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

by Equity 25.05.16 14:15

skyrocket wrote:With reference to the cleaner seeing the cots in separate rooms in 5A and DP's early evening visit to 5A on 3 May; I have mulling over an idea, based on some odd comments made in the rogatory statements; and other sources. I'll work through each point.

Massively snipped...see full post above.

Many astute observations - ticks a lot of boxes.

by Verdi 25.05.16 14:52

MayMuse wrote:Confusion is good ?

Confusion will be my epitaph
As I crawl a cracked and broken path
If we make it we can all sit back and laugh
But I fear tomorrow I'll be crying
Yes, I feel tomorrow I'll be crying..

[King Crimson - Epitaph]

The Possible Dry Run By The Alleged Abductor That Possibly Caused The Alleged Crying Incident. - Page 3 Kategerry

The Possible Dry Run By The Alleged Abductor That Possibly Caused The Alleged Crying Incident. - Page 3 Kategerry

by skyrocket 25.05.16 15:18

@Equity - thanks for that smilie

. Yes, I cautiously think that it is at least a possibility. Thanks for taking the trouble to read it all through.

On the subject of the crying incident, the Mc's couldn't get this out quick enough in their 4 May statements. Apart from the 2 statements being almost verbatim, another point that stands out on reading them is how calm and collected the Mc's appear, less than 18 hours after the alleged abduction. Why would they compound the neglect angle by mentioning anything about crying children the night before, to the PJ? And then, even if they felt this was a good idea for whatever reason, why declare it on successive occasions to the general public as if it were a mitigating factor rather than the complete opposite? Whatever the reason, it has to be one that had been thought out and was felt vital enough to risk.

by worriedmum 25.05.16 15:33

Skyrocket, 5A/5H -what an interesting idea. I think it should have a thread of its own.

While I was reading it I remembered this from MO's first statement on 4 May 2007

''He states that the bedroom has two windows. The twins occupy two cots placed in the middle of the room and Madeleine occupies a bed pushed against the wall, facing the wall which has the two windows that look out onto the outside of the complex. That the door through which he entered the apartment was closed but not locked. That he doesn't know if it is usual for Madeleine's parents to leave the door closed but not locked because that door is visible from the restaurant.''

I only remember one set of 'whooshing curtains'----will someone please correct me if I'm wrong.

And what's all that about 'we' broke the shutters???? Didn't Kate say that it was the 'Gerry touch'??????

I was re-watching the Panorama documentary yesterday. There is a lot of footage of the inside of the villa the McCanns were moved to. It was strewn with toys. Compare that with the inside of 5a.

I also remember reading that the cots had no sheets. And that they were empty. (Charlotte Pennington?)

I do believe Mrs Fenn's statement. Wouldn't it make sense that if a child was crying so loud and for so long, there are two possible reasons that they didn't disturb other tiny children sleeping in the same room.
a) they were so deeply asleep they did not hear
b)they were not in the same room. Or even the same apartment.

And how does this all fit with Gerry's mystification at the 'crying incident'- ''was it when they were having a bath''---because for me that makes no sense at all. if your children are toddlers then someone is in the bathroom supervising...and they'd KNOW if they cried then. He appeared to be speaking for both Kate and himself.

Plus, someone on another thread asked about the passports visible in the photos of 5a taken by the PJ. Does anyone on the forum know whose was missing?

I think this may be significant.

by skyrocket 25.05.16 16:03

@worriedmum - yes, it opens up all sorts of different avenues of thought doesn't it. It certainly wouldn't do any harm to bash it out properly, something may come out in the wash.

Another point which crosses my mind is the report of someone with a chubby face and graduated sun glasses hiding in the foyer of block G5, under the stairs at around 6pm. Neil Berry was questioned on this and his response is confusing, bearing in mind that he is listed as staying in block 6, which was across the road from the tapas reception entrance. He states:

'With regard to where I was at 18.00, whom I was with and the fact that I was seen by a witness at this time next to stairs and lift of block 5 of the Ocean Club:
I am not certain where I was at 18.00. It is possible that I was already in my apartment or returning from the bar. In order to arrive at my apartment I would walk along the side of the pool, crossing the stairs of block 4. If I were with someone, this person would be Raj, but as I have already said I do not remember whether I returned with him or before him. I do not remember having seen a lift in any of the apartment blocks. I was not in block 5, but had to pass by it in order to arrive at my apartment. It is possible that I was on the other side of the street opposite block five.'

He also adds:

'When we left with the meal we took the same walk back, along the pool, crossing the road back to the apartment. I think that our apartment was 4G.'

Note that 4G was the apartment the McCanns were moved to after 3 May. Odd, as Berry was in G606.

The stairs/lift in question were the route up to 5H on the floor above and both apartments 5B and 5D led off the downstairs foyer. Whoever was there obviously didn't want to be seen for some reason.

Apologies if this has gone off thread.

by Realist 25.05.16 16:37

plebgate wrote:Glaring discrepancies in your opinion Realist and if anyone posts an answer to you that sounds an acceptable response you just keep posting the same point over and over.

But the problem is, Plebgate, in most cases, the answers are not acceptable to anyone with a logical thinking brain. Far from attempting to confuse matters, I am merely trying to clear the ground in order that others can see the wood for the trees.

There are many on here whose opinions I respect and to an extent agree with, Aiyo(I may have wrongly spelt the name) being a classic example. This poster has an extensive knowledge of Portuguese law which I have benefited from reading, he also appears to discount the theory of a concerted gov. cover up. There are others, Petermac et al, but I won't continue in case my detractors accuse me of attempting to curry favour with fellow contributors.

by plebgate 25.05.16 17:21

MayMuse wrote:
Realist wrote:
mysticmeg wrote:

With regard to why they "needed to complicate matters by insisting Payne saw Madeleine at 7 pm if he didn't", I seem to remember that there was a lot in the press at the time about the hours unaccounted for between the last photo and their going to dinner - then suddenly up popped Payne's visit. I don't think the high tea had been mentioned at that time as it was right at the beginning of the reporting..............and was so obviously back-fitting that it added weight to their guilt..............even before he started speaking about it!
But surely, a group of mastermind conspirators with such a well constructed plan would have realised that the introduction of a fictitious Payne visit would only complicate matters The press may have been unaware at the time, but Kate McCann would have been fully conscious of the fact that she had an independent witness in the form of Catriona Baker to substantiate her daughter was alive at 6 pm.

So, again I ask the rather pertinent question, why would the McCanns during the course of their night's plotting, have felt the need to concoct a blatant lie in the form of Payne's alleged visit to verify Madeleine's being alive at 7 pm, when they already had a totally independent witness prepared to state she was alive an hour earlier. The only logical reason for justifying such an action would have been if they had killed her between 6 pm-7 pm. Is this what you are intimating?
Perhaps in case DP was seen at some point & if it was not mentioned that would appear odd and open up more questions? Covering tracks springs to mind? IMO
Although I do struggle with this 'visit' being actual!?

Now that sounds quite a logical response to me. Let's see if the "pertinent" question arises again as a reply from Realist.

by Guest 25.05.16 17:59

thank you for your reply Equity and comments much appreciated x

There are a couple more links people may have seen before in relation to Rebelo thoughts about children being together - minus one

http://paulorebelononeglect.blogspot.co.uk/2011/06/novemeber-2007movement-after-paulo.html

http://steelmagnolia-steelmagnolia.blogspot.co.uk/2011/06/paulo-rebelo-arrived-in-england-and.html

by Realist 25.05.16 18:19

plebgate wrote:

Perhaps in case DP was seen at some point & if it was not mentioned that would appear odd and open up more questions? Covering tracks springs to mind? IMO
Although I do struggle with this 'visit' being actual!?
Now that sounds quite a logical response to me. Let's see if the "pertinent" question arises again as a reply from Realist.

Okay, I'll take the bait, seen at some point doing what? If one buys into the Maddie having been dead and her body disposed of prior to the 3rd. May theory, what deed could the dastardly Dr. Payne possibly have been engaged in at around 7 pm 3rd. May that would subsequently require an explanation.

Surely by then, all the preparations had been completed and the merry band of conspirators were awaiting their pantomime cue from Kate, 'They've taken her' to play out their various allotted roles on the Praia da Luz stage.

by Maria 25.05.16 19:26

@skyrocket
Fantastic post,

by skyrocket 25.05.16 19:32

@Maria - thanks very much. smilie

by plebgate 25.05.16 20:26

Realist wrote:
plebgate wrote:

Perhaps in case DP was seen at some point & if it was not mentioned that would appear odd and open up more questions? Covering tracks springs to mind? IMO
Although I do struggle with this 'visit' being actual!?
Now that sounds quite a logical response to me. Let's see if the "pertinent" question arises again as a reply from Realist.
Okay, I'll take the bait, seen at some point doing what? If one buys into the Maddie having been dead and her body disposed of prior to the 3rd. May theory, what deed could the dastardly Dr. Payne possibly have been engaged in at around 7 pm 3rd. May that would subsequently require an explanation.

Surely by then, all the preparations had been completed and the merry band of conspirators were awaiting their pantomime cue from Kate, 'They've taken her' to play out their various allotted roles on the Praia da Luz stage.

Some people don't buy into the prior to 3rd May scenario, so maybe you could tell us what Mr. Payne might possibly have been engaged in around 7pm 3rd May Realist?

Must not limit discussion to one scenario when there are posters here who agree with Rocky A's accident on 3rd May, so would be interesting to hear a theory from you instead of "pertinent" questions all the time.

by MayMuse 25.05.16 21:22

What if as per I think it is @skyrockets post, which made interesting reading, suggesting if I have understood correctly, that 5A may have been DP apartment? And apartments were swopped? And then after the "disaster" they needed to put things in order ( cots/bed arrangements etc?)
No one knows for sure that DP "visited" and according to the differing statements from him and KM it is debatable. But what if he DID visit but on another evening? We all know how the McCanns like to confuse the days IMO. If he had been seen ( by a witness) then they would have to say he visited, if they had omitted it ( like DP was omitted from CW) then it would have been more of a "redflag" to the PJ! Remember they would not know what independent witnesses were being interviewed or what they had seen or say!? Like I said covering ones tracks.
So it could have been a different day, they maybe moved it to the Thursday to give the "illusion" that Madeleine was well. All in my jumbled opinion.. big grin

by Verdi 26.05.16 0:05

@Realist wrote: The press may have been unaware at the time, but Kate McCann would have been fully conscious of the fact that she had an independent witness in the form of Catriona Baker to substantiate her daughter was alive at 6 pm.

Can you state without reservations that Catriona Baker is an independent witness? Catriona Baker's witness statements are contradictory to say the least, more importantly her memory improves significantly between early May 2007 and almost a year later in April 2008, her rogatory interview. The McCanns made a specific request (as was their right) for Catriona Baker to re-interviewed as part of the rogatory process, as they thought her to be a key witness. That request was made (October 2007 if I remember rightly) prior to Catriona Baker's invitation by the McCanns private visit to their home in November 2007.

Perhaps you don't see anything curious here but you must understand why some deduce that something is not quite as it should be.

This brings me to your comment about Catriona Baker being able to substantiate that Madeleine was alive at 6:00 pm on Thursday 3rd May. I'm at a loss to know where this information comes from. Catriona Baker's witness statement taken on 6th May 2007 makes no mention of this and her rogatory interview record states..

"Kate went to get Madeleine from the Tapas Bar area and according to what I remember she was wearing sporting clothes and I assumed that she was practicing some form of athletics. It was around 15h25/18h00. I think that Gerry was playing tennis."

What was around 15h25/18h00 - Kate collecting Madeleine from the Tapas bar? When she was practicing athletics? When Gerry was playing tennis with an injured tendon? All three? Or is it just a creation - a time difference of two hours thirty five minutes?

During the Jeremy Paxman interview with Gerry McCann, McCann makes this comment..

"we had very clear objectives as to what we wanted - any parents would take the opportunity of trying to get information into the investigation"

? ? ?

by BarryTheHatchet 26.05.16 1:19

He also said he "wanted to create information". In other words, make stuff up.

by MayMuse 26.05.16 1:23

What proof do we have that Kate McCann was fully conscious of Catriona Baker being a witness @6pm on the 3rd?

We don't ... It is hearsay IMO on both counts as didn't CB visit them and alter her statement? Or added to it which ever way you look at it?

Unless I have missed something pertinent ?
Admittedly my research is no where near as indepth as others, so open to information/suggestion/correction etc smilie

by MayMuse 26.05.16 1:28

BarryTheHatchet wrote:He also said he "wanted to create information". In other words, make stuff up.

Yes that's obvious isn't it?
When you go back and watch interviews etc it is most disturbing at their choice of vocabulary, I have re-watched many and the "deceit" becomes glaringly obvious; how on earth do they get away with it?

by Maria 26.05.16 1:44

MayMuse wrote:What if as per I think it is @skyrockets post, which made interesting reading, suggesting if I have understood correctly, that 5A may have been DP apartment? And apartments were swopped? And then after the "disaster" they needed to put things in order ( cots/bed arrangements etc?)
No one knows for sure that DP "visited" and according to the differing statements from him and KM it is debatable. But what if he DID visit but on another evening? We all know how the McCanns like to confuse the days IMO. If he had been seen ( by a witness) then they would have to say he visited, if they had omitted it ( like DP was omitted from CW) then it would have been more of a "redflag" to the PJ! Remember they would not know what independent witnesses were being interviewed or what they had seen or say!? Like I said covering ones tracks.
So it could have been a different day, they maybe moved it to the Thursday to give the "illusion" that Madeleine was well. All in my jumbled opinion..

Agree, just like they changed the crying incident to a different night

by MayMuse 26.05.16 1:48

Wasn't there a suggestion by GM of two crying incidents? I seem to recall on a talk show/ interview a mention of "Amelie" crying one evening? I will have to recheck, it may have been the Irish Rte late one?

by Maria 26.05.16 1:53

Quite possible @maymuse. The Madeleine crying incident changed in their statements from first statement to the second one. Why not throw in another crying night to confuse matters more.

by MayMuse 26.05.16 1:57

Confusion is good big grin

If any crying incidents happened at all?

What if there was none?
It was all quiet?

Where does that leave this "saga" ?

by MayMuse 26.05.16 2:08

Mmmm quote springs to mind...

"It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled". (Mark Twain)

by Maria 26.05.16 2:18

MayMuse wrote:
Maria wrote:Quite possible @maymuse. The Madeleine crying incident changed in their statements from first statement to the second one. Why not throw in another crying night to confuse matters more.
Confusion is good

If any crying incidents happened at all?

What if there was none?
It was all quiet?

Where does that leave this "saga" ?

Then where would that leave Mrs. Fenn, didn't she hear a child cry for almost 2 hours? Or was that just gossip. I feel when the McCanns try to discredit others, rather than come out and call them liars, they invent a yarn in a way which would lead others believe that the other person got mixed up and confused.

by MayMuse 26.05.16 2:26

Yes, Mrs Fenns statement is in the files but what if it was not Madeline crying? She also said it stopped when the parent(s) came back as she heard the patio doors, but whose to say it wasn't someone actually leaving the apartment??? I know I am contradicting myself as per "if it was quiet" it was a thought sprang to mind just now... (Confusion is good big grin

) I have actually wondered if it was Kate crying for "Maddie" particularly after hearing her " baby" voice on the early interviews. You are right with the "inventing of a yarn" there's loose spinning threads all over the place from the McCanns and friends/family in my opinion.

So,is the yarn of Madeleine crying that evening to possibly "deter" from the fact that it was Kate???
Just saying ...

by Maria 26.05.16 3:19

Thats another possibility in a long line of them. Well she was covered in bruises, maybe she got them that night. I doubt she got them by kicking and thumping furniture, more like someone bashing her around..

There are sooooo many theories, but for the life of me, and i tried, i cant find anything that matches to abduction or a may 3rd disappearance. Nothing at all.

Everything, thanks to hideho, points to much earlier in the week, though i believed that for a long time also,

As Ferry said, confusion is good.. Now we all know what that bazzare comment meant.

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