The Possible Dry Run By The Alleged Abductor That Possibly Caused The Alleged Crying Incident.

by **Jill Havern** 24.05.16 13:23

Monday, May 23, 2016

The Possible Dry Run By The Alleged Abductor That Possibly Caused The Alleged Crying Incident.

If what kate claims is true and she then wondered if someone had tried the night before or made a 'dry run', why then did they still allegedly leave their children home alone again?

They didn't.

All the children were being babysat by the missing adult from the table each night.
They had to claim they were neglectful and leaving their children home alone each night in order for there to be an opportunity for an abduction.

She also fails to explain why, if they allegedly left the children home alone each night, the alleged abductor would do a dry run.

An abductor is not going to go into the apartment, find the child they want to abduct, then leave without said child.
They are not going to do a dry run and think yep, we can do it in the time they leave between checks, we will do the real abduction tomorrow night.
They will not know if the parents are going to be responsible for once and either take their children with them on the last night of their vacation to the tapas bar, hire one of the creche workers to babysit the children, leave the children in the evening creche or have dinner in the apartment.
Any of those options would remove the chance to abduct Maddie.

If they made all the effort to get into the apartment the night before and see their target in bed sleeping and no adults around, and they know the next check is not likely for X amount of minutes, they are going to take the opportunity and abduct Maddie there and then.

They come up with an explanation for something, be it to explain away the alleged crying, the stain on the t shirt, the checks etc and because it is deceptive, it leads to other questions being asked which they then need to explain away.

They came up with an explanation as to why Maddie asked why they didn't come when she and Sean were crying the previous night. They wondered if it was when they were being bathed etc failing to realize that if it were the mccanns bathing them and putting them to bed then the question would not have arisen as they would have heard them crying whilst they were bathing them and putting them to bed.

This then points to the children being either in another apartment whilst kate and gerry were in 5a getting ready or, ALL the tapas children being in 5a whilst kate and gerry were elsewhere.

Read the whole article here: http://tania-cadogan.blogspot.co.uk/2016/05/the-possible-dry-run-by-alleged.html

by Equity 24.05.16 16:47

Just joined the forum (been lurking for years) was a member of the maddiecasefiles for a long time, the 3As (veritas) and the mirror forum before that. I recently asked to be removed from the maddiecasefiles forum after I stuck up for 'cherry' who was being unjustly attacked by the usual suspects.

Back to the topic...

The 'Ponderings of Hobs' you linked to really struck a chord with me as I posted a very similar theory a couple of years back (but nowhere near as comprehensive). Unfortunately on the 'other forum', unless you are one of a very few regular posters, any post, no matter how insightful, is usually ignored.

I have thought for a long time that it was possible all the children were being babysat by the absent parent, more than likely in one apartment (not 5A). This would be the obvious solution in such a large group of adults with many young children. I think it was the reason they specifically asked Warner Holidays to accommodate all the families in the same block.

Rather than checking on the children, were they taking it in turns to take food and drink back to the absent parent to make their evening a bit more enjoyable?

I also considered the possibility that Madeleine, may have struggled to settle down in the makeshift 'creche' and was keeping all the other children awake. I have no idea what decisions may have been taken - whether to abandon the idea completely; 'punish' Madeleine by leaving her in 5A on her own at some point; administer something to 'help her sleep' without telling the other adults?

Unfortunately I'm not smart enough to come up with a credible scenario, but I have a gut feeling the answers to many (but far from all) of the nagging questions lie in the childcare arrangements that week.

I firmly believe that only two people know what happened to MBM - but somewhere in the above scenario is a reason all feel in some way responsible yet only two are fully culpable - hence the bizarre obfuscation from all those involved?

by MRNOODLES 24.05.16 17:46

Equity wrote:Just joined the forum (been lurking for years) was a member of the maddiecasefiles for a long time, the 3As (veritas) and the mirror forum before that. I recently asked to be removed from the maddiecasefiles forum after I stuck up for 'cherry' who was being unjustly attacked by the usual suspects.

Back to the topic...

The 'Ponderings of Hobs' you linked to really struck a chord with me as I posted a very similar theory a couple of years back (but nowhere near as comprehensive). Unfortunately on the 'other forum', unless you are one of a very few regular posters, any post, no matter how insightful, is usually ignored.

I have thought for a long time that it was possible all the children were being babysat by the absent parent, more than likely in one apartment (not 5A). This would be the obvious solution in such a large group of adults with many young children. I think it was the reason they specifically asked Warner Holidays to accommodate all the families in the same block.

Rather than checking on the children, were they taking it in turns to take food and drink back to the absent parent to make their evening a bit more enjoyable?

I also considered the possibility that Madeleine, may have struggled to settle down in the makeshift 'creche' and was keeping all the other children awake. I have no idea what decisions may have been taken - whether to abandon the idea completely; 'punish' Madeleine by leaving her in 5A on her own at some point; administer something to 'help her sleep' without telling the other adults?

Unfortunately I'm not smart enough to come up with a credible scenario, but I have a gut feeling the answers to many (but far from all) of the nagging questions lie in the childcare arrangements that week.

I firmly believe that only two people know what happened to MBM - but somewhere in the above scenario is a reason all feel in some way responsible yet only two are fully culpable - hence the bizarre obfuscation from all those involved?

Or not quite that. Possibly an adult may have had a dicky stomach and said. I'm skipping dinner, stick the kids in with me and you lot go enjoy yourselves.

by sandancer 24.05.16 17:55

I've wondered before if all the children were together in the Payne's apartment ? Was that not the biggest one ? Plus they had the monitor for easy communication? As for a "dry run " since when does an"abductor/burglar " do that ? Codswallop !!!!

by MayMuse 24.05.16 19:56

Has anyone ever considered that the younger children were all in together in one apartment but Madeleine in one on her own ?

by Guest 24.05.16 20:15

@MayMuse, what you've suggested has been discussed here, but I can't remember where.

by Guest 24.05.16 20:33

by Equity on Tue 24 May 2016 - 15:47
'Just joined the forum (been lurking for years) was a member of the maddiecasefiles for a long time, the 3As (veritas) and the mirror forum before that. I recently asked to be removed from the maddiecasefiles forum after I stuck up for 'cherry' who was being unjustly attacked by the usual suspects.'

I hope nobody minds if I can just say a quick thank you to Equity (Veritas from MCF) -

I was trying to locate you to say a massive thank you for standing up for me on MCF and your support so pleased to see you on here to say a big thank you.

It was very much appreciated as I know not easy to do that on there. Thank you so much x

by **HiDeHo** 24.05.16 20:59

BTW,,, Hi Equity and Welcome :)

I don't know about a theory, but I have come up with several questions regarding the childcare and crying

First... WHY did they claim it was the TWINS that were crying in their May 4th statement and then on May 10th it was Maddie and Sean? What reason would there be for them to change that?

The Possible Dry Run By The Alleged Abductor That Possibly Caused The Alleged Crying Incident. Crying11

The Possible Dry Run By The Alleged Abductor That Possibly Caused The Alleged Crying Incident. Crying11

Second... IF Kate told Jane and Fiona as they claim the surely she would have told them what they told the police the following morning, it was TWINS that were crying, but Fiona and Jane BOTH claimed it was Maddie and Sean...leaving me to 'presume' they werent told until AFTER tit was changed (in other words...no mention of it Thursday night and possibly 'made up' as I have always believed anyway...

Third.... How many realise that Goncalo claims they DIDNT go through the front doors... ALL the tapas 7 went in via the patio doors. That tells me there would have been someone in the apartment to let them in....

See this video at about 1.31

Four... Rachael claims that she wasnt sure if it was Thursday that she gave Ella a bath... now why would Ella be in her apartment in the evening. Her little one was 1 year old so not a play friend... Why wasn't Russell or Jane giving her a bath on who knows what nights?

FIVE... What I find particularly interesting is why BOTH the McCanns claimed the cot was not in their room on Wednesday morning, even though the cleaner claimed it was!

The Possible Dry Run By The Alleged Abductor That Possibly Caused The Alleged Crying Incident. Cot_in10

The Possible Dry Run By The Alleged Abductor That Possibly Caused The Alleged Crying Incident. Cot_in10

I probably have more questions but five is enough for now :)

by worriedmum 24.05.16 21:03

And presumably the abductor had to go home after the 'dry run' and iron himself flat so that he could hide between the wardrobe and the open bedroom door should the need arise...

by Guest 24.05.16 21:17

worriedmum wrote:And presumably the abductor had to go home after the 'dry run' and iron himself flat so that he could hide between the wardrobe and the open bedroom door should the need arise...

The Possible Dry Run By The Alleged Abductor That Possibly Caused The Alleged Crying Incident. Flatstanleyilldoor

Have they questioned Flat Stanley?

by Kitty The Muse 24.05.16 21:32

Hi am also a newbie (please be gentle with me!)
I've never considered the 'home made creche' idea before but have to say it does make sense, esp when you consider the Payne apt being the largest and having a monitor in there... Some very interesting points being raised here imo...

by NickE 24.05.16 21:33

HiDeHo wrote:BTW,,, Hi Equity and Welcome :)

I don't know about a theory, but I have come up with several questions regarding the childcare and crying

First... WHY did they claim it was the TWINS that were crying in their May 4th statement and then on May 10th it was Maddie and Sean? What reason would there be for them to change that?

Second... IF Kate told Jane and Fiona as they claim the surely she would have told them what they told the police the following morning, it was TWINS that were crying, but Fiona and Jane BOTH claimed it was Maddie and Sean...leaving me to 'presume' they werent told until AFTER tit was changed (in other words...no mention of it Thursday night and possibly 'made up' as I have always believed anyway...

Third.... How many realise that Goncalo claims they DIDNT go through the front doors... ALL the tapas 7 went in via the patio doors. That tells me there would have been someone in the apartment to let them in....

See this video at about 1.31

Four... Rachael claims that she wasnt sure if it was Thursday that she gave Ella a bath... now why would Ella be in her apartment in the evening. Her little one was 1 year old so not a play friend... Why wasn't Russell or Jane giving her a bath on who knows what nights?

FIVE... What I find particularly interesting is why BOTH the McCanns claimed the cot was not in their room on Wednesday morning, even though the cleaner claimed it was!

I probably have more questions but five is enough for now :)

Because they realized that they had to prove that Maddie was still around during week, just like the last photo that was flown in from the UK a few weeks later.

by MayMuse 24.05.16 22:11

Ladyinred wrote:@MayMuse, what you've suggested has been discussed here, but I can't remember where.

Thanks will try the search bar roses

by BarryTheHatchet 24.05.16 22:20

I can't remember which interview it was with Gerry, but he starts out with, "the twins were sleeping on the.... in their cots".
Sleeping on what, Gerry? And why did you have to change it?

by MRNOODLES 24.05.16 22:38

NickE wrote:
HiDeHo wrote:BTW,,, Hi Equity and Welcome :)

I don't know about a theory, but I have come up with several questions regarding the childcare and crying

First... WHY did they claim it was the TWINS that were crying in their May 4th statement and then on May 10th it was Maddie and Sean? What reason would there be for them to change that?

Second... IF Kate told Jane and Fiona as they claim the surely she would have told them what they told the police the following morning, it was TWINS that were crying, but Fiona and Jane BOTH claimed it was Maddie and Sean...leaving me to 'presume' they werent told until AFTER tit was changed (in other words...no mention of it Thursday night and possibly 'made up' as I have always believed anyway...

Third.... How many realise that Goncalo claims they DIDNT go through the front doors... ALL the tapas 7 went in via the patio doors. That tells me there would have been someone in the apartment to let them in....

See this video at about 1.31

Four... Rachael claims that she wasnt sure if it was Thursday that she gave Ella a bath... now why would Ella be in her apartment in the evening. Her little one was 1 year old so not a play friend... Why wasn't Russell or Jane giving her a bath on who knows what nights?

FIVE... What I find particularly interesting is why BOTH the McCanns claimed the cot was not in their room on Wednesday morning, even though the cleaner claimed it was!

I probably have more questions but five is enough for now :)

Because they realized that they had to prove that Maddie was still around during week, just like the last photo that was flown in from the UK a few weeks later.

That and/or Maddie was staying in the same room as the twins.

by Maria 24.05.16 22:42

I dont think they were left alone any night, all the claims in the OP just show they had pre planned what to say to cover their asses for something someone else might possibly say or witnessed.

It was a well thought out plan when you think about it, in the fe days they had to make it, but their mistake was not acting it out also, so they had no actual details, like for eg Paynes visit, (one of many examples) he hadn't a clue what any of them was wearing, never thought he would be asked that question, he assumed the kids was probably in their PJs ready for bed because of the story they had planned to tell, kids tired, not going to playground, time for bed and Madeleine was definately there.

If they had have actually acted out their plan, like a pre-construction thing, they might have got away with it, they could have used the memories from it rather than invent the little details they never thought they would be asked.

Im certain there is a reason for everything they stated, the main one pointing to Madeleine being alive on Thursday, all the rest was to cover their asses for what they knew could be told to the PJ by others or cover for things like stains, broken furniture, bruises etc that would be spotted. For them, they had to show her alive and well up til Thursday night/evening

by Liz Eagles 24.05.16 22:42

BarryTheHatchet wrote:I can't remember which interview it was with Gerry, but he starts out with, "the twins were sleeping on the.... in their cots".
Sleeping on what, Gerry? And why did you have to change it?

I can remember when the news broke of Madeleine's disappearance the UK media reporting that the three children were all in the same bed and if my memory serves me right Madeleine was sleeping in between the twins.

by Realist 24.05.16 23:09

Maria wrote:, all the claims in the OP just show they had pre planned what to say to cover their asses for something someone else might possibly say or witnessed.

It was a well thought out plan when you think about it, in the fe days they had to make it, but their mistake was not acting it out also, so they had no actual details, like for eg Paynes visit, (one of many

If it was a well thought out plan that that had been predetermined, why do you suppose that they needed to sit up all night of the 3rd/4th inst May supposedly working out timelines etc. on improvised writing material. That doesn't sound like a well thought out plan to me, it smacks of improvisation after the event.

Why not keep matters on a simple basis, for instance why would the McCanns have needed to complicate matters by insisting Payne saw Madeleine at 7 pm if he didn't, when they already had an independent witness in the form of Catriona Baker who testifies that she saw her alive at 6 pm.

I fully appreciate that all the party's statements are riddled with inconsistencies, some of them favour the McCanns, but most don't That is because there was a conflict of interest between the McCanns and their acquaintances, whereby it was in the interests of the former to show neglect, but not in the interests of the latter. No matter how hard you try to force the wrong pieces of a jigsaw into place, they jus' ain't gonna fit.

by Verdi 24.05.16 23:33

Excuse my interrupting the flow but maddiecasefiles was mentioned up-thread. Being an ignoramus (I'm known for it in more knowledgeable circles:) - I've only ever been able to locate one forum under the name which appears to be a reference only source. Is there more than one maddiecasefiles or does one require special powers (common sense for example) to find a comments section?

by Verdi 24.05.16 23:35

melisande wrote:
worriedmum wrote:And presumably the abductor had to go home after the 'dry run' and iron himself flat so that he could hide between the wardrobe and the open bedroom door should the need arise...

Have they questioned Flat Stanley?

I'm liking it rotfl

by Guest 24.05.16 23:38

There is a section where members comment on MCF, you cant access that unless you are a member, I had heard they were not accepting new members, not sure if that still stands. Non members can only access the Reference parts of the site.

by Verdi 24.05.16 23:41

Cherry wrote:Their is a section where members comment on MCF, you cant access that unless you are a member, I had heard they were not accepting new members, not sure if that still stands. Non members can only access the Reference parts of the site.

Ah thank you, that explains all. I had another bash earlier and it looks like you are right, somewhere I read they are no longer accepting new members. In the light of your former comments, maybe I'm not missing anything after all.

by Guest 24.05.16 23:49

Would agree with your last statement yes

by Verdi 25.05.16 0:15

Cherry wrote:Would agree with your last statement

Reminiscent of some of the despicable cowardly bloggers out there that have total power over their little internet domain. Insignificant little autocrats with nothing better to do than find fault with anyone outside their own pathetic world of make believe -if they allow comment they are either written by the blogger itself or censured to suit the bloggers fancy.

A virtual world of fantasy.

Oooop - gone off topic again flag

!

by Maria 25.05.16 0:32

Realist wrote:
Maria wrote:, all the claims in the OP just show they had pre planned what to say to cover their asses for something someone else might possibly say or witnessed.

It was a well thought out plan when you think about it, in the fe days they had to make it, but their mistake was not acting it out also, so they had no actual details, like for eg Paynes visit, (one of many
If it was a well thought out plan that that had been predetermined, why do you suppose that they needed to sit up all night of the 3rd/4th inst May supposedly working out timelines etc. on improvised writing material. That doesn't sound like a well thought out plan to me, it smacks of improvisation after the event.

Why not keep matters on a simple basis, for instance why would the McCanns have needed to complicate matters by insisting Payne saw Madeleine at 7 pm if he didn't, when they already had an independent witness in the form of Catriona Baker who testifies that she saw her alive at 6 pm.

I fully appreciate that all the party's statements are riddled with inconsistencies, some of them favour the McCanns, but most don't That is because there was a conflict of interest between the McCanns and their acquaintances, whereby it was in the interests of the former to show neglect, but not in the interests of the latter. No matter how hard you try to force the wrong pieces of a jigsaw into place, they jus' ain't gonna fit.

I wouldn't say they sat up all night doing the timelines. But anyway, it was a good plan but they obviously failed miserabely, like i said, if the had have acted the part out and went with those memories more people would have believed them. As it stood it wasnt perfect, they didn't think of details, timelines of the famous night was possibly one of them. The plan was well thought out, just not good enough.

Maybe payne was to prove she was still alive at that time, maybe they wanted more than one witness that she was alive that evening. Its best to have at least two witnesses. The only way the payne story complicated matters is because they didnt act it out, they forgot wether it was 30 seconds or 30 minutes. For eg, payne you say u went up to help kate and stayed for 30 minutes, but the kids were too tired and wanted to go to bed, and u saw all three kids alive and well. Then when they were questioned neither of them knew the details of that visit, like what the kids and kate was wearing, how long he stayed for, if he went in or stayed at the door. Because it likely didnt happen at all.

I dont think there was much conflict between them all, little bits here and there, but the rest of the T7 happily statd they left their kids alone, even going as far as admitting one child was ill and puking and what not. Who in their right minds would admit to that in the interest of two other aquaintances, some who say they hardly knew the mccanns.
As you said, no matter how hard you try to force the wrong pieces of a jigsaw into place, they just wont fit.

The Possible Dry Run By The Alleged Abductor That Possibly Caused The Alleged Crying Incident.

The Possible Dry Run By The Alleged Abductor That Possibly Caused The Alleged Crying Incident.

Monday, May 23, 2016

The Possible Dry Run By The Alleged Abductor That Possibly Caused The Alleged Crying Incident.

Re: The Possible Dry Run By The Alleged Abductor That Possibly Caused The Alleged Crying Incident.

Re: The Possible Dry Run By The Alleged Abductor That Possibly Caused The Alleged Crying Incident.

Re: The Possible Dry Run By The Alleged Abductor That Possibly Caused The Alleged Crying Incident.

Re: The Possible Dry Run By The Alleged Abductor That Possibly Caused The Alleged Crying Incident.

Re: The Possible Dry Run By The Alleged Abductor That Possibly Caused The Alleged Crying Incident.

Re: The Possible Dry Run By The Alleged Abductor That Possibly Caused The Alleged Crying Incident.

Re: The Possible Dry Run By The Alleged Abductor That Possibly Caused The Alleged Crying Incident.

DRY RUN RUBBISH

Re: The Possible Dry Run By The Alleged Abductor That Possibly Caused The Alleged Crying Incident.

Re: The Possible Dry Run By The Alleged Abductor That Possibly Caused The Alleged Crying Incident.

Re: The Possible Dry Run By The Alleged Abductor That Possibly Caused The Alleged Crying Incident.

Re: The Possible Dry Run By The Alleged Abductor That Possibly Caused The Alleged Crying Incident.

Re: The Possible Dry Run By The Alleged Abductor That Possibly Caused The Alleged Crying Incident.

Re: The Possible Dry Run By The Alleged Abductor That Possibly Caused The Alleged Crying Incident.

Re: The Possible Dry Run By The Alleged Abductor That Possibly Caused The Alleged Crying Incident.

Re: The Possible Dry Run By The Alleged Abductor That Possibly Caused The Alleged Crying Incident.

Re: The Possible Dry Run By The Alleged Abductor That Possibly Caused The Alleged Crying Incident.

Re: The Possible Dry Run By The Alleged Abductor That Possibly Caused The Alleged Crying Incident.

Re: The Possible Dry Run By The Alleged Abductor That Possibly Caused The Alleged Crying Incident.

Re: The Possible Dry Run By The Alleged Abductor That Possibly Caused The Alleged Crying Incident.

Re: The Possible Dry Run By The Alleged Abductor That Possibly Caused The Alleged Crying Incident.

Re: The Possible Dry Run By The Alleged Abductor That Possibly Caused The Alleged Crying Incident.

Re: The Possible Dry Run By The Alleged Abductor That Possibly Caused The Alleged Crying Incident.

Re: The Possible Dry Run By The Alleged Abductor That Possibly Caused The Alleged Crying Incident.

Log in for more topics