The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™
Welcome to 'The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann' forum 🌹

Please log in, or register to view all the forums, then settle in and help us get to the truth about what really happened to Madeleine Beth McCann.

Please note that when you register your username must be different from your email address!

Something's puzzling me.

Page 2 of 3 Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: Something's puzzling me.

Post by canada12 on 25.07.14 8:30

Yes but Mrs Fenn heard a child crying on the night of May 1, not May 2, not May 3.

So she could very well have heard Madeleine crying on that night. It doesn't prove Madeleine was alive on the 3rd at all.

ETA - same thought as you Nomendelta!

canada12

Posts : 1461
Reputation : 200
Join date : 2013-10-28

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Something's puzzling me.

Post by Carrry On Doctor on 25.07.14 8:32

@sharonl wrote:
@PeterMac wrote:
@MRNOODLES wrote:FWIW There's also a reason why the McCanns made out they all had dinner at break neck speed.

1. It counters Ms Fenn by making out the children weren't left for that long.   Dr Amaral saw through that one in the first 24 hours.  As did the guy who took over from him.  See their official reports. They knew knew it was a load of cobblers. Kate even admits in her Confession Statement ("madeleine'  Exhibit KH 1) that the half hour checks were an enhancement to the normal routine - whatever that might have been - and were triggered by the crying reported by Madeleine.   So if every half hour was an enhancement, what was "normal", Kate - over to you.

2. It helps (in their mind anyway) to discredit the dogs. Because whatever death theory is thrown at them, they can say, we were never away long enough for the death scent to permeate.  And therefore they have to rely on the Last Photo to prove Madeleine was alive on 3rd.  And as we know know know that the photo is a forgery this bit of their 'defence' falls.

What evidence is there that Madeleine was alive on May 3rd?

Friend of Jennifer Murat, Pamela heard (but not seen) a child crying - she claims that the child was not two or under and so that excludes the twins.

Martin Smith - Aquaintance of Murat (the knew each other from drinking in the same pub) saw a man carrying a child on May 3rd, this was nothing out of the ordinary according to him.  This could have been any man with any child, goodness knows why he felt he needed to report this.

Margaret Hodges nephew, Phil Edmonds, claimed that he saw & photographed Madeleine, but he could not produce those photographs when asked.

The dodgy crèche records and a nanny who befriended the McCanns to the point that she visited them in Rothley.

Apart from that, is there any credible and verifiable evidence that Madeleine was alive on May 3rd?

If it were true that Madeleine had died before 3rd May, then in order to claim that she had been abducted on that night, they would need to create some evidence that she was alive before that.

Also, if Madeleine had died earlier, then there is no way that Mrs Fenn could have heard a child (not of two or younger) crying and the child that Smith claimed to have seen could not have been Madeleine.

Add to that the lack of family photos from the group. They all got on so well, indeed they were all 'into each other', so what better opportunity to capture these moments with their many digital cameras.

Public breakfast visits apparently stopped too.

How strange.
avatar
Carrry On Doctor

Posts : 385
Reputation : 186
Join date : 2014-01-31

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Something's puzzling me.

Post by inspirespirit on 25.07.14 8:39

@nomendelta wrote:I thought that Mrs Fenn said she overheard the crying on May 1st and it was the McCanns who muddied the waters by claiming Maddie asked "why didn't you come when I cried?" on the morning of May 3rd. Indeed I've read threads where it was suggested this was a deliberate attempt to confuse things and take emphasis away from May 1st.
Good point.  That had to be a 'muddying of the waters', as what parent in their right mind, would leave their children, knowing full well that at least two of their children had woken up crying the previous night.  It just wouldn't happen.
avatar
inspirespirit

Posts : 183
Reputation : 38
Join date : 2014-06-26
Age : 63

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Something's puzzling me.

Post by Google.Gaspar.Statements on 25.07.14 9:26

@sharonl wrote:
@PeterMac wrote:
@MRNOODLES wrote:FWIW There's also a reason why the McCanns made out they all had dinner at break neck speed.

1. It counters Ms Fenn by making out the children weren't left for that long.   Dr Amaral saw through that one in the first 24 hours.  As did the guy who took over from him.  See their official reports. They knew knew it was a load of cobblers. Kate even admits in her Confession Statement ("madeleine'  Exhibit KH 1) that the half hour checks were an enhancement to the normal routine - whatever that might have been - and were triggered by the crying reported by Madeleine.   So if every half hour was an enhancement, what was "normal", Kate - over to you.

2. It helps (in their mind anyway) to discredit the dogs. Because whatever death theory is thrown at them, they can say, we were never away long enough for the death scent to permeate.  And therefore they have to rely on the Last Photo to prove Madeleine was alive on 3rd.  And as we know know know that the photo is a forgery this bit of their 'defence' falls.

What evidence is there that Madeleine was alive on May 3rd?

Friend of Jennifer Murat, Pamela heard (but not seen) a child crying - she claims that the child was not two or under and so that excludes the twins.

Martin Smith - Aquaintance of Murat (the knew each other from drinking in the same pub) saw a man carrying a child on May 3rd, this was nothing out of the ordinary according to him.  This could have been any man with any child, goodness knows why he felt he needed to report this.

Margaret Hodges nephew, Phil Edmonds, claimed that he saw & photographed Madeleine, but he could not produce those photographs when asked.

The dodgy crèche records and a nanny who befriended the McCanns to the point that she visited them in Rothley.

Apart from that, is there any credible and verifiable evidence that Madeleine was alive on May 3rd?

If it were true that Madeleine had died before 3rd May, then in order to claim that she had been abducted on that night, they would need to create some evidence that she was alive before that.

Also, if Madeleine had died earlier, then there is no way that Mrs Fenn could have heard a child (not of two or younger) crying and the child that Smith claimed to have seen could not have been Madeleine.

The penny has finally dropped for me, thank you Sharon  blushing1 
avatar
Google.Gaspar.Statements

Posts : 365
Reputation : 236
Join date : 2013-05-15

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Something's puzzling me.

Post by sar on 25.07.14 9:31

@View-from-Ireland wrote:
@Claire25 wrote:

Or there's the theory that it was actually KM crying 'maddie' not MM crying 'daddy' and that's why they don't like us knowing they ever called her maddie.

This is what I have always believed is the most likely answer.
yes and incredibly sinister if so

sar

Posts : 686
Reputation : 224
Join date : 2013-09-11

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Something's puzzling me.

Post by inspirespirit on 25.07.14 9:34

@Google.Gaspar.Statements wrote:
@sharonl wrote:
@PeterMac wrote:
@MRNOODLES wrote:FWIW There's also a reason why the McCanns made out they all had dinner at break neck speed.

1. It counters Ms Fenn by making out the children weren't left for that long.   Dr Amaral saw through that one in the first 24 hours.  As did the guy who took over from him.  See their official reports. They knew knew it was a load of cobblers. Kate even admits in her Confession Statement ("madeleine'  Exhibit KH 1) that the half hour checks were an enhancement to the normal routine - whatever that might have been - and were triggered by the crying reported by Madeleine.   So if every half hour was an enhancement, what was "normal", Kate - over to you.

2. It helps (in their mind anyway) to discredit the dogs. Because whatever death theory is thrown at them, they can say, we were never away long enough for the death scent to permeate.  And therefore they have to rely on the Last Photo to prove Madeleine was alive on 3rd.  And as we know know know that the photo is a forgery this bit of their 'defence' falls.

What evidence is there that Madeleine was alive on May 3rd?

Friend of Jennifer Murat, Pamela heard (but not seen) a child crying - she claims that the child was not two or under and so that excludes the twins.

Martin Smith - Aquaintance of Murat (the knew each other from drinking in the same pub) saw a man carrying a child on May 3rd, this was nothing out of the ordinary according to him.  This could have been any man with any child, goodness knows why he felt he needed to report this.

Margaret Hodges nephew, Phil Edmonds, claimed that he saw & photographed Madeleine, but he could not produce those photographs when asked.

The dodgy crèche records and a nanny who befriended the McCanns to the point that she visited them in Rothley.

Apart from that, is there any credible and verifiable evidence that Madeleine was alive on May 3rd?

If it were true that Madeleine had died before 3rd May, then in order to claim that she had been abducted on that night, they would need to create some evidence that she was alive before that.

Also, if Madeleine had died earlier, then there is no way that Mrs Fenn could have heard a child (not of two or younger) crying and the child that Smith claimed to have seen could not have been Madeleine.

The penny has finally dropped for me, thank you Sharon  blushing1 
I hear what you are saying.... but WHY?  Why in God's name would Mrs Fenn, a 70 something widow living out her final years quietly, would give the McCanns an alibi for possibly murdering and goodness knows what else, their almost 4 yr old daughter just because she is friends with the Murats.  I would imagine there's a very small ex-pat community so they would all 'know' each other to some extent.  It just doesn't make sense to me.  I am looking at this through the eyes of an older woman (me... 60) and I just can't see it happening.
avatar
inspirespirit

Posts : 183
Reputation : 38
Join date : 2014-06-26
Age : 63

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Something's puzzling me.

Post by canada12 on 25.07.14 9:36

To repeat... Mrs. Fenn heard a child crying on the night of May 1. Not May 2 or May 3..

Mrs. Fenn is very credible, IMO, and not in league with the McCanns at all.

If Madeleine died on May 1 or May 2, this is consistent with what Mrs. Fenn heard.

canada12

Posts : 1461
Reputation : 200
Join date : 2013-10-28

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Something's puzzling me.

Post by PeterMac on 25.07.14 9:40

Let us try not to get all this stuff confused.

Mrs Fenn did not hear the crying on 3rd, but on 1st.
Disgraced ex-GP and ex-mother Kate reported the complaint about being abandoned on 2nd - and reported it to the Tapas group on 3rd. Allegedly

____________________

avatar
PeterMac
Investigator

Posts : 10170
Reputation : 174
Join date : 2010-12-06

View user profile http://whatreallyhappenedtomadeleinemccann.blogspot.co.uk/

Back to top Go down

Re: Something's puzzling me.

Post by HelenMeg on 25.07.14 9:42

@inspirespirit wrote:
@Google.Gaspar.Statements wrote:
@sharonl wrote:
@PeterMac wrote:
@MRNOODLES wrote:FWIW There's also a reason why the McCanns made out they all had dinner at break neck speed.

1. It counters Ms Fenn by making out the children weren't left for that long.   Dr Amaral saw through that one in the first 24 hours.  As did the guy who took over from him.  See their official reports. They knew knew it was a load of cobblers. Kate even admits in her Confession Statement ("madeleine'  Exhibit KH 1) that the half hour checks were an enhancement to the normal routine - whatever that might have been - and were triggered by the crying reported by Madeleine.   So if every half hour was an enhancement, what was "normal", Kate - over to you.

2. It helps (in their mind anyway) to discredit the dogs. Because whatever death theory is thrown at them, they can say, we were never away long enough for the death scent to permeate.  And therefore they have to rely on the Last Photo to prove Madeleine was alive on 3rd.  And as we know know know that the photo is a forgery this bit of their 'defence' falls.

What evidence is there that Madeleine was alive on May 3rd?

Friend of Jennifer Murat, Pamela heard (but not seen) a child crying - she claims that the child was not two or under and so that excludes the twins.

Martin Smith - Aquaintance of Murat (the knew each other from drinking in the same pub) saw a man carrying a child on May 3rd, this was nothing out of the ordinary according to him.  This could have been any man with any child, goodness knows why he felt he needed to report this.

Margaret Hodges nephew, Phil Edmonds, claimed that he saw & photographed Madeleine, but he could not produce those photographs when asked.

The dodgy crèche records and a nanny who befriended the McCanns to the point that she visited them in Rothley.

Apart from that, is there any credible and verifiable evidence that Madeleine was alive on May 3rd?

If it were true that Madeleine had died before 3rd May, then in order to claim that she had been abducted on that night, they would need to create some evidence that she was alive before that.

Also, if Madeleine had died earlier, then there is no way that Mrs Fenn could have heard a child (not of two or younger) crying and the child that Smith claimed to have seen could not have been Madeleine.

The penny has finally dropped for me, thank you Sharon  blushing1 
I hear what you are saying.... but WHY?  Why in God's name would Mrs Fenn, a 70 something widow living out her final years quietly, would give the McCanns an alibi for possibly murdering and goodness knows what else, their almost 4 yr old daughter just because she is friends with the Murats.  I would imagine there's a very small ex-pat community so they would all 'know' each other to some extent.  It just doesn't make sense to me.  I am looking at this through the eyes of an older woman (me... 60) and I just can't see it happening.
It is possible that Mrs Fenn could have been persuaded to say something. It is not impossible. If (and I have no evidence for this, only what I have read here and on other sites) Mrs Fenn was good friends with RM's mother, then it is quite plausible that they would protect their own. If there  was a close-knit ex-pat community with some very strong characters  (Freud etc etc ), then if necessary, they would close ranks and say whatever had to be said. This was not necessarily about protecting the Mc Canns but protecting other memners of the ex-pat community who may have been involved.  All I would say is that we should not rule out   the possibility that Mrs Fenn was persuaded to  say things.
Anyway, referring to previous comments Mrs Fenn reported crying occurred on 1st May.

HelenMeg

Posts : 1782
Reputation : 208
Join date : 2014-01-08

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Something's puzzling me.

Post by HelenMeg on 25.07.14 9:49

I am still torn between death on evening of 3rd and death prior to that.

My instinct has always said to me that if a death occurred and you wished to cover it up, if you had any intelligence you would take some time and create a plan. I just find it hard to accept that GM etc would act rashly - death and abduction all in one evening.  With the likely forgery of the 'last photo' and the seemingly fake Achilles heel issues then everything is pointing to an earlier death. Yet GA was focused on death on 3rd as are others that I respect greatly.

HelenMeg

Posts : 1782
Reputation : 208
Join date : 2014-01-08

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Something's puzzling me.

Post by PeterMac on 25.07.14 9:57

@HelenMeg wrote:I am still torn between death on evening of 3rd and death prior to that.

My instinct has always said to me that if a death occurred and you wished to cover it up, if you had any intelligence you would take some time and create a plan. I just find it hard to accept that GM etc would act rashly - death and abduction all in one evening.  With the likely forgery of the 'last photo' and the seemingly fake Achilles heel issues then everything is pointing to an earlier death. Yet GA was focused on death on 3rd as are others that I respect greatly.

GA focussed on 3rd, but that was before the dogs alerted to the human cadaverine and blood.
It is that which pushes the Window of opportunity back way beyond the 9pm - 10pm 3/5/7 and forces me to look at the afternoon.
Then we discover the elaborate setting up of the alibis, and Gerry's disappearance during the afternoon
Then I focus on likely Occam's Razor simple explanations, and start to think about a simple accident on 2nd, followed by one really stupid decision early on 3rd

And then all the Last Photos, blue bags, cadaverine, Blood, Pairaiso bar, running along the beach, setting up of stories during the early evening,
seriously dodgy creche sheets, contradictory stories, telling the world about the unlocked apartment, ripping up sticker books,
open and closed curtains, front and patio door, and all the other nonsense,
not to mention the gibbering incoherence of the Tapas group when asked simple questions about what actually happened
all falls into place.

____________________

avatar
PeterMac
Investigator

Posts : 10170
Reputation : 174
Join date : 2010-12-06

View user profile http://whatreallyhappenedtomadeleinemccann.blogspot.co.uk/

Back to top Go down

Re: Something's puzzling me.

Post by HelenMeg on 25.07.14 10:07

@PeterMac wrote:
@HelenMeg wrote:I am still torn between death on evening of 3rd and death prior to that.

My instinct has always said to me that if a death occurred and you wished to cover it up, if you had any intelligence you would take some time and create a plan. I just find it hard to accept that GM etc would act rashly - death and abduction all in one evening.  With the likely forgery of the 'last photo' and the seemingly fake Achilles heel issues then everything is pointing to an earlier death. Yet GA was focused on death on 3rd as are others that I respect greatly.

GA focussed on 3rd, but that was before the dogs alerted to the human cadaverine and blood.
It is that which pushes the Window of opportunity back way beyond the 9pm - 10pm 3/5/7 and forces me to look at the afternoon.
Then we discover the elaborate setting up of the alibis, and Gerry's disappearance during the afternoon
Then I focus on likely Occam's Razor simple explanations, and start to think about a simple accident on 2nd, followed by one really stupid decision early on 3rd

And then all the Last Photos, blue bags, cadaverine, Blood, Pairaiso bar, running along the beach, setting up of stories during the early evening,
seriously dodgy creche sheets, contradictory stories, telling the world about the unlocked apartment, ripping up sticker books,
open and closed curtains, front and patio door, and all the other nonsense,
not to mention the gibbering incoherence of the Tapas group when asked simple questions about what actually happened
all falls into place.
OK - just focusing on the elaborate setting up of alibis - can you help me on this. For some reason cant think clearly on  the need to set up these alibis. If she was to be abducted on the 3rd evening, why was it necessary for the TAPAS 7 to be seen by the cameras  in Paradaiso restaurant.  Why the run on th e beach etc . Can you explain their thinking to me...

The CCTV cameras at Paraiso only served to highlight G and K's absence.

HelenMeg

Posts : 1782
Reputation : 208
Join date : 2014-01-08

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Something's puzzling me.

Post by Carrry On Doctor on 25.07.14 10:28

I think CCTV is a very important point.

If there was CCTV in the Tapas restaurant then surely it existed in other parts of the resort. Reception, communal areas, and one would have thought.....access points to the creche.

Does it exist ? If not, why not ?
avatar
Carrry On Doctor

Posts : 385
Reputation : 186
Join date : 2014-01-31

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Something's puzzling me.

Post by HelenMeg on 25.07.14 10:38

@Carrry On Doctor wrote:I think CCTV is a very important point.

If there was CCTV in the Tapas restaurant then surely it existed in other parts of the resort. Reception, communal areas, and one would have thought.....access points to the creche.

Does it exist ? If not, why not ?
Hi Carry on Doctor

see link to a thread on CCTV - not that it particularly provides much info -
but it gives you an idea..

https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t6485p10-any-cctv-footage?highlight=cctv

HelenMeg

Posts : 1782
Reputation : 208
Join date : 2014-01-08

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Something's puzzling me.

Post by Carrry On Doctor on 25.07.14 10:52

Many thanks Helenmeg

I have a quick read through the thread and I am no further forward.

Dont want to go off topic here so will look a bit more and respond on the CCTV thread.

Thanks again.
avatar
Carrry On Doctor

Posts : 385
Reputation : 186
Join date : 2014-01-31

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Something's puzzling me.

Post by PeterMac on 25.07.14 11:57

@HelenMeg wrote:
OK - just focusing on the elaborate setting up of alibis - can you help me on this. For some reason cant think clearly on  the need to set up these alibis. If she was to be abducted on the 3rd evening, why was it necessary for the TAPAS 7 to be seen by the cameras  in Paradaiso restaurant.  Why the run on th e beach etc . Can you explain their thinking to me...
The CCTV cameras at Paraiso only served to highlight G and K's absence.

The Paraiso trip, the CCTV Camera shots, Kate running past them to place them all there, was to ensure that no one was around TO SEE that Madeleine was NOT there at tea time.
And so the only testimony to Madeleine's being alive at tea time is from the parents.
And as normal they overdo it, possibly on Mitchell's advice, with the Last Photo being placed into the public domain,to try to prove she was alive at lunchtime. Breakfast is in private anyway, and the creche sheets are virtually useless as a source on evidence or information.
And then there is the extraordinary terminal exhaustion which causes her to be scooped up and rushed back to the apartment, before any of the Tapas crew can have got back.

It is all set up so that no one can say positively that they did NOT see Madeleine.

They must have been mortified to discover that the high res image with all the EXIF metadata had made its way into the public domain.
Without that detail they might have got away with it for a bit longer.

____________________

avatar
PeterMac
Investigator

Posts : 10170
Reputation : 174
Join date : 2010-12-06

View user profile http://whatreallyhappenedtomadeleinemccann.blogspot.co.uk/

Back to top Go down

Re: Something's puzzling me.

Post by HelenMeg on 25.07.14 12:02

@PeterMac wrote:
@HelenMeg wrote:
OK - just focusing on the elaborate setting up of alibis - can you help me on this. For some reason cant think clearly on  the need to set up these alibis. If she was to be abducted on the 3rd evening, why was it necessary for the TAPAS 7 to be seen by the cameras  in Paradaiso restaurant.  Why the run on th e beach etc . Can you explain their thinking to me...
The CCTV cameras at Paraiso only served to highlight G and K's absence.

The Paraiso trip, the CCTV Camera shots, Kate running past them to place them all there, was to ensure that no one was around TO SEE that Madeleine was NOT there at tea time.
And so the only testimony to Madeleine's being alive at tea time is from the parents.
And as normal they overdo it, possibly on Mitchell's advice, with the Last Photo being placed into the public domain,to try to prove she was alive at lunchtime.  Breakfast is in private anyway, and the creche sheets are virtually useless as a source on evidence or information.
And then there is the extraordinary terminal exhaustion which causes her to be scooped up and rushed back to the apartment, before any of the Tapas crew can have got back.

It is all set up so that no one can say positively that they did NOT see Madeleine.

They must have been mortified to discover that the high res image with all the EXIF metadata had made its way into the public domain.
Without that detail they might have got away with it for a bit longer.
I'm sorry PeterMac -  was all this set up with or without knowledge of other TAPAS members? Were they all in on it or are we just saying K and G. Sorry just want to be absolutely clear.

eta - sorry to work you so hard Peter but would you mind going to blue sports bag thread to give me your views on how and when they 'disappeared' the bag..

HelenMeg

Posts : 1782
Reputation : 208
Join date : 2014-01-08

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Something's puzzling me.

Post by canada12 on 25.07.14 12:08

@HelenMeg wrote:
OK - just focusing on the elaborate setting up of alibis - can you help me on this. For some reason cant think clearly on  the need to set up these alibis. If she was to be abducted on the 3rd evening, why was it necessary for the TAPAS 7 to be seen by the cameras  in Paradaiso restaurant.  Why the run on th e beach etc . Can you explain their thinking to me...

The CCTV cameras at Paraiso only served to highlight G and K's absence.

I think it might have been one of two things.

1. The group didn't trust Kate and Gerry and knew that they, as a group, were implicated in Madeleine's alleged death, and they were thinking "backwards" in case the police started to examine timelines and where they all were in the hours and days leading up to the "abduction". If they knew the Paraiso had CCTV, this would have ensured their alibis for that afternoon. It also would have highlighted the absence of Kate, Gerry and the children, deliberately.

OR

2. The group didn't know the Paraiso had CCTV and went there thinking they would cause enough of a distraction that the waiters wouldn't be able to tell who was there and who wasn't. The thinking might have been that this would provide an alibi for Kate and Gerry and the kids on that afternoon, with the waiters being confused about who exactly was there. Perhaps the appearance of the CCTV pictures came as a bit of a shock, resulting in Kate and Gerry having to invent stories about running on the beach, etc, to explain their absence. (Is there a way to know when the CCTV pictures were released, and when Kate's story about running on the beach and waving was revealed?)

canada12

Posts : 1461
Reputation : 200
Join date : 2013-10-28

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Something's puzzling me.

Post by HelenMeg on 25.07.14 12:15

@canada12 wrote:
@HelenMeg wrote:
OK - just focusing on the elaborate setting up of alibis - can you help me on this. For some reason cant think clearly on  the need to set up these alibis. If she was to be abducted on the 3rd evening, why was it necessary for the TAPAS 7 to be seen by the cameras  in Paradaiso restaurant.  Why the run on th e beach etc . Can you explain their thinking to me...

The CCTV cameras at Paraiso only served to highlight G and K's absence.

I think it might have been one of two things.

1. The group didn't trust Kate and Gerry and knew that they, as a group, were implicated in Madeleine's alleged death, and they were thinking "backwards" in case the police started to examine timelines and where they all were in the hours and days leading up to the "abduction". If they knew the Paraiso had CCTV, this would have ensured their alibis for that afternoon. It also would have highlighted the absence of Kate, Gerry and the children, deliberately.

OR

2. The group didn't know the Paraiso had CCTV and went there thinking they would cause enough of a distraction that the waiters wouldn't be able to tell who was there and who wasn't. The thinking might have been that this would provide an alibi for Kate and Gerry and the kids on that afternoon, with the waiters being confused about who exactly was there. Perhaps the appearance of the CCTV pictures came as a bit of a shock, resulting in Kate and Gerry having to invent stories about running on the beach, etc, to explain their absence. (Is there a way to know when the CCTV pictures were released, and when Kate's story about running on the beach and waving was revealed?)
I used to sway to your Option 1 line of thought. But if there was such unease and lack of trust within the party at that early stage then I am surprised none of them have since broken ranks. I now think that they had to work together and have such a persistent need to cover for each other.

HelenMeg

Posts : 1782
Reputation : 208
Join date : 2014-01-08

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Something's puzzling me.

Post by tigger on 25.07.14 13:31

@PeterMac wrote:Let us try not to get all this stuff confused.

Mrs Fenn did not hear the crying on 3rd, but on 1st.
Disgraced ex-GP and ex-mother Kate reported the complaint about being abandoned on 2nd - and reported it to the Tapas group on 3rd. Allegedly
 Tony wrote: 
As to crying by both Madeleine AND Sean on the night of 2/3 May which suggests to me that a child or children REALLY WERE crying on the night of 1 May. Otherwise, why admit to it? They knew they had to, but as you suggest seem to have changed the date and also of course minimised it ('It was just a passing remark'). They must have been aware that at least one other person had heard and reported the crying episode

1) Allegedly: told Fiona and JT that Sean and Madeleine had cried. Statements made in rogs. april 08

2)Statement 4/5  M asked why K hadn’t come when twins were crying. 

Statement 4/5 Gerry  M asked why K hadn’t come when twins were crying. 

Request 5/5 to LPO Markley to make the PJ aware of the crying. 

3)Statement 10/5 Gerry - M and Sean. (is there a statement from K same day kept back?)

4)Statement 6/9  Kate  - Madeleine alone.

ad 1) Dr. Roberts: A crying shame.
And those episodes of retelling in hindsight? They took place at the dinner table on Thursday night, i.e. before Madeleine's absence had been noted. That is not hindsight at all, but foresight, the all-important observation being made to friends first, the police afterwards (by both parents on 4 May, Gerry again on 10 May, Kate once more on 6 September and Gerry on the 7th).

ad 2)(Dr. Roberts)  -witness statement by Leicestershire Police Officer Stephen Markley, made on 25 April, 2008, in relation to his activities as family communication officer while working in Portugal with the McCanns. The key aspect (for present purposes) of his statement is as follows:

"However, in relation to the above, I would like to add the following: At about 20.00 on Saturday 5th May 2007, I arrived at the apartment where Kate and Gerry were staying, with other officers. During the meeting Gerald and Kate had a number of questions to which they wanted follow up and responses from the PJ.

"One of these questions was that they wanted the PJ to be aware of was Madeleine's revelation about Wednesday night, when she said that she was left alone during the night. She told Kate and Gerry that she remembered the twins crying and that she wanted to know why neither her mother nor her father had gone to the room to see what was happening."

It's only when this desire is set against the fact that they had already (4 May) twice told the PJ themselves about the incident, that their request to Officer Markley on the 5th appears overly insistent.
ad 3) A week later, when advisors are on the scene as well as PR advice, Gerry changes it to Madeleine and Sean. 

4) It was reported by the McCanns themselves in their 'one year on' documentary of 30 April, 2008, and in their interview with Dermot Murhaghan for Sky News a day later. 

 Kate says : Madeleine asked about crying alone. 

Same interview Gerry says:  ..there was one night that Madeleine had come through and one of the twins was crying ......


Now the essential part of the crying is that Maddie asked about it the following morning. 
It’s imo one of the questions answered before they are asked: 
Was Maddie alive on Thursday morning? Because if she was alive then,  it is proof positive she was alive up to then. 

It seems to me that it’s an evolving lie. The important part was Maddie speaking. Not who or why there was crying. 
As the narrative regarding paedophiles evolved (quite quickly - being watched etc.) the change made by Gerry on the 10th is telling me that the story is now being added for extra drama. Madeleine, the lead player, is added. 
By September they’re going the whole hog and the twins aren’t even mentioned. 
Fiona and JT would says what they were told to say at the rogatories, there is no proof that Kate actually mentioned the crying on the 3rd.  

So I think it was  the twins crying on the 1st. They started crying minutes after Kate left, having made six frantic calls. 
Fourteen voice mails were sent on the 2nd to Gerry. (instructions?)
The 2nd being the day which is hardly mentioned (Dr. Roberts, 30 days).

Then Gerry gets it wrong in the Sky interview  of April 2008 and goes back to his version of the 4th, because he doesn’t say Maddie was crying, he says the twins were. 

____________________
Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch'entrate.
avatar
tigger

Posts : 8114
Reputation : 48
Join date : 2011-07-20

View user profile http://fytton.blogspot.nl/

Back to top Go down

Re: Something's puzzling me.

Post by PeterMac on 25.07.14 17:21

@HelenMeg wrote:
I'm sorry PeterMac -  was all this set up with or without knowledge of other TAPAS members? Were they all in on it or are we just saying K and G. Sorry just want to be absolutely clear.
eta - sorry to work you so hard Peter but would you mind going to blue sports bag thread to give me your views on how and when they 'disappeared' the bag..

I wish we could be "absolutely clear".
The fact is I have no idea.
There is the full range of innocent bystanders through involved conspirators and then to accessories to and after the fact.
I don't know, and each may be on a different part of that continuum.
Strange statements, odd actions, a gibbering inability to answer the simplest question may give us some clues, but are probably not conclusive.
The bag was in the cupboard as far as we can tell from the photo.
The dog alerted so far as we can tell fro the video to the spot where the bag had been
They all moved out, and one supposes the bag was taken to the new villa.

Then Mitchell says there wasn't one. Which is Mitchell-speak for 'there was'.
I don;t know when its disappearance became an issue or when it was noted, or by whom, though this youTube video is interesting

____________________

avatar
PeterMac
Investigator

Posts : 10170
Reputation : 174
Join date : 2010-12-06

View user profile http://whatreallyhappenedtomadeleinemccann.blogspot.co.uk/

Back to top Go down

Re: Something's puzzling me.

Post by NickE on 25.07.14 21:16

@Claire25 wrote:I have wondered if all the other children were sleeping in the paynes appt and mm was in 5a on her own before so she didn't disturb the others.  I think one of the nannies initially said that the twins were being bought back to 5a when she arrived just after the alarm was raised.


Or there's the theory that it was actually KM crying 'maddie' not MM crying 'daddy' and that's why they don't like us knowing they ever called her maddie.

Charlotte Elizabeth Anne Pennington
Date/Time: 2007/05/07 14H30
Childcare Worker




Just before 10pm the last mother arrived to collect her child from the creche and mentioned that she had just bumped into a man, who had been shouting a name.
"She didn't get the name, but she said it sounded something like 'Abbey, Gabby or Maddie'. We automatically went into lost-child procedure. In these situations, the first thing we do is investigate the scene.
"We knew that one of the other nanny's charges was called Maddie. We told the head of department what had happened and she took us straight to the apartment.
"There were no children in the room. The twins had been taken out already, I think by one of the McCanns' friends.
"When we were coming out we saw Kate and she was screaming: 'They've taken her. They've taken her!'

"There were no children in the room. The twins had been taken out already"??
As I understand it,the other kids had been taken out  BEFORE Kate raised the alarm,or they didn´t slept in 5A at all.

 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nelson Filipe Pacheco da Costa
Date/Time: 2007/05/07 18H45
G.N.R. Military Personnel

When questioned about the bedroom windows, he only remembers that blinds of the window of the girl’s bedroom were not totally closed. He does not remember about the existence of curtains or whether the window itself was closed.

He says that in the apartment there were two beds and two cots placed in Madeleine’s room, he does not remember their position. The children never woke up, he is sure, not knowing what position they were in, however he found this situation to be very strange, as a lot of noise was made.

And here,they are back in 5A.
avatar
NickE

Posts : 1022
Reputation : 324
Join date : 2013-10-27
Age : 42

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Something's puzzling me.

Post by joyce1938 on 25.07.14 22:42

concerning the dogs and the cupboard,did mr grimes infact say something to the effect ,that the smell could gather in the corner area  not particalay mean in the cupboard? its just a memory that popped into my mind ?does anyone else recall that ?joyce1938
avatar
joyce1938

Posts : 847
Reputation : 113
Join date : 2010-04-20
Age : 78
Location : england

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Something's puzzling me.

Post by sharonl on 25.07.14 22:49

@joyce1938 wrote:concerning the dogs and the cupboard,did mr grimes infact say something to the effect ,that the smell could gather in the corner area  not particalay mean in the cupboard? its just a memory that popped into my mind ?does anyone else recall that ?joyce1938


Yes, I watched that video recently and he did say something along those lines. I will try to locate it.

____________________
"WE ARE ALL IN THIS TOGETHER" - Rebekah Brooks to David Cameron
avatar
sharonl


Posts : 4336
Reputation : 773
Join date : 2009-12-29

View user profile http://www.cold2012.org.uk

Back to top Go down

Re: Something's puzzling me.

Post by kimHager on 25.07.14 23:36

Yes Joyce I remember that as well.

____________________
Kim
avatar
kimHager

Posts : 465
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2014-01-29

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Page 2 of 3 Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum