Wednesday, February 18, 2015

Question: Could it have been an accidental death?

Tania, thank-you for taking the time to reply to my post at 8:25 AM, although I didn't know Madeleine, I find myself getting upset thinking how she must have suffered in her dying moments if no-one was there to help her, and the fact that her parents could be involved in her disappearance.
I did wonder if she had woken-up and left the apartment to look for her parents, and maybe fell in the pool, and when discovered she was carried back to the apartment to try and resuscitate her but it was too late. I also wondered if she'd fiddled with beads on that elastic in her hair, and maybe choked on those? 
If they really were left on their own in the apartment without any supervision, do you think rather than own up to finding Madeleine dead/dying they just panicked and decided to dream up the abduction story?
 Not particularly thinking straight, and being worse for wear, after boozing all night.

Thank-you for your interesting opinion on this very weird/baffling case.


Hi Anon (please choose a name  even if a disposable one)
If she left the apartment and fell into the pool why would they then carry her back to the apartment to try and resuscitate her?
There would have been a high risk of being seen for a start either when they were out looking for her in which case Maddie would likely have been found in the pool by a member of staff, one of the searchers or one of the tapas (who would then have to explain why they carried her back to the apartment to resuscitate her rather than starting CPR by the pool as would be expected, especially since there were several doctors in the group.
If Maddie drowned, it would then be an accident and the mccanns would have sued the pants off Mark Warner for not  making sure the pool was safe at night.
There would be no reason to conceal an accidental death, especially if they thought they would get compensation ( possibly even from their travel insurance if they took it out)

Regarding your second suggestion.
Choking on a hair bead would again be accidental death.
Why would they need to conceal her death if it were accidental?
They could claim they checked and they were all sleeping safely and when they woke up in the morning she was dead behind the sofa having woken in the night as shown by her chart on the fridge and gone to get a drink/use the bathroom/play in the living room/look out the window.
She  pulled her hair bead out  as children are wont to do and put it in her mouth, again as children are wont to do, and, fell and swallowed the bead causing her to choke.
This would allow them to claim they weren't neglectful as they were in the apartment sleeping when the accident happened.

Since the coroner would have been able to pinpoint the hour of death, they could have claimed they got home and quickly peeked into the dark bedroom and, on hearing no noise went to bed assuming all 3 children were sleeping when in fact, Maddie had fallen behind the sofa the previous night.and died.
Heck, they could even claim they didn't do a final check as there was no noise coming from the bedroom so they assumed all was well.
Only in the morning when they saw Maddie wasn't in her bed would they have done a search of the house, to find her dead behind the sofa.
Cue the calling of 911 weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth.
Cue the onrush of public sympathy
Both are plausible excuses if not believable.
Finding their child dead or severely injured would have an immediate sobering effect and, if injured accidentally and they were drunk, why would they need to come up with an implausible and impossible abduction.

When someone is deceptive, they have a reason to be deceptive, and in the cases where someone is killed or goes missing, especially a child, innocent people have no reason for deception.
Those who are guilty or have guilty knowledge will have a reason to deceive, that is, fear of the consequences of their actions.

It still wouldn't explain why cadaverine was detected in the parents wardrobe as dead people don't walk about except in the movies.
If it were accidental and they could explain away the cadaverine  behind the sofa and on kate's pants, cuddlecat and the red child's t shirt which they could have claimed she was sleeping in, they still have to explain why there was cadaverine in the wardrobe and then subsequently in the hire car.

If it were accidental, they likely would not have faced charges if using the above excuses, yes they left the children alone (personally i don't buy this) but she died whilst they were sleeping.
Cue lots of sympathy, 15 mins of fame and life moves on.

Since they did none of the above and the group have said they would have reported an accident, the conclusion has to be it was none accidental.
She either died due to something happening to her such as over sedation or perhaps being pushed or slapped by an angry parent - negligent homicide or she was physically or sexually abused and died as a result of said abuse non premeditated homicide or, she was deliberately murdered - first degree homicide.
if it was non accidental and likely a result of physical/sexual abuse or deliberate homicide it would explain their would explain why her body could not be allowed to be autopsied.
The injuries could not be explained away as accidental, especially sexual injuries, especially old injuries which would mean the abuse had been ongoing.
Old injuries,scars would lead to questions as to her medical history, was she treated in hospital perhaps and if no, and the injury is of a type that would have warranted a visit such as a fracture awkward questions would be asked indeed as to why she wasn't treated at hospital and who treated said injury  especially as they are doctors.

Kate herself told the world the Portuguese didn't want a murder in their country, a statement which is damning and incriminating.
She doesn't tell us it was an abduction, she doesn't tell us it was an accident, she doesn't tell us it was due to their negligence, she uses the word MURDER.

The brain thinks of the word a microsecond before it is spoken.

Murder is what was at the forefront of her mind as she spoke.
She tells us right there Maddie is dead and it was murder.
What we have to learn is who murdered her?

If it was was at the hands of one of the tapas 7, most likely to be payne, why would they cover it up?
Even if they were involved in other crimes, murder beats them all.
They would do time depending on the crimes and their severity, they would lose their licenses to practice and their children, their friends and likely their home however, they would get released at some point.
They could even sue him though they would likely get little or nothing if it can be shown they played a part in their daughter's death at the hands of another.
Since it is unlikely they would cover for a murderer, either they themselves committed murder or they were participants/observers and that makes them accessories.
This would explain their language and behavior, their non searching, the pact of silence within the group, the voracious greed in relation to money and air time and attention.
Their insatiable need to litigate and muzzle anyone who hints at the truth and denies their version of events.

They need to keep on the offensive since to stop would mean the public and LE looking closely at their version of events and find it lacking and when that happens it is game over.
They have painted themselves into a corner and this is when they are likely to be a danger to their children and themselves (kate telling the world about her pressing a button and them all being together)

A trapped animal with nowhere to go will go on the attack, is this the reason why the mccanns are so litigious and aggressive towards those who don't buy their version of events?


  1. Hi Tania!

    I've seen where you have replied to "anonymous" ;) claims where Maddie's death was not an accident.

    Here's where I'm so confused and it would be nice to understand better thx in advance)!

    You told us kate "herself" told us poor little Maddie was "murdered" because she chose the word. The quote comes from a Daily Mirror interview where she is addressing CLAIMS that she murdered Maddie. If she's responding to claims of murder, doesn't that mean somebody else brought up murder before she did? And she also brought up the word framed. If leaking a word gives it importance why so much emphasis on her responding to others' claims of MURDER but you completely dismiss

    To ask it another way- you dismiss accidental death above so presumably you think it's murder. So if km were to respond to your accusation, and used the word "murder," you would then say- look- she used the word murder, so she must have murdered Maddie.

    Anywho, that's where I'm a tad confused. Any help is appreciated!!!

    * waves *

  2. Oopsie- I was wondering why you give importance to her saying murder but dismiss use of the word framed.

    Plus on sexual abuse are you saying gm and dp abused Maddie but km murdered her? and then 7 other friends and acquaintances assisted in covering it up? Or that they all 9 took part in murder? I'm hearing you say innocent people have no reason to cover up and lie so the tapas group must have also taken part in the murder right?



Post a comment