"Kate's recollection of the 3rd, as told in her book, is highly indicative of events created to fit their own version of reality. The three (unsedated) toddlers dressed in angelic white, quietly reading their books while she showered simply isn't credible. Add to that script what was meant to be DP's corroborative statement which contradicts more than agree with Kate's version and it really taxes the minds of even the most gullible. DP does not remember Kate wrapped in a towel because it simply did not happen that way."
It's not credible at all - anyone with experience of looking after little ones can spot immediately that popping off to shower leaving 3 tired toddlers would be a recipe for mayhem and that 3 angels quietly reading (under 2 year olds quietly reading!) would be beyond miraculous. However KM appears completely unaware that there could be any issue with the credibility of this narrative or that, rather than reinforcing the idea that she was an experienced mother who could cope easily with 3 small children in these circumstances she instead exposed an apparent absence of judgement and lack of sense.
Not to mention that she is the very person who introduced the notion of an opportunity for a tragic accident to have happened that evening so why all the shock and outrage when the PJ, having exhausted the abduction line of enquiry finally began to look at the people she was last known to have been with? KM really seemed to believe that she was somehow beyond reproach, that her statements, however nonsensical should be accepted as gospel and that any probing by the official enquiry was an insult to her integrity, even that she was being "smeared". Even with the passing of time between events taking place and the writing of her book, she seemed incapable of evaluating what led the PJ to start looking at them, the parents and her in particular. Of course it would be an unpleasant experience to be questioned by police who think you may have had a hand in your child's disappearance but sense and logic would point out that this was a necessary evil, that even if innocent some things did not look good so they HAD to be investigated. Unfortunately, she was not for co-operating to clear her name and if indeed innocent, left the suspicions about her to remain and, IMO letting herself down and ultimately her child as this was the beginning of the end of the investigation to find out what happened to her.
- Posts : 470
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2012-09-09
Wait until partner gets back. You are not going to eat until 8.30, no need for a shower 2 hours beforehand. It does not take a long time to dry yourself including hair, apply a little make up and dress, before relaxing with a glass of NZ wine.
You feeel sweaty and need a shower right now? Cannot make do with a quick wash of face and neck to freshen up then wait for a shower......
take the children into the bathroom with you. your eldest can get a shower and hair wash with you....could be fun. Close the door. The 2 year olds could be sat on the floor with books etc and you can watch them while you shower. If there is a problem you can see it and nip it in the bud.
I don't buy this leaving them for 5 or 10 minutes in a room with chairs to climb on, a hard tiled floor and a closed but unlocked door, [ why was this not locked?] with easy access to that balcony by 3 little ones. Maddie could open the door I presume, or how was she supposed to exit in case of an emergency at tapas time...oh and get the twins out of their cots.
This is all such a crock I am getting angry writing about it.
The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie — deliberate,
contrived and dishonest — but the myth — persistent, persuasive and
~John F. Kennedy
- Posts : 3942
Reputation : 7
Join date : 2011-09-11