MMC 15 minutes at the Creche

Spaniel wrote:

tigger wrote:

Spaniel wrote:30th April Madeleine was carried home from the creche as sleepy.

1st May, she was crying according to Mrs Fenn.

Had she then had an accident banging her head on April 29th?

Head injuries are critical for 24 hours. Sleepiness is a symtom. Please see my link and read through to page 5 as complications can set in later.

There may be nothing more to this than a group of doctors and negligence. The number of Drs who got it wrong, and the negligence is what would scare the British public.

The "Abduction" cry went up far too soon. Had they waited, the British Embassy could have said the child died from natural causes but maybe there was panic in the ranks.

This isn't the fist time I've purported this theory, and it's such a simple one. Brown & Co got involved to court popularity.

It doesn't alter the fund, as GM is quick to seize on an opportunity and so is his wife. I still say the tunnel light was the fund aided by News International.

http://www.brainandspine.org.uk/information/publications/brain_and_spine_booklets/head_injury_and_concussion/introduction.html

We're still stuck with the coloboma photograph - with inconsistencies re the Donegal holiday, with Maddie's health records, etc.
I've always argued that with their connections they could have had the PM done in the UK. Child/body shipped off and just a small news item if at all! in the media. So why not?
The Fund was the all important goal as a stepping stone to a new lifestyle. It took off much faster than they could ever have dreamt. Imo Brown didn't do it to court popularity, it's always struck me how he didn't make use of it to gain votes - no visits to the bereft parents, no photograph of him shaking hands with them or having anything to do with them or the Fund. I think GB had his very own reasons.

I would love it to be a simple story but you are not including Murat's return, the phone records etc. The immediate aftermath was also full of inexplicable actions.
If she'd been carried home from the creche on the 30th and died say on the evening of the 1st of May - why not simply go through the normal channels? The neglect issue could be covered up, there were two baby monitors and they could simply say she'd hit her head whilst playing - didn't realise till later etc.
If the friends lied about the abduction, how much easier to lie about the neglect. MW certainly wouldn't have made a fuss, quite the contrary.

Unfortunately, it isn't a simple story, it would have stayed a lot simpler if the PJ had believed them.

I prefer it to all the photoshopping nonsense!

tigger wrote:

Spaniel wrote:

tigger wrote:

Spaniel wrote:30th April Madeleine was carried home from the creche as sleepy.

1st May, she was crying according to Mrs Fenn.

Had she then had an accident banging her head on April 29th?

Head injuries are critical for 24 hours. Sleepiness is a symtom. Please see my link and read through to page 5 as complications can set in later.

There may be nothing more to this than a group of doctors and negligence. The number of Drs who got it wrong, and the negligence is what would scare the British public.

The "Abduction" cry went up far too soon. Had they waited, the British Embassy could have said the child died from natural causes but maybe there was panic in the ranks.

This isn't the fist time I've purported this theory, and it's such a simple one. Brown & Co got involved to court popularity.

It doesn't alter the fund, as GM is quick to seize on an opportunity and so is his wife. I still say the tunnel light was the fund aided by News International.

http://www.brainandspine.org.uk/information/publications/brain_and_spine_booklets/head_injury_and_concussion/introduction.html

We're still stuck with the coloboma photograph - with inconsistencies re the Donegal holiday, with Maddie's health records, etc.
I've always argued that with their connections they could have had the PM done in the UK. Child/body shipped off and just a small news item if at all! in the media. So why not?
The Fund was the all important goal as a stepping stone to a new lifestyle. It took off much faster than they could ever have dreamt. Imo Brown didn't do it to court popularity, it's always struck me how he didn't make use of it to gain votes - no visits to the bereft parents, no photograph of him shaking hands with them or having anything to do with them or the Fund. I think GB had his very own reasons.

I would love it to be a simple story but you are not including Murat's return, the phone records etc. The immediate aftermath was also full of inexplicable actions.
If she'd been carried home from the creche on the 30th and died say on the evening of the 1st of May - why not simply go through the normal channels? The neglect issue could be covered up, there were two baby monitors and they could simply say she'd hit her head whilst playing - didn't realise till later etc.
If the friends lied about the abduction, how much easier to lie about the neglect. MW certainly wouldn't have made a fuss, quite the contrary.

Unfortunately, it isn't a simple story, it would have stayed a lot simpler if the PJ had believed them.

I prefer it to all the photoshopping nonsense!

Even if you leave the photoshopping out, I listed quite a few other reasons above - do you find them all nonsense too? Most of those points are documented.

Health records, WoC came long after when officials had stepped in to clean up the mess

jd wrote:

Health records, WoC came long after when officials had stepped in to clean up the mess

Ward of Court was applied for just 12 days after Maddie was reported missing, the same day as the fund was launched. And at the time when their daughter needed her parents the most in her life, that they decided to apply to give up legal custody of her......What delightful and loving parents.....Not!!

I have asked many parents over the last year would they ever 'think' of applying for WOC status if their child disappeared...the look of horror I get is exactly what I would expect. Only the mccanns saw fit to give her up

jd wrote:

Health records, WoC came long after when officials had stepped in to clean up the mess

Ward of Court was applied for just 12 days after Maddie was reported missing, the same day as the fund was launched. And at the time when their daughter needed her parents the most in her life, that they decided to apply to give up legal custody of her......What delightful and loving parents.....Not!!

I have asked many parents over the last year would they ever 'think' of applying for WOC status if their child disappeared...the look of horror I get is exactly what I would expect. Only the mccanns saw fit to give her up

candyfloss wrote:

jd wrote:

Health records, WoC came long after when officials had stepped in to clean up the mess

Ward of Court was applied for just 12 days after Maddie was reported missing, the same day as the fund was launched. And at the time when their daughter needed her parents the most in her life, that they decided to apply to give up legal custody of her......What delightful and loving parents.....Not!!

I have asked many parents over the last year would they ever 'think' of applying for WOC status if their child disappeared...the look of horror I get is exactly what I would expect. Only the mccanns saw fit to give her up

Yes, I have just dug out this article and here is a snip from it........

The couple made an application for Madeleine to be made a ward of court weeks after she went missing on May 3 last year.

They were advised to do this because wardship status gives the courts certain statutory powers to act on her behalf in legal disputes, such as the one that has arisen over the police files.

Earlier this week it emerged the McCanns will finally be told what evidence police have against them next month.

The couple will be given full access to the confidential case files on the disappearance of their daughter Madeleine.

Access to the files will allow the McCanns - desperate to clear their status as 'arguidos' or official suspects - to begin building a defence and demand that they are cleared.



Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1028169/McCanns-asked-missing-Madeleine-ward-court.html#ixzz21HjZ3eIF



I find the second sentence quite odd. Why wouldn't parents be able to act on behalf of their child. She was 3 for Gods's sake, she could hardly act for herself.

Spaniel wrote:It doesn't take long to go off topic. We are supposed to be discussing why Madeleine was collected just 15 minutes after she was dropped off.

However, the WoC. Don't know about you but having googled there is little information about it.

I had a childhood friend who ran away with her boyfriend, both about age 15. She was made a WoC, certainly not due to her family as they were great. So I don't know why.

Last I heard was they had stayed together and had a family, very happy.

Not that that answered anything. Sorry.

Spaniel wrote:It doesn't take long to go off topic. We are supposed to be discussing why Madeleine was collected just 15 minutes after she was dropped off.

However, the WoC. Don't know about you but having googled there is little information about it.

I had a childhood friend who ran away with her boyfriend, both about age 15. She was made a WoC, certainly not due to her family as they were great. So I don't know why.

Last I heard was they had stayed together and had a family, very happy.

Not that that answered anything. Sorry.

russiandoll wrote: 30th April Madeleine was carried home from the creche as sleepy. quote from Spaniel.

You have been quite scathing about the opinions of others but have based your own theory around an error. If you read the book and check KM statements, I think you will find that this day was 3rd May, the date of alleged abduction. A while ago I quoted what is below in asking was it possible a head injury had been worsening over a few hours or a day..

3rd May, KM gives a rundown of day's activities, incl. this :

When she finished jogging, around 5:20/5:30PM she went to the Tapas area. Gerry was there, as well as the twins and Madeleine who were eating at separate tables. Madeleine had been taken to the Tapas by the nannies. Her parents were required to sign the register when the meal was over. During the meal Kate asked Madeleine if she was sad because the other children in the group had gone to the beach without her: she replied that she wasn’t, but was rather tired. She asked Kate to carry her back to the apartment. Kate agreed, and Gerry led the twins back to the apartment. Tiredness was due to the intense daily activities, not to any sickness.

tuom wrote:

russiandoll wrote: 30th April Madeleine was carried home from the creche as sleepy. quote from Spaniel.

You have been quite scathing about the opinions of others but have based your own theory around an error. If you read the book and check KM statements, I think you will find that this day was 3rd May, the date of alleged abduction. A while ago I quoted what is below in asking was it possible a head injury had been worsening over a few hours or a day..

3rd May, KM gives a rundown of day's activities, incl. this :

When she finished jogging, around 5:20/5:30PM she went to the Tapas area. Gerry was there, as well as the twins and Madeleine who were eating at separate tables. Madeleine had been taken to the Tapas by the nannies. Her parents were required to sign the register when the meal was over. During the meal Kate asked Madeleine if she was sad because the other children in the group had gone to the beach without her: she replied that she wasn’t, but was rather tired. She asked Kate to carry her back to the apartment. Kate agreed, and Gerry led the twins back to the apartment. Tiredness was due to the intense daily activities, not to any sickness.

Thanks RD , your earlier post is so spot on , the creche records ! I know there is something there , I am not finished really studying them carefully , but I just know they are not right ............ will be back , there is so much to read !!

russiandoll wrote: 30th April Madeleine was carried home from the creche as sleepy. quote from Spaniel.

You have been quite scathing about the opinions of others but have based your own theory around an error. If you read the book and check KM statements, I think you will find that this day was 3rd May, the date of alleged abduction. A while ago I quoted what is below in asking was it possible a head injury had been worsening over a few hours or a day..

3rd May, KM gives a rundown of day's activities, incl. this :

When she finished jogging, around 5:20/5:30PM she went to the Tapas area. Gerry was there, as well as the twins and Madeleine who were eating at separate tables. Madeleine had been taken to the Tapas by the nannies. Her parents were required to sign the register when the meal was over. During the meal Kate asked Madeleine if she was sad because the other children in the group had gone to the beach without her: she replied that she wasn’t, but was rather tired. She asked Kate to carry her back to the apartment. Kate agreed, and Gerry led the twins back to the apartment. Tiredness was due to the intense daily activities, not to any sickness.

tigger wrote:Only on the 3rd do we get conversations with Maddie - and these could not be called conversations.

The morning of the 3rd we have Maddie asking why her mother didn't come when she/Sean/Amelie (it changes over time) cried.
There appears to be no answer from her parents who go through the pantomine in interviews: 'We looked at each other and thought etc. '
Does it state anywhere if they asked 'Why she was crying?' No - the most striking thing is that she woke up! Kate is sorry that she didn't grab hold of her daughter (or shook her) to find out why she cried.
The night of the 3rd Maddie said she'd had the best day ever. Maddie had learned a little dance and arranged with her mother to show her this dance the following day. Both completely unlikely statements from a 4 year old who'd have no temporal awareness nor the patience to wait till the next day to show her little dance.
Now we have the caring mother asking her child if she'd felt left out.

pennylane wrote:"Where were you last night..........."

Odd how Kate claims the alleged crying occurred on the 2nd May, and could be very significant as "the abductor" may have disturbed the children the night before Madeleine disappeared; in yet she attaches zero significance to the lengthy crying episode overheard by the 'plummy voiced' Mrs Fenn on the night of 1st May.

Either Madeleine cried two nights running, or this is a crafty attempt to move the crying episode which got "louder and more expressive" as described by Mrs Fenn, from the 1st to the 2nd May.

The question is Why?

Nina wrote:

pennylane wrote:"Where were you last night..........."

Odd how Kate claims the alleged crying occurred on the 2nd May, and could be very significant as "the abductor" may have disturbed the children the night before Madeleine disappeared; in yet she attaches zero significance to the lengthy crying episode overheard by the 'plummy voiced' Mrs Fenn on the night of 1st May.

Either Madeleine cried two nights running, or this is a crafty attempt to move the crying episode which got "louder and more expressive" as described by Mrs Fenn, from the 1st to the 2nd May.

The question is Why?

To prove that she was alive on the morning of the third to be able to say this over the breakfast table. To then allow the third to be the day of the 'abduction'

pennylane wrote:

Nina wrote:

pennylane wrote:"Where were you last night..........."

Odd how Kate claims the alleged crying occurred on the 2nd May, and could be very significant as "the abductor" may have disturbed the children the night before Madeleine disappeared; in yet she attaches zero significance to the lengthy crying episode overheard by the 'plummy voiced' Mrs Fenn on the night of 1st May.

Either Madeleine cried two nights running, or this is a crafty attempt to move the crying episode which got "louder and more expressive" as described by Mrs Fenn, from the 1st to the 2nd May.

The question is Why?

To prove that she was alive on the morning of the third to be able to say this over the breakfast table. To then allow the third to be the day of the 'abduction'

Surely they could come up with a far less incriminating conversation with Madeleine if it's just to make it seem she was alive on the morning of 3rd. It seems the crying Mrs Fenn overheard on the 1st May worried them significantly enough to go to the trouble of attempting to confuse the time it occurred.