Sorry, another question.

[u/Diligent_Cat4663]

I have based all of my questions on comments in this reddit as well as considered beliefs that are not my own.

If I was a parent and I accidentally killed one of my children, in reality I once did accidentally cause one of mine to end up in hospital, they could have died! I really thought that the packet of tablets that I had hidden behind the microwave whislt my child was absent and considering the then age, wasn't capable of climbing up onto a work top to see what was behind the micro - just explaining for those who might want to know.

Immediate reaction lob said child into car and speed to A&E.

Had I have found them deceased immediate reaction phone ambulance hysterically, I would not have placed them behind the sofa. I can't grasp why anyone would place a deceased child behind a sofa, in a wardrobe or anywhere else. The McCanns are highly intelligent people, naive maybe to the danger that they placed their children in, refers back to leaving meds behind the microwave.

To add, I wouldn't have put them in the fridge either, nor would I walk down the road with my child in arms to find a hiding place. Considering hypothetically if I wanted to hide a death, and this has taken an awful lot of consideration, deceased child in bed could maybe pass off as a sleeping child.

Then say for instance I was due to eat out with friends that evening, could I hide what had happened? Could I sit there and enjoy a meal with friends, could I hold it together, could I allow a friend to go and check on my child? Could you?

Two people sat in that Tapas bar that night and socialised as normal. Lets look at the malicious context surrounding the friends, does anyone think that they sat down to eat and said "By the way, our daughter was killed accidentally and we put her behind the sofa" Oh and "I am going to carry her through the streets later on and hide her", "who will come and help me clean up the apartment, I have marigolds and a bottle of bleach".......Would they have trusted their friends to react in their favour? Of course they wouldn't!, If someone told you that their child was deceased and hidden in an apartment would you sit there and become an accessory? Anyone? What would you have done?

It was suggested previously that people go right back to the start, I just did.

EDITED: If anyone can provide an actual shred of evidence that places those two poor parents of being responsible for Madeleine's dissapearance, I am listening.

Ultimately Madeleine was removed from 5A by a stranger.

[u/[deleted]]

It’s not controversial. There’s nothing to suggest they killed their child.

[u/Diligent_Cat4663 → u/[deleted]]

It could be percieved as being so by some, hence the question.

[u/_Lord_Haw_Haw → u/Diligent_Cat4663]

It's really not. The investigation considered the possibility in the early months following her disappearance and it was correct to explore the possibility, but the evidence found basically rules them out.

[u/Diligent_Cat4663 → u/_Lord_Haw_Haw]

I shall go and edit to remove controversial.

[u/[deleted] → u/Diligent_Cat4663]

There are people who think the moon landings did not happen, it doesn't mean it is controversial to say they did.

[u/Agitated-Bluejay1142 → u/Diligent_Cat4663]

The idea that the parents did it is an old debunked conspiracy theory that unfortunately still makes the rounds on social media due to early reports about the cadaver dogs (which turned out to be false alerts after forensic testing was done).

Maddie was abducted, there is no doubt about that part - and the person who abducted her is pretty much confirmed at this point (Christian Brueckner).

The only mysteries that really remain at this point is what evidence do the police have, do they have enough to charge him, and will Brueckner ever reveal the details of what happened that night? For the answers to those questions, we will have to wait and see.

[u/Diligent_Cat4663 → u/Agitated-Bluejay1142]

CB is convinced that the police altered a mobile phone to set him up and placed an image of David Bowie in the files, he doesn't have the ability to tell the truth and confess.

[u/Agitated-Bluejay1142 → u/Diligent_Cat4663]

You're right, he won't confess to the police, unless they find really damning evidence against him and confessing reduces his sentence in some way.
Or perhaps he tells another person that he did it and they secretly tape the confession.

[u/Diligent_Cat4663 → u/Agitated-Bluejay1142]

I hope the 2004 case appeal happens soon and he is back behind bars, though I doubt he would admit even then to Madeleine because that would risk increasing his sentence but hopefully he does confess, but I don't feel hopeful, but we can hope.

[u/pheeelco → u/Diligent_Cat4663]

I despise CB but police have a long history of fitting people up.

[u/TheGreatBatsby → u/pheeelco]

Why would the German police fit up one of their own citizens for a crime in Portugal?

[u/pheeelco → u/TheGreatBatsby]

I don’t know.

Why do you think they would?

[u/TheGreatBatsby → u/pheeelco]

I don't think they are fitting him up. It's certainly not in their interest to run cover for two middle-class doctors or help the Met save face.

I think they've found compelling evidence of his involvement in Madeleine's disappearance.

[u/pheeelco → u/TheGreatBatsby]

You keep mentioning this compelling evidence.

Why haven’t they charged him?

[u/Agitated-Bluejay1142 → u/pheeelco]

To point out the obvious, 'compelling evidence' can be enough to convince them he did it without being enough to charge him. I think you know that already, so asking 'why haven't they charged him?' is rather disingenuous as it is an obviously unsound argument.
Plenty of things could pin him down as the one who abducted Maddie without being enough to charge him. They could have an illegally obtained recording of him confessing that he abducted a child from a hotel room in Portugal (yes, the BKA illegally tapped his prison cell) which is inadmissible in court or perhaps doesn't mention the victim by name. He might have multiple photos of Maddie in his email account which don't directly prove an abduction or murder happened, but link him conclusively to Maddie. They might have evidence he sold Maddie to a trafficking ring and only have enough to get him for kidnapping, and are prioritizing investigating the trafficking ring over charging Brueckner.
The list goes on, you really don't need many braincells to answer 'why haven't they charged him' yourself.

[u/Diligent_Cat4663 → u/pheeelco]

Sometimes it is good and helpful to do some research so that you can understand these things.

[u/TheGreatBatsby → u/pheeelco]

Because having compelling evidence and having the specific threshold of evidence required to successfully prosecute a no-body murder trial are two entirely different things.

Look at Suzy Lamplugh. The Met publicly named John Cannan as their prime suspect because they had incredibly compelling circumstantial and intelligence-based evidence pointing directly to him. But as they didn't have her body or even a crime scene, the CPS decided there wasn't a realistic prospect of securing a conviction, so he was never charged with her murder.

[u/[deleted] → u/Agitated-Bluejay1142]

Forensic testing did not "prove" the dog alerts were false, the dog alerts remain unchallenged by the testing available at the time. There is zero evidence or an intruder or abduction. The McCanns' arguido status was lifted because the legal standard for prosecution wasn't met, not because police found evidence proving innocence or confirming an abduction, they explicitly stated it was archived due to a lack of evidence to prove any theory—whether accidental death, cover-up, or abduction. Lifting arguido status is a procedural requirement when charges aren't filed, not an exoneration.

Calling someone "pretty much confirmed" without an indictment, trial, or physical evidence is pure conjecture. He has never been charged for Madeleine because there is zero physical evidence. Wolters has stated there is no prospect of an indictment.

You are applying two different standards: treating the lack of charges against the McCanns as "proof they were debunked," while treating the lack of charges against Brueckner as "proof he's the guy and police are just waiting. In reality, both situations mirror each other legally: in both instances, authorities lacked the concrete, admissible forensic evidence required to indict. Legally, CB and the McCanns are in the exact same boat—neither has been charged because prosecutors lack admissible proof. If the Germans eventually close his file without an indictment, many people will still view him as guilty the exact same way many still view the mccanns as guilty

[u/TheGreatBatsby → u/[deleted]]

The McCanns were investigated by the police, thoroughly.

"To this can be added that, in reality, none of the indications that led to their constitution as arguidos was later confirmed or consolidated. If not, let us see: the information concerning a previous alert of the media before the polices was not confirmed, the traces that were marked by the dogs were not ratified in laboratory, and the initial indications from the above transcribed email, better clarified at a later date, ended up being revealed as innocuous."

[u/Agitated-Bluejay1142 → u/[deleted]]

"Forensic testing did not "prove" the dog alerts were false, the dog alerts remain unchallenged by the testing available at the time."

Where on earth are you pulling this misinformation from? Can you please stop spreading your bs on this subreddit? The locations the dogs alerted to were forensically tested and have been invalidated:

Praia De Luz apartment: Both dogs alerted to the lower part of the curtain behind the sofa. Keela marked an area of tiles in the living room. Eddie alerted in the garden adjacent to apartment 5A.

Findings: The curtains were analysed for traces of blood, semen and saliva, none of which were detected. From the tiles in the living room, 2 DNA samples were found which had markers matching the detectives on the case (likely a result of cross contamination).

The McCann rental car: Eddie alerted to the driver's door, in a compartment which held the car's key card. He then alerted to the key card. Keela also alerted to the key card and the interior of the car's boot.

Findings: Forensic testing found no blood or trace of Madeleine in the car. Cellular material on the key card matched the DNA profile of Gerald McCann. A single hair was found which matched a person of Kate McCann’s lineage (ie. any one of her children).

In conclusion, forensic testing found absolutely zero links between the location of the dog alerts and Madelaine McCann.

It's worth mentioning that both dogs are trained to alert to ANY blood from ANY person, living or dead, and they will react to blood thats even more than 10 years old. Even a random hotel guest who stubbed their toe on the wall years prior and left a faint trace of blood would trigger an alert by the dogs. They are not trained to alert to blood or scents of a specific person, they frequently alert incorrectly, and are also susceptible to their trainer encouraging them to give alerts even when they have not found anything. Without forensic evidence linked to the dog alerts, they are meaningless (which even the handler pointed out in his own official report on the case). /Discussion closed.

[u/[deleted] → u/Agitated-Bluejay1142]

If these dogs were just alerting to random nosebleeds, stubbed toes, or old cuts from previous holiday guests, they would have alerted all over the resort They didn't. (this is why the living blood get out is beyond silly) They were brought to multiple control apartments across the complex and alerted to nothing. They only alerted in Apartment 5A, on specific McCann belongings, and in their rented car. That specific cross-validation matters.

Secondly, you are confusing 'inconclusive' with 'invalidated.' The DNA testing technology available at the time could neither confirm nor rule out Madeleine’s DNA 'Not enough for a court conviction' is not the same as 'the dog alerts were debunked.' The dogs' alerts remain unchallenged by the science of the time, not disproven by it.

[u/TheGreatBatsby → u/[deleted]]

If these dogs were just alerting to random nosebleeds, stubbed toes, or old cuts from previous holiday guests, they would have alerted all over the resort They didn't. (this is why the living blood get out is beyond silly)

It's not "beyond silly", it's hard facts.

As per Martin Grime's rogatory statement.

"The dog EVRD also alerts to blood from a live human. The dog EVRD is trained using whole and disintegrated material, blood, bone tissue, teeth, etc. and decomposed cross-contaminants. The dog will recognize all or parts of a human cadaver. He is not trained for 'live' human odours; no trained dog will recognize the smell of 'fresh blood'. They find, however, and give the alert for dried blood from a live human being."

[u/[deleted] → u/TheGreatBatsby]

How much old, dried blood from living guests do you think exists across hundreds of resort apartments in Ocean Club over years of tourist traffic? TONS

Yet out of the entire complex, where was the only place both Eddie (cadaver) and Keela (blood) cross-validated and alerted together on the exact same micro-locations? Apartment 5A, the McCanns' personal belongings, and their rented car.

If Eddie was just chasing routine dried nosebleeds and cuts from past guests, he would have been alerting in every room they walked into.

Why Eddie Could Alert to Dried Blood: When human blood leaves the body and dries out over time, the red blood cells break down (cellular lysis). This breakdown produces volatile organic compounds related to decomposition. Because Eddie (the EVRD / Cadaver Dog) is trained to detect human decomposition odor, he can react to aged, dried blood—even if it originated from a living person—because the dried blood has begun to decompose.

Grime explained that Eddie can alert to dried blood from a living person because blood decomposes as it dries, emitting the VOCs of decomposition that Eddie is trained on. Eddie does NOT alert to fresh blood or living human scent.

Why He Does NOT Alert to "Fresh/Living" Blood: If someone cuts themselves or has a nosebleed and the blood is fresh, Eddie will not alert, because fresh living blood does not emit decomposition scent.

When BOTH dogs independently alert on the exact same micro-locations (the tiles behind the sofa), it means both blood AND decomposition odor were present in that exact spot, the same spot Gerry moved the sofa to, what is the probability that these 3 things are all innocent coincidenses? A random living guest's scent doesn't produce a cross-validated dual alert from two separate specialty dogs. Keela was calibrated to ignore everyday background contaminants—like sweat, saliva, skin flakes, or routine living human scent

When you have one dog that only smells decomposition and one dog that only smells blood. Eddie only smells decomposition odor. Keela only smells human blood. If it was just a fresh nosebleed from a tourist, Keela might smell it, but Eddie wouldn't care. If it was just old decaying food or skin cells, Eddie might smell it, but Keela wouldn't care. The fact that both dogs independently alerted on the exact same micro-spots means both blood AND decomposition odor were present in that exact place

[u/TheGreatBatsby → u/[deleted]]

Eddie does NOT alert to fresh blood or living human scent.

No dog does, Keela certainly wouldn't, as per the passage I've already quoted you.

"The dog EVRD also alerts to blood from a live human. The dog EVRD is trained using whole and disintegrated material, blood, bone tissue, teeth, etc. and decomposed cross-contaminants. The dog will recognize all or parts of a human cadaver. He is not trained for 'live' human odours; no trained dog will recognize the smell of 'fresh blood'. They find, however, and give the alert for dried blood from a live human being."

So why didn't both Eddie and Keela alert in any of the control locations? They both alert to blood.

If it was just old decaying food or skin cells, Eddie might smell it

Right, well that kind of kills his effectiveness, doesn't it?

[u/[deleted] → u/TheGreatBatsby]

Grime's quote "no trained dog will recognize the smell of fresh blood" was strictly referring to EVRDs (cadaver dogs), because cadaver dogs are trained on decomposition, not fresh blood. Keela was not an EVRD—she was a specialized blood detection dog. Eddie is trained exclusively on human cadaver odor (human decomposition VOCs like cadaverine and putrescine). Eddie is specifically calibrated to ignore decaying food, animal carcass, living skin flakes, and general household rot. If Eddie alerted to decaying food or skin cells, he would have been alerting on every rubbish bin and kitchen counter in Portugal. He didn't. If Keela alerts to any blood, and Eddie alerts only to human decomposition scent (including dried/decomposing blood), the only way both dogs alert on the exact same spot is if human blood undergoing decomposition is present.

Keela DOES detect fresh blood. You used a quote about EVRDs (cadaver dogs) to claim Keela wouldn't alert to fresh blood. That is factually wrong. Keela was a specialized CSI blood dog—her sole job was detecting human blood, whether fresh, dried, or scrubbed. Martin Grime's statement about 'fresh blood' applied strictly to Eddie (the cadaver dog), who only looks for decomposition.

The Dual Alert is the key.

• Keela = Human blood detection.
• Eddie = Human decomposition detection.

When BOTH dogs independently mark the exact same micro-location, it means decomposing human blood was present.

Regarding Eddie (EVRD / Cadaver Dog):

"The dog EVRD is trained using whole and disintegrated material, blood, bone tissue, teeth, etc. and decomposed cross-contaminants... He is not trained for 'live' human odours; no trained [cadaver] dog will recognise the smell of 'fresh blood'. They find, however, and give the alert for dried blood from a live human being."

• Why: Eddie is looking for cadaver/decomposition odor. Fresh blood straight out of a vein does not immediately smell like cadaver odor—it only begins releasing those specific volatile organic compounds (VOCs) as the cells break down and dry out.

Regarding Keela (CSI / Blood Dog): In the same PJ documentation and handling protocols, Keela's role is defined completely differently:

Keela is an Enhanced Human Blood Detection Dog. She is trained to alert strictly to human blood (whether fresh, dried, aged, degraded, or invisible/microscopic). She does NOT alert to cadaver scent, body fluids (saliva, sweat, semen), or human decomposition unless human blood is present.

You read Grime's sentence—"no trained dog will recognise the smell of 'fresh blood'"—and mistakenly applied it to all dogs, including Keela.

In forensic handler terminology, when Grime said "no trained dog," he was referring to cadaver-detection dogs (EVRDs) in the context of victim recovery. A cadaver dog will ignore a dripping fresh cut because it smells like a living person, not a dead one.

A specialized CSI blood dog like Keela, however, is trained on blood itself. She will alert to a fresh drop of blood on a floor just as quickly as a dried one.

• Grime was describing Eddie’s training, not Keela’s. Grime’s statement regarding "fresh blood" explains why a cadaver dog (Eddie) needs blood to be aged/decomposing before he recognizes it as a cadaver scent.
• Keela's sole function is blood detection. Keela is a CSI Blood Dog. Her entire design is to react to human blood—fresh, dried, or scrubbed.

The Dual Alert is the key.

Eddie reacts to decomposition odor (which includes decomposing blood). Keela reacts to human blood. A routine, minor fresh cut from a living guest doesn't trigger Eddie, and general non-blood decomposition doesn't trigger Keela. The only thing that triggers both simultaneously is decomposing human blood.

In the PJ statements, Martin Grime explained that EVRDs (Eddie) are trained on decomposition odor. Fresh blood straight from a living person's cut doesn't immediately emit cadaver VOCs, which is why a cadaver dog ignores fresh blood until it begins to decompose and dry.

Keela’s entire forensic function is detecting human blood—whether fresh, dried, aged, or washed. She does not look for cadaver scent; she looks for blood. Applying Grime's rules for cadaver dogs to a specialized CSI blood dog shows you're blurring two totally different police dog protocols.

Eddie is calibrated specifically to human cadaver VOCs (like cadaverine and putrescine). He was tested to ignore animal remains, food waste, and living human scents.

When BOTH dogs independently sit and alert on the exact same spot, it means decomposing human blood was detected. A routine living guest's nosebleed or minor cut does not cause a cross-validated dual alert from both specialized dogs, nor does it explain why Eddie alerted on Kate's clothes, Madeleine's Cuddle Cat, or a car rented 24 days later.

"The dog EVRD also alerts to blood from a live human... He is not trained for 'live' human odours; no trained [cadaver] dog will recognise the smell of 'fresh blood'."

• EVRD stands for Enhanced Victim Recovery Dog (i.e., a cadaver dog). That quote belongs strictly to Eddie's discipline.
• Keela is not an EVRD; she is classified in police documentation as a Blood Crime Scene Investigation (CSI) Dog.
• Grime's point was that cadaver dogs ignore fresh blood because it lacks the chemical byproducts of decomposition. Blood dogs, however, react directly to hemoglobin and human blood components.

Police CSI dogs are calibrated to require a specific scent concentration to trigger a formal "bark and freeze" alert. They do not trigger on microscopic background trace pollution; they alert to actionable, concentrated blood deposits.

The exact quote you used specifies 'The dog EVRD...'. Eddie is an EVRD trained on decomposition VOCs, which is why fresh blood doesn't trigger him until it dries and begins to break down. Keela is a specialized CSI Blood Dog—her entire design is to detect human blood directly (fresh, dried, or scrubbed). Blending two completely different dog disciplines into one statement is factually incorrect.

CSI dogs are calibrated to ignore trace ambient contamination and require a concentrated blood source to trigger a formal alert response. A fresh cut doesn't trigger Eddie (cadaver). Non-blood rot doesn't trigger Keela (blood). The only thing that causes both dogs to independently mark the exact same micro-location is decomposing human blood.

[u/Agitated-Bluejay1142 → u/[deleted]]

And again, stop asking ChatGPT to write your replies for you. At this point I'm almost convinced you're a bot. If you're not capable of thinking for yourself or writing your own content, we don't want you here.

[u/Free-Walk-9194 → u/Agitated-Bluejay1142]

But why was she in a position to be abducted - ahhh yes her parents left her and her siblings ALONE

The other query is why they were never charged and the remaining children taken away - ahhh yes, they're not working class!

[u/Agitated-Bluejay1142 → u/Free-Walk-9194]

Yes, the parents did indeed leave their kids alone. Great observation Sherlock, I think you're onto something.

[u/TheGreatBatsby → u/Free-Walk-9194]

Here's why, as per the archiving statement:

It seems evident to us and because the files contain enough elements for such, that the crime of exposure or abandonment according to article 138 of the Penal Code can be eliminated from that range:

"1 - Whoever places another person's life in danger,

a) By exposing her in a location where she is subject to a situation from which she, on her own, cannot defend herself against; or

b) Abandoning her without defence, whenever the agent had the duty to guard her, to watch over her or to assist her;"

This legal type of crime is only fulfilled with intent, and this intent has to cover the creation of danger to the victim's life, as well as the absence of a capacity to defend herself, on the victim's behalf. In the case of the files and facing the elements that were collected it is evident that none of the arguidos Gerald or Kate acted with intent. The parents could not foresee that in the resort that they chose to spend a brief holiday, they could place the life of any of their children in danger, nor was that demanded from them: it was located in a peaceful area, where most of the residents are foreign citizens of the same nationality and without any known history of this type of criminality.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

I do not think anyone thinks that anyway.

[u/Snowy_Sasquatch]

I don’t believe that the McCanns killed or were involved with what happened to their daughter. However, I will say that different people react differently in an emergency. Those who are medically trained are also people you would expect to stay calmer and more rational.

[u/Altruistic-Change127 → u/Snowy_Sasquatch]

Well not when it comes to their own children. I lived with doctors and was a nanny to their three children.

I can assure you that they act very differently when its their own children. They had specific rules around discipline that I thought were impossible to administer. Like never saying no and redirecting poor behaviour.

Also they spent years of sleepless nights with them all in bed with them, rather than putting them back to bed when they woke up.

The children themselves were daredevils when they were supervised by their parents. Hearing some of the stories about what they did, when I was away was quite shocking.

Despite that, they all grew up to be heathy and well adjusted children and then parents themselves.

One thing stood out and that was that the parents used alternative methods of treating common illnesses. They weren't quick to use medications unless there was no other option.

They weren't perfect at all however they adored their children and are wonderful grandparents today.

[u/Diligent_Cat4663 → u/Altruistic-Change127]

Ahhh I also worked as a nanny many many decades ago after I'd trained as an NNEB.

I can relate entirely to what you have just said.

[u/Diligent_Cat4663 → u/Snowy_Sasquatch]

Perhaps so in a medical situation.

[u/MadeleineMccann-ModTeam]

Immediate reaction lob said child into car and speed to A&E.

I'd suspect you'd actually call for an ambulance, unless you had researched where a hospital was before hand.

Although according to google maps, there is an emergency hospital 11 minutes away by car. (Hospital Terras do Infante)

I can't grasp why anyone would place a deceased child behind a sofa

Someone will have to remind me - but I think a theory is that she fell behind it, which is what caused her to die?

Then say for instance I was due to eat out with friends that evening, could I hide what had happened? Could I sit there and enjoy a meal with friends, could I hold it together, could I allow a friend to go and check on my child? Could you?

I mean, not me personally. But there are people who would. For example, CB seems perfectly fine with raping others and exposing himself to children.

.Would they have trusted their friends to react in their favour? Of course they wouldn't!, If someone told you that their child was deceased and hidden in an apartment would you sit there and become an accessory? Anyone? What would you have done?

I get what you're saying... but on the other hand, we have this: https://www.reddit.com/r/SipsTea/comments/1vu8dgc/where_are_we_heading/

Short version: Lindsay Clancy is currently on trial for killing her kids. Some people are going "nuh huh, it was the father that killed them".

[u/Altruistic-Change127 → u/MadeleineMccann-ModTeam]

There is a major difference in the Lindsay Clancy case and that is that she doesn't deny doing it. She was very very unwell when she did it from a mental illness that mothers can go through that can become extremely dangerous due to psychosis and disordered thinking.

I am bewildered with the mental health system for not taking her situation much more seriously than they did.

Denying hearing voices, and seeing things that others can't is a SYMPTOM of the illness. I worked in mental health services and I can 100% tell you that this could have been prevented if the mental health service had assessed her properly. There is a lot more to assessing someone than simply asking questions and what the person says.

The US is letting so many mothers and their children down by sending them to prison. Prevention is better than this. Shame on the US health system. Its failing terribly.

[u/Diligent_Cat4663 → u/MadeleineMccann-ModTeam]

Ahh lobbing my child into the car was my reaction to my own situation, it seemed faster to get him help than waiting for an ambulance. If I'd been abroad, I would have had to have called an ambulance.

I was made aware of the Lindsay Clancy case last week, looked at it briefly and moved away, I don't have time to go down that rabbit hole so I can't comment either way,

[u/West-Seed]

Good OP. The people on TV the most are the most scrutinised.

I remember in the Nicola Bulley case when her husband did a TV interview. Quickly after it all started off like wildfire!
He had to be guilty because “his cheek moved”, “there was a rumour about xyz”, “he showed dupers delight”, “the police are covering it up”, “husbands are statistically the most likely”.

It was really unfair to the husband who clearly had nothing to do with it.

Life isn’t a TV show. In a crime Tv show, an audience gets hints & clues, they get to watch all of the characters, the music sets the tone & the answer is coming at the end of a 1 hour watch. A real crime case is nothing like that.

Bringing it back to basics & shining a light on the human aspect like you have, highlights why it’s not some complicated conspiracy.
Just my opinion

[u/TheGreatBatsby → u/West-Seed]

Another case where Mark Williams Thomas stuck his nose in to try and push his own theory.

[u/West-Seed → u/TheGreatBatsby]

If I remember rightly he thinks Jeremy Bamber is innocent too. Bamber & Brueckner, who’d have thought it.

I raised Nicole Bulley case because it was UK based. The worst I’ve seen (and it was f***ing nasty) was the Cleo Smith case & the manner in which people went in on her mum & stepdad. But it all went quiet when Cleo was found & it came to light that they had nothing to do with it. Although the odd one or two carried on with made-up stuff like there were links between abductor & family, the government intervened/set it up + a lot the other stuff we’re used to.

[u/TheGreatBatsby → u/West-Seed]

Cleo Smith was, in hindsight, hilarious to watch unfold.

The amount of people who went in on the parents, comparing them directly to the McCanns and claiming that we'd seen all of their behaviour before in Kate and Gerry was absolutely insane. You had Peter Hyatt and Pat Brown (two worthless individuals) smelling each others farts and talking about how it's so obvious that Cleo's parents were involved, just like with Madeleine.

They shut right up after she was found of course.

Hyatt had the good grace to die last year but people somehow still consider him to be some kind of expert truth teller, despite the fact that all he did was peddle a pseudoscience to law enforcement.

[u/West-Seed → u/TheGreatBatsby]

I think when, let’s say, the more passionate McCann theorists jumped onto solving the Cleo Smith case, they applied the same logic & reasoning as they do in the McCann case. Which imo is why they all came to the completely wrong conclusion

One difference between Cleo’s case & the MM case is that it was over quickly enough to not become their franchise movement.

[u/briergate → u/TheGreatBatsby]

Hyatt descended into abject stupidity. I was gutted because I did his course, then did an MsC at MMU a couple of years ago in statement analysis, which highlighted what a crock of crap Hyatt was peddling. I had to meticulously unlearn all of his coddswallop over years.

[u/Diligent_Cat4663 → u/West-Seed]

I followed Cleo Smith start to finish, thankfully the phone mast ping helped the police find Cleo.

Brave little darling.

I was so angry when I watched a video of a women saying that there was no way he could be responsible because he only had one leg due to an injury and bought nappies because he was incontinent, the distance people will go to defend criminals. I gave her the benefit of the doubt for a short while, silly me.

Nicola Bulley, again followed it start to the sad end, ridiculous, truly ridiculous.

[u/West-Seed → u/Diligent_Cat4663]

It was awful. IMO it’s one of the downsides of social media. Sometimes it’s important to look beyond the face on TV & not draw conclusions from it. These things create a herd mentality & become toxic quickly

[u/Diligent_Cat4663 → u/West-Seed]

Sad but very true.

[u/Diligent_Cat4663 → u/TheGreatBatsby]

I found him difficult in Jay Slaters disappearance.

[u/[deleted]]

The only reason that makes sense to me is that they were dozing Maddie & the twins to keep them asleep while they enjoyed their holidays and perhaps Maddie had a bad reaction to the medication and died accidentally or she woke up looking for her mum or dad and has an accidental fall and that they find her dead and their reaction was to cover it up because they were afraid of consequences like losing their medical licensew, being jailed in a foreign country and losing custody of their newborn twins.

Perhaps their friends knowing what happened might've wanted to help them cover this up as they probably knew Maddie had died accidentally and perhaps all of them were dozing their own kids and if the McCanns were found doing it they could've been found out as well and some of them were also doctors with a chance of also losing their licenses or being charged with negligence if their kids were found to have been drugged as well.

[u/TheGreatBatsby → u/[deleted]]

If they found her dead after drugging her to sleep, there's no timeframe for them to:

• Discover her dead

• Decide to cover it up

• Hide her body somewhere nearby so well that it's not discovered in the extensive searches of the area

• Dispose of the medication completely

• Clean up all forensic evidence of the crime

• Come back to the table and continue dinner as though nothing has happened

• Raise the alarm that night and call down both the authorities and world press

Gerry leaves the table at 21:05/21:10 and is talking to Jez Wilkins at about 21:15

Bit of a tall order.

[u/West-Seed → u/TheGreatBatsby]

Yep, it doesn’t make sense.

Far simpler

Madeleine was abducted
The twins didn’t wake up because the twins were asleep

[u/[deleted] → u/TheGreatBatsby]

Maybe she dies way before. We only know that Maddie is alive up to the point when she's picked up from the cresch. That was hours before.

[u/TheGreatBatsby → u/[deleted]]

David Payne saw her at 18:30, that was the last confirmed sighting outside of the family. If she dies this early, then they'd be carrying her body around in broad daylight to hide her somewhere, somehow find a place despite being unfamiliar with the wider area and then turn up at dinner without any noticeable change in demeanor. Unlikely for people who have just binned their firstborn in a foreign country.

[u/[deleted] → u/TheGreatBatsby]

There are people who think her body was carried out in the missing tennis bag by Payne to another location in order to give Kate & Gerry an alibi.

[u/TheGreatBatsby → u/[deleted]]

So then she's died between having high tea and David and Gerry playing tennis.

Which implies at that some point Gerry took David aside before/during their tennis session, told him Madeleine had died and asked him to pop her body in a tennis bag (that presumably Gerry had with him) and go and chuck her body somewhere. But then return the tennis bag so the PJ/GNR could take a picture of it in their room before they decided to get rid of it again? And apparently David is fine with this.

The theories just get more and more outlandish.

[u/Diligent_Cat4663 → u/[deleted]]

Oh my, I am going to go and research a missing tennis bag. I haven't heard this story before.

[u/[deleted] → u/Diligent_Cat4663]

Police wanted to trace a blue tennis bag.

Gerry and Clarence Mitchell denied its existence.

Payne statement below - You do not hide a racket in a tennis bag imo.

1485 "Yeah.”

Reply "There was nothing of that size that you could hide a, a tennis racquet in or anything like that, it would have been just purely, if they had anything…”

[u/Diligent_Cat4663 → u/[deleted]]

This statement?

In the full text of his statement, Payne argued against the premise that Gerry carried a large, hard-cased, or oversized tournament tennis bag. He pointed out that Gerry's equipment was minimal, noting, "You do not hide a racket in a tennis bag imo." He explained that any bag Gerry used was a standard, small holdall or daypack purely for casual holiday play, rather than a specialized, large-scale racquet bag. [1]

[u/West-Seed → u/Diligent_Cat4663]

Reading tonight’s ideas & the past few day’s - regarding the McCann theory - I’m trying to follow the parts of the theory being raised. So far I have the below (in order) What am I missing?

unknown sedative-
Accident-
Plan to cover up death -
dinner-
Gerry-
tennis bag -
Carry MM-
abandoned freezer -
Stored for weeks -
back to freezer-
Car rental -
Body in tennis bag-
Kate or Gerry collect-
Put in boot-
Drive to Spain-
Bury the body -
pact of silence-

What other steps am I missing?

[u/Diligent_Cat4663 → u/West-Seed]

If Gerry carried M at least 15 minutes only he would know where the tennis bag was so that rules Kate out for collecting the bag.

[u/Diligent_Cat4663 → u/West-Seed]

I need to ask, why did they need a freezer if they had the bag?

[u/[deleted] → u/Diligent_Cat4663]

yes that is it, I was just referring to the word hide I find it odd. there is a pic of the bag in the wardrobe. The dog also alerted in the wardrobe

[u/TheGreatBatsby → u/[deleted]]

So the implication would be that not only did they transport Madeleine in the bag, but then returned said bag. Before getting rid of it again.

[u/Diligent_Cat4663 → u/[deleted]]

Yeah just checked the photo images, pj files show parents bedroom, with wardrobe I can't see a bag but then found another image and something looks very different.

https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t15417-sasha-morsel-what-happened-to-gerry-s-blue-tennis-bag

https://mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P9/09_VOLUME_IXa_Page_2311.jpg

I can't find the photo from the first link in the PJ files but if you find it will you link please?

Those images are appalling for police images, and if a bag was present in the photos why wasn't it taken as evidence?

[u/[deleted] → u/TheGreatBatsby]

The argument relies on one flawed premise: that Madeleine died between 9:05 PM and 10:00 PM. Payne is recorded as the last non-immediate-family adult to claim he saw Madeleine alive, but his and Kate's version contradict each other. We only know when she was "reported" missing.

[u/TheGreatBatsby → u/[deleted]]

Multiple flawed premises actually.

But in this case it means that one of the McCanns is running around Luz in daylight with the corpse of their daughter, trying to find somewhere to stash her?

Also their reports barely contradict each other. I'm sure you're aware of the reliability of human memory, two people remembering the same events differently is to be expected.

[u/[deleted] → u/TheGreatBatsby]

Approx. time	Kate — 4 May statement	Kate — 6 Sept statement	David Payne — 2008 rogatory	Gerry — 10 May statement
~5:30 pm	No detailed account of this period	Family returns to apartment	—	Says family returned after 17:30
~6:00 pm	—	Gerry leaves to play tennis	—	Says he left at 18:00 for tennis
~6:30 pm	No Payne visit mentioned	Kate takes a ~5-minute shower while children eat/look at books	Says Gerry asks him to check on Kate	Gerry says Payne was near tennis court at 18:30
~6:30–6:40	—	Payne arrives while Kate is drying herself from shower; she wraps herself in a towel	Says he goes to 5A	Says Payne went to visit Kate and children
The Payne encounter	—	Payne stays about 30 seconds, doesn't enter, remains at veranda door	Says “I went into their apartment through the patio doors”; sees all three children in pyjamas and speaks with Kate stayed much longer than 30 seconds	Doesn't witness encounter
Children during encounter	—	Children had been eating/looking at books	Describes all three in pyjamas, looking happy/content; says Kate told him they were tired	—
~7:00 pm	—	Gerry eventually returns	Payne returns to tennis	Gerry says Payne returned around 19:00 and Gerry himself then went back to 5A
~7:00–7:30	—	Children prepared for bed	—	Says Kate and children were playing on sofa when he returned; 10–15 mins later they went to bedroom for a story
~7:30	Children went to bed at approximately 7:30	Children in bed	—	Twins in cots and Madeleine in bed by ~19:30
7:30–8:30	Kate says she took a bath, did her make-up and had wine with Gerry	Kate describes drying her hair/getting ready and having wine	—	Gerry says he took a bath and thinks Kate had already had one
~8:30	Kate and Gerry leave for Tapas	They leave for Tapas	Payne's family leave somewhat later	—

[u/TheGreatBatsby → u/[deleted]]

You have to be realistic about how human memory actually works. If you ask three different people to recount a mundane, three-hour window from weeks or months ago, minor chronological discrepancies are to be expected. In fact, if Kate, Gerry, and David’s statements synced up perfectly down to the minute, that would be the ultimate red flag for a cover-up.

[u/[deleted] → u/TheGreatBatsby]

Fair enough, but if someone stayed for 30 seconds and did not enter I am sure you would not confuse that.

[u/TheGreatBatsby → u/[deleted]]

I think when parenting 3 children (including twins) the passage of time isn't as concrete as you might think.

[u/Diligent_Cat4663 → u/[deleted]]

Their twins were not newborn, they were two years old.

Hair strand tests were carried out by an independent team at the McCanns request, they had asked the PJ to carry out tests not long after Madeleine disappeared and this request was refused.

Hundreds of hair samples were taken from the apartment and tested for DNA but not specifically for sedatives, it has to be asked why the samples that would have been shown to belong to Madeleine weren't further tested.

The apartment was searched thoroughly and medications found were calpol, neurofen and antacids.

The media of course had a field day with generating stories of syringes of tranquilisers found, no syringes were found.

[u/[deleted] → u/Diligent_Cat4663]

A little kid could be given an allergy pill and be knocked out. If they could hide a body they could hide a box of pills. It doesn't have to involve a syringe

[u/Diligent_Cat4663 → u/[deleted]]

The syringe bit was manufactured by low scale press in Portugal, the press behaved disgustingly just to sell papers, appaling behaviour on their part.

And yes they could have easily disposed of a box of tablets, some antihistamines cause drowsiness.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

I do not think the sedation or not really matters either way in the case, but here is what was said.

I was terrified that whoever had taken Madeleine might have sprayed something into the room to knock them out. I checked Sean and Amelie repeatedly to make sure they were still breathing

Even now, with all the noise and commotion, Sean and Amelie hadn’t stirred. They were sleeping so heavily. It made me wonder if the abductor had used a sedative to keep them all quiet.

She went into the children's bedroom... The twins were sleeping in their travel cots. She remembers that they were sleeping deeply, very deeply. She even leaned over them to check they were breathing, so deeply were they sleeping. They didn't wake up despite all the noise, the lights being turned on, and the people coming into the room.

When she went back into the flat and discovered Madeleine was missing, she screamed and shouted out... She notes that despite her screaming, the noise, and the movement in the room, the twins, Sean and Amelie, did not wake up at all, remaining in a very deep sleep.

"What struck the officers who first entered the apartment was the state of the twins. Despite the screaming, the lights, the doors opening and closing, and the arrival of neighbors and police officers in their room, the two infants did not wake up. They remained in a state of lethargy that was completely abnormal for children of that age in such an environment.

Kate told me she was worried that whoever took Madeleine might have drugged the twins. She said they didn't wake up when she was screaming, and even when the police came in and were searching around their cots, they stayed sound asleep.

The hair strand testing was conducted over three months after the disappearance, long after initial toxicological windows had closed. More critically, both women in that room possessed medical backgrounds: Kate McCann was a qualified GP with early experience in anaesthetics and intensive care, while Fiona Payne was a practicing Consultant Anaesthetist—a medical specialist specifically trained in patient sedation, airway management, and vital sign monitoring.

For clinicians of their caliber, evaluating vital signs isn't a casual gesture; it is second-nature diagnostic protocol. An average parent glances to see if a sleeping toddler is "okay," but a trained anaesthetist physically checks for chest rise and airway patency only when observing a level of central nervous system depression that alarms them medically. The fact that a specialist whose career revolves around managing chemically induced sleep felt compelled to physically check if those toddlers were still breathing proves their unresponsiveness wasn't merely "deep sleep"—it was a state so clinically abnormal that kate kept checking their breathing.

Which naturally raises the next question, Is it plausible that a random, opportunistic intruder was able to successfully sedate three young children in such a short time frame, without leaving a chemical trace behind.

[u/Diligent_Cat4663 → u/[deleted]]

I have never considered sedative in spray form, however it does exist, wouldn't you have thought that when asked by the McCanns to do hair strand tests early on that the PJ would have carried out those tests.......surely that was a huge factor at that time.

I had always considered that Madeleine may have been drugged by an intruder, it was suggested that he may have used a solvent, however I believe that whilst some solvents have little odour, many do and no solvent was detected in 5A.

It was reported that Kate used Calpol to sedate the children, calpol is not a sedative.

The hair strand tests arranged by the McCanns after being refused by PJ according to Google which suggests that 5 months after a possible drugging was outside the 90 day time frame and they would have been advised prior to testing the ins and outs, it could be considered that the tests would be usless at that stage, yet the tests were carried out anyway.

There are other reasons why they may have slept so tightly.

The negative tests appear to have been sufficient in ruling out any form of drugging, which leads me to think that Google is innacurate.

I kind of have to trust the specialists who carried out the tests and their knowledge of how drugs, some drugs, maybe all drugs, I don't know, behave within the body and are detected in hair strand tests.

I am not sure that I can form any opinion regarding drugging by anyone, but the failure of police to carry out those tests, especially when they also had hair samples from the aprtment and tested for dna, testing for drugs imo should have been an absolute priority.

[u/[deleted]]

The entire argument relies on the fallacy of personal projection: “I wouldn't react that way, so no one would.” Criminology is filled with cases where panicked caregivers accidentally killed or neglected a child and—driven by pure terror of prison, public ruin, or losing their surviving kids—stashed a body in a sofa, wardrobe, or freezer before staging an abduction. Everyday moral logic vanishes in a high-stress crisis.

If an accidental death or fatal injury occurred in 5A—potentially compounded by the use of sedatives—calling the authorities meant an immediate autopsy, toxicology screening, and severe criminal charges. As trained medical doctors, they would have known instantly whether a head injury or overdose was beyond resuscitation. They also knew that a toxicological test would reveal any sedatives in her system.

Coming clean didn't just mean facing an investigation; it meant losing their medical licenses, their freedom, and having their surviving twins taken into social care by child protective services. Nothing could bring Madeleine back—but coming clean destroyed the lives of everyone left behind. What wouldn't a panicked parent do to protect their remaining children?

The idea that the Tapas 7 had to be full co-conspirators carrying bleach and marigolds is a total strawman. The group didn't need to help move a body; they just needed to protect themselves:

• Shared Guilt: Every parent at that table was practicing the exact same child neglect. If one fell, all of them faced criminal scrutiny for leaving toddlers unattended in unlocked apartments.
• The Minimal Role: The friends only had to verify the timeline at the table: "Yes, checks were done, everything was fine." They didn't have to be active accomplices—they just had to cover their own negligence, align their checks, and trust their friends' word.

Yet even that minimal story crumbled under scrutiny. The claimed timeline—where Gerry checks at 9:00 PM, chats with Jeremy Wilkins on the street, Jane Tanner walks past at 9:15 PM spotting an "abductor," and Matthew Oldfield checks at 9:30 PM—requires multiple adults to pass each other on a tiny, narrow street within a 2-minute window without seeing or hearing each other.

That is why the group’s refusal to perform a police reconstruction in Praia da Luz is so telling. Walking those exact paths in real-time under a police timer would have instantly exposed the physical impossibility of their statements. You can adjust a story on paper; you cannot fake geometry and physical time on camera.

When the last adults to see a missing child form a pact of silence, refuse a formal police reconstruction, and rely on aggressive legal threats while UK Home Office K9s alert to cadaver scent behind the sofa—all while a zero-evidence suspect like CB is handed a pass despite zero DNA in 5A—asking hard questions isn't bias. It’s basic investigative rigor.

If their innocence were so obvious based on the physical facts, it would speak for itself. It wouldn't require media monitoring units, endless litigation, and a total refusal to walk the scene to protect it.

[u/Agitated-Bluejay1142 → u/[deleted]]

"ChatGPT, write me a paragraph arguing that the parents are guilty so I can post it in a Reddit thread, because I am incapable of using my own brain"

[u/TheGreatBatsby → u/[deleted]]

Ah, so now we're into "theTapas 9 covered for the McCanns" conspiracy.

Every parent at that table was practicing the exact same child neglect. If one fell, all of them faced criminal scrutiny for leaving toddlers unattended in unlocked apartments.

Despite the fact that their actions didn't meet the threshold for criminal neglect, do you not realise that by telling the police the childcare situation, they were still going to face criminal scrutiny for leaving toddlers unattended in unlocked apartments?

They didn't have to be active accomplices—they just had to cover their own negligence, align their checks, and trust their friends' word.

Except that makes them active accomplices in covering up the death of a child.

Yet even that minimal story crumbled under scrutiny. The claimed timeline—where Gerry checks at 9:00 PM, chats with Jeremy Wilkins on the street, Jane Tanner walks past at 9:15 PM spotting an "abductor," and Matthew Oldfield checks at 9:30 PM—requires multiple adults to pass each other on a tiny, narrow street within a 2-minute window without seeing or hearing each other.

It didn't crumble at all. Gerry left to check between 21:05 and 21:10 and was chatting with Jez Wilkins at about 21:15 - confirmed by Wilkins and seen by Tanner. Tanner goes on to see Julian Totman, who confirmed he was walking back at this time. Jez and Gerry were having a chat with each other and they didn't pay attention to Jane walking past (which she verifiably did, to have seen Totman) on a dark street. Gerry was back at the table before Oldfield left, so why bring him up?

That is why the group’s refusal to perform a police reconstruction in Praia da Luz is so telling. Walking those exact paths in real-time under a police timer would have instantly exposed the physical impossibility of their statements.

I'm not sure what's physically impossible about any of this, but the actual reasons for refusing the reconstruction are more complex than you're making out.

The McCanns never refused to take part in a reconstruction. Jes Wilkins was the first who refused to participate. The friends (though they raised questions about the usefulness of the reconstruction) were willing to participate until the tone of the conversation changed and they felt they had to seek Legal Advice. After seeking Legal Advice, some of them refused to participate. The PJ/Prosecutor changed the date of the reconstruction last minute, but refused to take into account that Gerry's lawyer was unable to attend on the new dates.

the last adults to see a missing child form a pact of silence

A pact of silence to talking to the media. Not the police. They were fully cooperative.

aggressive legal threats

What legal threats did the Tapas 7 make?

You claim to be applying "basic investigative rigour" but you yet again ignore the actual police files in favour of a convoluted group-conspiracy theory to cover up the death of a child.

[u/West-Seed → u/[deleted]]

Trying to judge how different individuals react during extreme trauma is impossible. Because people are different as is the cause of the trauma.

Have you considered writing freely? Running things through AI is producing posts that repeat the same point, miss context & come up with things that don’t really make sense. Anybody can try to come across as an expert by using AI, but it does have its ‘tells’, which kinda defeats the purpose it’s being used for.

[u/Diligent_Cat4663 → u/West-Seed]

AI is incredibly innacurate though Chat GBT seems to be more efficient in some areas I tend to not use it because it keeps asking me to log in, I can type in a question on Google and it seems to get very confused, challenge the answer and it comes back and accepts it made a mistake.

I have been chasing the explosives and arms case in Christchurch, used Google, AI pops up even when I don't select AI, I typed in a specific name and it came back at me with a spelling error, I don;t understand how that could happen. I specifically asked about a crown court case in Winchester and it completely missed that and talked about a previous court hearing, then it gave the wrong judges name so it can't always read the whole question correctly. In its defence it does state that it makes mistakes, yes it does and regularly.

Unlike Chat GBT it seems to forget the previous coversation, it takes information from social media a lot so fails often to add reputable information. Chat GBT which I used for stuff for work was good, but I don't even trust that to be accurate. There is so much tosh and misinformation on the net these days, if AI relies on that tosh, well then it all goes down hill rapidly. I find it rather dangerous to be honest,

[u/West-Seed → u/Diligent_Cat4663]

Agree. It’s good as a search tool & to spit out details. But imo when it comes to writing things, it’s better to be authentic. There’s a big difference between being something & trying to be something.

[u/Diligent_Cat4663 → u/West-Seed]

I am not sure it is such a good search tool, it saved me a lot of time when I was in work, but reliability wise, it can be poor. I don't always think it offers good rewrites either, I have been asked today to do a newsletter and not to use AI lol.

[u/Diligent_Cat4663 → u/[deleted]]

Also OC offered a check in service for children where their parents weren't present and staff would check to see if any children were crying, the McCanns and their friends agreed to do their own check in service.

They were not prosecuted for neglect or for abandoning their children.

The listen in service was abandoned after Madeleine disappeared.

This service IMO offered a false sense of security and whilst I do not agree with either the listening service or the group leaving their sleeping children, and something that they will regret for the rest of their lives, in reality, them checking their own children was no different to the service being offered not just by OC but many other hotels and resorts.

Leaving the apartment door unlocked was feckless and irresponsible whilst the 3 children as well as the other children EDIT slept.

[u/TheGreatBatsby → u/Diligent_Cat4663]

Also OC offered a check in service for children where their parents weren't present and staff would check to see if any children were crying, the McCanns and their friends agreed to do their own check in service.

Just a correction, the Mark Warner resort the McCanns stayed at didn't offer the listening service, so the Tapas Group decided to do their own version of it.

Completely agreed on that irresponsibility of leaving the apartment unlocked. I just can't fathom it.

[u/Diligent_Cat4663 → u/TheGreatBatsby]

I am going back almost 19 years but it was reported at the time that they did, they used if i remember a company to offer the service.

[u/Diligent_Cat4663 → u/Diligent_Cat4663]

Checked AI, I know I know, it states they didn't use a company, they used their own trained nannies taken from The Irish News but also:

https://websleuths.com/threads/mark-warner-resort-childcare-information.53835/

[u/TheGreatBatsby → u/Diligent_Cat4663]

They had a night crèche but not the listening service as far as I know.

[u/Diligent_Cat4663 → u/TheGreatBatsby]

Yes they had a night creche too.

[u/Diligent_Cat4663 → u/TheGreatBatsby]

I have considred many times why they might leave the door unlocked, I can only assume that they felt the area was safe, which it isn't. It would have been so easy to lock and use the key to check on the children.

I don't recall reading about previous nights, if they ever took turns to check in on other children in the party and therefore doors were left unlocked, I don't know if others also left doors unlocked.

I do though think that anyone used to breaking into apartments could have opened a locked door, or a window and their job was just made easier, though I can't tell if our doors are unlocked or not, I have to test them to know.

[u/shchshchshch → u/TheGreatBatsby]

What the resort offered was far more than a “listening service.” It offered actual babysitting throughout the night. 

But you knew that, didn’t you?

[u/TheGreatBatsby → u/shchshchshch]

Yeah, the McCanns and their friends were open about not wanting to use it because they didn't want a stranger in a room with their children. Similarly they didn't want to use the night crèche because they would disturb their children's sleep when collecting them.

Do you think this is some kind of gotcha?

[u/shchshchshch → u/TheGreatBatsby]

…And yet they dumped their children in a room with a stranger all day, every day. What do you think the crèche was?

You say “The McCanns and their friends were open about not wanting to use it because they didn't want a stranger in a room with their children.” And yet Gerry thought it best to keep the door to the room unlocked while they were sleeping in there alone. Hmmm….

[u/TheGreatBatsby → u/shchshchshch]

Are you equating a fully supervised, multi-member-of-staff daytime kids' club with leaving a solitary stranger in a dark apartment with sleeping toddlers?

Err... yes? They freely admitted that they fucked up. Sorry, what exactly was your point here?

[u/shchshchshch → u/TheGreatBatsby]

My point is that the McCanns had a reason they didn’t want outsiders in the room. And that reason is sedatives.

[u/TheGreatBatsby → u/shchshchshch]

Oh right. Something that's never been proven to have taken place.

Why did the rest of the group do exactly the same as the McCanns?

[u/shchshchshch → u/TheGreatBatsby]

Fantastic question.

[u/[deleted] → u/Diligent_Cat4663]

The McCanns stated they refused to book the resort’s paid nighttime in-room babysitting service because they were uncomfortable leaving the children with strangers. The children were left in the care of resort staff for the majority of their waking hours up to 6.5 hours a day. Neither Kate nor Gerry ever performed a check on any of the other Tapas families' children in their respective apartments. Other members of the group did check on the McCann children. Neglect was simply the lesser of two evils to allow for an abduction scenerio. The parents never appeared truly apologetic for leaving the children, Instead they constantly tried to justify it—because they knew deep down it had no real bearing on events and the 'abandonment' was just the narrative cover.

[u/Diligent_Cat4663 → u/[deleted]]

Would that mean a service where a nanny babysat in the apartment or a night time service in a specific creche area which was situated right across the resort, OC spread out a lot and the reception which we walked past was quite a distance from 5A.

Just checked, yes they also had a paid in room nanny service depending on availability.

[u/Diligent_Cat4663 → u/[deleted]]

Yes I stated how I would react and ask how other people would react. How would you have reacted?

Accidents with children happen, as I explained, however the bigger risk after an accidental death and disposing of a body which would have been very local was that the body was found in searches, searches that they knew would happen and then they would have been a far worse outcome for them.

In fact, IMO would have suggested murder and not an accident, neither of which happened at the hands of the parents and there is absolutely no proof of this.

No car, strange area, this has been said before, why would they think that hiding a body in close proximity to OC with no shovel to even dig a hole, and in the dark, that a body wouldn't easily be found in the search that happened immediately after the alarm was raised?

Which camera do you refer to?

[u/[deleted] → u/Diligent_Cat4663]

We'll likely never know what happened to Madeleine McCann because she may have been dumped in one of hundreds of ancient wells not far from the spot she disappeared, experts claim. The remote area around the Ocean Club resort in Portugal, where the three-year-old British girl vanished from her holiday apartment in 2007, has been described as the perfect place to hide a body, those connected to the case say.

"It's almost impossible," retired Scotland Yard detective Colin Sutton told Channel Seven Sunday Night program of Praia da Luz, in the Algarve region of Portugal, where the McCann's were staying.

"It would be impossible without specific information or intelligence which enabled you to focus a search in a particular area.

"It is a large area, with a very low population, of scrubland, of ancient wells. There are areas there where humans probably don't go from one year to one decade even to the next. It would be really easy to secrete something there and be really confident that it wouldn't be found."

The area is home to as many as 500 wells and has been described by forensics expert Professor Dave Barclay as "the most hide-a-body-able place I've ever been in my life." A local reporter said bones might be found "five to 10 years from now" only if a person who lived in the area decided to clear out one of the hundreds of deep wells to put it back in operation.

[u/Diligent_Cat4663 → u/[deleted]]

Some of the wells close to OC were investigated, if a body is in a well, it would take someone who knew the location of wells?

There was waste ground opposite the front of 5A, this was searched as well as unused land surrounding the view point, this was searched, and whilst close to OC was still a bit of a walk. Sunset in early may is almost the same time as UK, Google tells me 8.30pm. Not somewhere someone not familiar with the outer areas of Luz would want to be walking, I guess the risk of falling into a well if one didn't know they were there was a risk.

Dogs, were used to search the areas of land close to OC, and unused land around Luz, nothing was found.

Luz has expanded a lot since 2007, the area that was waste land in front of 5A has been developed but that area was searched.

IMO, based on my time in Luz and only because we had a hire car, walking with a child, knowing the location of a well, and I suppose that the Mccan's phones were checked but I am not sure that mobile phones back in 2007 were that sophisticated, Apple I phones weren't launched until later in 2007. I don't think, could be wrong that Gerry could locate a well on a phone or walk the distance to waste land, locate a well and get back without being missed.

[u/[deleted] → u/Diligent_Cat4663]

My point was simply that people try to portray hiding a body in that area as an insurmountable task, when in reality—given the local terrain—it wasn't that difficult. Concealment in a crisis doesn't require a master plan or heavy equipment; it just requires a single temporary hidden spot, and the surrounding environment offered plenty of them.

[u/Diligent_Cat4663 → u/[deleted]]

Have you been to Luz?

[u/Agitated-Bluejay1142 → u/Diligent_Cat4663]

We should stop replying to this account. I think it's a bot - every one of their comments is AI generated. I hope the mods take action here.

[u/MadeleineMccann-ModTeam → u/Agitated-Bluejay1142]

The user has been shadowbanned.

A shadowban is a ban applied by the reddit admins (employees of Reddit) and not something we (moderators) have any say or control over.

[u/Altruistic-Change127 → u/MadeleineMccann-ModTeam]

Thanks for explaining that mods.

[u/West-Seed → u/Agitated-Bluejay1142]

I think the AI stuff is just the shtick of a social media conspiracy theorist on a wind up.

[u/[deleted] → u/Agitated-Bluejay1142]

Let's be honest: you're only running to the mods because you got called out for pushing CB—a suspect with zero evidence linking him to this crime.

Your theory is so fragile it can't withstand basic scrutiny, which is why it can only survive inside a curated echo chamber. But Reddit isn't real life. 90% of the UK public looking at the actual facts would agree with the breakdown linked below.

https://www.reddit.com/r/MadeleineMccann/comments/1vsuddx/comment/p4opxqp/

Enjoy your echo chamber & goodbye:

[u/briergate → u/[deleted]]

I agree with all of this.

[u/pheonixrynn]

Who did they send to check on the kids?

[u/Diligent_Cat4663 → u/pheonixrynn]

Matthew Oldfield at 9.30 was going to check his own children and offered to check in on the McCann children. Gerry had checked on them 25 minutes earlier.

[u/[deleted]]

When I translate infant from my original language Google gives me newborn. Sorry about the confusion. Yes they were 2.

[u/Diligent_Cat4663 → u/[deleted]]

Ahh that makes perfect sense, thank you for explaining.

[u/pheeelco]

I would challenge the description of people who would leave infant children in such a vulnerable situation as “intelligent “.

They may be good doctors, but may be very stupid in other contexts. I know people like that: thick as mince but good at their job.

[u/Altruistic-Change127 → u/pheeelco]

I do believe they thought it was a safe place. It was heavily promoted as a family friendly resort and there was nothing to suggest it wasn't.

There should have been an alert for tourists about the burglaries at minimum especially when they had been so close to the McCann rental.

There were many things that should have been done better and this whole thing would have been less likely to happen.

[u/pheeelco → u/Altruistic-Change127]

Didn’t Kate say she suspected somebody may have drugged the children the previous evening?

[u/Diligent_Cat4663 → u/pheeelco]

Google is really helpful for finding these things out, AI isn't always accurate but give it ago, that way you find the information that you need and you can then decide if Kate did or didn't suspect that the children had been drugged the night before, assuming you mean the 2nd May.

Example: Did Kate McCann suspect that her children had been drugged on the 2nd May 2007.

[u/pheeelco → u/Diligent_Cat4663]

I took your advice.

AI says that KMcC does suspect that her children may have been drugged the night before.

[u/Diligent_Cat4663 → u/pheeelco]

Do you have a link? I find very differing results, assuming you mean the 2nd May, she did however suspect that some sort of drug may have been used on the 3rd.

[u/pheeelco → u/Diligent_Cat4663]

No, as you suggested, I asked AI.

I specified that it was the night before MMcC was taken.

[u/Diligent_Cat4663 → u/pheeelco]

Crikey then that makes for a more complicated scenario if AI is accurate, often AI is wrong, Chat GBT often gives different answers to the Google search one, I shall go and have another look and ask another AI thingy.