Portal
Home
Register
Log inAm I wrong? [Cuddle Cat - and the position of the door to the childrens' room]
Page 3 of 5 • Share •
Page 3 of 5 • 
1, 2, 3, 4, 5
Re: Am I wrong? [Cuddle Cat - and the position of the door to the childrens' room]
Angelique on Sat Sep 17, 2011 4:30 pm
TB
Thank you for posting that snipped article from Goncalo Amaral's Book on the crime-scene.
I agree it is good to read this again - the one that is really important is the crucial bit about the window - for me it says that Kate has continually lied about the window and shutters. Worst of all her Tapas friends have shown her to have lied.
"Everybody accessing the block from the front sees the windows of 5A, 5B and 5D very clearly: they're all on the same level, and are relatively close together. If Jane came across the abductor in the street, as she claims, that means that he was no longer in apartment 5A. As a consequence, the window which Kate says she found wide open, necessarily was at that time. But Jane was not aware of this detail and she never spoke of it. When she went back to her apartment to replace her partner Russell sitting with their daughter, she had another opportunity to notice it. But, once again, she noticed nothing.
Jane is certainly not very observant. This remark goes equally for her friends Matt and Russell: both take the same route, alongside all those windows without noticing that one of them is wide open."
Thank you for posting that snipped article from Goncalo Amaral's Book on the crime-scene.
I agree it is good to read this again - the one that is really important is the crucial bit about the window - for me it says that Kate has continually lied about the window and shutters. Worst of all her Tapas friends have shown her to have lied.
"Everybody accessing the block from the front sees the windows of 5A, 5B and 5D very clearly: they're all on the same level, and are relatively close together. If Jane came across the abductor in the street, as she claims, that means that he was no longer in apartment 5A. As a consequence, the window which Kate says she found wide open, necessarily was at that time. But Jane was not aware of this detail and she never spoke of it. When she went back to her apartment to replace her partner Russell sitting with their daughter, she had another opportunity to notice it. But, once again, she noticed nothing.
Jane is certainly not very observant. This remark goes equally for her friends Matt and Russell: both take the same route, alongside all those windows without noticing that one of them is wide open."
Angelique- Posts: 408
Join date: 2010-10-19
re: cuddle cat and the door to the children's room
russiandoll on Tue Sep 20, 2011 10:59 am
There is a paragraph in Kate McCann's book from which I infer she did not intend to do a visual check on her children and which directly contradicts her statement earlier in the book that the holidaying group's checks were better than those offered by the resort staff at other MW resorts who only listened at the outside of the properties [ not offered in PDL due to the sprawling village style layout of apartments] :
FROM HER BOOK :
" The children were fast asleep and being checked every thirty minutes. Even if there had been a baby-listening service it would not have given our kids as much attention as our own visits did. We were going into the apartments and looking as well as listening."
In her statement to PJ she gave a summary of her movements upon entering apt 5a at 10pm May 3 2007.
FROM PJ FILES, May 4 2007 :
[color:ad09=000000][size=9] At
around 10pm, the witness
came to check on the
children. She went into the apartment by the side door, which was
closed, but unlocked, as already said,
and immediately noticed
that the door to her children's bedroom was completely open, the window
was also open, the shutters
raised and the curtains
open, while she was certain of having closed them all as she always did.[/size]
There is slightly more detail here:
FROM THE TRANSCRIPT OF HER VIDEO RECONSTRUCTION OF HER DISCOVERY:
"I did my check about 10.00 'clock and went in through
the sliding patio doors and I just stood, actually and I thought,
oh, all quiet, and to be
honest, I MIGHT HAVE BEEN TEMPTED TO TURN AROUND THEN [ my capitals] but I just
noticed that the door, the bedroom
door where the three children were sleeping, was open much
further than we’d left it. "
FROM HER BOOK :
"At 10pm I went back to the apartment myself. I entered the sitting room via the patio doors as Gerry and Matt had done, and stood there, listening, for a few seconds. All was silent. Then I noticed that the door to the children's bedroom was open quite wide, not how we had left it. At first I assumed that Matt must have moved it. I WALKED OVER AND GENTLY BEGAN TO PULL IT TO. SUDDENLY IT SLAMMED SHUT, AS IF CAUGHT BY A DRAUGHT." [ my capitals].
Now here is where I have a problem with these last 2 statements, please forgive me if you think I am nit-picking but I can only infer one thing from them. More so than her witness statement, they imply more by what is omitted than by what is said , that the only reason she decided she would not turn around[ presumably to leave the apartment] was due to the door which was not in the habitual position that she and her husband would leave it [ lets allow her not to think for a moment that Matt had left it at this angle the previuos check]
[BTW just what was so important about the door angle at a time when it would be dark, not dusk, and when the only light entering the bedroom would be from a small [ and so low wattage and not bright] table lamp in the sitting room? Do we even know where this was situated in the room, even if it was at the closest point to the bedroom it is implausible this would have disturbed the children. I would be curious to know where it was exactly, as if it was far away and Madeleine could not reach a light switch how would she navigate her way around if she woke up? ]
The statements definitely indicate that it was not the visual check on the children that propelled her automatically towards the door, and her action once she reached the door is certainly bizarre for a person who was going to look at the occupants of the bedroom. In the last two statements, she says she narrows the angle of the door. If it was quite wide, I would assume she saw the children but she does not mention having seen them either in the reconstruction or the book. Her sole intention appears to have been simply to return the door to the position she and Gerry habitually left it.
FROM THE INTERVIEW TRANSCRIPT:
" I went to close it to about here
and then as I got to here, it suddenly slammed and
then as I opened it, it was then that I just thought, I’ll just look
at the children "
does this not boldly shout out that she only thought to do her visual check after the business with the door? The inference from all the above is surely that had she not noticed this she would have not checked on her children.
Her book describes a very strange action in my opinion, not mentioned in her statement but I guess here after all that has happened we should give the benefit of the doubt as regards her memory for detail, however if after years she recalls it for her book her memory has not acted in accordance to the way I have read memory works over time..and I always give the McCanns the benefit of the doubt, this ends up reinforcing not changing the way I view their actions and inactions, their words and omissions].
After pulling the door to : " A little surprised, I turned to see if I'd left the patio doors open and let in the breeze. RETRACING MY STEPS, I CONFIRMED THAT I HADN'T . Returning to the children's room, I opened the door a little, and as I did so, I glanced over at Madeleine's bed. I couldn't quite make her out in the dark."
Now again excuse my nit-picking.
I assumed due to Kate's earlier statement about the group's visual checking, that when she pulled the door to, despite not stating it, she had seen her children. I believe that this is a logical assumption if I accept that she is being truthful about the visual checks.
So, if she HAS SEEN her children, why pay so much attention to the patio door, which she will surely be exiting in a minute if not less now that she is reassured all is well?
In addition, why retrace her steps? What was the sight line from the children's bedroom door to the patio door? Even if partially blocked I cant see why she had to go and check them if she was due to exit 5a anyway. The only plausible reason to do this surely if is she cannot see them, so did she close the curtains to the patio door when she was planning a quick check on the kids....
Why return to the children's bedroom? I assumed from her statement about visual checks that she had already seen her chidlren by this stage.
She then states that[ having pulled the door to earlier] she returned to the room and opened the door a little. Presumably this allowed her to see less not more of the children's bedroom, so how did she only now notice the empty bed? She surely would have seen it with the door either in its origiinal position or if she had opened it wider when she was first at the bedroom entrance.
Sorry to go on.....this is but a paragraph in the book but it speaks volumes to me. It does not make any sense and therefore I doubt that it is truthful.
FROM HER BOOK :
" The children were fast asleep and being checked every thirty minutes. Even if there had been a baby-listening service it would not have given our kids as much attention as our own visits did. We were going into the apartments and looking as well as listening."
In her statement to PJ she gave a summary of her movements upon entering apt 5a at 10pm May 3 2007.
FROM PJ FILES, May 4 2007 :
[color:ad09=000000][size=9] At
around 10pm, the witness
came to check on the
children. She went into the apartment by the side door, which was
closed, but unlocked, as already said,
and immediately noticed
that the door to her children's bedroom was completely open, the window
was also open, the shutters
raised and the curtains
open, while she was certain of having closed them all as she always did.[/size]
There is slightly more detail here:
FROM THE TRANSCRIPT OF HER VIDEO RECONSTRUCTION OF HER DISCOVERY:
"I did my check about 10.00 'clock and went in through
the sliding patio doors and I just stood, actually and I thought,
oh, all quiet, and to be
honest, I MIGHT HAVE BEEN TEMPTED TO TURN AROUND THEN [ my capitals] but I just
noticed that the door, the bedroom
door where the three children were sleeping, was open much
further than we’d left it. "
FROM HER BOOK :
"At 10pm I went back to the apartment myself. I entered the sitting room via the patio doors as Gerry and Matt had done, and stood there, listening, for a few seconds. All was silent. Then I noticed that the door to the children's bedroom was open quite wide, not how we had left it. At first I assumed that Matt must have moved it. I WALKED OVER AND GENTLY BEGAN TO PULL IT TO. SUDDENLY IT SLAMMED SHUT, AS IF CAUGHT BY A DRAUGHT." [ my capitals].
Now here is where I have a problem with these last 2 statements, please forgive me if you think I am nit-picking but I can only infer one thing from them. More so than her witness statement, they imply more by what is omitted than by what is said , that the only reason she decided she would not turn around[ presumably to leave the apartment] was due to the door which was not in the habitual position that she and her husband would leave it [ lets allow her not to think for a moment that Matt had left it at this angle the previuos check]
[BTW just what was so important about the door angle at a time when it would be dark, not dusk, and when the only light entering the bedroom would be from a small [ and so low wattage and not bright] table lamp in the sitting room? Do we even know where this was situated in the room, even if it was at the closest point to the bedroom it is implausible this would have disturbed the children. I would be curious to know where it was exactly, as if it was far away and Madeleine could not reach a light switch how would she navigate her way around if she woke up? ]
The statements definitely indicate that it was not the visual check on the children that propelled her automatically towards the door, and her action once she reached the door is certainly bizarre for a person who was going to look at the occupants of the bedroom. In the last two statements, she says she narrows the angle of the door. If it was quite wide, I would assume she saw the children but she does not mention having seen them either in the reconstruction or the book. Her sole intention appears to have been simply to return the door to the position she and Gerry habitually left it.
FROM THE INTERVIEW TRANSCRIPT:
" I went to close it to about here
and then as I got to here, it suddenly slammed and
then as I opened it, it was then that I just thought, I’ll just look
at the children "
does this not boldly shout out that she only thought to do her visual check after the business with the door? The inference from all the above is surely that had she not noticed this she would have not checked on her children.
Her book describes a very strange action in my opinion, not mentioned in her statement but I guess here after all that has happened we should give the benefit of the doubt as regards her memory for detail, however if after years she recalls it for her book her memory has not acted in accordance to the way I have read memory works over time..and I always give the McCanns the benefit of the doubt, this ends up reinforcing not changing the way I view their actions and inactions, their words and omissions].
After pulling the door to : " A little surprised, I turned to see if I'd left the patio doors open and let in the breeze. RETRACING MY STEPS, I CONFIRMED THAT I HADN'T . Returning to the children's room, I opened the door a little, and as I did so, I glanced over at Madeleine's bed. I couldn't quite make her out in the dark."
Now again excuse my nit-picking.
I assumed due to Kate's earlier statement about the group's visual checking, that when she pulled the door to, despite not stating it, she had seen her children. I believe that this is a logical assumption if I accept that she is being truthful about the visual checks.
So, if she HAS SEEN her children, why pay so much attention to the patio door, which she will surely be exiting in a minute if not less now that she is reassured all is well?
In addition, why retrace her steps? What was the sight line from the children's bedroom door to the patio door? Even if partially blocked I cant see why she had to go and check them if she was due to exit 5a anyway. The only plausible reason to do this surely if is she cannot see them, so did she close the curtains to the patio door when she was planning a quick check on the kids....
Why return to the children's bedroom? I assumed from her statement about visual checks that she had already seen her chidlren by this stage.
She then states that[ having pulled the door to earlier] she returned to the room and opened the door a little. Presumably this allowed her to see less not more of the children's bedroom, so how did she only now notice the empty bed? She surely would have seen it with the door either in its origiinal position or if she had opened it wider when she was first at the bedroom entrance.
Sorry to go on.....this is but a paragraph in the book but it speaks volumes to me. It does not make any sense and therefore I doubt that it is truthful.
russiandoll- Posts: 970
Join date: 2011-09-11
P.S FROM RUSSIAN DOLL
russiandoll on Tue Sep 20, 2011 6:20 pm
The reason I mention the curtains at patio door is this: I am aware of apartment layout and that the children's bedroom door was not flush with the wall but set back in an alcove. My point is if Kate Mc had just gone as far as the entrance to that alcove she could have seen whether the patio doors were open or closed, regardless of curtains. Open= she would have seen the patio doors. Closed= she could have worked out they were closed from the fact that there was no movement of curtains,[ having just felt a draught so strong it slammed the door to her children's room].
Did the PJ not go to 5a and watch her reconstruct her movements.
Proof of a dishonest witness imo, if she was being truthful re visual checks, her actions make no sense to me. If she was truthful about these actions, there was no intention of visual checking . why RETURN to the bedroom?
another explanation, maybe she did have another check to do , in the other bedroom?
Did the PJ not go to 5a and watch her reconstruct her movements.
Proof of a dishonest witness imo, if she was being truthful re visual checks, her actions make no sense to me. If she was truthful about these actions, there was no intention of visual checking . why RETURN to the bedroom?
another explanation, maybe she did have another check to do , in the other bedroom?
russiandoll- Posts: 970
Join date: 2011-09-11
Really love your posts.
tigger on Tue Sep 20, 2011 7:15 pm
Yes, the whole story is for dramatic effect perhaps. Wouldn't be so exciting if she'd just walked in opened the door even wider and looked at the children. No Maddie. Help.
Now we have a complete narrative: did she get her inspiration from a book? It is a literary construct to engage the empathy of the reader.
E.g. I put the car in the garage and went to close the overhead door, but before I did that I looked over my shoulder, I'd felt a draught round my ankles. At the other end of the garage the door into the house stood open, I could just see the darkness beyond it. I debated with myself but in the end left the garage door open and went towards the door, as I did so I saw the intruder and had I not left the garage door open I would never have escaped.
Is more engaging than: drove the car into the garage, saw the door into the house was open and someone coming out, so I ran away and phoned the police.
You've given me an idea, lots of theirs came from other cases and I don't rate them as original thinkers.
Now we have a complete narrative: did she get her inspiration from a book? It is a literary construct to engage the empathy of the reader.
E.g. I put the car in the garage and went to close the overhead door, but before I did that I looked over my shoulder, I'd felt a draught round my ankles. At the other end of the garage the door into the house stood open, I could just see the darkness beyond it. I debated with myself but in the end left the garage door open and went towards the door, as I did so I saw the intruder and had I not left the garage door open I would never have escaped.
Is more engaging than: drove the car into the garage, saw the door into the house was open and someone coming out, so I ran away and phoned the police.
You've given me an idea, lots of theirs came from other cases and I don't rate them as original thinkers.
tigger- Posts: 2319
Join date: 2011-07-20
to tigger
russiandoll on Wed Sep 21, 2011 11:21 am
Thanks and your own aren't so bad either....I was going to put it all in a nutshell but then I thought some won't have read the book and it was easier to show my reasoning, even if it might be flawed reasoning.
What I guess the bottom line is is this
1. why did Kate McCann go not once but twice to the children's bedroom?
2. two opposing statements can't both be true, and she certainly contradicts herself by almost boasting early on in her book about the superiority of the group's checking system then clearly demonstrating verbally [ in the video reconstruction where I have quoted the transcript] and then in writing [in her book] that visual checking was not the reason she approached the bedroom door. How will any detective trained and working in a developped country like Portugal not consider as per the statistics that the abduction is a fabricated scenario and only one of a number of possibilities to be investigated?!
There is far too much detail, detail that makes no sense given her stated purpose for entering apt 5a. Kate Mc Cann is trying to show here her great memory for events due to the fact that she created a diary not too long after her daughter disappeared. It appears to be an attempt to convince the reader that all was not as it should have been hence her movements. The devil is in the detail as they say and I think there is very simple explanation for what happened to Madeleine made confusing and byzantine by the bizarre smoke and mirrors created by the tapas bunch. Cut through the foliage and you will see the branches, this is all the PJ did in my opinion. I do not want to vilify Kate Mc Cann though, because I think this book is evidence that shows her as being a deeply disturbed individual in profound need of psychological help. If not taken at face value Im sure there are many clues in this book about what happened.
What I guess the bottom line is is this
1. why did Kate McCann go not once but twice to the children's bedroom?
2. two opposing statements can't both be true, and she certainly contradicts herself by almost boasting early on in her book about the superiority of the group's checking system then clearly demonstrating verbally [ in the video reconstruction where I have quoted the transcript] and then in writing [in her book] that visual checking was not the reason she approached the bedroom door. How will any detective trained and working in a developped country like Portugal not consider as per the statistics that the abduction is a fabricated scenario and only one of a number of possibilities to be investigated?!
There is far too much detail, detail that makes no sense given her stated purpose for entering apt 5a. Kate Mc Cann is trying to show here her great memory for events due to the fact that she created a diary not too long after her daughter disappeared. It appears to be an attempt to convince the reader that all was not as it should have been hence her movements. The devil is in the detail as they say and I think there is very simple explanation for what happened to Madeleine made confusing and byzantine by the bizarre smoke and mirrors created by the tapas bunch. Cut through the foliage and you will see the branches, this is all the PJ did in my opinion. I do not want to vilify Kate Mc Cann though, because I think this book is evidence that shows her as being a deeply disturbed individual in profound need of psychological help. If not taken at face value Im sure there are many clues in this book about what happened.
russiandoll- Posts: 970
Join date: 2011-09-11
Blacksmith articles
tigger on Wed Sep 21, 2011 11:59 am
Hi Russiandoll, I think your reasoning is very sound. Unfortunately I cannot find it in myself to feel pity for this couple, in any case it would be nothing compared to the pity they feel for themselves.
But Blacksmith called the book the longest suicide note in history and he may be right.
Very early on, Gerry was asked how long they were going to stay in Portugal. Both of them had said they were not going home without Maddie.
Gerry told the journalist that the twins weren't due to start school for another 3/4 years. Why stay in Portugal when both had said that Maddie was probably out of the country within 24 hours of her disappearance?
IMO they had an entire lifestyle in mind, they would become ambassadors for lost children,this and the fund would provide for them. They could buy a villa in the Algarve and sell the Rothley house. They thought it was a good idea, they were able to justify their actions for themselves, but it all backfired.
The publicity was engendered by them, this is another lie in the book. "no publicity'. Sky news was informed before the police were alerted. The news was on the Telegraph website by 12.01, which was a mere 2 hours after Maddie was gone.
Then there was the narrative we discussed earlier: Cuddle Cat on a high ledge (Kate is so unobservant that she confused the two bedrooms, theirs did have a ledge, the children's bedroom didn't) the shutters, the open window. The blanket on the bed. Means: Maddie has been taken!
They must have thought it was enough to tell the police these things, they certainly don't seem to have expected the investigation they got.
It is really strange, everybody knows where they were when they first heard about 9/11. In fact far more detail of your surroundings, the people there etc will stay with you than would be the case if nothing happened.
Personal disasters, car accidents, are seared into you memory. The feelings you had at the time, the wave of panice, the details of everything around you. It's all missing with the McCanns and they've been lying for a very long time now.
I think Kate started her diary many weeks after 3/5, as much as 5 or 6 weeks later. She says she took notes before that.
I would highly recommend you to read Dr. Ludke's interview, it's a topic here. Very good article.
But Blacksmith called the book the longest suicide note in history and he may be right.
Very early on, Gerry was asked how long they were going to stay in Portugal. Both of them had said they were not going home without Maddie.
Gerry told the journalist that the twins weren't due to start school for another 3/4 years. Why stay in Portugal when both had said that Maddie was probably out of the country within 24 hours of her disappearance?
IMO they had an entire lifestyle in mind, they would become ambassadors for lost children,this and the fund would provide for them. They could buy a villa in the Algarve and sell the Rothley house. They thought it was a good idea, they were able to justify their actions for themselves, but it all backfired.
The publicity was engendered by them, this is another lie in the book. "no publicity'. Sky news was informed before the police were alerted. The news was on the Telegraph website by 12.01, which was a mere 2 hours after Maddie was gone.
Then there was the narrative we discussed earlier: Cuddle Cat on a high ledge (Kate is so unobservant that she confused the two bedrooms, theirs did have a ledge, the children's bedroom didn't) the shutters, the open window. The blanket on the bed. Means: Maddie has been taken!
They must have thought it was enough to tell the police these things, they certainly don't seem to have expected the investigation they got.
It is really strange, everybody knows where they were when they first heard about 9/11. In fact far more detail of your surroundings, the people there etc will stay with you than would be the case if nothing happened.
Personal disasters, car accidents, are seared into you memory. The feelings you had at the time, the wave of panice, the details of everything around you. It's all missing with the McCanns and they've been lying for a very long time now.
I think Kate started her diary many weeks after 3/5, as much as 5 or 6 weeks later. She says she took notes before that.
I would highly recommend you to read Dr. Ludke's interview, it's a topic here. Very good article.
tigger- Posts: 2319
Join date: 2011-07-20
Re: Am I wrong? [Cuddle Cat - and the position of the door to the childrens' room]
Moa on Wed Sep 21, 2011 12:47 pm
tigger wrote:
It is really strange, everybody knows where they were when they first heard about 9/11. In fact far more detail of your surroundings, the people there etc will stay with you than would be the case if nothing happened.
Personal disasters, car accidents, are seared into you memory. The feelings you had at the time, the wave of panice, the details of everything around you. It's all missing with the McCanns and they've been lying for a very long time now.
I think Kate started her diary many weeks after 3/5, as much as 5 or 6 weeks later. She says she took notes before that.
I would highly recommend you to read Dr. Ludke's interview, it's a topic here. Very good article.
Good point, everybody knows where they were that day ( 9/11) In my country every year on that date all the newspaper online has this topic, where were you and what were you doing 9 / 11..
I also experienced a few traumatic events in my life, and I can promise you I remember every little detail from that moment , those hours and that day.. When you lie you wont and therefor the story change as it goes...
Last edited by Moa on Wed Sep 21, 2011 12:48 pm; edited 1 time in total (Reason for editing : Typos im capabel of seeing :))
Moa- Posts: 501
Join date: 2011-09-09
Age: 33
Location: Home
thanks tigger
russiandoll on Wed Sep 21, 2011 7:33 pm
Yes Dr Ludke wrote a great article and I read it last week. I am finding it difficult to believe the whole lifestyle thing was preplanned unless the child has been abducted by arrangement, is being cared for and the entire thing is the biggest scam on earth.
It appears though I have read a lot I am not as well informed as you, could you please lets know what you believe about the disappearance? Do you think there has been a homicide or an accident and the parents have decided to cash in? I cant find words for them if that is so.
Maybe pity was the wrong word to use in this context, I had a gut feeling after reading an especially heart rending account of a dream where she is holding her missing daughter that she was recalling a more dreadful event that had actually happened. I think she is very psychologically unstable as a result of her loss I think she is bereaved and that she and her husband have maybe decided to launch something to help children as a way to assuage the guilt felt due to what happened.
It is my sincere hope that a forensic psychologist working alongside the police analyses the book because I am convinced the clues, the small overlooked detail, the final jigsaw pieces, are to be found here if it is not read and taken at face value. Omissions, distortions and lies, chapter heading, opening and closing of chapters all say something in my opinion.
It appears though I have read a lot I am not as well informed as you, could you please lets know what you believe about the disappearance? Do you think there has been a homicide or an accident and the parents have decided to cash in? I cant find words for them if that is so.
Maybe pity was the wrong word to use in this context, I had a gut feeling after reading an especially heart rending account of a dream where she is holding her missing daughter that she was recalling a more dreadful event that had actually happened. I think she is very psychologically unstable as a result of her loss I think she is bereaved and that she and her husband have maybe decided to launch something to help children as a way to assuage the guilt felt due to what happened.
It is my sincere hope that a forensic psychologist working alongside the police analyses the book because I am convinced the clues, the small overlooked detail, the final jigsaw pieces, are to be found here if it is not read and taken at face value. Omissions, distortions and lies, chapter heading, opening and closing of chapters all say something in my opinion.
russiandoll- Posts: 970
Join date: 2011-09-11
Orchestrated is possibly the right word?
tigger on Wed Sep 21, 2011 9:05 pm
russiandoll wrote:Yes Dr Ludke wrote a great article and I read it last week. I am finding it difficult to believe the whole lifestyle thing was preplanned unless the child has been abducted by arrangement, is being cared for and the entire thing is the biggest scam on earth.
It appears though I have read a lot I am not as well informed as you, could you please lets know what you believe about the disappearance? Do you think there has been a homicide or an accident and the parents have decided to cash in? I cant find words for them if that is so.
Maybe pity was the wrong word to use in this context, I had a gut feeling after reading an especially heart rending account of a dream where she is holding her missing daughter that she was recalling a more dreadful event that had actually happened. I think she is very psychologically unstable as a result of her loss I think she is bereaved and that she and her husband have maybe decided to launch something to help children as a way to assuage the guilt felt due to what happened.
It is my sincere hope that a forensic psychologist working alongside the police analyses the book because I am convinced the clues, the small overlooked detail, the final jigsaw pieces, are to be found here if it is not read and taken at face value. Omissions, distortions and lies, chapter heading, opening and closing of chapters all say something in my opinion.
There are several possibilities. For me just two.
1. It was 'letting it happen on purpose' e.g. not making an effort to avoid a likely fatal accident or giving the right treatment.
2. I don't think either of them physically killed her.I simply can't see either of them doing that. But she died probably violently and they both know exactly how and when it happened. We can't dismiss the blood (spray?) and the dogs.
Now Maddie was to go to school that year. There is a possibility that that could not be allowed because there might be a risk of her talking too much? I also think she was not a healthy child, there was something wrong with her from the start. Bags under the eyes, right side of face a little droopy. A screamer, could throw a tantrum, didn't sleep well, etc. She wasn't stunningly pretty either and Kate seems fixated on beauty.
They do not seem to feel guilty about her death, they've justified their actions. Yes, I too think that they were convinced that becoming 'celebrities' working for lost children, they were redeemed.
But Kate was unstable before the holiday and possibly for a very long time before that. Because she had no relationship to speak of with Maddie. I would think that the marriage wasn't what she hoped it would be. Children don't solve those problems. There is also little true or loving relationship with the twins IMO. Gerry would expect to be number one and did go off on golfing weekends on his own. I don't think she is grieving for Maddie at all, it wasn't a great loss to her. She is becoming more unstable because their plan failed and she doesn't like the life she is made to live instead. Basically, I suppose she doesn't know what to do and I don't think the marriage will be any help by now.
Hope I'm making sense here, but being careful. IMO definitely early date of 'accident' or death. 30th at the latest. In the topic on Burgau, which is new to me, it seems the family made a trip to Sagres, but some photos may have been taken in a house in Burgau. The blue eyeshadow photo, where she looks drugged. I really can't say what I think about that here. The Sagres trip was not mentioned in the book? They went back to PdL and I would think she died soon after that.
There was just way too much in place to quickly for it to have been an accident. 'It didn't happen like that' Kate has said, ' it happened under other circumstances, I know, I was there.' Gerry said: ' the circumstances were such that I could not physically have been there.' On record, see Dr. Roberts, Kate knows, Gerry wasn't there. Lying is so difficult!
It wasn't meant to be like this. They should be based in the Algarve, jetting around the world to help various charities, living off the Fund and their 'work' and they had made Maddie into the most beautiful and adored little girl in the world.
For one thing, I would think that Gerry wanted to be as far away from his family as possible. I find it psychologically interesting that he must have been dying his hair for a very long time, I saw a photo of him at 8 yrs. old with bright red hair. That doesn't turn brown, just goes grey earlier than other colours. So dying his hair probably from his twenties onward means for me that he distances himself from his roots. He is the best educated one of the family.
They are both social climbers but their accents let them down. I don't think they're mixing in the society where they'd like to be. (Long phone call with Cherie Blair etc. in the book, name dropping, J.K.Rowling etc. ).
We may be furious at this continuing miscarriage of justice, but they seem doomed to travel the world repeating the story by rote.
They have to promote the book/fund and this is the only way to do it. Kate doesn't dare to do the usual signing in Harrods etc. Gerry cancelled a bike ride for charity. They're afraid and I think that Clarrie left a slowly sinking ship.
tigger- Posts: 2319
Join date: 2011-07-20
Was Maddie Ever There?
jd on Wed Sep 21, 2011 10:13 pm
Do you think its possible that Maddie never went on this holiday at all? Maddie possibly died 6 or so months previous in the UK, and needing money the Mccanns arranged with NOTW to set up an abduction story that would run and run so they all cash in? (Been done many times before with other stories)
They could have gone to PDL the previous year and got that poolside pic. Its very odd that there are virtually no pics from the holiday of Maddie, no Maddie with the twins, no Maddie with parents, infact NONE OF MADDIE WITH MUMMY KATE....just a few very suspicious odd looking ones that are highly suspicious of being photoshopped. Did GM screw up and had to go back to the UK to get the poolside pic? (forgot to take it with him)...would totally explain the fund being set up within 9 days, it was already being set up weeks/months before 3rd May 2007, be good to know the date this was first applied for. There are many other reasons why this all makes sense.....Most stories/scams are very simple, its all about making money, thats it
Its just those dogs that make this theory fall down.....
They could have gone to PDL the previous year and got that poolside pic. Its very odd that there are virtually no pics from the holiday of Maddie, no Maddie with the twins, no Maddie with parents, infact NONE OF MADDIE WITH MUMMY KATE....just a few very suspicious odd looking ones that are highly suspicious of being photoshopped. Did GM screw up and had to go back to the UK to get the poolside pic? (forgot to take it with him)...would totally explain the fund being set up within 9 days, it was already being set up weeks/months before 3rd May 2007, be good to know the date this was first applied for. There are many other reasons why this all makes sense.....Most stories/scams are very simple, its all about making money, thats it
Its just those dogs that make this theory fall down.....
jd- Posts: 1967
Join date: 2011-07-22
Page 3 of 5 • 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
Similar topics» Am I wrong? [Cuddle Cat - and the position of the door to the childrens' room]
» How many times was a parent absent from the evening meal at the Tapas Bar /
» Hotel dusk room 215 and its sequel yet to be released in america, "last window"
» How to get to Debug Room
» Classic Caffeine Kellis and Room 21 moments
» How many times was a parent absent from the evening meal at the Tapas Bar /
» Hotel dusk room 215 and its sequel yet to be released in america, "last window"
» How to get to Debug Room
» Classic Caffeine Kellis and Room 21 moments
Page 3 of 5
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum