'Looking for Madeleine' by Anthony Summers and Robbyn Swan - My response to their enquiries

Justformaddie wrote:Just what did this little 3yr old girl do to deserve this? We know that answer, nothing, nothing at all. The real question is what did her parents do to need her concealed? Death after accident IMO wouldn't count as we all know how curious little ones can be, but, neglect, accident then death would be a lot worse. It could be this scenario as I think scientists can get close to the hour of death or closer even? Another question would be why the help afterwards? This tiptoeing around the parents needs to stop for maddie, she's the one that's suffered.
For anyone to earn money form maddie, without stating the truth for her, is not right, including her own mother. All IMO 

Goncalo Amaral has done so through the files, good on him, madeleine by KATE MCCANN was about her IMO

I think that the parents' and their friends' claims (whether or not wholly or even partially true) that they left their children unattended in unlocked apartment while they dined well out of sight and sound need to be explored more closely.

WHY would the McCanns admit to this? I know that it allows for the 'random abduction' story, but a child could be kidnapped while the parents are in the house. At night, for instance, when everyone is asleep. Burglaries happen at night sometimes when the house is occupied. If a television, jewellery and so on can be stolen while people are sleeping, so could a child. It's not impossible. I used to be a very heavy sleeper as a child - I would not have woken up even if someone carried me out of the bed!

The McCanns, could, for instance, have claimed that when they woke up in the morning, Madeleine wasn't there. And they couldn't account for it. There would have been far fewer lies needed to be told. It is a more plausible story as it keeps wide open a huge range of possibilities. If she was a child who woke in the night and got out of bed (the 'star chart' for sleeping suggests this) maybe even a child who sleepwalks, then it is perfectly feasible that she could have got up and wandered off. And come to some harm - accident, picked up by a malevolent stranger, fell down a well. Found by a childless couple etc.

Why did the parents hatch such an elaborate plot? All the 'checking' nonsense and the doors being partially open, or closed, and the windows being open, or closed. And the curtains being open or closed or billowing in the wind. And so on. And who went back to the apartment when, at what time and so on. They have all managed to contradict themselves so much over all this. 

There must be a reason for all this. 

I am extremely suspicious about the role of the friends in all this. Why would they go to such lengths  to cover up an accident? All of them have come up with incredibly dodgy and incriminating statements, in my opinion.

Matthew Oldfield and Jane Tanner even agreed to return to Luz with Gerry to stage a completely farcical 're-enactment' with Gerry. The way it is filmed  is melodramatic, creepy and suspicious. Jane Tanner's joking attitude as she banters with Gerry about Kate 'moaning that Gerry was taking too long watching footie' shows a deeply contemptuous attitude given that she is purportedly taking part in the re-enactment of a very serious crime. Matt Oldfield gives a risible performance of how he stood at the children's bedroom door and how he saw that the twins were breathing but unfortunately he didn't take that one step into the room to check if Madeleine was breathing as well or indeed had been abducted. Which of course, if we believe Jane Tanner's fairy tale, happened at 9.15pm. Matt in his police statement even flags up the name of a road - Cemetery Road - where he went searching for Madeleine that evening. At this stage it was supposed to be a missing child, not a dead child, Matt. 

Russell O'Brien and his partner Rachael both make peculiar statements to the police. Claiming that their daughter had chronic diarrhea all week. Which meant there was a horrendous smell in the apartment and they had to presumably do a lot of washing of clothes and bedding. Rachael recalls how the route to the apartment at night was dark and isolated so she didn't like going there alone. But obviously it was fine to leave their child alone there. Russell in one police statement uses the expression 'clobbering a child' to helpfully point out to the police that statistically when there is a problem it is most likely to be an adult that is related to the child or knows the child well that is responsible. That was thoughtful of him to point that out. I'm sure that had never occurred to the sardine-munchers.

Kate and Russell recount a charming conversation they had with another father at the resort in which they appear to have some light-hearted banter about how ridiculous it is that parents are so paranoid about paedophiles.

Kate and Gerry claim that they considered the risk of their children being abducted from the apartment by someone to have been non-existent. 

"Speaking for myself, I can say, hand on heart, that it never once crossed my mind that this might not be a safe option. If I'd had any doubts whatsoever, I would simply never have entertained it. I love my three children above everything. They are more precious to me than life itself. And I would never knowingly place them at risk, no matter how small a risk it might seem to be."

This is just such a stupid thing to write, given that within moments of finding Madeleine out of her bed, Kate reaches a conclusion she has been abducted. How could her mind switch from considering there was no risk of that, to considering that that was the only plausible explanation?

In any event, given that Madeleine had a 'star chart' to encourage her to stay in her bed, and given that Kate and Gerry both admit to the children waking up and crying at night that week (and them not going to them) we know that is a lie that Madeleine could not have got up to try to find them. As Kate herself has told us in her book, and as the evidence from a neighbour suggests, neither Kate or Gerry went back to the apartment when Madeleine or the twins cry. So all the more likely for Madeleine to wake up and try to find her parents, seeing as she knows, from at least one prior incident, that her parents won't come back to her or the twins.

The reason, imo, that Kate is so adamant that Madeleine would not have got up and wandered off is I would imagine almost certainly because Madeleine been sedated on Thursday night and probably the night before too, imo. Which, in typical Kate fashion, she tries to pin onto the random 'abductor'. I suppose to cover any evidence of sedation should the twins have been taken to hospital to be checked. Which, of course, they should have been. So why did none of those doctors, including Madeleine's parents, suggest this? Not exactly responsible behaviour given that a (paedophile) abductor has been in the bedroom.

And why would Kate and other members of the Tapas flag up the possibility of abduction by a paedophile? Was it not Kate herself who said: 'People with dirty thoughts have dirty minds.'

Insufferable, the lot of them. And still working for the NHS! Let's hope they don't try and change jobs, because I imagine the pool of people prepared to give them 'exemplary' references is growing smaller by the minute.

In my opinion only.

That's a good question, why not say, they went to bed she was there, with the twins sleeping soundly? The only reason I can think of was the note at the tapas booking, that kids were sleeping in the apartment, therefore, they needed to eat close each night. So, they had to admit they left them each night. Time of checking is a whole other ball game, which IMO, they messed up.

Justformaddie wrote:That's a good question, why not say, they went to bed she was there, with the twins sleeping soundly? The only reason I can think of was the note at the tapas booking, that kids were sleeping in the apartment, therefore, they needed to eat close each night. So, they had to admit they left them each night. Time of checking is a whole other ball game, which IMO, they messed up.

In her book Kate writes, while combing through the Portuguese police files, she discovers the note requesting the block booking written in the staff message book which sat on a desk at the pool reception for most of the day.

"This book was by definition accessible to all staff and, albeit unintentionally, probably to guests and visitors, too. To my horror, I saw that, no doubt in all innocence and simply to explain why she was bending the rules a bit, the receptionist had added the reason for our request: we wanted to eat close to our apartments as we were leaving our young children alone there and checking on them intermittently."

I wonder if this is true? Would the receptionist really have written that?

I too have my doubts.

"To my horror, I saw that, no doubt in all innocence and simply to explain why she was bending the rules a bit, the receptionist had added the reason for our request: we wanted to eat close to our apartments as we were leaving our young children alone there and checking on them intermittently."


If it exists then this must be in the files somewhere?


Kate doesn't have anything that is not in the public domain does she?

BlueBag wrote:I too have my doubts.

"To my horror, I saw that, no doubt in all innocence and simply to explain why she was bending the rules a bit, the receptionist had added the reason for our request: we wanted to eat close to our apartments as we were leaving our young children alone there and checking on them intermittently."


If it exists then this must be in the files somewhere?


Kate doesn't have anything that is not in the public domain does she?

I was just about to ask the same. I've looked over the files and can't find anything about this. Some other members here are very familiar with the files and IIRC
the only source of this story is Kate's book. Could be wrong, but I don't think anyone has ever posted a link to this in the files.

KH1 P.56
 
‘It wasn’t until a year later, when I was combing through the Portuguese police files, that I discovered that the note requesting our block booking was written in a staff message book, which sat on a desk at the pool reception for most of the day’.
 
I do not believe there is any sign of this in the published PJ files, although whether TM had anything different to what was publicly available we do not know. All we do know is that they say they paid £100k to have them 'properly' translated.

The Tapas booking sheets are in there but funnily enough KM is the only person to have found this message or any mention of it, but without confirmation that they received exactly the same selection of published documents we cannot be sure.

Jauna Loca wrote:

BlueBag wrote:I too have my doubts.

"To my horror, I saw that, no doubt in all innocence and simply to explain why she was bending the rules a bit, the receptionist had added the reason for our request: we wanted to eat close to our apartments as we were leaving our young children alone there and checking on them intermittently."


If it exists then this must be in the files somewhere?


Kate doesn't have anything that is not in the public domain does she?

I was just about to ask the same. I've looked over the files and can't find anything about this. Some other members here are very familiar with the files and IIRC
the only source of this story is Kate's book. Could be wrong, but I don't think anyone has ever posted a link to this in the files.

I really don't think this is plausible. How would this entry read?

table 14. 7.30 Mon-Thurs for McCann party. Reason - all members of the party are leaving babies alone, but are definitely checking on them regularly.

Please. I don't think so. At most the reason given could have read something like 'due to childcare arrangements'. 

I too find it very confusing that TM didn't decide to say Madeleine woke and wandered during the night. If she died earlier in the day or a previous day, then they could have either cancelled their reservation for that evening or still gone to eat, but gone home relatively early, woke up in the morning to find her 'gone'. I'll never understand why they didn't do this. It makes me think sometimes that it wasn't planned, and they really did come back at some point during that evening to find an accident.

"To my horror, I saw that, no doubt in all innocence and simply to explain why she was bending the rules a bit, the receptionist had added the reason for our request: we wanted to eat close to our apartments as we were leaving our young children alone there and checking on them intermittently."

[/quote]

Own goal that.
Announcing to the the world they left the children alone every night and not afraid to tell staff about it, even using that as excuse to force reservation.

It's a contrived account to try and excuse their behaviour. Instead it makes them look irresponsible, no reflection on the staff whatsoever as they were only doing their job to accommodate difficult customers.

Presumably any note was written in Portuguese.
If so,

a) how did Kate know what it said

b) how many guests at the tapas were Portuguese/Portuguese speakers?

worriedmum wrote:Presumably any note was written in Portuguese.
If so,

a) how did Kate know what it said

b) how many guests at the tapas were Portuguese/Portuguese speakers?

c) And could read a diary that presumably was upside down.

d) Was it a day per view diary so it was written in everyday? If it was a weekly diary how would anyone zoom into that section given points a, b and c?

JRob wrote:
"There must be a reason for all this."
Yes there is. It's called an alibi.

   

j.rob wrote:

Justformaddie wrote:Just what did this little 3yr old girl do to deserve this? We know that answer, nothing, nothing at all. The real question is what did her parents do to need her concealed? Death after accident IMO wouldn't count as we all know how curious little ones can be, but, neglect, accident then death would be a lot worse. It could be this scenario as I think scientists can get close to the hour of death or closer even? Another question would be why the help afterwards? This tiptoeing around the parents needs to stop for maddie, she's the one that's suffered.
For anyone to earn money form maddie, without stating the truth for her, is not right, including her own mother. All IMO 

Goncalo Amaral has done so through the files, good on him, madeleine by KATE MCCANN was about her IMO

I think that the parents' and their friends' claims (whether or not wholly or even partially true) that they left their children unattended in unlocked apartment while they dined well out of sight and sound need to be explored more closely.

WHY would the McCanns admit to this? I know that it allows for the 'random abduction' story, but a child could be kidnapped while the parents are in the house. At night, for instance, when everyone is asleep. Burglaries happen at night sometimes when the house is occupied. If a television, jewellery and so on can be stolen while people are sleeping, so could a child. It's not impossible. I used to be a very heavy sleeper as a child - I would not have woken up even if someone carried me out of the bed!

The McCanns, could, for instance, have claimed that when they woke up in the morning, Madeleine wasn't there. And they couldn't account for it. There would have been far fewer lies needed to be told. It is a more plausible story as it keeps wide open a huge range of possibilities. If she was a child who woke in the night and got out of bed (the 'star chart' for sleeping suggests this) maybe even a child who sleepwalks, then it is perfectly feasible that she could have got up and wandered off. And come to some harm - accident, picked up by a malevolent stranger, fell down a well. Found by a childless couple etc.

Why did the parents hatch such an elaborate plot? All the 'checking' nonsense and the doors being partially open, or closed, and the windows being open, or closed. And the curtains being open or closed or billowing in the wind. And so on. And who went back to the apartment when, at what time and so on. They have all managed to contradict themselves so much over all this. 

There must be a reason for all this. 

I am extremely suspicious about the role of the friends in all this. Why would they go to such lengths  to cover up an accident? All of them have come up with incredibly dodgy and incriminating statements, in my opinion.

Matthew Oldfield and Jane Tanner even agreed to return to Luz with Gerry to stage a completely farcical 're-enactment' with Gerry. The way it is filmed  is melodramatic, creepy and suspicious. Jane Tanner's joking attitude as she banters with Gerry about Kate 'moaning that Gerry was taking too long watching footie' shows a deeply contemptuous attitude given that she is purportedly taking part in the re-enactment of a very serious crime. Matt Oldfield gives a risible performance of how he stood at the children's bedroom door and how he saw that the twins were breathing but unfortunately he didn't take that one step into the room to check if Madeleine was breathing as well or indeed had been abducted. Which of course, if we believe Jane Tanner's fairy tale, happened at 9.15pm. Matt in his police statement even flags up the name of a road - Cemetery Road - where he went searching for Madeleine that evening. At this stage it was supposed to be a missing child, not a dead child, Matt. 

Russell O'Brien and his partner Rachael both make peculiar statements to the police. Claiming that their daughter had chronic diarrhea all week. Which meant there was a horrendous smell in the apartment and they had to presumably do a lot of washing of clothes and bedding. Rachael recalls how the route to the apartment at night was dark and isolated so she didn't like going there alone. But obviously it was fine to leave their child alone there. Russell in one police statement uses the expression 'clobbering a child' to helpfully point out to the police that statistically when there is a problem it is most likely to be an adult that is related to the child or knows the child well that is responsible. That was thoughtful of him to point that out. I'm sure that had never occurred to the sardine-munchers.

Kate and Russell recount a charming conversation they had with another father at the resort in which they appear to have some light-hearted banter about how ridiculous it is that parents are so paranoid about paedophiles.

Kate and Gerry claim that they considered the risk of their children being abducted from the apartment by someone to have been non-existent. 

"Speaking for myself, I can say, hand on heart, that it never once crossed my mind that this might not be a safe option. If I'd had any doubts whatsoever, I would simply never have entertained it. I love my three children above everything. They are more precious to me than life itself. And I would never knowingly place them at risk, no matter how small a risk it might seem to be."

This is just such a stupid thing to write, given that within moments of finding Madeleine out of her bed, Kate reaches a conclusion she has been abducted. How could her mind switch from considering there was no risk of that, to considering that that was the only plausible explanation?

In any event, given that Madeleine had a 'star chart' to encourage her to stay in her bed, and given that Kate and Gerry both admit to the children waking up and crying at night that week (and them not going to them) we know that is a lie that Madeleine could not have got up to try to find them. As Kate herself has told us in her book, and as the evidence from a neighbour suggests, neither Kate or Gerry went back to the apartment when Madeleine or the twins cry. So all the more likely for Madeleine to wake up and try to find her parents, seeing as she knows, from at least one prior incident, that her parents won't come back to her or the twins.

The reason, imo, that Kate is so adamant that Madeleine would not have got up and wandered off is I would imagine almost certainly because Madeleine been sedated on Thursday night and probably the night before too, imo. Which, in typical Kate fashion, she tries to pin onto the random 'abductor'. I suppose to cover any evidence of sedation should the twins have been taken to hospital to be checked. Which, of course, they should have been. So why did none of those doctors, including Madeleine's parents, suggest this? Not exactly responsible behaviour given that a (paedophile) abductor has been in the bedroom.

And why would Kate and other members of the Tapas flag up the possibility of abduction by a paedophile? Was it not Kate herself who said: 'People with dirty thoughts have dirty minds.'

Insufferable, the lot of them. And still working for the NHS! Let's hope they don't try and change jobs, because I imagine the pool of people prepared to give them 'exemplary' references is growing smaller by the minute.

In my opinion only.

In my opinion J Rob your opinion is wonderfully incisive! I'd thrown in the mystery of why, despite Jane Tanner have allegedly seen the abduction take place and the direction in which the abductor headed off, and despite JT having realised this at or soon after 10pm by their account, none of them made an organised search in the direction taken by the alleged abductor. Truly incredible!

No doubt Anthony Summers will deal in detail with all these inconsistencies and allay all our concerns!    

Risky putting another book out that only shows the McCanns ina  good light. It will be torn to shreds in the comments section of Amazon if it doesn't cut the mustard. Kate's books have already been under considerable attack. Noone's going to risk a defamatory account, so, as far as I am concerned, the hype is going to be nothing more than the hype of that new Crimewatch report last year, i.e. nothing new of note. I, for one, won't be buying it! There'll be nothing new of any significant interest in this case until the police start to turn their attention towards the McCanns and Tapas Cronies as suspects. But that will never, ever happen.

You could invite all your friends round and have an 'Anthony Summers' party. 

Various items available such as books, good quality cock rings...for your birds to play with, of course! I dunno, you and your filthy mind!

I know I shouldn't mock, but I just can't take this seriously anymore. Years of trying to find a Sinderella that fits an imaginary (allegedly) shoe...

I wonder if this book will mention the lie detector results? .......The new computer generated one that featured on t.v not so long ago.

Just to correct a bit of confusion in j rob's post yesterday - and copied by Okeydokey - that Rachael is not the partner of Russell O'Brien.

It's Jane Tanner who is. Rachael is married to Matt Oldfield.

Brian Griffin wrote:Risky putting another book out that only shows the McCanns ina  good light. It will be torn to shreds in the comments section of Amazon if it doesn't cut the mustard. Kate's books have already been under considerable attack. Noone's going to risk a defamatory account, so, as far as I am concerned, the hype is going to be nothing more than the hype of that new Crimewatch report last year, i.e. nothing new of note. I, for one, won't be buying it! There'll be nothing new of any significant interest in this case until the police start to turn their attention towards the McCanns and Tapas Cronies as suspects. But that will never, ever happen.

I'm sure your right. I have a suspicion the book might not get reviewed too well...there are going to be a lot of jealous critics - people who write in this area - who are not going to like Summers trying to corner the McCann market without undertaking any searching evaluation of the Tapas 9 narrative. They won't be able to say anything anti-McCann but they will be able to say plenty anti-Summers.

Of course the book will be a love fest . as they stated they will de bunk all the rumours . but there account will be out there and  it WILL be tested .

 I fully expect a chapter on the dogs trying to totally discredit there findings . 

Even so it will serve its purpose ,because most people take things at face value . 

But it will be interesting to see if / when GA wins his case , will his book be in the true crime section and there account ,in  fiction  .