Don't wake up the kids

by Liz Eagles 02.01.12 0:55

An snippet from Fiona Payne's rogatory interview (source: the Maddie Case Files)

1485
“So having got back from your search around the corner, did you go then straight into the McCANN’s?”

Reply
“Yeah”.

1485
“What did you see when you walked in, describe it?”

Reply
“At
that point, Gerry, I don’t think was in the apartment, it was mainly
Kate. And Kate was just, huh, utter disbelief and I had disbelief,
thinking she’s got to be here, you know, what, how can this have
happened. And by that point Kate was already saying that the, what she’d
found when she’d gone back, which was that the, she’d found the window
open and the shutter open and she was convinced at that point that
somebody had taken, taken Madeleine and that’s what she was telling me
and I was like ‘They can’t have done. They can’t have done this’, you
know. And I looked, I looked throughout the whole apartment and I looked
in all the cupboards, under the drawers, under the beds, behind the
curtains, everywhere, erm, just, you know, trying to, knowing it had
already been done, but you just do. Erm, tut, I looked, when I went into
the room that Madeleine was sleeping in, the room was dark, Madeleine,
erm, Madeleine’s bed was sort of folded back, the sheets, quite kind of
neatly really, erm, Sean and Amelie were fast asleep in their cots, they
didn’t stir, you know, I was opening the cupboards in the room and
moving around the room, they didn’t stir at all, which that was, that
was odd. Erm, we were trying to ascertain whether Madeleine could have
got out, and I’ve already said earlier the shutters were very heavy, and
I was almost trying to convince Kate that she could have opened the
shutter and climbed out, although knowing that wasn’t a likely thing,
but at that point we were just trying to pacify Kate in that Madeleine
was going to be alright. Erm, and I, I think I touched the webbing in
that room, but because Sean and Amelie were asleep, I didn’t actually
open the shutter in that room, we went, I went to the front of the house
and I was trying to lift the shutter at the, at the back, just to prove
whether, you know, whether it could have been opened and whether
Madeleine could have opened it from the inside”.

00.50.31
1485
“And?”

Reply
“I mean, it was fairly obviously, I think, that that wasn’t what had happened and what could have happened”.

1485
“So what did you do, walk out of the apartment and round the other side then?”

Reply
“No, I”.

1485
“Or did you do it from the inside?”

Reply
“I did it from, I’m talking about, so, again, the back or the front, I did it from the back, which is where their balcony was”.

1485
“Yeah, yeah”.

Reply
“Erm, I don’t know”.

1485
“How was Kate?”

Reply
“Awful,
erm, I’ve never seen such horrible raw emotion in my life and I’ve seen
a lot of it in my job. Erm, tut, she, she was just bereft, she didn’t
know what to do, she was just panicking, extremely frightened, extremely
frightened for Madeleine and, erm, was wondering where she was or what
was happening to her. And the helplessness, erm, of not being able to do
anything, what should she be doing, what could they do. Erm, she was
angry, really angry, tut, punching walls, kicking walls, she was covered
in bruises the next day, because she just didn’t know what, what else
to do. She was angry at herself, she kept saying ‘I’ve let her down.
We’ve let her down Gerry’, you know, ‘We should have been here’. Erm,
tut, she was praying a lot. Erm, I just don’t think she knew what to do,
what to do. And she was just howling. It was just, just awful. I think
as time went on it just seemed a massive delay from when we said to Matt
to phone the Police, erm, that hour, it was an hour, it just seemed
like an eternity, where nothing was happening, tut. Erm, you know, we’re
all intelligent people, we were all trying to think what we should be
doing and, you know, what’s going to make a difference. And Kate’s
ringing, Gerry’s ringing anybody under the sun, family, they just don’t,
they honestly just didn’t know what to do. So there was a lot of,
Gerry’s in and out, I mean, they were just sobbing, going between
sobbing and then feeling helpless and then ringing people and this
frantic activity. Kate was desperate to have a Priest, which, you know,
people find weird, but I think that was just her way of thinking ‘At
least I can pray for Madeleine’ and her way of feeling that she was
doing something. Erm, tut, but she wasn’t functioning”.

00.53.22
1485
“Did the twins wake up at all?”

Reply
“They didn’t. They didn’t”.

1485
“In the aftermath?”

Reply
“No,
and that was the other thing, she kept going into the twins, she kept
putting her hands on the twins to check they were breathing, she was
very much concerned in checking that they were okay. But they were okay,
I mean, they were fine, they didn’t, they were asleep, but at the time
it did seem weird, I remember thinking, you know, when the Police came
they turned the lights on, there was loads of noise, obviously from the
moment Kate discovered that Madeleine was gone, the screaming and the
shouting and there was a lot of noise and they, they didn’t, you know,
so much as blink”.

by **PeterMac** 02.01.12 8:37

1 They searched for a missing child for a hour before the police arrived, - without putting the lights on ?????
2 She went to try to lift the shutter. Which by definition must have been closed. Otherwise she would have observed its being open.
3 She is trying to lift the shutter at the 'back', the one across the patio window, or in K&G's room ? She didn't try to open the one in the twins room - which must have been closed.

"Sorry darling. You are under oath. Do you want to start again ?"

by mrscee 02.01.12 9:34

At
that point, Gerry, I don’t think was in the apartment, it was mainly
Kate

This pulled me up on the first line. I don't understand how it can be 'mainly Kate' . Either it was Kate, or it wasn't surely. It's like a slightly locked door.

by Smokeandmirrors 02.01.12 9:42

She also says "They can't have done. They can't have done this". It's that "they" thing again. And reading it makes it sound as if their is a note of familiarity IYKWIM. How does she know they couldn't do it, or more pointedly, that it was a "they" at all. More reasonable would be a vaguer "someone". "How could someone have done that?" . I am sure it is just a figure of speech when you read the whole thing, but it sounds odd.

by mrscee 02.01.12 10:01

smoke and mirrors wrote

She also says "They can't have done. They can't have done this". It's that "they" thing again. And reading it makes it sound as if their is a note of familiarity IYKWIM. How does she know they couldn't do it, or more pointedly, that it was a "they" at all. More reasonable would be a vaguer "someone". "How could someone have done that?" . I am sure it is just a figure of speech when you read the whole thing, but it sounds odd.

You are right smoke and mirrors. How can oyu know what ' they' are capable of, if you don't know who ' they' are. Weird choice of expression.

by rainbow-fairy 02.01.12 10:34

mrscee wrote:smoke and mirrors wrote
She also says "They can't have done. They can't have done this". It's that "they" thing again. And reading it makes it sound as if their is a note of familiarity IYKWIM. How does she know they couldn't do it, or more pointedly, that it was a "they" at all. More reasonable would be a vaguer "someone". "How could someone have done that?" . I am sure it is just a figure of speech when you read the whole thing, but it sounds odd.

You are right smoke and mirrors. How can oyu know what ' they' are capable of, if you don't know who ' they' are. Weird choice of expression.

I don't believe there is any coincidence in what they are saying. Nor is it accidental. Its those forensic linguistics again - the brain desperately forcing its truth out. The brain does not like to lie.
How that reads to me is they know EXACTLY what happened to Madeleine, and who 'did it'. No doubts in my mind.

by aiyoyo 02.01.12 11:02

FP has been reading forum.

She is aware what people said about Kate summon of the priest even before she called the Police and trying to find an excuse for kate. Pathetic really!
Here she is taking about a missing child taken by someone.
And kate's first concern is talking to God via his middle man to pray for Madeleine.

Does she think praying would bring her back?
while she was wasting precious time she could have called the Police immediately and have them search the area as first few hours is very crucial in a missing person case. They could have stop anyone crossing borders and they could have put out alerts very quick on national tv alerting people to look out.

No sadly, they weren't talking a missing alive child.
It's natural that people's first thought is about getting a priest when a loved one has passed over, while it is immediate natural instinct for people to dial the Police once they discovered their young child missing.
They wont waste time dilly dally. No one knows what to do in that situation except to ring the Police, while searching frantically in the vicinity calling out the name of the child.

The mccanns and friends did none of that. kate punched wall and furniture wasting precious time instead of calling the police.

by **sharonl** 02.01.12 11:07

aquila wrote:An snippet from Fiona Payne's rogatory interview (source: the Maddie Case Files)

1485
“So having got back from your search around the corner, did you go then straight into the McCANN’s?”

so that was the extent of the search for her friends missing child?
Reply
“Yeah”.

1485
“What did you see when you walked in, describe it?”

Reply
“At
that point, Gerry, I don’t think was in the apartment, it was mainly
Kate. And Kate was just, huh, utter disbelief and I had disbelief,
thinking she’s got to be here, you know, what, how can this have
happened. good question, it seems that no-one, not even the McCanns can answer that one.And by that point Kate was already saying that the, what she’d
found when she’d gone back, which was that the, she’d found the window
open and the shutter open and she was convinced at that point that
somebody had taken, taken Madeleine and that’s what she was telling me
and I was like ‘They can’t have done. They can’t have done this’, you
know. And I looked, I looked throughout the whole apartment and I looked
in all the cupboards, under the drawers, under the beds, behind the
curtains, everywhere, erm, just, you know, trying to, knowing it had
already been done, but you just do. Erm, tut, I looked, when I went into
the room that Madeleine was sleeping in, the room was dark, Madeleine,
erm, Madeleine’s bed was sort of folded back, the sheets, quite kind of
neatly really,erm, as mad as it may seem, the usually reaction from most of us, despite the fact that it was obvious that there was no-one in the bed, would be to tear the bedding away from the bed. If Kate was stressed and in sheer panic, the bed clothes would have been on the floor not neatly on the bed erm, Sean and Amelie were fast asleep in their cots, they
didn’t stir, you know, I was opening the cupboards in the room and
moving around the room, they didn’t stir at all, which that was, that
was odd.agreed by thousands Erm, we were trying to ascertain whether Madeleine could have
got out, and I’ve already said earlier the shutters were very heavy, and
I was almost trying to convince Kate that she could have opened the
shutter and climbed out, although knowing that wasn’t a likely thing,
but at that point we were just trying to pacify Kate was it more important to pacify Kate than face the truth and search for the child?in that Madeleine
was going to be alright. Erm, and I, I think I touched the webbing in
that room, but because Sean and Amelie were asleep, I didn’t actually
open the shutter in that room, (wasnt it already open?) I went to the front of the house
and I was trying to lift the shutter at the, at the back, just to prove
whether, you know, whether it could have been opened and whether
Madeleine could have opened it from the inside”.

00.50.31
1485
“And?”

Reply
“I mean, it was fairly obviously, I think, that that wasn’t what had happened and what could have happened”.

1485
“So what did you do, walk out of the apartment and round the other side then?”

Reply
“No, I”.

1485
“Or did you do it from the inside?”

Reply
“I did it from, I’m talking about, so, again, the back or the front, I did it from the back, which is where their balcony was”.

1485
“Yeah, yeah”.

Reply
“Erm, I don’t know”.

1485
“How was Kate?”

Reply
“Awful,
erm, I’ve never seen such horrible raw emotion in my life and I’ve seen
a lot of it in my job. Erm, tut, she, she was just bereft, she didn’t
know what to do, she was just panicking, extremely frightened, extremely
frightened for Madeleine and, erm, was wondering where she was or what
was happening to her. And the helplessness, erm, of not being able to do
anything, what should she be doing, what could they do. Erm, she was
angry, really angry, tut, punching walls, kicking walls, but took a temporary pause to call Sky News, Richard Branson, David Beckham etc. etc. etcshe was covered
in bruises the next day, because she just didn’t know what, what else
to do. Joining the search may have helped She was angry at herself, she kept saying ‘I’ve let her down.
We’ve let her down Gerry’, you know, ‘We should have been here’. Erm,
tut, she was praying a lot. Erm, I just don’t think she knew what to do,
what to do. And she was just howling. It was just, just awful. I think
as time went on it just seemed a massive delay from when we said to Matt
to phone the Police, erm, that hour, it was an hour, it just seemed
like an eternity, where nothing was happening, tut. Erm, you know, we’re
all intelligent people, we were all trying to think what we should be
doing and, you know, what’s going to make a difference. And Kate’s
ringing, Gerry’s ringing anybody under the sun, did she mean AT the Sun family, they just don’t, they honestly just didn’t know what to do. So there was a lot of,
Gerry’s in and out, I mean, they were just sobbing, going between
sobbing and then feeling helpless and then ringing people and this
frantic activity. Kate was desperate to have a Priest, which, you know,
people find weird, but I think that was just her way of thinking ‘At
least I can pray for Madeleine’ and her way of feeling that she was
doing something. Erm, tut, but she wasn’t functioning”.

00.53.22
1485
“Did the twins wake up at all?”

Reply
“They didn’t. They didn’t”.

1485
“In the aftermath?”

Reply
“No,
and that was the other thing, she kept going into the twins, she kept
putting her hands on the twins to check they were breathing, she was
very much concerned in checking that they were okay. But they were okay,
I mean, they were fine, they didn’t, they were asleep, but at the time
it did seem weird, I remember thinking, you know, when the Police came
they turned the lights on, there was loads of noise, obviously from the
moment Kate discovered that Madeleine was gone, the screaming and the
shouting and there was a lot of noise and they, they didn’t, you know,
so much as blink”.

by Liz Eagles 02.01.12 14:04

PeterMac wrote:1 They searched for a missing child for a hour before the police arrived, - without putting the lights on ?????
2 She went to try to lift the shutter. Which by definition must have been closed. Otherwise she would have observed its being open.
3 She is trying to lift the shutter at the 'back', the one across the patio window, or in K&G's room ? She didn't try to open the one in the twins room - which must have been closed.

"Sorry darling. You are under oath. Do you want to start again ?"

that's exactly what I think...it's good to go back as you say and start afresh with new eyes. Those rogatory interviews (and you can't blame the Portugeuse for those can you because it was Leics Police) are so bloody revealing.

and let's remember according to the files there was only Kate's fingerprints on those shutters.

I'm adding again....why oh why wouldn't you turn on the bloody lights and scream?

I'm adding again...pps...TWO aneasthetist friends...I'm staggered.

by jd 02.01.12 14:29

Charlotte Pennington ''was in the apartment less than five minutes after they found that Madeleine had gone.'' Pennington's account on the Dispatches documentary she says: ''I went straight round to the apartment. I sort of walked in, did a quick scan around and been told 'No, no, she's not here, she's not here'. She says: "There were no children in the room. The twins had been taken out already, I think by one of the McCanns' friends.' Remember, Pennington ''was in the apartment less than five minutes after they found that Madeleine had gone.''

So where were the twins?

By 10:50pm, we know the twins were back in their cots as the first local GNR police officers attending the scene remarked on how strange it was that the twins did not wake during all the commotion and screaming.

So, it begs the question: Why were the twins not there when Pennington arrived in the apartment?

If Pennington's statement is correct, then it leaves three possible scenarios:

1) The twins were moved out of the apartment, in the immediate aftermath of Madeleine's disappearance, and then returned to their cots later. If so, why were they removed? And where did they go and who moved them?

2) The twins were moved prior to Kate's alarm call, perhaps because they wanted to clean the bedroom and were then returned to the McCanns' apartment before the GNR arrived? If this were true, where did they go and who moved them?

3) The twins were never put to bed in the McCanns' apartment that night. They either regularly slept elsewhere on the holiday or they slept elsewhere on that particular night and were transferred back before the GNR arrived. But why would they be sleeping elsewhere? And again, where did they go and who moved them?

If the twins were not in the apartment, this would certainly explain Kate's decision to run back to the tapas restaurant, apparently abandoning the twins alone in the unlocked apartment.

However, if Pennington's statement is correct, and we are to believe the twins were moved in this way, then it would now seem even more extraordinary that the twins did not wake.

And the implication of that appears to be obvious.

by crewman 02.01.12 15:10

Smokeandmirrors wrote:She also says "They can't have done. They can't have done this". It's that "they" thing again. And reading it makes it sound as if their is a note of familiarity IYKWIM. How does she know they couldn't do it, or more pointedly, that it was a "they" at all. More reasonable would be a vaguer "someone". "How could someone have done that?" . I am sure it is just a figure of speech when you read the whole thing, but it sounds odd.

Yes, this definitely suggests, to my mind at least, that others had routine access to Madeleine on that holiday, if not also to other children too, and both Kate and Gerry not only knew about this, but in all likelihood facilitated this access too. I'd back this hypothesis up with the words Fiona Payne attributed to Kate in her rogatory interview:

She was angry at herself, she kept saying ‘I’ve let her down.
We’ve let her down Gerry’, you know, ‘We should have been here’.

The fact that she says "We've let her down", and didn't use the word "them", suggesting the other two children as well, makes me think that there's something especially significant about Madeleine's disappearance, a fate she felt, indeed knew, was certain not to befall the other two twins.

See also the good posts above re: the strange circumstances surrounding the twins as described by the other "witnesses" that night.....

by Nina 02.01.12 15:50

crewman wrote:
Smokeandmirrors wrote:She also says "They can't have done. They can't have done this". It's that "they" thing again. And reading it makes it sound as if their is a note of familiarity IYKWIM. How does she know they couldn't do it, or more pointedly, that it was a "they" at all. More reasonable would be a vaguer "someone". "How could someone have done that?" . I am sure it is just a figure of speech when you read the whole thing, but it sounds odd.

Yes, this definitely suggests, to my mind at least, that others had routine access to Madeleine on that holiday, if not also to other children too, and both Kate and Gerry not only knew about this, but in all likelihood facilitated this access too. I'd back this hypothesis up with the words Fiona Payne attributed to Kate in her rogatory interview:

She was angry at herself, she kept saying ‘I’ve let her down.
We’ve let her down Gerry’, you know, ‘We should have been here’.

The fact that she says "We've let her down", and didn't use the word "them", suggesting the other two children as well, makes me think that there's something especially significant about Madeleine's disappearance, a fate she felt, indeed knew, was certain not to befall the other two twins.

See also the good posts above re: the strange circumstances surrounding the twins as described by the other "witnesses" that night.....

Hi Crewman, a snip from your post,

She was angry at herself, she kept saying ‘I’ve let her down.
We’ve let her down Gerry’, you know, ‘We should have been here’

The last sentence about letting her down and that they should have been there. Well if they had been there an abduction couldn't have happened but I don't believe for one second that there was an abduction. Could she maybe mean that they should have been there to supervise when "they" were there?

by **tigger** 02.01.12 16:02

Nina, the term 'we've let her down' is used by medics when they can't revive a patient.
This apparently was the term she used when alerting the T7, who would all understand the meaning perfectly.

But at first she shouted 'They've taken her'. So we now have two different audiences for the same event:

The non medics who are informed that a child has been abducted (we won't go into the normal reactions in such a situation)
The medics who may have been expecting such an event. (e.g. a sick child who has died despite being cared for)

by TrollAng 02.01.12 16:07

I'm between two minds on this personally but does anyone else think it's strange that Kate went rushing down to the Tapas bar to raise the alarm but only after the other diners had left? So the only witness to her cry for help were T7?

by Nina 02.01.12 16:23

tigger wrote:Nina, the term 'we've let her down' is used by medics when they can't revive a patient.
This apparently was the term she used when alerting the T7, who would all understand the meaning perfectly.

But at first she shouted 'They've taken her'. So we now have two different audiences for the same event:

The non medics who are informed that a child has been abducted (we won't go into the normal reactions in such a situation)
The medics who may have been expecting such an event. (e.g. a sick child who has died despite being cared for)

Hello Tigger. Well in my many years in the nursing profession I have never ever heard that expression and I have worked in A&E, in theatre as well as on the wards.

My take on the letting down is that they didn't do enough to ensure her safety.

by **tigger** 02.01.12 19:28

Nina wrote:
tigger wrote:Nina, the term 'we've let her down' is used by medics when they can't revive a patient.
This apparently was the term she used when alerting the T7, who would all understand the meaning perfectly.

But at first she shouted 'They've taken her'. So we now have two different audiences for the same event:

The non medics who are informed that a child has been abducted (we won't go into the normal reactions in such a situation)
The medics who may have been expecting such an event. (e.g. a sick child who has died despite being cared for)

Hello Tigger. Well in my many years in the nursing profession I have never ever heard that expression and I have worked in A&E, in theatre as well as on the wards.

My take on the letting down is that they didn't do enough to ensure her safety.

I think you're too nice, NIna. They've never blamed themselves before or since!
I didn't make that up, it's in quite a number of reports/stories. It may be that it was a particular euphemism current with that group.
My point is that the T7 - or most of them - might only have been told Maddie was ill. Hence Rachel's remark on resuscitation makes more sense.
I'm sticking with the two alarms for two separate audiences.
In any case, if you or I lost a child, I'd be screaming her name, putting all the lights on and phoning the police that minute!

After the mysterious 'they' who had 'taken' Maddie, it isn't so strange that she embroidered further on this theme with 'they can't have done this' etc.
She had a couple of unsavory characters all lined up pretty soon. Same 'they' who may have done a dry run on the Wednesday night, same 'they' who drugged the children - who had been watching them for days....

by Upsy Daisy 09.01.12 15:46

mrscee wrote:smoke and mirrors wrote

She also says "They can't have done. They can't have done this". It's
that "they" thing again. And reading it makes it sound as if their is a
note of familiarity IYKWIM. How does she know they couldn't do it, or
more pointedly, that it was a "they" at all. More reasonable would be a
vaguer "someone". "How could someone have done that?" . I am sure it is
just a figure of speech when you read the whole thing, but it sounds
odd.

You are right smoke and mirrors.
How can oyu know what ' they' are capable of, if you don't know who '
they' are. Weird choice of expression.

Okay..if I were FP and KM screamed to me 'They've taken her', firstly I would tell the police that I had asked KM 'Who has taken her??' 'Who is 'they'? / Who are you talking about? Did you see someone?' or 'how do you know who 'they' are?'... any normal person would have this reaction. KM is acting as if she knows who. So, that tells me that FP must be in on it, otherwise it would have been reported in her statement that she immediately questioned KM and asked who 'They' were. Seemples!

by russiandoll 09.01.12 18:53

Peter Mac quite rightly pointed out the nonsense in the following, given K Mc said she found open shutters. I have never read anywhere Kate saying she closed them again.
Also interesting is what we are meant to infer about her reason for not opening the shutters, she does not state if it is due to noise or wanthing the room to remain dark.......it had to be noise as it was dark outside.
So FP clearly knew the shutters were noisy, noisy enough to disturb sleeping children. I would guess that an abductor would reason the same and rather than gain access to a bedroom via a shutter which might rouse a child and therefore set off crying, would use another means of entrance.
But could not use the patio door as would have been observed by 1-3 people [ if JT is to be believed]

I wonder how FP thought the abductor got into the children's bedroom.

but because Sean and Amelie were asleep, I didn’t actually
open the shutter in that room, we went, I went to the front of the house
and I was trying to lift the shutter at the, at the back, just to prove
whether, you know, whether it could have been opened and whether
Madeleine could have opened it from the inside”.

by tsj 09.01.12 20:04

my first post here so i hope i can bring something worthwhile to this great site.

what if madeleine were brought to portugal for medical treatment. treatment that was experimental so could only be done away from a hospital setting.
this would explain so many of the things that have for many years now struck me as so strange.

it could explain why the tapas crew were willing to cover for the mccanns. there was no neglect, an adult did stay behind with the other children every night, madeleine was in 5a alone receiving treatment. perhaps the paynes were aware of the reason before travelling and agreed to go to provide moral support. they were the only couple really friendly with the mccanns. the others could possibly have self invited themselves along on the trip when the paynes mentioned it, they had been away together before. the paynes could not refuse but when things went wrong the other doctors had a lot to loose, to be seen as part of a medical negligence scandal would definately have finished their careers, child neglect not necessarily so. they may also have had a certain amount of understanding or sympathy if in fact the little girl was receiving last chance treatment for a condition. so they too agreed to the cover up.

it could explain the lack of definate sightings of madeleine during the holiday and the lack of photos. she simply was not out and about very much.

what if something went wrong and she did indeed need to be resucitated and a tracheotomy or some such performed. this could account for the dogs findings in the apartment.

what if those responsible for the medical procedures did in fact return and remove her body to avoid any evidence being found and they themselves being implicated. then indeed kate would have shouted "they" have taken her.

perhaps they truly do not know where her body is, she was in fact taken, and therein began the whole abduction story. they would have to explain where the child was, what else could they say ? they could not return home with just two children and never again mention their eldest child.

perhaps they even had an abduction story half in mind, in the event that something went wrong during treatment, before they travelled.

is that why gerry was not there to enjoy himself, as mentioned on the bus ?

it could also account for the fact that close family members at home in the uk seem to be aware of what happened or certainly very accepting of the version of events. they may well have been told she was travelling for the treatment as a last resort to cure her.

now i am sure there are many questions my uneducated ramblings do not answer as my in depth knowledge would be no where near as fantastic as some of you posting here, but it is something that has been on my mind for a long time.

there are many many photos in which that little girl looks quite ill to me.

so perhaps "they" did take her and of course kate did feel they let her down.

by Tinkerbell81 10.01.12 11:27

Upsy Daisy wrote:

Okay..if I were FP and KM screamed to me 'They've taken her', firstly I would tell the police that I had asked KM 'Who has taken her??' 'Who is 'they'? / Who are you talking about? Did you see someone?' or 'how do you know who 'they' are?'... any normal person would have this reaction. KM is acting as if she knows who. So, that tells me that FP must be in on it, otherwise it would have been reported in her statement that she immediately questioned KM and asked who 'They' were. Seemples!

Adding to that the fact that a certain someone didnt jump up hand clasped in front of her mouth remembering what she saw namely a child being carried away by an unknown man... [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] which would also be a much more normal reaction than keeping it quiet and pacifying poor Katie through her "horrible ordeal" [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

by monkey mind 10.01.12 11:39

Tsj, one thing is for sure, there is some dark secret binding those people together and no one has successfully nailed it down as yet. Your theory is as valid as any though if it were indeed for some sort of underhand medical treatment I see no reason why they couldn’t have performed such at home. No less difficult to stage an abduction in Rothley either I should imagine, after all they would only need to take dinner in the garden....

I have to agree with others on this “they’ve taken her” business. It really is a most extraordinary thing to say. First of all, even if you felt she had been taken you wouldn’t be saying it until other avenues had been exhausted would you? You would be pushing the worst case scenario to the back of the mind and more likely chanting out loud “she must have wandered off, must have wandered off” to convince yourself as much as anyone. Then as time passed one would be force to ask the terrible question out loud “could someone have taken her?” Which would eventually become “someone must have taken her”. There is no way one would immediately be running around yelling “they’ve taken her, they’ve taken her”, not normal at all. This is much more likely to be yelled by someone who knows exactly what has gone on and is either shocked that some people she is aware of have actually taken her or that person is planting a story and either consciously or subconsciously is implying there is more than one person involved.

by monkey mind 10.01.12 11:43

Throw in the histrionics, the almost prostrating oneself on the floor, first him then both as a team, the punching of walls, no sign of forced entry whatsoever and you have an act, one which any director worth his salt would be forced to shout “CUT!!! “

by Guest 10.01.12 11:50

Tinkerbell81 wrote:
Upsy Daisy wrote:

Okay..if I were FP and KM screamed to me 'They've taken her', firstly I would tell the police that I had asked KM 'Who has taken her??' 'Who is 'they'? / Who are you talking about? Did you see someone?' or 'how do you know who 'they' are?'... any normal person would have this reaction. KM is acting as if she knows who. So, that tells me that FP must be in on it, otherwise it would have been reported in her statement that she immediately questioned KM and asked who 'They' were. Seemples!

Adding to that the fact that a certain someone didnt jump up hand clasped in front of her mouth remembering what she saw namely a child being carried away by an unknown man... [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] which would also be a much more normal reaction than keeping it quiet and pacifying poor Katie through her "horrible ordeal" [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

YES , spot on !!! Not in a million years would I keep quiet if that really had happened !! And if I was JT I would done exacly that, jumped up and screamed out from the top of my longs - I think I saw the person taken her !!!!

by Guest 10.01.12 11:59

Moa wrote:
Tinkerbell81 wrote:
Upsy Daisy wrote:

Okay..if I were FP and KM screamed to me 'They've taken her', firstly I would tell the police that I had asked KM 'Who has taken her??' 'Who is 'they'? / Who are you talking about? Did you see someone?' or 'how do you know who 'they' are?'... any normal person would have this reaction. KM is acting as if she knows who. So, that tells me that FP must be in on it, otherwise it would have been reported in her statement that she immediately questioned KM and asked who 'They' were. Seemples!

Adding to that the fact that a certain someone didnt jump up hand clasped in front of her mouth remembering what she saw namely a child being carried away by an unknown man... [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] which would also be a much more normal reaction than keeping it quiet and pacifying poor Katie through her "horrible ordeal" [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

YES , spot on !!! Not in a million years would I keep quiet if that really had happened !! And if I was JT I would done exacly that, jumped up and screamed out from the top of my longs - I think I saw the person taken her !!!!

Immediately you would jump and say, OMG I saw a man with a child on my check, he was heading away from your apartment. Wouldn't all the tapas then immediately run up that way and search of any sign of this person. After all he had been wandering around PDL for 35/40 mins winkwink

Also wouldn't it be the first thing you would tell police on their arrival?

by uppatoffee 10.01.12 12:25

Although if this was a regular occurrence with parents picking up their children from the crèche every evening you might think nothing of it at the time. After discussion with friends the potential for such "sighting" might be realised!