Crying incident, was it taken seriously?

by Tinkerbell81 27.10.11 19:02

Having read up on it, I am left with many questions about the 1st of May when Maddie cried for so long, then stopped abruptly. I just wondered if the McCanns acknowledged that, what they said about it, what the T9 said about it?
I think it could be a very likely theory that she died that night...? Was she crying for her father because something was going on with her? Who of the T9 wasnt at the table? Did someone investigate comings and goings at the apartment that night? Do we know which times the children were checked? Were they checked at all? Didnt anyone of the others checking the kids pass the apartment and hear it and thus alerted Gerry and Kate?

(lost of questions sorry)

by mexx 27.10.11 22:02

Didnt anyone of the others checking the kids pass the apartment and hear it and thus alerted Gerry and Kate?

That is a very good point and one I don't remember anyone querying before. Hmmm...

by Kololi 27.10.11 22:19

If they were checking the children as often as they say they were, one of the party would have surely heard the crying. If Mr or Mrs McCann checked on the childrens wellbeing by going into the apartment as they say they did on the final night I guess that they would have done the same thing the previous nights and should have surely saw the child crying as reported by Mrs Fenn.

I guess that Tinkerbell's observation just adds weight to any suspicion concerning the regularity of their checking and even whether they actually checked at all.

by Guest 27.10.11 22:20

mexx wrote:Didnt anyone of the others checking the kids pass the apartment and hear it and thus alerted Gerry and Kate?

That is a very good point and one I don't remember anyone querying before. Hmmm...

Good point.

But I think I read somewhere on here that the nannies, or staff at the OC had to go and find G and K and tell them their kid have been crying for the last hour or two. And with your point thats a good indicator that they didn't check on their children like they said. Either someone babysitted them or they werent seen to at all maybe...

by listener 28.10.11 0:02

"RESPONCIBLE" Parenting ? - my backside !

by jd 28.10.11 1:11

Tinkerbell81 wrote:Having read up on it, I am left with many questions about the 1st of May when Maddie cried for so long, then stopped abruptly. I just wondered if the McCanns acknowledged that, what they said about it, what the T9 said about it?
I think it could be a very likely theory that she died that night...? Was she crying for her father because something was going on with her? Who of the T9 wasnt at the table? Did someone investigate comings and goings at the apartment that night? Do we know which times the children were checked? Were they checked at all? Didnt anyone of the others checking the kids pass the apartment and hear it and thus alerted Gerry and Kate?

(lost of questions sorry)

At first I thought the same as you Tinkerbell. Also, Maddie never asked for her mother, but her father. There are no pics of mother and daughter, when mother was left alone with the kids the father sent his best mate to check on them. The males bathed the kids, the male always went to check on the kids as they got sloshed in the Tapas bar, kate never did except for the moment she found Maddie gone...isn't this all quite odd. Don't mother and daughter have a special bond?....didn't kate say she was disappointed when Maddie was born that she was not beautiful enough, unlike the twins...its all very strange indeed and so not normal

by Guest 28.10.11 7:34

jd wrote:
Tinkerbell81 wrote:Having read up on it, I am left with many questions about the 1st of May when Maddie cried for so long, then stopped abruptly. I just wondered if the McCanns acknowledged that, what they said about it, what the T9 said about it?
I think it could be a very likely theory that she died that night...? Was she crying for her father because something was going on with her? Who of the T9 wasnt at the table? Did someone investigate comings and goings at the apartment that night? Do we know which times the children were checked? Were they checked at all? Didnt anyone of the others checking the kids pass the apartment and hear it and thus alerted Gerry and Kate?

(lost of questions sorry)

At first I thought the same as you Tinkerbell. Also, Maddie never asked for her mother, but her father. There are no pics of mother and daughter, when mother was left alone with the kids the father sent his best mate to check on them. The males bathed the kids, the male always went to check on the kids as they got sloshed in the Tapas bar, kate never did except for the moment she found Maddie gone...isn't this all quite odd. Don't mother and daughter have a special bond?....didn't kate say she was disappointed when Maddie was born that she was not beautiful enough, unlike the twins...its all very strange indeed and so not normal

Its few pictures of Madeleine and mum, but after it you see lots of pictures of her and Amelie...

It wasn't Madeleine jd that she said it about, it was sean. His head was queezed or something, so he didn't look so beautiful (ofcourse not he looks just like Gerry) and she ends with saying; LUCKILY that has changed and he became a very handsome boy...

by Guest 28.10.11 8:22

Tinkerbell81 wrote:Having read up on it, I am left with many questions about the 1st of May when Maddie cried for so long, then stopped abruptly. I just wondered if the McCanns acknowledged that, what they said about it, what the T9 said about it?
I think it could be a very likely theory that she died that night...? Was she crying for her father because something was going on with her? Who of the T9 wasnt at the table? Did someone investigate comings and goings at the apartment that night? Do we know which times the children were checked? Were they checked at all? Didnt anyone of the others checking the kids pass the apartment and hear it and thus alerted Gerry and Kate?

(lost of questions sorry)

That would be impossible Tinkerbell, as 'a' Madeleine was seen in creche at 5pm on the 3rd, remember !!

by **tigger** 28.10.11 8:48

I know I read about someone from OC coming over to Chaplin's to tell the McCs that their children were crying.
I also remember something about Mrs. Fenn's daughter either working at Chaplin's or having seen the McCanns there. It's right next to the church which they were unable to find by themselves on the 3rd.
In the book Chaplin's is never mentioned.
Near the church is an apartment that was used of the property of a woman working at the OC. This was one of the witnesses they McCanns tried to speak to, even when they had moved out of the OC.

I'll do some digging, but if the incident happened on the 1st the two crying incidents become one.

by jd 28.10.11 8:50

Moa wrote:
jd wrote:
Tinkerbell81 wrote:Having read up on it, I am left with many questions about the 1st of May when Maddie cried for so long, then stopped abruptly. I just wondered if the McCanns acknowledged that, what they said about it, what the T9 said about it?
I think it could be a very likely theory that she died that night...? Was she crying for her father because something was going on with her? Who of the T9 wasnt at the table? Did someone investigate comings and goings at the apartment that night? Do we know which times the children were checked? Were they checked at all? Didnt anyone of the others checking the kids pass the apartment and hear it and thus alerted Gerry and Kate?

(lost of questions sorry)

At first I thought the same as you Tinkerbell. Also, Maddie never asked for her mother, but her father. There are no pics of mother and daughter, when mother was left alone with the kids the father sent his best mate to check on them. The males bathed the kids, the male always went to check on the kids as they got sloshed in the Tapas bar, kate never did except for the moment she found Maddie gone...isn't this all quite odd. Don't mother and daughter have a special bond?....didn't kate say she was disappointed when Maddie was born that she was not beautiful enough, unlike the twins...its all very strange indeed and so not normal

Its few pictures of Madeleine and mum, but after it you see lots of pictures of her and Amelie...

It wasn't Madeleine jd that she said it about, it was sean. His head was queezed or something, so he didn't look so beautiful (ofcourse not he looks just like Gerry) and she ends with saying; LUCKILY that has changed and he became a very handsome boy...

There are no pictures of mother and daughter from the PDL holiday though, nor mother and twins, infact none of mother. Yes you are right it was Sean KM was referring to, but still not a normal thing for a mother to say especially in public, and even more so when trying to convince the public she is a good caring mother who just made a mistake

by Guest 28.10.11 8:58

tigger wrote:I'll do some digging, but if the incident happened on the 1st the two crying incidents become one.

I think death on the 1st can be excluded on the basis that 'a' Madeleine first went to creche on the morning of the 29th, then all day on the 30th and the 1st. That's 3 full days, for everyone linked to the creche to see Madeleine McCann. So if something happened to her on that day, how did they pull off replacing her for the following 2 days, without anyone noticing it? I don't think they could somehow.

Kiko's theory still seems the likeliest, at this stage.

by Tinkerbell81 28.10.11 9:45

Even if she didnt die, that whole incident that after all is reported by an unconnected and reliable source could still indicate something very serious. I'm inclining towards her being hurt?

by **tigger** 28.10.11 10:27

Stella wrote:
tigger wrote:I'll do some digging, but if the incident happened on the 1st the two crying incidents become one.
I think death on the 1st can be excluded on the basis that 'a' Madeleine first went to creche on the morning of the 29th, then all day on the 30th and the 1st. That's 3 full days, for everyone linked to the creche to see Madeleine McCann. So if something happened to her on that day, how did they pull off replacing her for the following 2 days, without anyone noticing it? I don't think they could somehow.

Kiko's theory still seems the likeliest, at this stage.

Well, I like the 28th/29th a whole lot better, it's just the crying incident that blocks the flow as it were. I've suggested that it might even have been a recording, I still think the bond between Kate and Maddie couldn't be that good if she only cried for Daddy. Unusual to say the least.
I can also not believe that they actually recorded a crying episode with this purpose in mind, so we're really stuck with it, because I believe Mrs. Fenn.There's also the strangely missing 2nd of May which Kate skates over and Gerry skips altogether. Obviously a difficult day they don't like to remember - also the day the cleaner would come in? Cleaner came on Sundays and Wednesdays I believe.
If we can have a solution to the evening of the 1st (I don't believe for a second it was Kate crying as some people have suggested). I'll have to go back to HideHo's site for correlations and Kiko's work.
Did another girl cry for hours? That doesn't fit with the baby sitting of one of the T7.
But one thing favours the 'recording' theory, the McCanns knew about the crying before Mrs Fenn made a statement. Mrs. Fenn never mentioned it to them directly? Could it even have been part of the plan- crying heard the night before the abduction so when that got moved from the 2nd to the 3rd so did the crying? Because the 'dry run' theory of the abductors on the night before was there pretty quickly?

by Guest 28.10.11 10:55

That seems the most likely scenario to me tigger. It somehow had to be shown that the children were being left on their own, when perhpas they were not. So how could they do that? You either leave a child, one child, any child, all alone to scream for a length of time, to get someone to notice, or you play the sound of crying in an empty room for a length of time to get the same effect.

Children noticeably being left alone one night, soon after that, one of them is proclaimed taken. Job done !!

by Tinkerbell81 28.10.11 11:32

With all due respect, it could also be that the whole thing was never planned in advance, and a scenario was adapted?

Madeleine crying so long might not have been in the cards, why would it be when it clearly a) alerts others when they wouldnt want that? and b) shows bad parenting and more mistakes in their statements. If they really alerted the McCanns they would have stopped the recording before that, they would know they had made their point and they would get extra credit for coming back and comforting her. It might have even served another purpose: "Madeleine was crying and when we came back we saw that something wasnt right blablabla".

My money is still on something being very wrong with Madeleine which would also lead to the strange creche records of the 2nd etc. Madeleine was only in the creche for fifteen minutes, what if they took her out again so quickly because they were afraid she would blab? Little three year olds could be perfectly capable to drop a few hints even if they cant explain what exactly is wrong...

by Guest 28.10.11 11:43

Tinkerbell81 wrote:With all due respect, it could also be that the whole thing was never planned in advance, and a scenario was adapted?

Madeleine crying so long might not have been in the cards, why would it be when it clearly a) alerts others when they wouldnt want that? and b) shows bad parenting and more mistakes in their statements. If they really alerted the McCanns they would have stopped the recording before that, they would know they had made their point and they would get extra credit for coming back and comforting her. It might have even served another purpose: "Madeleine was crying and when we came back we saw that something wasnt right blablabla".

My money is still on something being very wrong with Madeleine which would also lead to the strange creche records of the 2nd etc. Madeleine was only in the creche for fifteen minutes, what if they took her out again so quickly because they were afraid she would blab? Little three year olds could be perfectly capable to drop a few hints even if they cant explain what exactly is wrong...

This was not the 2nd Tinkerbell, it was the afternoon of the 30th April, which was day 2. Signed in at 15.15 and out at 15.30. This is 2 days before the crying incident.

by Tinkerbell81 28.10.11 11:48

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] sorry *slaps self for stupid mistake*

by Guest 28.10.11 11:57

I wonder if they were ever asked about the 15 min participation on the 30th? big grin

by **tigger** 28.10.11 12:57

Tinkerbell81 wrote:With all due respect, it could also be that the whole thing was never planned in advance, and a scenario was adapted?

Madeleine crying so long might not have been in the cards, why would it be when it clearly a) alerts others when they wouldnt want that? and b) shows bad parenting and more mistakes in their statements. If they really alerted the McCanns they would have stopped the recording before that, they would know they had made their point and they would get extra credit for coming back and comforting her. It might have even served another purpose: "Madeleine was crying and when we came back we saw that something wasnt right blablabla".

My money is still on something being very wrong with Madeleine which would also lead to the strange creche records of the 2nd etc. Madeleine was only in the creche for fifteen minutes, what if they took her out again so quickly because they were afraid she would blab? Little three year olds could be perfectly capable to drop a few hints even if they cant explain what exactly is wrong...

We can both be right about that Tinkerbell, I have always thought there was something wrong with Madeleine, but unfortunately this would make the planning much more likely imo. If there was something wrong with her, it would have prepared the family and friends or 'something to happen'. They would then more easily collude with the cover up, not knowing what really happened. Her 'disease' or whatever, would be a good excuse for giving her drugs that were not strictly legal. Family would understand etc. Why lose job, house twins when they always tried to do the best for Maddie?
They will use the Fund to help other children all over the world ---etc. etc. By now, anybody who believed this story and has helped them with the disposal of the body and the fake abduction, must be smelling a rat. Too late to come out and tell the truth.

by **tigger** 28.10.11 13:05

Stella wrote:That seems the most likely scenario to me tigger. It somehow had to be shown that the children were being left on their own, when perhpas they were not. So how could they do that? You either leave a child, one child, any child, all alone to scream for a length of time, to get someone to notice, or you play the sound of crying in an empty room for a length of time to get the same effect.

Children noticeably being left alone one night, soon after that, one of them is proclaimed taken. Job done !!

There is a very good recording on HideHo's site of a crying child. I don't know where she got that from but it illustrates the point.
Would fit into the whole scheme then, crying incident (intruders), two sightings of man with child on the night (JT and Smith - there is a third: by the pizza tent owner on the beach which could tally with the Smith's sighting - reported to Michael Wright, not to police. That is: if the Smith sighting was Gerry with a child going down to the beach, the pizza tent sighting would be his return from the beach towards OC).
As we discussed on another topic, 'the crying stopped as soon as she heard the parents return via the patio door' (not litt. quote). I pointed out that children dont' stop crying just like that, aftershocks as it were go on for at least several minutes.

by jd 28.10.11 13:12

The so called charity fund was set up in record time of 9 days..this is impossible unless it was started to be set up pre the holiday. Why did they take a memory stick of old photos of Maddie on it on a holiday? Why were posters printed out before the PJ arrived? Why are there no photos of kate with Maddie on the holiday and photoshopped ones of gerry with maddie/twins? why on the PJ official documents are most of the photos retrieved from all Tapas 9 cameras have a question mark MBM, ie they are not sure it is her? Why does their website have the date 2006 on it? Why is Murat up the road from Tanner and Garrods in the UK a week prior?.....These are just a couple of things from the top of my head which imo makes planning something during the holiday not very likely

by jd 28.10.11 13:16

tigger wrote:
Stella wrote:That seems the most likely scenario to me tigger. It somehow had to be shown that the children were being left on their own, when perhpas they were not. So how could they do that? You either leave a child, one child, any child, all alone to scream for a length of time, to get someone to notice, or you play the sound of crying in an empty room for a length of time to get the same effect.

Children noticeably being left alone one night, soon after that, one of them is proclaimed taken. Job done !!

There is a very good recording on HideHo's site of a crying child. I don't know where she got that from but it illustrates the point.
Would fit into the whole scheme then, crying incident (intruders), two sightings of man with child on the night (JT and Smith - there is a third: by the pizza tent owner on the beach which could tally with the Smith's sighting - reported to Michael Wright, not to police. That is: if the Smith sighting was Gerry with a child going down to the beach, the pizza tent sighting would be his return from the beach towards OC).
As we discussed on another topic, 'the crying stopped as soon as she heard the parents return via the patio door' (not litt. quote). I pointed out that children dont' stop crying just like that, aftershocks as it were go on for at least several minutes.

maybe the child was not maddie and someone elses child crying for her real parents, which they took her back to which is why there was an abrupt stopping of the crying, never to be heard again as she was no longer in the apartment. You just don't know

by pauline 28.10.11 14:29

jd wrote:The so called charity fund was set up in record time of 9 days..this is impossible unless it was started to be set up pre the holiday.

an ordinary limited company (which is what the Fund is) can be set up in 24 hours.

The issue here is why set up a Fund so soon when she could have been found deal or alive at that time. Why pay out significant fees to lawyers to drop everything and set up this company at that time? If later on, when it was looking less likely that she'd be found, they could have set up the company and incurred the costs. the fee to Company's House for registering the company is about £50-100.

by **tigger** 28.10.11 15:34

jd wrote:The so called charity fund was set up in record time of 9 days..this is impossible unless it was started to be set up pre the holiday. Why did they take a memory stick of old photos of Maddie on it on a holiday? Why were posters printed out before the PJ arrived? Why are there no photos of kate with Maddie on the holiday and photoshopped ones of gerry with maddie/twins? why on the PJ official documents are most of the photos retrieved from all Tapas 9 cameras have a question mark MBM, ie they are not sure it is her? Why does their website have the date 2006 on it? Why is Murat up the road from Tanner and Garrods in the UK a week prior?.....These are just a couple of things from the top of my head which imo makes planning something during the holiday not very likely

And why do the McCanns think we're all stupid? Including the PJ? Or more to the point: why do they think they're clever?

by **tigger** 28.10.11 15:40

pauline wrote:
jd wrote:The so called charity fund was set up in record time of 9 days..this is impossible unless it was started to be set up pre the holiday.

an ordinary limited company (which is what the Fund is) can be set up in 24 hours.

The issue here is why set up a Fund so soon when she could have been found deal or alive at that time. Why pay out significant fees to lawyers to drop everything and set up this company at that time? If later on, when it was looking less likely that she'd be found, they could have set up the company and incurred the costs. the fee to Company's House for registering the company is about £50-100.

Ltd. company can be set up in one day if you buy an off the shelf name. If you want to register a specific name it takes two to three weeks to register.
The Fund is not even a simple ltd. but a different type of company. (limited by guarantee , no shares co)
The 7th of May 2007 was a Bank holiday, which should have delayed registration but didn't.
I'll try and look it up. But the contact with the Charity Commission also had to be fitted into that time schedule. The myth that the CC turned them down is widely believed. The CC simply told them that they would be obliged to submit full accounts and I think milking it for paying the family and mortgage was also not counted as Charity. Gosh!
Below is the link for the Fund timeline.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]