Unsolved Madeleine McCann - New Leads Being Reported

Dee Snider

Norm Smith Medallist
Jul 17, 2006
7,869
7,328
Burning in Hell
AFL Club
Collingwood
There’s a rumour or theory going round that someone in the crèche or kids club may have been involved tipping off the child-smuggling ring that these kids came in every day and were left alone at the same time every night while their parents went to the restaurant. Enabled the kidnappers to plan a pretty quick and efficient grab & run. Possibly rehearsing the plan a night or so before given the regular dinner. Possibly those dodgy people seen hanging round in the lead-up? I’ve not watched all of the docu episodes yet, not sure if this theory is explored?
 
I just finished the Netflix doco. Thought it was really good.

They put forward a case for both the parents being guilty or Madeleine being kidnapped.

It's very confusing. Things don't add up - I was of the belief that the parents did it or had a part to play in it, but there's counter arguments to all of it.


Some scenarios that they spoke about in the doco and the way in which they can be refuted were...

Scenario: Kidnapper entered the apartment, took the child and left through the window.
This couldn't have been the case, the Portuguese police did forensic testing on the window and only Kate's palm print was on it.

Scenario: Believing the dogs
UK investigators ran tests on what was found in the boot of the car and in the apartment and the DNA evidence wasn't conclusive.

Scenario: Man seen walking across street with child in arms around 9.30 on the night of the disappearance
Jane Tanner's eye witness report is very sketchy. As the days and months went on, every time she was asked to provide a statement, her recollection of the event had more and more detail each time. I don't believe her. I believe that she may have seen someone, but I think she is, in her head, making herself believe that this was the man who took Madeleine so she doesn't have to accept the fact that her friends killed their child.

One thing that I never could understand (if the McCann's were guilty) is that why did they put so much money & effort into the investigation years after the disappearance. They dragged it on more than anyone else - and if guilty I really doubt they would continue to let the story linger.

It's fascinating. I was convinced they did it after the dogs searched the property & car, but the UK lab testing made me second guess it.

The talk about the strange men lurking the area in the days leading up to the disappearance hold some weight I think, but ultimately all those leads went nowhere.

Usually when a child that young is missing, the people closest to the child are usually responsible - which also led me to believe it was them. I just can't get over those UK lab results...
 
Oct 9, 2004
65,111
88,998
Adelaide
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
CDFC
I just finished the Netflix doco. Thought it was really good.

They put forward a case for both the parents being guilty or Madeleine being kidnapped.

It's very confusing. Things don't add up - I was of the belief that the parents did it or had a part to play in it, but there's counter arguments to all of it.


Some scenarios that they spoke about in the doco and the way in which they can be refuted were...

Scenario: Kidnapper entered the apartment, took the child and left through the window.
This couldn't have been the case, the Portuguese police did forensic testing on the window and only Kate's palm print was on it.

Scenario: Believing the dogs
UK investigators ran tests on what was found in the boot of the car and in the apartment and the DNA evidence wasn't conclusive.

Scenario: Man seen walking across street with child in arms around 9.30 on the night of the disappearance
Jane Tanner's eye witness report is very sketchy. As the days and months went on, every time she was asked to provide a statement, her recollection of the event had more and more detail each time. I don't believe her. I believe that she may have seen someone, but I think she is, in her head, making herself believe that this was the man who took Madeleine so she doesn't have to accept the fact that her friends killed their child.

One thing that I never could understand (if the McCann's were guilty) is that why did they put so much money & effort into the investigation years after the disappearance. They dragged it on more than anyone else - and if guilty I really doubt they would continue to let the story linger.

It's fascinating. I was convinced they did it after the dogs searched the property & car, but the UK lab testing made me second guess it.

The talk about the strange men lurking the area in the days leading up to the disappearance hold some weight I think, but ultimately all those leads went nowhere.

Usually when a child that young is missing, the people closest to the child are usually responsible - which also led me to believe it was them. I just can't get over those UK lab results...
From what I can understand the up lab results couldn’t come to a conclusion as there were multiple DNA’s mixed into the samples, they haven’t got the tech to separate them but the tech is out there and a company has offered to test for free (listen to the Maddie podcast and it’s explained there) but so far the data isn’t being made available to them.
 
From what I can understand the up lab results couldn’t come to a conclusion as there were multiple DNA’s mixed into the samples, they haven’t got the tech to separate them but the tech is out there and a company has offered to test for free (listen to the Maddie podcast and it’s explained there) but so far the data isn’t being made available to them.
I watched a video that was posted here about that guy doing statement analysis on one of their early interviews after the disappearance and that really did it for me. They basically confessed to the crime.
 

Opine

Norm Smith Medallist
Aug 30, 2018
7,352
12,278
AFL Club
Carlton
I watched a video that was posted here about that guy doing statement analysis on one of their early interviews after the disappearance and that really did it for me. They basically confessed to the crime.
If not to much trouble, could you please tell me where I could find that post?
Statement analysis predominately focusses on ascertaining emotive detachment and or attachment to narratives; typically focussing on first person past tense as benchmark. Nothing in the interviews I've watched screams out a sense of emotive detachment in the parents narratives; ie word choice, as distinct from body language

Would really like to see the documentary you have referred to. It sounds like it may be very interesting.
 
If not to much trouble, could you please tell me where I could find that post?
Statement analysis predominately focusses on ascertaining emotive detachment and or attachment to narratives; typically focussing on first person past tense as benchmark. Nothing in the interviews I've watched screams out a sense of emotive detachment in the parents narratives; ie word choice, as distinct from body language

Would really like to see the documentary you have referred to. It sounds like it may be very interesting.
Sure thing. This is the video



Found it fascinating...it all but settles it for me.
 

Opine

Norm Smith Medallist
Aug 30, 2018
7,352
12,278
AFL Club
Carlton
I’m glad he’s not analyzing anything I say.
He can pick holes in anything.
Applying principles of statement analysis; its clear that you truthful in saying that you are glad that he is not analysing what you say. I believe you :)

What's interesting though, is that you've limited your feeling of being glad, to what you may say in future; as distinct from what you have already said in the past. Why is that? ;)
 
Last edited:
Fascinating.

I want to learn more about it and look at using it in my field of work.

If I do have any slight criticism in my not so expert opinion (I am only 43 minutes into the posted video), what Peter fails to acknowledge or take into account is the Sunday Night interview has cut out the questions the reporter has asked.

A lot of what Kate and Gerry are saying may be a direct result of answering a question the interviewer is asking.

While Peter makes mention of Gerry needing to justify the way he felt in order to convince the audience of how he felt (he said "we felt very relaxed"), how does Peter know the interviewer didn't ask, "Gerry, tell us how you and Kate felt?"
 

Opine

Norm Smith Medallist
Aug 30, 2018
7,352
12,278
AFL Club
Carlton
Fascinating.

I want to learn more about it and look at using it in my field of work.

If I do have any slight criticism in my not so expert opinion (I am only 43 minutes into the posted video), what Peter fails to acknowledge or take into account is the Sunday Night interview has cut out the questions the reporter has asked.

A lot of what Kate and Gerry are saying may be a direct result of answering a question the interviewer is asking.

While Peter makes mention of Gerry needing to justify the way he felt in order to convince the audience of how he felt (he said "we felt very relaxed"), how does Peter know the interviewer didn't ask, "Gerry, tell us how you and Kate felt?"
There are some excellent statement/discourse analysis books and courses; I can forward the details of specialist books if your interested. From memory, the course I enrolled a while ago also provided a statement analysis program; which allows the input of text and puts out an analysis highlighting red flags in statements.
 
There are some excellent statement/discourse analysis books and courses; I can forward the details of specialist books if your interested. From memory, the course I enrolled a while ago also provided a statement analysis program; which allows the input of text and puts out an analysis highlighting red flags in statements.
Yes please. PM me
 
Oct 9, 2004
65,111
88,998
Adelaide
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
CDFC
Fascinating.

I want to learn more about it and look at using it in my field of work.

If I do have any slight criticism in my not so expert opinion (I am only 43 minutes into the posted video), what Peter fails to acknowledge or take into account is the Sunday Night interview has cut out the questions the reporter has asked.

A lot of what Kate and Gerry are saying may be a direct result of answering a question the interviewer is asking.

While Peter makes mention of Gerry needing to justify the way he felt in order to convince the audience of how he felt (he said "we felt very relaxed"), how does Peter know the interviewer didn't ask, "Gerry, tell us how you and Kate felt?"
I thought the same.
Also wasn’t the interview 3 or 4 years down the track so I think tense can be excused in some situations.
 

Sweeetleftfoot

All Australian
Apr 3, 2017
869
2,108
AFL Club
Collingwood
07FECC92-537B-4512-BD7F-6A237BDD6AF7.png

who seriously writes this about their own child?? Extract from Kate’s own book
 

Sylvia Saint

Cancelled
May 20, 2004
7,762
7,484
Melbourne
AFL Club
Melbourne
Other Teams
Crusaders
The Peter Hyatt documentary is excellent. While he does over analyse a tad, he has more than enough substance that sticks. Funnily enough his summary is exactly what I suspected before watching it. The death was not intentional, and covered up. It totally makes sense. The McCann's would have known admitting to it would have led to them losing custody of the twins, not to mention their medical licenses and jail time. The kidnapper story doesn't add up too.
 
Oct 9, 2004
65,111
88,998
Adelaide
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
CDFC
The Peter Hyatt documentary is excellent. While he does over analyse a tad, he has more than enough substance that sticks. Funnily enough his summary is exactly what I suspected before watching it. The death was not intentional, and covered up. It totally makes sense. The McCann's would have known admitting to it would have led to them losing custody of the twins, not to mention their medical licenses and jail time. The kidnapper story doesn't add up too.
The accidental death theory is certainly sound however I just can’t get over how they can dispose of a body in a foreign place with no evidence especially given they most likely haven’t done it before and I’m sure they were watched like a hawk in the weeks/months following.
 

Sylvia Saint

Cancelled
May 20, 2004
7,762
7,484
Melbourne
AFL Club
Melbourne
Other Teams
Crusaders
The accidental death theory is certainly sound however I just can’t get over how they can dispose of a body in a foreign place with no evidence especially given they most likely haven’t done it before and I’m sure they were watched like a hawk in the weeks/months following.
That's certainly one thing to consider against the theory but the official timeframe isn't necessarily accurate. When was Madeline last seen by someone that wasn't Gerry or Kate?
 
Oct 9, 2004
65,111
88,998
Adelaide
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
CDFC
That's certainly one thing to consider against the theory but the official timeframe isn't necessarily accurate. When was Madeline last seen by someone that wasn't Gerry or Kate?
About 4hrs I think, however that relies on the rest of the group to be in on it. I just don’t see how someone hasn’t cracked over all these years if that happened.
Be interesting to know if they are all still friends.
 
Sep 4, 2007
11,250
770
Melbs
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
Manchester United, New York Knicks
The statement that Hyatt analysed was something like 4 years after Madeleine disappeared. I imagine the language they use there would be very different to in a statement done just after the disappearance. After 4 years they're mostly likely assuming their child is dead by this stage even if they didn't do it. Most of his analysis seems more applicable to just after the disappearance. Would be more interested the oldest interview done with them to see if the holes Hyatt picked in their statements are consistent or not. Definitely if they were showing that much lack of care in what was happening to Madeleine at that time, it's very compelling.

I also find a few language holes he picks a bit odd and a bit of a stretch. He pulls up Gerry for using the word 'actually' and says it's a sign of deception because it shows what he is saying is being compared to something else. Hyatt himself uses the word actually plenty from memory. For example, I remember him saying "Gerry actually confesses here" instead of "Gerry confesses here". I more feel like it's just an innocent word that's used by almost everybody when talking.

That said, there's enough there to make me think they're guilty. Very interesting viewing.
 
Oct 9, 2004
65,111
88,998
Adelaide
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
CDFC
The statement that Hyatt analysed was something like 4 years after Madeleine disappeared. I imagine the language they use there would be very different to in a statement done just after the disappearance. After 4 years they're mostly likely assuming their child is dead by this stage even if they didn't do it. Most of his analysis seems more applicable to just after the disappearance. Would be more interested the oldest interview done with them to see if the holes Hyatt picked in their statements are consistent or not. Definitely if they were showing that much lack of care in what was happening to Madeleine at that time, it's very compelling.

I also find a few language holes he picks a bit odd and a bit of a stretch. He pulls up Gerry for using the word 'actually' and says it's a sign of deception because it shows what he is saying is being compared to something else. Hyatt himself uses the word actually plenty from memory. For example, I remember him saying "Gerry actually confesses here" instead of "Gerry confesses here". I more feel like it's just an innocent word that's used by almost everybody when talking.


That said, there's enough there to make me think they're guilty. Very interesting viewing.
Pretty well my thoughts too.
 
Sep 4, 2007
11,250
770
Melbs
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
Manchester United, New York Knicks
One thing that does bug me though, is that if it was an accidental death and cover up, the crazy exposure the McCanns have gone for and the ongoing attempts to keep the investigation going makes no sense. Surely in this case, they would be looking to get away with it and have as little investigation into it done as possible. I can't imagine anybody going down the media route after attempting to get away with being responsible for the death of their child.

There's the argument to be made that they've been trying to profit from it, but they already would have been quite well off. Also, it seems like such a strange jump in logic.

"Oh s**t we killed her. We need to cover it up"
"Maybe we can make a quick buck off it too?"?

I can see the link with a premeditated killing, but not with an accidental death that they want to cover up.
 
That said, there's enough there to make me think they're guilty. Very interesting viewing.

I haven't gone right through the video yet, I'm a bit pushed for time atm but just a thought. As parents I wonder if signs of guilt might be showing in their language well, because they are guilty. As far as Madeleine was concerned, they had one job and they failed leaving her unprotected and exposed to a predator while they went out for dinner.

It wouldn't matter imo if adults were checking kids every fifteen minutes and the restaurant was only fifty yards away, the responsibility of allowing that to happen would haunt me for the rest of my life.
 
Back