The McCanns didn't check

by tiny 01.02.14 17:36

I have been reading the scrolling banner and I thought this was odd,that the mccanns didn't check any one else,s children.do you think that the tapas pals didn't trust kate and Gerry to check their children, or am I reading it wrong

"..............Gonçalo Amaral: "The scheme for watching the children was only to McCanns children because they were not watching the other couples children."........

.............................................................

by Guest 01.02.14 17:56

tiny wrote:I have been reading the scrolling banner and I thought this was odd,that the mccanns didn't check any one else,s children.do you think that the tapas pals didn't trust kate and Gerry to check their children, or am I reading it wrong

"..............Gonçalo Amaral: "The scheme for watching the children was only to McCanns children because they were not watching the other couples children."........

.............................................................

***
Try and turn that around ...

by suzyjohnson 01.02.14 17:57

I think Amaral just meant that the check by Oldfield had been made up to fill in the time between 9.05 pm (GM's check) and 10 pm (KM's check)

by mysterion 01.02.14 18:08

This business about checking up on each other`s kids. I think that it is, prima facea, very odd. If you are leaving children unsupervised you would want to check personally that they were OK. Imagine a stranger coming into a child's room in the dark when the child is half asleep. Almost guaranteed to set them off. I can`t see 4 couples acting in this way simmultaneously and I can`t see how 3 of the couples would let the McCanns get away with not taking their turn.

by Guest 01.02.14 18:14

Very to the point. Especially as MO admitted that he actually didn't know the McCs children at all that well.

I, as a mother, would never, ever have allowed a "male" to check on my sleeping kids and ... IF, they woke up, what else could he do but run back to me, so I could appease them again ... ?

Bollocks ...
But, one day we'll find out, who was telling the truth and who was lying.
I'm not the only one to have a distinct idea, am I ?

by suzyjohnson 01.02.14 18:17

My parents went out for the night once with our neighbours, very unusual, when I was about 5 or 6. They had asked the neighbours son to look after me while they were out, but hadn't told me. I woke up and was so upset to find him in our house. So, no, it wasn't a good idea to send other people in to check, if in fact that's what the McCann's did.

by mysterion 01.02.14 18:33

MO did the last check before the great announcement by KM. Is there any statement made about KM & GM's conversation with MO at that time. I would imagine that a lot of parent`s would have wrongly lashed out verbally, out of panic.

by Guest 01.02.14 18:44

Thing is that because no-one checked in pairs, we have only each respective person's uncorroborated statement that anyone checked anybody. So the question can still be asked, did anyone check any child that night? If not where where they going when they left the table, if they left the table etc etc....

by Guest 01.02.14 18:54

Nobody checked on other people's kids. That is a certainty in my opinion.

by Guest 01.02.14 18:56

Do you think they were all checking their own respective kids though?

by **tigger** 01.02.14 19:11

But... If the block booking at the Tapas is in doubt, then the checking is off the table as well.
If the block booking was one of the excuses MW corroborated (see the Tapas sheets topic) then there was only the Thursday night performance.
It does seem strange to me that the Tapas could only seat 20 and supplied free meals. not just Tapas meals as imo that doesn't include grilled steak and so on.
If it was an extra facility and not included in the price it makes more sense.

Then there was the occasion soon after 3/5 when MW allowed Gerry free drinks and he ordered 14 bottles of wine iirc.
So clearly the wine wasn't free?
Whereas Chaplins had a menu of 'normal' meals and Happy Hour with half price drinks.

Amaral wanted to see photographs taken at night, but there were none despite the group having cameras with them on Thursday night. No night photos at all, not from a single night. Amaral found it strange..

by Smokeandmirrors 01.02.14 19:20

tigger wrote:But... If the block booking at the Tapas is in doubt, then the checking is off the table as well.
If the block booking was one of the excuses MW corroborated (see the Tapas sheets topic) then there was only the Thursday night performance.
It does seem strange to me that the Tapas could only seat 20 and supplied free meals. not just Tapas meals as imo that doesn't include grilled steak and so on.
If it was an extra facility and not included in the price it makes more sense.

Then there was the occasion soon after 3/5 when MW allowed Gerry free drinks and he ordered 14 bottles of wine iirc.
So clearly the wine wasn't free?
Whereas Chaplins had a menu of 'normal' meals and Happy Hour with half price drinks.

Amaral wanted to see photographs taken at night, but there were none despite the group having cameras with them on Thursday night. No night photos at all, not from a single night. Amaral found it strange..

I think there were night photos, and I think they didn't want the police to see them. Hence the chicanery over the last photo, returning to England and supplying it 21 days later, rushing to reception to print off approved pictures within an hour. IMO, there were memory cards that would have been very interesting. I guess some of the peculiar behaviour in the immediate aftermath is related to the concealment of photographic evidence. This is just pure speculation of course, but something I feel in my bones.

by mysterion 01.02.14 19:31

So if night photos were held back or destoyed, then the identity of the abductor could have been lost if he or she or they had been lurking. And the McCanns say that Amaral`s book hindered the search for Madeliene.

by Smokeandmirrors 01.02.14 19:41

mysterion wrote:So if night photos were held back or destoyed, then the identity of the abductor could have been lost if he or she or they had been lurking. And the McCanns say that Amaral`s book hindered the search for Madeliene.

It's a pure guess on my part, but there was no need to bu$$er about over the whole photo issue unless there was something to hide. All that deleting texts, messing around with printers etc, was panic and diversion IMO.

by Ollie 01.02.14 20:39

There were photos taken in the Tapas but how many is anyone guess. DP said in his RI "err the pictures that I've got, there are some pictures on one of the evenings and I can't say which evening that was."

He also said "I mean as I say there's only like two or three pictures I think we've got for the evening." His explanation for so few photos in the evening was because "ya know in the evenings generally wasn't camera time."

Sorry I can't post the link I'm on the phone.

by bobby18 01.02.14 21:24

Andrew77R wrote:Nobody checked on other people's kids. That is a certainty in my opinion.

I agree - no checks at all IMO. All damage limitation for possible child neglect charges substantiated by inconsistencies of previous checks during week.

I will stand corrected by others with greater knowledge of the case, those kids were left alone by the McCann's from 7.30-10. I do believe that they had drinks on the balcony before going to tapas but NOT their balcony.

IMO and based on this, all options from 7.30 - 10 are plausible. In the words of DCI Redwood 'take everything back to zero'.

by Okeydokey 01.02.14 22:16

MILLIE wrote:Thing is that because no-one checked in pairs, we have only each respective person's uncorroborated statement that anyone checked anybody. So the question can still be asked, did anyone check any child that night? If not where where they going when they left the table, if they left the table etc etc....

I think the waiting staff confirmed certain of the Tapas 9 did leave at intervals.

by canada12 01.02.14 22:29

And what was so special about the McCanns' kids that everyone had to check on them, as well as their own kids, but not anyone else's kids? Kate and Gerry didn't check on any of the other kids. The other Tapas friends checked on their own kids and the McCann kids, but not the other Tapas friends' kids. Completely strange. Just goes to show you the overegging of the "checking" dance. It isn't logical. And it makes no sense whatsoever.

by Doug D 01.02.14 23:02

‘Our visits also gave us a convenient opportunity to pop to the loo or, in my case, to pick up an extra cardigan’. Bewk P. 55

Poor old Jez obviously didn’t have such luxuries, he had to come to the Tapas to have a pee.

B****rs that theory then!

Millie, to answer your actual question, although it’s not really an ‘answer’, I tend to follow the ‘No neglect, no abduction’ line for a few days, then come across something else which makes you think again, just like the whole sorry saga.

Sunday - Matt was 'sick', Monday - Evie 'sick', so Russell stayed, Tuesday - Rachel 'sick', Wednesday- Russell, then swopped with Jane, so there was a babysitter available every night. (Saturday the parents & kids all ate at The Millenium).

But if that’s the case, when was the Mc's turn?

If Matt & Rachel and Russell & Jane weren't happy with the 'collectively decided to do our own child-checking service'. (Page 53), they may have decided that between the four of them one would always stay behind with their kids, but they were becoming a bit looser with the ‘staying behind’ by the Wednesday to allow for a bit of a crossover away from the apartments.

The Paynes had their own super-dooper baby alarm, (as did R & J, but their one wasn’t as good apparently & there was a suggestion that they did not feel confident to trust it).

Bobby18 DCI Redwood said that police had sought to "try and draw everything back to zero... take everything back to the beginning and then reanalyse and reassess everything, accepting nothing" but he obviously said this with his hands tied behind his back & fingers crossed as the Operation Grange remit is to ‘examine the case and seek to determine, (as if the abduction occurred in the UK)…….’ so not back to zero then!

by bobby18 02.02.14 9:00

Doug D wrote:‘Our visits also gave us a convenient opportunity to pop to the loo or, in my case, to pick up an extra cardigan’. Bewk P. 55

Poor old Jez obviously didn’t have such luxuries, he had to come to the Tapas to have a pee.

B****rs that theory then!

Millie, to answer your actual question, although it’s not really an ‘answer’, I tend to follow the ‘No neglect, no abduction’ line for a few days, then come across something else which makes you think again, just like the whole sorry saga.

Sunday - Matt was 'sick', Monday - Evie 'sick', so Russell stayed, Tuesday - Rachel 'sick', Wednesday- Russell, then swopped with Jane, so there was a babysitter available every night. (Saturday the parents & kids all ate at The Millenium).

But if that’s the case, when was the Mc's turn?

If Matt & Rachel and Russell & Jane weren't happy with the 'collectively decided to do our own child-checking service'. (Page 53), they may have decided that between the four of them one would always stay behind with their kids, but they were becoming a bit looser with the ‘staying behind’ by the Wednesday to allow for a bit of a crossover away from the apartments.

The Paynes had their own super-dooper baby alarm, (as did R & J, but their one wasn’t as good apparently & there was a suggestion that they did not feel confident to trust it).

Bobby18 DCI Redwood said that police had sought to "try and draw everything back to zero... take everything back to the beginning and then reanalyse and reassess everything, accepting nothing" but he obviously said this with his hands tied behind his back & fingers crossed as the Operation Grange remit is to ‘examine the case and seek to determine, (as if the abduction occurred in the UK)…….’ so not back to zero then!

Doug D,

Admittedly I was 'paraphrasing' to a degree re: Redwood.

Point was is the unstanderable level of analysis re: statements given re: checks by T7. IMO, the first check re: McCann children was by Gerry was around 9.15 and we all know what he may have found on that visit and his quick change to Smithman thereafter.

The inconsistencies between checks between nights, specifically highlighted by Ms Fenn's statement and KM's own admission (and disgusting subsequently belittling sneer) of Madeleine's crying for over an hour CANNOT be ignored by SY IMO

IMO the T7 did carry out checks on own children throughout week (albeit very limited at times) but their agreement to be complicit lies in widespread sedation techniques used...likely highly and aggressively stated to all by GM between 10-10.40pm on 3 May 2007.

re

by Carrry On Doctor 02.02.14 9:13

The twins may have been checked routinely on the evening of the 3rd, them having been sedated in order that they would sleep through;

1. the planned removal of MBM (having died prior to the 3rd), and
2. the expected chaos of the simulated abduction.

All IMO.

by bobby18 02.02.14 9:29

Carrry On Doctor wrote:The twins may have been checked routinely on the evening of the 3rd, them having been sedated in order that they would sleep through;

1. the planned removal of MBM (having died prior to the 3rd), and
2. the expected chaos of the simulated abduction.

All IMO.

I just base this on my strong belief that Smithman had Madeleine and the apparently panicky manner of his actions according to statements given suggest the removal of MBM was unplanned e.g. no transport, light clothing, open(ish) streets as a means of excess.

Most importantly and again IMO, with the emphasis placed by SY to this point, SY also believe Smithman to be the perpretator.

by tiny 02.02.14 9:35

Are there any statements about checking any children prior to the 3rd

by tiny 02.02.14 9:43

bobby18 wrote:
Carrry On Doctor wrote:The twins may have been checked routinely on the evening of the 3rd, them having been sedated in order that they would sleep through;

1. the planned removal of MBM (having died prior to the 3rd), and
2. the expected chaos of the simulated abduction.

All IMO.
I just base this on my strong belief that Smithman had Madeleine and the apparently panicky manner of his actions according to statements given suggest the removal of MBM was unplanned e.g. no transport, light clothing, open(ish) streets as a means of excess.

Most importantly and again IMO, with the emphasis placed by SY to this point, SY also believe Smithman to be the perpretator.

I also think this,a panic removal of Madeleine