight, but from what she has taken after it.
but there is a third possibility, and that could be explained by an accident that could have happened at all times, even when she was very near the child. and that the result of such an accident was not something that could be changed through her being their and her next chosen action.

there are two moments during the may 3 and may 4, 2007, that the mother could be told about what really happened, the first 10 minutes after the alarm they have been together as parents in unit 5a. and later that night at day break both left together unit 5h.

that second period of time was longer, they have been seen getting back around 07.00 hours by the officer that stood outside unit 5a.

that could have been enough time to go back to a first hiding spot of the body, to say their goodbyes and also take a look at the trauma on the body that made the fall fatal. start to accept the death was final, and there was by their idea no way back in telling a true story.
both must have had enough basic medical knowledge to understand the fatal trauma and that is was maybe just by very bad luck, it ended up in this way.
they had to cover each other in getting in protect our reputation and things we still have.
they could not have changed anything anymore in the fate of their oldest daughter. still they could fight for keeping the other two, together with their jobs and social standing.

or the words; 'I know the truth and God knows the truth, and nothing else matters', the mother spoke during a radio interview in 2010.

and in her book;
" I know the truth, we know the truth and God knows the truth. And one day, the truth will out." Madeleine by Kate McCann.
if you have not been a witness to or part in an event, you can hardly know that so sure.
together with the stories about dreams and visions, there is a likely understanding the person this is all about is no longer alive.

the problem with still alive, can easily be hidden in the sudden resurrection of her catholic believes, where only a body can die, but the soul cannot.

from the last, the catholic beliefs is to get that for a grave or other hiding place there will be no need for holy ground, that is not in the church law, and prayers for the dead, can be said by every laymen that is catholic, there are even special prayers for children under 7 years of age.

for other possible ways to dispose of a body, throwing it in the garbage, or just into the ocean, or a lake or other body of water, seems not really fitting with the impression i have of them.

also the disposal of the body itself does not ask to must have taken place before the alarm was given, multiple places could be used, even with help of others who never knew they been of help in it. people from their network who had property that could work, that was just lent for their use, to simply have a place to be away for a bit, for use to family that got in. even a property rented on the name of a person that was not seen as part of this case. a sister of gerry could lent a car to get from the airport in faro to praia da luz. hardly anything is known of that car.

they had from may 4,2007, phones not registered to their names available through a family member of the paynes, handed to them on the stairs of the portimao police offices.

there is no reason the route of the body out of 5a would been one single trip to a forever resting place at all. and most focus a lot on day time, but the media ended each evening up in the many local pubs, and that means evening and even more night could have activity unnoticed. there is a big difference if you can do something, or had to do a; must happen now.

the behaviour of mostly the mother on the evening of may 3, and into the night of may 4, gives me the impression of mourning, not missing. and again, we as part of the public are the onlookers here, who give meaning on what we seen, but faking the case, would still mean their reality would be that of parents who just learned their daughter died.

but in the complete aftermath, they both never presented themselves in truly assisting to help with a clear story, many words chosen that been empty at best and more against all help besides just believing them at worst. the investment in being active in searching by themselves never seems to be there, talking about it yes, talking to let others search yes, but no drive in their words about their own searching.
hardly any word about care for their in words still alive daughter. most attention was given to them, their feelings, their world.
there was no heart in their media appearances, just telling and half way losing out on the script.

the reality is, that you can only give it its true meaning back, when all about this case is known, you need concrete answers to do that. answers that connect from point to point, and the information to use in that is simply not out in the open.

madeleine mccann, the alarm, tell do not act.

even when the exact timing of the alarm is still unknown, there is a lot of strange behaviour around it.

kate mccann told the world she new immediate that madeleine was taken, after her experience with the whooshing curtains, the showing of an open window and open shutters.
but she cannot have believed her own insight very much, because she still searched inside unit 5a, in all closets, under the beds, until the twins began to stir, their only known movement that evening and the night it followed.

so she left everything open, and made a run to the restaurant to the others of the group, the 7 adults, because jane had still to be in unit 5d, heard her shout they have taken her, some seems to know this was a redacted citation by the media, because kate must supposedly have said the blood bastards have taken her. still even if you have two daughter that could fit the her, all 7 at the table understood immediately it must have been madeleine. no one told in a statement they had to ask who is taken.

of course not only kate believed her own mind, the 7 adults did not belief that too. they all got on their feet except dianne webster, who had to keep an eye out on the things left at the table. i once long ago read that bit in a less flattering way and that is was dianne her own decision, but it seems no longer around on the www.

kate and gerry mccann got inside unit 5a, the others in that moment can not tell a very specific story, but they could have been left standing at the patio, or got in too.
and david payne, fiona payne, russell o’brien and matt oldfield started to search the area, gerry seems to have got out to do the same. he was at least seen near the pool, within the fenced of area that it joinred with the tapas bar and restaurant.

but that part sounds like a pan of overly cooked spaghetti. but 5 adults tell they have searched, not in a way to find a third party, but by the description as for a lost child.

dianne left a bit later on, to look around unit 5a, even had just like gerry a bit of diddling with shutters, fiona did too, but she used not the bedrooms ones, but worked out a bit from within unit 5a.

it gets the idea of a walk in and out of all around unit 5a. jane was still in unit 5d, rachel looked in on her child, and kept waiting around unit 5b and 5 d, spoke to jane, and did awesome searching in block 5. met up with gerry somewhere on the higher floors on the car park side of block 5.

but it was certainly not only the public and the police that did not believe the abductor theory as told by the mccanns.

if you are so sure and adamant that it was an abduction, why search at all, and get out a signal to the ocean club only at first much later, and a second one, after which the gnr was contacted at 22.41 hours.

david and matt supposedly stayed out looking mostly, russell was around or in unit 5a, kate and fiona stayed mostly in the parents bedroom, joined with people of mark warner/ocean club. dianne was shortly after arriving at unit 5a, summoned to take their things back from the table and after that stay with the payne children.

but the telling with hindsight simply does not agree with their actions.

and jane her tannerman was already exposed first to rachel who, in stead of jane who was still holding her youngest child, did walk up to an officer of the gnr and told about jane seeing what later grew out into tannerman, also jane told it already to fiona, when fiona with kate looked around in front of block 5 at the car park side, but not to kate. much later was arranged that jane could go into unit 5a to tell it to the pj officers, while gerry mccann and russell o’brien her partner was there too.

jane was even taken to portimao police station because they wanted to let her make photo fit, jane kept on saying she only could do that from the side, but the software et the police station was only available for a front view of a person. this resulted in the making of eggmann, the version we know of that, was what was taken with the officers who have to ask around if a guy of the description and egg man picture made a bell ring in the memory of people who had restaurants and shops, one of the owner made the sketch that we know from the papers, to say that was all they got. not really, jane had given her first description too, to work from, but it would still be weeks into growing into tannerman, and many moons later became a crossover between cooperman and tannerman the first, into a rough hairy guy.

it did not seem to have reached into the natural reaction to ask others in block 5 if they had seen anything, not jane directly, she had to look out herself, at first after she saw no one any longer at the table in the restaurant when she looked from unit 5d at the pool side.
not mrs. pamela fenn who was clearly home, or the moyes who stayed on top of her.

even when gerry must have gotten into the fenced of tapas area to look around the pool, he did not told the waiters. the same people who must have had at least a bit of basic understanding of the english language, they had to go by some words spoken by dianne, after they asked where all had gone and left her alone.

so there was not even that sense of urgency to call and contact the police directly, even when kate always kept her words the same; i immediately knew she was taken.

not one of the nine ever explained that.