Illustrated Holiday Timeline, Discrepancies and Videos

Verdi wrote:

HiDeHo wrote:They do appear to be 'timelines' based on witness statements, and of course most of their statements are riddled with inconsistencies, but I am curious why you would consider them a 'backwards step'?

Does this also include the timelines created from the witness statements?

Sorry, I can't be more specific as regards the particular charts you've used - not only do I not understand the Portuguese language but the print is too small for me to read.  I can just about make out times, dates and names which confirm my initial point.  The times specified by the team of analysts appear to be a base time, a working hypothesis, rather the the exact times stated by the witness statements and documentation contained in the PJ files.  It's further confusing an already confused sequence of events. 

Personally, I don't think this route is leading anywhere but a blind alley.  It is after all only the work of a team of analysts (no disrespect to a generally worthwhile occupation), trying to link together the groups movements throughout the week.  An impossible task considering the conflicting chain of events presented by the McCanns and their group of friends.

Unless I have misunderstood you, the timetables and timelines that I have compiled are of great importance in my opinion...

We KNOW the week is nothing like they claim, but each timetable I compiled gives us the contradictions...not those from memory... but exacting contradictions that do not rely on memory, and then when possible comparing them to other witnesses...

I learned most of what I know by studying their statements, compiling timetables and seeing WHEN the contradictions started...

Category: All Timetables

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

Topics Author Replies Views Last Post

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] COMPLETE LIST OF ALL TIMELINES/TIMETABLES TinLizzy 0 690 09/02/2012 1:09 AM [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] ALL T9 Early Statement Timetables TinLizzy 0 870 02/28/2011 12:53 PM [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] Phone Pings Timetable TinLizzy 0 1699 12/08/2010 7:42 PM [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] Discrepacy Timetables TinLizzy 0 616 10/09/2010 7:36 AM [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] Thursday May 3rd 9:00pm- 10:00pm (At the TABLE) TinLizzy 1 1089 Post Reply:TinLizzy 07/10/2010 8:03 AM [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] Comparison Daytime Timetable & Creche Times (updtd April) TinLizzy 0 1788 07/10/2010 7:57 AM [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] Comparison Tables Updated with Diary (2009) TinLizzy 0 558 07/10/2010 7:53 AM [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] Thursday Timetable TinLizzy 0 579 07/10/2010 7:46 AM [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] TENNIS Table THURSDAY (with T9 Loctions) TinLizzy 0 1179 07/10/2010 7:42 AM [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] Russel O'Brien Weekly Timetable TinLizzy 0 675 07/10/2010 7:38 AM [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] Jane Tanner Weekly Timetable TinLizzy 0 905 07/10/2010 7:34 AM [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] Gerry & Kate THURSDAY May 3rd Timetable TinLizzy 0 899 07/10/2010 7:31 AM [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] RACHAEL MAMPILLY OLDFIELD Rogatory Timetable TinLizzy 0 627 07/10/2010 7:25 AM [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] T9 EARLY STATEMENTS ComparisonTables TinLizzy 0 1801 07/10/2010 7:21 AM [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] Millenium Rota & Statement Highlights TinLizzy 0 1244 07/10/2010 7:01 AM [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] Tapas Staff Rota Table and Statement Highlights TinLizzy 0 757 07/10/2010 7:00 AM [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] TENNIS Table THURSDAY TinLizzy 0 534 07/10/2010 6:44 AM [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] TENNIS Timetable Wednesday TinLizzy 0 537 07/10/2010 6:42 AM [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] Creche Table TinLizzy 0 604 07/10/2010 6:39 AM [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] Creche Information Table and Creche Staff Statements TinLizzy 0 606 07/10/2010 6:37 AM [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] Thursday May 3rd - 5:00pm - 6:00pm TinLizzy 0 472 07/10/2010 6:31 AM [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] May 3rd 6:00 - 8:00pm TinLizzy 0 1057 07/10/2010 6:29 AM [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] Minute By Minute Simulated Reconstruction (at the table) TinLizzy 0 1261 07/10/2010 6:24 AM [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] Timetable AFTER 10pm Disappearance (With phone info) TinLizzy 0 1813 07/10/2010 6:20 AM

THATS what I base my conclusions on

I find their statements one of THE most important details in the case.

I can't change the conclusions I have because I can't change what the files 'tell' me...

Maybe the diagrams will not give any further information... Maybe they will...

Until I have translated and checked them, then I can't say one way or another....

HiDeHo wrote:

Unless I have misunderstood you, the timetables and timelines that I have compiled are of great importance in my opinion...

I refer only to the PJ's analysts charts in Portuguese, produced I think early 2008.

Time is of the essence - I will elaborate later .

I don't "need to understand" anything Verdi. How condescending.

You appear to relate my recent membership of this forum as some reason to suggest that my hypotheses are less valid than others who've been here longer. I've been following this case since 2007 though not necessarily on this forum.

I'm taking a break from commenting for a while due to your haughty attitude which sometimes borders on belligerence. I can sometimes see why some people choose to leave the forum. Perhaps your position as moderator has gone to your head.

You'll probably mod this out. All IMO of course


=============================================================

CMOMM members are reminded to take their grievances to PM.

Other forum members and guests do not visit CMOMM to read petty personal squabbles.

Thank you.

Mod.

Has anyone ever contacted Dr. Amaral to ask him whether he is satisfied that Madeleine was seen alive and well during the week and to flag up the findings of so few verified sightings? Surely this would answer the question once and for all. No one knows more about what happened that week (outside of the T9) and it appears he did not abandon his interest in the case once he left the P.J. Is there anyone in a position to put such a query to him? We rely only on those published, translated files which are available. We have no way of knowing what was asked and answered but not recorded in final statements during numerous formal and informal questioning.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] - please don't take a break on anybody's account. You'll appreciate that it's difficult to say more than that! The more opinions the better as far as I'm concerned. Keep digging and keep posting.

Dr. Amaral must have taken the creche sheets into account, which place Madeleine alive and well up to Thursday, the sheets being the responsibility of Madeleine's nanny for the week, Cat Baker.
He must have also believed Cat Baker about Madeleine being at high tea on Thursday, that's where he got his timing from.

It would be interesting to know if he's revisited this evidence over the years and changed his mind.

sar wrote:+1 HiDeHo, amazing collection of work, a personal fave is Chaplins!

+2 Chaplins, just like being in your back garden.

JRP wrote:Dr. Amaral must have taken the creche sheets into account, which place Madeleine alive and well up to Thursday, the sheets being the responsibility of Madeleine's nanny for the week, Cat Baker.
He must have also believed Cat Baker about Madeleine being at high tea on Thursday, that's where he got his timing from.

It would be interesting to know if he's revisited this evidence over the years and changed his mind.

IMO the time has come for someone to ask him if he is fully satisfied that Madeleine was alive up to that Thurs., to point out concerns re the apparent lack of verification for this and to hear his response.

skyrocket wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] - please don't take a break on anybody's account. You'll appreciate that it's difficult to say more than that! The more opinions the better as far as I'm concerned. Keep digging and keep posting.

Yep, I agree with skyrocket 

JRP wrote:

skyrocket wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] - please don't take a break on anybody's account. You'll appreciate that it's difficult to say more than that! The more opinions the better as far as I'm concerned. Keep digging and keep posting.

Yep, I agree with skyrocket 

+1

Verdi wrote:

HiDeHo wrote:

Unless I have misunderstood you, the timetables and timelines that I have compiled are of great importance in my opinion...

I refer only to the PJ's analysts charts in Portuguese, produced I think early 2008.

Time is of the essence - I will elaborate later .

To continue..

It's taken me forever to find this again - a synopsis of the PJ analysts charts.  [Snipped]

After this phase, Excel tables were created based on the depositions of the different intervenients, the maps with the registry of the entrance and exits of the creches, the R.D.E. and other information. From these maps charts were created (in annex).

On these charts we find:
- Timelines of entities

- Boxes of events

[Note: figures are not exhibited here for difficulties with edition]

As the Analyst Notebook executes automatically the correlations that it finds on the tables with the data, it's up to the analyst to read it, and according with the results, to enunciate one or more hypothesis.

So, apart from the traces recovered on that occasion and on others, both from the apartment 5A, as from the residence of Robert Murat, and from its analysis, this report is based on the statements of the several intervenients that are translated on the annexed charts.

These are separated by the following types: first declarations; second declarations; third declarations; R.D.E.; Registry pages from the creches; telephone contacts; and others.

This categorization was made in order to find any discrepancy on the depositions of the different witnesses and arguidos. That is, we aimed to check if there were significant changes in their statements.

The statements were then reproduced on a graphic form, being the personal or group routines represented on daily graphs. For instance, if a witness declared that on the 29th had lunch at home, and that was their routine until the 3rd, that event will appear on the graphs for those days. Those situations can be observed when on the 'event's boxes' the word ROUTINE appears.

This procedure was adopted for the graphs based on the first depositions and Rs.D.E. The graphs for the second and second statements this method was not used, because we chose to make graphs for the new elements supplied by the witnesses, avoiding, this way, to repeat everything that had been done for the first depositions.


DEVELOPMENT

From the declarations of the various intervenients, it was clear that when the GNR arrived at the place, several persons had already handled the window and entered the room of Madeleine and her siblings, which means that the space had been occupied by other individuals. It possibly explains the scarcity of probational elements recovered on the first phase. It's a fact that the only latent fingerprints recovered, with the necessary elements for a positive identification belonged to the mother of the missing child and to a member of the GNR (pag. 885 and 1520).

One of the fundamental principles of the investigation is connected with the data recovered on the crime scene since the first moment. If that place had already been visited by third parties, the elements that eventually could be recovered, may lead to the construction of scenarios quite different from what really happened. Most of the times that 'change' is such that it compromises, or at least, limits the recovery of eventual traces that might exist on the crime scene.

The lack of the preservation of the space, as the investigation principles demand, was such that on the several vestiges recovered, on the afternoon of the day after the disappearance of the child, by a SCI team of the Scientific Police Laboratory (page. 2307), after laboratory analysis for the identification of DNA, it was revealed the presence of non-human hair (pages. 2432, passim).

This team searched for any substance that could have been administered to the missing child in order to keep her under an unconscious state and/or the presence of blood traces.

According to the statements, the life of the group followed a daily routine. After having breakfast, at the apartment (in the case of the Mccann) or at the Millennium restaurant, they placed the children at their respective creches. Then the adults went for several sports' activities (tennis, sailing, etc).

Around lunch time, they went for the kids at the creche and had lunch with them at the apartments.
In the afternoon some of the children (McCann children and the eldest of O'Brien/Tanner) were placed at the creches, while the others were kept with the parents.

Some adults returned to their sports' activities while others went for other activities, normal for people on holidays.

After feeding the children, which happened close to the Tapas bar/restaurant, under the supervision of the nannies, they took them to put them to bed after making their hygiene.

Afterwards, with the children already asleep, the adults went to the restaurant for dinner (annexes 2 to 37, based on the statements; and annexes 57 to 67, based on the Rs.D.E. and crêche's registration).

Based on the several testimonies, it's demonstrated that we are in the presence of a group of people, in holidays, with children, with a certain routine that is completely changed after the disappearance of Madeleine.

The mobile phone contacts, made and received by the elements of the group, registered by the 3 national operators, only corroborate that deduction for the days 2 to 4. It's clear that the mobile phones did not have much use and when they use it it's to call UK (annexes 38, 39).

On the day of the disappearance, the group routine was slightly different, not for the McCann family, they had the same ritual of placing the children on the creche to dedicate to the tennis practice in the after lunch.

However, the remaining elements of the group, in the afternoon, went to the beach, where they had high tea at the bars in that area (annexes 15, 16, 17, 27, 38 and 35).

On this last day, the last time that Madeleine was seen by someone not belonging to the family group or the friends' group, was at 17:30h, when she was returned to the parents by one of the nannies (annex 66, pag 105).

According to the narrative made by Kate and Gerald, after putting the children in bed, they got out for dinner, with the children asleep.

According to an agreement, accepted tacitly by everyone, the supervision of the children was made in a way where they took turns on that task, so the children would not be unsupervised for periods longer than 15 to 30 minutes.

On that fateful night, the first one to go to the apartments was Mathew Oldfield, who made their check based on audition. He listened, and it was not possible to find out if at the windows or at the doors, if any noise was coming from the inside of the apartments.

He was followed by Gerald McCann. This one entered into his apartment, at about 21:05 h, and aw his children asleep, he got out and followed towards the Tapas. In the way he met the witness Jeremy Wilkins, with whom he maintained a small conversation.

Meanwhile, Jane Tanner, another element of the group, left the table and went to her apartment. On the way she saw Gerald talking to Jeremy ('Jezz') ' Amazingly, none of them saw her. On that occasion, at about 21:15h, Jane saw at the top of the street, a male individual crossing the road, holding a child.

Later, around 21:30h, Mathew went back to check the children, and on that occasion he entered through the window/door of the living room, in the apartment of the McCann. He saw the twins sleeping in their cots, but he didn't see Madeleine, due to the position of the bed where she was sleeping.

By 22:00h, it was Kate's turn to proceed to the verification of how her children were, and that's why it was her that noticed the absence of her daughter and gave the alert to the other members of the group.

There were several intervenients on the initial searches amongst the Ocean's employees, residents and guests.
To get the physical context f the place where the facts occurred, a visit was made. This way, it was evident that when sit at a table where the one that was used by the nine, at the Tapas restaurant, it was impossible to see the totality of the back of the apartment where the McCann stayed. It was even possible that a person entered the apartment without being seen from that position.

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


As can be seen, this is just a reiteration of information indelibly printed on most minds who have followed this case.  There is nothing new.  It's formulated on the witness statements, the subject of so much controversy, and the PJ investigation under the leadership of Snr Goncalo Amaral.

As you well know, a lot of water has passed under the bridge (pity it didn't take a few trolls with it) since September 2007.  Hence my view that the PJ's analysts charts are of no value.

Thanks Verdi.

I REALLY appreciate you finding that page.  I have read it before but at that time, although interested, I wasn't prepared to scrutinise the details.

Although I believe I understand what you are saying, and you may be correct in your assumption that they are of no value, I always need to confirm for myself, no matter the effort involved.

I am in the process of translating each box...and only then can I put it all aside.

I am never concerned about whether my effort is worth it....only that I base my opinions on what is known.  I always have to decide for myself...


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

I will do my best with those and the rest of the boxes and let you know if I agree with you....

One of the last paragraphs of the P.J. final report of June 20th 2008 reads as follows 

  "What happened during the time-lapse between 5.30 p.m. (the time at which Madeleine was seen for the last time by a person that differs from her parents or siblings) and the time at which the disappearance is reported by Kate Healy (at around 10p.m.)"

It appears that David Paynes's statement(s) re. his visit to 5A has been completely ignored. Is this not strange? One would expect that if the P.J. doubted same, this "sighting" would be mentioned and some comment made on why it is discounted as happens with other "sightings". While these are dismissed in the report they are at least mentioned first. Did Payne withdraw this claim?

G

Phoebe wrote:One of the last paragraphs of the P.J. final report of June 20th 2008 reads as follows 

  "What happened during the time-lapse between 5.30 p.m. (the time at which Madeleine was seen for the last time by a person that differs from her parents or siblings) and the time at which the disappearance is reported by Kate Healy (at around 10p.m.)"

It appears that David Paynes's statement(s) re. his visit to 5A has been completely ignored. Is this not strange? One would expect that if the P.J. doubted same, this "sighting" would be mentioned and some comment made on why it is discounted as happens with other "sightings". While these are dismissed in the report they are at least mentioned first. Did Payne withdraw this claim?

I believe the 5.30pm sighting is significant because it is independent of the parents and all the Tapas friends, maybe that's why Paynes isn't mentioned/ taken into consideration?

MayMuse wrote:G

Phoebe wrote:One of the last paragraphs of the P.J. final report of June 20th 2008 reads as follows 

  "What happened during the time-lapse between 5.30 p.m. (the time at which Madeleine was seen for the last time by a person that differs from her parents or siblings) and the time at which the disappearance is reported by Kate Healy (at around 10p.m.)"

It appears that David Paynes's statement(s) re. his visit to 5A has been completely ignored. Is this not strange? One would expect that if the P.J. doubted same, this "sighting" would be mentioned and some comment made on why it is discounted as happens with other "sightings". While these are dismissed in the report they are at least mentioned first. Did Payne withdraw this claim?

I believe the 5.30pm sighting is significant because it is independent of the parents and all the Tapas friends, maybe that's why Paynes isn't mentioned/ taken into consideration?

Yes I get that. It's the wording that caught my attention. It says that 5.30pm was the last time Madeleine was seen by anyone other than "HER PARENTS AND SIBLINGS". one would have thought that for accuracy, seeing as this is a final report before archiving, the same paragraph would have mentioned Payne's sighting, a) since he is neither a parent nor sibling as mentioned and b) as it actually asks the question "What happened between 5.30 pm and approx 10pm." Payne has given them a story which should help fill in this time, yet there is no mention of it, even to discount it. Although we know the P.J. had doubts about Tanner's sighting of Tannerman, her claim is mentioned in the final report along with some doubts about it (re. the description matching other suspicious men "sighted", since they note she could not describe the face in her first accounts.) I just wonder why, in this official report, it's as if Payne never mentioned his visit to 5A. One would have expected it and the ensuing contradictions arising from same, to be mentioned?

Letter to Attorney General regarding investigation details  -  21st July 2008

17- Processo 17 Pages 4592 to 4649

4 - What happened during the time lapse between approximately 6.45/7 p.m. - the time at which MADELEINE was seen for the last time, in her apartment, by a different person (David Payne) from her parents or siblings - and the time at which the disappearance is reported by Kate Healy - at around 10 p.m.;


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

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] Perhaps it isn't believed or any valid relevance placed....?  I understand what you are saying, ie parents and siblings and the missed reference/ time of Payne at 5a, and have not seen anywhere whereby Paynes or KM account of the "visit" has been withdrawn. 

As an add note I find it difficult to believe that this "event" actually happened and over the years have not placed a huge amount of relevance to it, as came to conclusion that Madeleine had long since "disappeared" prior to the 3rd.


Edit... thanks to [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] it seems Payne is mentioned after all so there you are...

Over and over again I've questioned why David Payne wasn't formally interviewed as a witness during the second round - 10/11th May 2007.

So far no one has come up with an answer.

Verdi wrote:Letter to Attorney General regarding investigation details  -  21st July 2008

17- Processo 17 Pages 4592 to 4649

4 - What happened during the time lapse between approximately 6.45/7 p.m. - the time at which MADELEINE was seen for the last time, in her apartment, by a different person (David Payne) from her parents or siblings - and the time at which the disappearance is reported by Kate Healy - at around 10 p.m.;


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

Yes, this is the legal letter from Jose Melchior Gomes to the attorney general in July 07. Its a strange read, describing Wojciech Krowkowski as being dressed "in immaculate white" with a pony-tail (completely unlike Tannerman or Smithman) and pointing out that the parents behaviour before and after the disappearance were normal and gave no cause for suspicion! It also states that they could not have been charged with child neglect under Portuguese law as there was no intent to neglect, that they had no reason to be fearful in the resort, and that they were actually checking on the children!! I was more interested in The P.J's final report.

"....no intent to neglect....."  yeah......but the outcome was the same????  Sorry, not quite getting this??


I've seen a few episodes of Matlock, or LA Law in my time, appreciate it's not US law, but isn't there such a thing as "Reckless Endangerment" or similar?   You know what I mean,... sort of like "Ignorance is no Defence"   basically responsibility / culpability lies with you irrespective of intent?   Its a bit like saying "I didn't mean to crash my lorry Your Honour" [ causing a 5 car pile up and terrible injury] It was an accident......"  "Okay Son, we understand, you didn't mean it.  Case Dismissed"


Sorry for legal ramblings, maybe someone who knows better can set me straight?  Thanks Sar 

From Snr. Gomes' letter to the Portuguese A.G.

"1 - Whoever places another person's life in danger,
a) By exposing her in a location where she is subject to a situation from which she, on her own, cannot defend herself against; or
b) Abandoning her without defence, whenever the agent had the duty to guard her, to watch over her or to assist her;"

This legal type of crime is only fulfilled with intent, and this intent has to cover the creation of danger to the victim's life, as well as the absence of a capacity to defend herself, on the victim's behalf. In the case of the files and facing the elements that were collected it is evident that none of the arguidos Gerald or Kate acted with intent. The parents could not foresee that in the resort that they chose to spend a brief holiday, they could place the life of any of their children in danger, nor was that demanded from them: it was located in a peaceful area, where most of the residents are foreign citizens of the same nationality and without any known history of this type of criminality.

The parents didn't even represent the realisation of the fact, they trusted that everything would go well, as it had gone on the previous evenings, thus not equating, nor was it demanded from them, the possibility of the occurrence of an abduction of any of the children that were in their respective apartments. 

Reinforcing what was said is also the fact that despite leaving their daughter alone with her siblings in the apartment during more or less dilated moments, it is certain that in any case they checked on them. Without any pretension or compensatory effect, we must also recognise that the parents already expiate a heavy penalty - the disappearance of Madeleine - due to their lack of caution in the surveillance and protection of their children"

Phoebe wrote:

 Its a strange read, describing Wojciech Krowkowski as being dressed "in immaculate white" with a pony-tail (completely unlike Tannerman or Smithman) and pointing out that the parents behaviour before and after the disappearance were normal and gave no cause for suspicion! It also states that they could not have been charged with child neglect under Portuguese law as there was no intent to neglect, that they had no reason to be fearful in the resort, and that they were actually checking on the children!! I was more interested in The P.J's final report.

The document  is a very comprehensive analysis of the PJ investigation as summarised in the PJ's final report, prepared for the process of archiving the case.  It is a document structured from the perspective of Portuguese law - nothing more nothing less.

The entire document needs to be read in context, to select specific text in order to imply something conspiratorial or inaccurate is at best misleading - at worst mischievous and irresponsible.  As requested..

The PJ's Final Report

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

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

Wednesday 2nd May 2007

Tonight it was Rachael’s turn to be feeling a bit under the weather and she gave dinner a miss, remaining in her apartment next door to ours. The only other difference was that after dinner we ventured into the enclosed bar area – where it was, to my relief, warmer – for a liqueur. As a result we went back to our apartments a little later than normal. It also meant that the time between our last check of the children and our return was longer, closer to forty-five minutes.

At about 11.50pm, Gerry abruptly announced, ‘Right, I’m off to bed. Goodnight.’ As he turned to leave, Dave said jokingly, ‘She’s not that bad, Gerry!’ I must admit I was slightly hurt that Gerry should just go off without me, as if I was unimportant – irrelevant, even – and Dave’s remark was an indication that it wasn’t just me being over-sensitive. Let me tell you something about Gerry. His honesty and openness make him very direct, often to the point of bluntness, and he’s not a touchy-feely guy. Like many men, he assumes I take his feelings as read and doesn’t see any need to express them with soft-soaping,flowers or cards. And  although, like most women, I would appreciate the odd romantic gesture, the fact that he has always been loyal, solid and loving deep down, where it really matters, is far more important.  It’s just Gerry, I’m used to his foibles and generally any deficiencies in gallantry simply go over my head.

As far as Gerry was concerned, it was late, he was tired, and he was going to bed. End of story. I am not sure why I was miffed by his lack of social graces that particular evening. Perhaps because the other guys in the group were all attentive ‘new men’, compared with Gerry, at least, and I was a bit embarrassed. Anyway, I followed him a few minutes later. He certainly was tired, because by the time I got into the apartment, he was asleep – snoring, in fact. Still feeling a bit offended, I decided to go and sleep with the children. This was highly unusual; unprecedented, even: the only occasions when we ever slept apart were when our jobs and on-call duties dictated it. I wasn’t the type to flounce off to the spare room and never would have done so at home.

I suppose it was because there was a bed made up and ready in the other bedroom and at that moment my peaceful, slumbering babies were more attractive room-mates than my snoring husband. It was a storm in a teacup, and I’m loath even to mention it as it was such an isolated incident and not at all representative of our relationship. However, since every scrap of information was shortly to become potentially crucial, I feel it is necessary to state for the record that I was in that room that night.

madeleine by KATE MCCANN