The Disappearance of Madeleine McCann | Netflix 8 Part True-Crime Documentary - Out March 15th
- Thread starter Ryo Hazuki
- Start date
If these two had been Mr Chav and Mrs Chavette, they'd have been raked across the coals till the end of time, and probably convicted of at least neglect of their kids. But no...they're pleasantly middle class, it happened in a foreign land so it became an Us vs Them thing, and the truth will never be known.
Did they kill their daughter? I don't think so, but I do think their neglect resulted in her death, and they disposed of her remains and cooked up an abduction story so they wouldn't be held responsible. And it worked to an extent. Criticising them isn't victim blaming, the only victim in this sorry mess is Maddie.
Did they kill their daughter? I don't think so, but I do think their neglect resulted in her death, and they disposed of her remains and cooked up an abduction story so they wouldn't be held responsible. And it worked to an extent. Criticising them isn't victim blaming, the only victim in this sorry mess is Maddie.
Gonçalo Amaral the head of the investigation did a doc and a book explaining his theory, and he pretty much had a solid ground that needed further investigation but maddie parent's sued him until they lost in supreme court but by now the time to press charges has expire.
It's pretty damning that they ran the next day once they were suspected. Also most of the people going to bat for the McCanns is the pr firm. He wanted to spend money on pr and not private investigators.
"What have I done?" Erm left your kids alone. At least that is fact and you should do.
"What have I done?" Erm left your kids alone. At least that is fact and you should do.
Just finished watching the series. I went from being unsure and erring on the side of the parents, to thinking they at least knew something, and then back to believing they have lost their child and are guilt free.
There's just too much I've seen in the 8 episodes that points to them not killing her. Everything that made them look guilty, like the dogs, was debunked. I can see how people might point the finger at them though, based on emotion.
That being said, without wanted to victim blame, how the hell they could leave their children alone while they went out for dinner is beyond me.
There's just too much I've seen in the 8 episodes that points to them not killing her. Everything that made them look guilty, like the dogs, was debunked. I can see how people might point the finger at them though, based on emotion.
That being said, without wanted to victim blame, how the hell they could leave their children alone while they went out for dinner is beyond me.
There's numerous websites and that book Gonçalo Amaral wrote is also available online. I'll look for the links when I'm not on mobile.
they killed her accidently, and yeah, if they were locals they wouldve been screwed
When you guys say she died accidentally, is there a theory of the cause of death? Because I'm scratching my head imagining how they could accidentally kill their daughter in their apartment.
IIRC, one of the theories is that the parents sedated her when they went out to have dinner and that caused the death.
IIRC the Portuguese police's theory is something along the lines of: Maddie was sedated, later woke up in a very drowsy state and climbed up the sofa to reach the window, fell down in the gap between the wall and sofa and hit her head on the floor.
So i watched the complete series yesterday and I'm not gonna lie, before I started watching it I believed that Madeleine's parents were involved, not necessarily in killing her but in covering up her death at least. However after watching the documentary I no longer believe that they were involved because:
The sniffer dogs were a red herring - The blood and DNA that was recovered from the apartment and the hire car was never a complete match for Madeleine.
If the parents were involved, what did they do with Madeleine's body between discovering her and Kate McCann raising the alarm? Once Madeleine was discovered missing that area became a circus and her parents could not have slipped away without anybody noticing. They had no car of their own until 25 days after Madeleine disappeared so storing the body and then slipping away to dispose of it doesn't make logical sense. Also, her parents didn't slope off and let the publicity fade, they have kept publicising it ever since, that's not the behaviour of people who were involved in Madeleine's disappearance.
Sure the parents did make a few decisions in the aftermatch which were weird, behaving like robots was one weird decision but they were advised to show no emotion.
I now believe that Madeleine was abducted, the Tapas Bar publicly advertised that the group were leaving sleeping children in the apartments and there were quite a few sketchy people in that area and there were witnesses that saw some weird behaving people e.g. a couple were seen in the early hours of the morning heading towards the local marina carrying what looked like a small child hours after Madeleine disappeared.
The Portuguese police did make mistakes by not closing the roads immediately etc which obviously would not have helped.
I know I've typed body a few times but I don't 100% believe that Madeleine is dead, it's not unheard of for abducted children to be discovered alive years later but at the same time Madeleine was very recognisable because of the coloboma in the iris of her right eye so the kidnappers may have panicked and killed her.
Either way, I hope that one day the truth is discovered.
The sniffer dogs were a red herring - The blood and DNA that was recovered from the apartment and the hire car was never a complete match for Madeleine.
If the parents were involved, what did they do with Madeleine's body between discovering her and Kate McCann raising the alarm? Once Madeleine was discovered missing that area became a circus and her parents could not have slipped away without anybody noticing. They had no car of their own until 25 days after Madeleine disappeared so storing the body and then slipping away to dispose of it doesn't make logical sense. Also, her parents didn't slope off and let the publicity fade, they have kept publicising it ever since, that's not the behaviour of people who were involved in Madeleine's disappearance.
Sure the parents did make a few decisions in the aftermatch which were weird, behaving like robots was one weird decision but they were advised to show no emotion.
I now believe that Madeleine was abducted, the Tapas Bar publicly advertised that the group were leaving sleeping children in the apartments and there were quite a few sketchy people in that area and there were witnesses that saw some weird behaving people e.g. a couple were seen in the early hours of the morning heading towards the local marina carrying what looked like a small child hours after Madeleine disappeared.
The Portuguese police did make mistakes by not closing the roads immediately etc which obviously would not have helped.
I know I've typed body a few times but I don't 100% believe that Madeleine is dead, it's not unheard of for abducted children to be discovered alive years later but at the same time Madeleine was very recognisable because of the coloboma in the iris of her right eye so the kidnappers may have panicked and killed her.
Either way, I hope that one day the truth is discovered.
their daughter is the victim. until the crime is solved, the parents will always be persons of interest.
To add to this, it was also considered strange that the twins slept soundly through all the subsequent commotion where several people entered and searched the room. It was also mentioned that Kate had checked them to see if they were breathing okay.
I think it's certainly a plausible theory but the main flaw to that line of thinking is how and when they stored/disposed of the body.
Watching more of this documentary (though I haven't finished it yet), so far I feel disappointed that a lot of information I've seen before is missing. And they barely cover the Tapas 7 who, regardless of anyone's opinion on what happened to Madeleine, were pretty damn crucial to the investigation. Much of the lines of inquiry were built around their testimony, and the documentary doesn't particularly explore why their accounts are so inconsistent and even illogical in some cases.
Additionally the McCann's relationship with the chapel priest is mentioned once in a throwaway remark. I've always considered this one of the oddest parts of the whole tale. They spend a lot of time with him, then he suddenly turns on them without explanation and refuses to discuss the case with anyone to this day. What was that all about? Though, I suppose without his cooperation it would be difficult to include much about him in the documentary. I just want some more insight into that whole aspect.
My personal opinion is that the group are covering up something. But whether it's just their negligence for the children, or something worse, I really don't know. The two plausible theories for Madeleine's disappearance both have major holes in them, so it's a maddening case all around really.
The McCann's tried to discredit the dogs, but the dogs have a verifiably exemplary record and are considered among the best in the world. They definitely detected those scents, there's just no way to confirm if it was that of Madeleine. The connection was mostly established from them alerting for Madeleine's stuffed toy and Kate's clothing.
Gerry himself also suggested if there were "substances used to keep them asleep", so I can see why the police explored if these two doctors did so themselves.
Additionally the McCann's relationship with the chapel priest is mentioned once in a throwaway remark. I've always considered this one of the oddest parts of the whole tale. They spend a lot of time with him, then he suddenly turns on them without explanation and refuses to discuss the case with anyone to this day. What was that all about? Though, I suppose without his cooperation it would be difficult to include much about him in the documentary. I just want some more insight into that whole aspect.
My personal opinion is that the group are covering up something. But whether it's just their negligence for the children, or something worse, I really don't know. The two plausible theories for Madeleine's disappearance both have major holes in them, so it's a maddening case all around really.
Well the issue is that the scene was incredibly contaminated by the time they went to recover anything. They were never be going to be able to recover viable samples from such an environment, so sadly we'll never really know.
The McCann's tried to discredit the dogs, but the dogs have a verifiably exemplary record and are considered among the best in the world. They definitely detected those scents, there's just no way to confirm if it was that of Madeleine. The connection was mostly established from them alerting for Madeleine's stuffed toy and Kate's clothing.
It gets more interesting when you consider Kate's claim that Madeleine asked her the night before her disappearance why she didn't come when the twins were crying during the night, and Gerry later mentioning how unusual it was for the twins to actually go to sleep. They were evidently light sleepers and difficult to put to bed, so to sleep through all of that commotion is quite something.
Gerry himself also suggested if there were "substances used to keep them asleep", so I can see why the police explored if these two doctors did so themselves.
I don't believe they did it but you either know very little about the discussion or are being incredible disingenuous when you suggest 'they look like they were lying' is the sum of the argument.
Yes I'm not suggesting that the sniffer dogs didn't find anything as they almost certainly did, both of the dogs reactions in the documentary is chilling.
I believe that the documentary also did briefly mention that both of the twins slept through the commotion after Madeleine's disappearance and that Kate had suggested that they were drugged by the kidnapper but it didn't go into great detail, it seemed to be a running theme throughout the investigation IMHO, almost everything was not investigated to completion.
Scathing Guardian review.
https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-...madeleine-mccann-netflix-review-moral-failure
If your using this series as a way to decide what happened, your probably best looking at other sources.
https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-...madeleine-mccann-netflix-review-moral-failure
If your using this series as a way to decide what happened, your probably best looking at other sources.
Can someone explain to me why so many here thinks the parents are guilty? What did they do?
I still remember this painting from many many years ago:
I still remember this painting from many many years ago:
Basically from the start there was inconsistancy in the story from the parents and the friends in the tapas bar that night. The continuing behaviour has been nothing like any other case of its type in history. I'll put up some links tomorrow when I'm not on mobile.Can someone explain to me why so many here thinks the parents are guilty? What did they do?
I still remember this painting from many many years ago:
Whats not in despute by anyone is that they were negligant parents leaving 3 young kids alone while they went out to dinner.
I believe the person in that painting was already identified and it was concluded he was carrying his own child. Apologies for the link to The Sun but this is the best info I could find on it on a cursory google.Can someone explain to me why so many here thinks the parents are guilty? What did they do?
I still remember this painting from many many years ago:
I wouldn't say that they were definitely involved in the death/disappearance of Madeleine but, at best, neglected their children and it seems very likely they misled the initial investigation to play this down. Some of this is covered in the documentary such as their accounts of what happened changing and inconsistencies between accounts of other people at the tapas bar, who were seemingly also neglectful of their own children too.
As for if they did do it, there are accounts of odd behaviour from the parents in the immediate aftermath, some mentioned in this thread, but that could easily be put down to the trauma of Madeleine going missing. The dogs are the most obvious piece of evidence, I believe the only time they alerted was in relation to things belonging to the McCann's despite being used elsewhere too. The facts are that in cases like this it isn't usually a stranger, there are no other compelling leads and there are people familiar with the case that suspect their involvement including the person who lead the investigation. Just a lot of little things that make you question them too. It's maybe not fair to assume they had involvement, there is certainly not enough evidence to ever convict them, but despite the tragedy of their situation there is something about the McCann's that just make many feel uneasy. Even the head of CEOP says on the documentary he was suspecting Gerry on first meeting him.
Can someone explain to me why so many here thinks the parents are guilty? What did they do?
I still remember this painting from many many years ago:
Their behaviour? And some evidences that point to their guilt.
We can not prove the scent found in the room by the dogs is from maddie but Portugal isn't exactly a place where people are killed in apartments every week
Whatched nearly all of it. Like only two episodes left.
Never really paid attention to the story and so the stuff in this documentary is pretty shocking. They killed that kid, no doubt. Doggos know best.
But the documentary itself is pretty much just a series of interviews and repeating the tale of events. There's little actual investigative journalism in it and its giving the Mccanns friends and PR people way more time to talk than they deserve.
Like there should really be an extensive breakdown of everything the detective did, and talking with him about his theories or something. Instead when the DNA was dismissed its litteraly just comments from the Mccanns PR people and an annoyed journalist and that's that, onto the next episode.
If you watch it pay attention, because the only defence of the family is just the people repeating how sad it must have been for them to be picked on. Trying to reinforce a narrative because any sort of actual evidence points otherwise.
Never really paid attention to the story and so the stuff in this documentary is pretty shocking. They killed that kid, no doubt. Doggos know best.
But the documentary itself is pretty much just a series of interviews and repeating the tale of events. There's little actual investigative journalism in it and its giving the Mccanns friends and PR people way more time to talk than they deserve.
Like there should really be an extensive breakdown of everything the detective did, and talking with him about his theories or something. Instead when the DNA was dismissed its litteraly just comments from the Mccanns PR people and an annoyed journalist and that's that, onto the next episode.
If you watch it pay attention, because the only defence of the family is just the people repeating how sad it must have been for them to be picked on. Trying to reinforce a narrative because any sort of actual evidence points otherwise.
What did the parents do with Madeline's body then?
I used to think like you, that the parents killed her or covered up the fact that she'd died somehow, however that theory falls apart so easily.
I dunno, but either way the documantary litteraly just sort of rushes past that issue in under a minute, which is an example of the problems I have with it.
Assuming the friends are in on the coverup as the detective suspected, they could have hid her any number of places the police weren't looking. But that's conjecture on my part...
Yes the documentary did rush certain things.
However I do not believe that all of the adults are in it together, imagine how that conversation would go down with the McCanns trying to convince everyone to help them...
They didn't know the area that well, it became a media circus very quickly and I honestly do not believe that any of the adults would have managed to get away with a body and dispose of it so well that it hasn't been found over a decade later.
That's ridic though, the body would have been in the apartment and there were a ton of people in and out of there, it would defy all logic to make a huge scene when anybody could have found the body. And then you'd have to believe, what, that they somehow conspired at the dinner table (because they did not go away together, to check the room, right)?
Not even just the police, you're talking well over a hundred people looking. Someone would have found a body if it was in that vicinity.
Was this theory concocted after a few beers after work one evening?
It is a good question but the last person to see Madeleine outside of her parents were when she was signed out of daycare at 5:30pm. Is it inconceivable that she could have died and been disposed of in that ~3 hour window before Kate and Gerry went to the tapas restaurant? I do admit, I find the theory the body could have been stored and disposed of after the media circus had begun to be highly unlikely. At that point it would almost definitely have had to be a conspiracy involving other parties.
I just can't get past the idea that somebody perfectly executed an abduction leaving no evidence and no witnesses either. Perhaps child trafficking gangs are more complex and sophisticated than I imagine but there's less evidence pointing to abduction than there is the McCann's being involved. It's simply only the absence of conclusive evidence that makes that the main belief.
Having said this, despite still being the belief the parents were involved this documentary is making me remember stuff that perhaps should have made me less sure when I was younger.
"No doubt" was perhaps a silly exaggeration on my part, but I lean towards they did it.
I could imagine that though, assuming the death was an accident. Other news articles on the group show they were closer friends than the documantary makes outs, and their witness statements, especially the accusation they made against that one innocent guy, are suspicious in their own right.
Depends when the body was moved. She could have been killed at 20:00 and moved then. Could have easily moved her miles out, returned back to the hotel, and then pretended to check the room every so often until 22:00.
It was based on events in the investigation.
I could imagine that though, assuming the death was an accident. Other news articles on the group show they were closer friends than the documantary makes outs, and their witness statements, especially the accusation they made against that one innocent guy, are suspicious in their own right.
Depends when the body was moved. She could have been killed at 20:00 and moved then. Could have easily moved her miles out, returned back to the hotel, and then pretended to check the room every so often until 22:00.
It was based on events in the investigation.
This is pretty much where I'm at too. As hard as it is to believe that an abductor would be bold enough to sneak in and take a sleeping child right out of her own bed, the alternative theory that the parents killed her is even more difficult to accept.
There's just too much stuff that doesn't add up if this whole thing is a cover up. I think the inconsistencies with the tapas statements etc is just the parents trying to downplay their neglect. I suspect that in reality they weren't checking on their kids anywhere near as often as they say.
Do you not see how ridiculous it is that the best theory to incorporate the parents' guilt and disposal of the body is that... they colluded with 7 other adults? And they raised alarm within a maximum of a few hours of her murder (making the window of disposal much more challenging) and then somehow disposed the body in this time in a way that nobody has been able to uncover for over a decade, despite the intense media, public, and investigative interest and scrutiny?
Inconsistencies in the accounts of NINE PEOPLE, in terms of being interviewed (in a foreign land with interpreters, no less) about a wine-filled dinner, repeatedly over the period of several months and years... are almost guaranteed to occur. As said in the documentary, it's almost more realistic for these accounts to be inconsistent than consistent as if it were rehearsed.
It's much more likely that someone took Madeleine given how accessible the apartment was to the public streets, probably involving observing and planning it for a day or two prior. Child trafficking is a billion-dollar industry.
It's not my theory, it's the police's theory, and one that had strong evidence to a point.
There is no evidence that the room was broken into. And the dogs, while not usable as evidence in court, could smell the traces of a corpse in a room were no one had been killed before.
And group conspiracy between a group of friends really isn't that ridiculous.
But wouldn't that rely on the other adults doing a bad job checking? Had they opened the door more they would have seen the kid not in the bed so Mrs. McCann would not have been the one to make the discovery, seems like a big thing to leave up to fate if you have some kind of plan
I think the possibility that they arranged the removal of their daughter is pretty high. Kate's description of the door slamming shut because of a gust of wind due to the window being open, her emphasis that the window was open when there was in fact no signs of infraction and it was found closed, that Oldfield who checked on the kids first told police he only listened at the door but in his second testimony claims he looked inside and that maybe the shutters were open, the fact that the two twins who were sleeping in that room did not wake up during the entirety of the panic and screams and even when the police was on site, indicating they were sedated, the repeated and immediate claim that "They've taken her!", and the portrait of a man seen carrying the child which looked a lot like Gerry McCann, there is enough to think they were trying to mislead the police and knew what happened.
No one else in the group had to know. The question is how long ahead of time was it planned, and who could be contacted to take the girl (dead or alive, but if alive probably sedated) either on site or after handing her over to someone. All of this could happen quickly.
No one else in the group had to know. The question is how long ahead of time was it planned, and who could be contacted to take the girl (dead or alive, but if alive probably sedated) either on site or after handing her over to someone. All of this could happen quickly.
Last edited:
If you follow the theory that the kids were sedated then, most of them being doctors, could be covering up due to the fact they did the same with their own children. Would be the end of their careers and likely lose their children too otherwise. This wouldn't even require them to have knowledge of the McCann's involvement either, they would still be inclined to lie if they thought she was abducted.
Kate McCann herself seemed to believe the twins were sedated yet it seems more wasn't made of it at the time. I understand you have to allow for panic, trauma, alcohol and a certain amount of human error but there are so many little odd details it doesn't seem any more absurd than the perfect abduction. Child trafficking may be a billion dollar industry but it's probably low level, unintelligent gang members doing the abducting, not Mike Ehrmentraut.
Yeah every time something stood out as suspicious, they started adding it to their story. Like the sedated twins, really, the kidnapper gets in, and somehow sedates them all, leaving no trace of entry, no child is heard, and leaves with the eldest? It makes no sense, super far fetched, but it's so suspicious that she has to say surely yeah they were sedated, by the kidnapper.
And there is a lot of contradictions about what happened, who actually left the table and when. The Smiths say they saw Gerry carry a blonde girl between 9:30 and 10, and Gerry and Kate were calling each other during that time according to phone records. Gerry is said by some witnesses to have been gone for half an hour. Kate said to the others at the table that he must be watching football. Come on. Kate says she looked under the beds, but the beds go to the floor. Only her finger prints were found on the window, on the inside, and she gave no explanation. Anyone who was watching the place would have entered by the back door which was unlocked and which they were going in and out of, and they could not open the window from outside so why leave from where they did not enter? There is no sign of entry anywhere. When Kate notices her daughter is missing, she runs out leaving the twins there sleeping. One of their friends claim Kate spent the whole night checking if the twins were breathing after reporting the disappearance, but Kate never mentions it to anyone, never says she is worried about them being asleep or whatnot. There is a lot more.
And there is a lot of contradictions about what happened, who actually left the table and when. The Smiths say they saw Gerry carry a blonde girl between 9:30 and 10, and Gerry and Kate were calling each other during that time according to phone records. Gerry is said by some witnesses to have been gone for half an hour. Kate said to the others at the table that he must be watching football. Come on. Kate says she looked under the beds, but the beds go to the floor. Only her finger prints were found on the window, on the inside, and she gave no explanation. Anyone who was watching the place would have entered by the back door which was unlocked and which they were going in and out of, and they could not open the window from outside so why leave from where they did not enter? There is no sign of entry anywhere. When Kate notices her daughter is missing, she runs out leaving the twins there sleeping. One of their friends claim Kate spent the whole night checking if the twins were breathing after reporting the disappearance, but Kate never mentions it to anyone, never says she is worried about them being asleep or whatnot. There is a lot more.
Last edited:
1. Yes, the police's theory was ridiculous. That's the whole point that was made quite clear in the documentary. And it's a fact.
2. The room did not need breaking into! All that would need to be done is to observe the family for a period, and then when they leave the apartment during the day/afternoon, go inside and make sure one of the windows (ideally accessible to the street) is unlocked. Unless the McCanns were super cautious about locking everything, it's not that hard to gain access without forcible entry, with a little bit of luck here or there.
3. The dogs quite simply are not reliable evidence, for numerous reasons (and thus not admissible in court as evidence). There are many ways to explain how the dogs could smell corpse matter in the apartment. For the same reason the dogs could smell corpse matter on the rental car. They have incredible noses that can detect traces of corpse-like substances for what appears to be weeks beyond the initial point of contact. So much so that you then have to explain how they are responsible for the corpse matter that wound up on the rental car that they rented weeks after the crime.
1: The documentary does not make that clear, it rushed over the case falling apart while letting the Mccanns PR people gush over how awful the parents maut have felt.
It was neither proven wrong either, forensics said the evidence wasn't conclusive and because of the media backlash and pressure from the UK Prime Minister, the detective was taken off the case after questioning the result from forensics. That was it.
2: I take it you didn't watch the parts of the documentary about the window and how it was a major piece of evidence?
3: It was stated that the police had checked no one had died in the hotel before bringing the dogs in. It is very unlikely a corpse or traces of a corpse with a decently sized match to Madeliennes DNA would have been in that room otherwise.
There's no shred of evidence that she was abducted.
It was neither proven wrong either, forensics said the evidence wasn't conclusive and because of the media backlash and pressure from the UK Prime Minister, the detective was taken off the case after questioning the result from forensics. That was it.
2: I take it you didn't watch the parts of the documentary about the window and how it was a major piece of evidence?
3: It was stated that the police had checked no one had died in the hotel before bringing the dogs in. It is very unlikely a corpse or traces of a corpse with a decently sized match to Madeliennes DNA would have been in that room otherwise.
There's no shred of evidence that she was abducted.
This is a good summary of the suspicious points https://www.reddit.com/r/Unresolved...resolved_disappearance_10_years_later_former/
And this video is pretty damn good. TED Talk on spotting a liar, mixed with footage from interviews with them:
Clement Freud lived 500m from the site, and befriended the McCanns too.
And this video is pretty damn good. TED Talk on spotting a liar, mixed with footage from interviews with them:
Clement Freud lived 500m from the site, and befriended the McCanns too.
Last edited:
Whatever the case may be, I do not believe Madeline was abducted in any way whatsoever. At this point now the kidnapper would have to be the most perfectly precise kidnapper who doesn't take a step wrong, and takes the oldest child out of the lot.
Listen, maybe the McCann's didn't kill Madeline purposely or something, but something definitely went wrong and the entire group there is trying to lie or something to take the heat off themselves.
Nothing is adding up at all.
Listen, maybe the McCann's didn't kill Madeline purposely or something, but something definitely went wrong and the entire group there is trying to lie or something to take the heat off themselves.
Nothing is adding up at all.