Cracked Mirror: Reflections on the McCann affair - The Policemen's Tales

Miraflores wrote:
Another strange thing to me - when is she Healy and when McCann? She doesn't seem to follow 'normal' conventions - maiden name professionally, especially if that was the name you qualified under, married name otherwise. She was Healy in Portugal at the libel trial recently, although she is no longer working as a Dr (note that it should have been 'is not able to work as a Dr'), but then sometimes she becomes McCann.

Yes, a Dr can stay on the register - and not have a licence to practice.

Mrs Holmes wrote:"I think this happened earlier in the day,May 3rd
Why did Kate told the public: "Why didn´t you come when Sean and I cried last night"?
She didn´t have to tell us this,but she did it to show that Madeleine was alive the morning on May 3 ".

(Sorry can't find the quote function on my phone - could a  mod oblige)

Could this statement have been made to pre-empty claims of the children being sedated on previous nights?

If we look at Mrs Fenn's statement, only 1 child was crying - I don't know how many of you are parents, but I know from experience that if you've got more than 1 child in a room that starts crying, they all will - but after all that time, still just MM crying? That would suggest to me that the twins were sedated then too IMO of course

BlueBag wrote:Tuesday night is the key.

What happened Tuesday night?

Gerry slipped up on TV and said Kate slept in the kids room on Tuesday night - "when Amelie was crying".

All the out of normal behaviour started Tuesday night.. Kate's flurry of phone activity, child crying for 75 minutes, Kate sleeping in a different room.

BlueBag wrote:Tuesday night is the key.

What happened Tuesday night?

Gerry slipped up on TV and said Kate slept in the kids room on Tuesday night - "when Amelie was crying".

All the out of normal behaviour started Tuesday night.. Kate's flurry of phone activity, child crying for 75 minutes, Kate sleeping in a different room.

Carrry On Doctor wrote:

BlueBag wrote:Tuesday night is the key.

What happened Tuesday night?

Gerry slipped up on TV and said Kate slept in the kids room on Tuesday night - "when Amelie was crying".

All the out of normal behaviour started Tuesday night.. Kate's flurry of phone activity, child crying for 75 minutes, Kate sleeping in a different room.

Quite possibly BlueBag, but the odd behaviour earlier in the holiday suggests to me perhaps Sunday or Monday.

It puzzles me why GA still goes for the evening of the 3rd.

NickE wrote:

BlueBag wrote:Tuesday night is the key.

What happened Tuesday night?

Gerry slipped up on TV and said Kate slept in the kids room on Tuesday night - "when Amelie was crying".

All the out of normal behaviour started Tuesday night.. Kate's flurry of phone activity, child crying for 75 minutes, Kate sleeping in a different room.

  Focus should be at Tuesday night.

aiyoyo wrote:

NickE wrote:

BlueBag wrote:Tuesday night is the key.

What happened Tuesday night?

Gerry slipped up on TV and said Kate slept in the kids room on Tuesday night - "when Amelie was crying".

All the out of normal behaviour started Tuesday night.. Kate's flurry of phone activity, child crying for 75 minutes, Kate sleeping in a different room.

  Focus should be at Tuesday night.

But they kept with the normal group routine activity on Wednesday, no deviation from norm.
Wednesday night is the key.
Change of routine happened on Thursday.
Mccanns being on their own to do the necessary.

This borrow-a-child thing for the Creche I am really struggling to accept.
I cant imagine anyone would allow their child to be substituted for a missing/dead child.
If you addressed a 3-y-o name wrongly she would be able to tell you you got her name wrong.

If no child was substituted, the signing in and out was just passing the motions, then maybe that is possibility provided the Creche staff did not tally count of children every day with the register.

"What happened is not due to our leaving the children asleep. I know it happened under other circumstances." Gerry McCann

aiyoyo wrote:

"What happened is not due to our leaving the children asleep. I know it happened under other circumstances." Gerry McCann

Surely that must be a freudian slip!  

The children were asleep when the supposed abduction took place, that is their official version.
What other circumstances he knew it happened under that he did not tell the Police?

Research_Reader wrote:

aiyoyo wrote:

"What happened is not due to our leaving the children asleep. I know it happened under other circumstances." Gerry McCann

Surely that must be a freudian slip!  

The children were asleep when the supposed abduction took place, that is their official version.
What other circumstances he knew it happened under that he did not tell the Police?

That is a very odd pair of sentences isn't it?

nikeE wrote:"Kiko" have been in Contact with Robert Naylor,who admitted that the McCann's took Elizabeth to the Creche for 5 days,and what about Elizabeth's friend Madalene,who took her to the Creche?

and what about Elizabeth's friend Madalene,who took her to the Creche?

aiyoyo wrote:

nikeE wrote:"Kiko" have been in Contact with Robert Naylor,who admitted that the McCann's took Elizabeth to the Creche for 5 days,and what about Elizabeth's friend Madalene,who took her to the Creche?

Hang on a wait!  That is new to me, first time I heard that.
On the basis of that info, if Mccanns helped RN take their daughter to the creche for 5 days in a row with the agenda to sign Elizabeth in and at the same time made false entries for Madeleine, then not necessary RN knew about their agenda or was complicit in their scheme.

and what about Elizabeth's friend Madalene,who took her to the Creche?

This bit I don't understand?  Who took who to the creche?  
Who is Elizabeth and who is Madalene referred to here?

canada12 wrote:  

It was actually Kate who said that, in a newspaper interview, and she was referring to her feelings of guilt. Here's the full quote:

"I went through a phase of guilt for not knowing what happened to her. I blamed myself for thinking that the place was safe.

"But the certainty that we are truly responsible parents has helped me carry on.

"I know that what happened is not due to the fact of us leaving the children asleep. I know it happened under other circumstances."

Asked about whether she and her husband were responsible for their daughter's disappearance, she said: "It cannot be considered a crime. Someone committed one, but not us."

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id16.html

It's still actually a rather bizarre kind of thing to say, when you take a closer look at it. I agree. Freudian slip?

suzyjohnson wrote:

Mrs Holmes wrote:"I think this happened earlier in the day,May 3rd
Why did Kate told the public: "Why didn´t you come when Sean and I cried last night"?
She didn´t have to tell us this,but she did it to show that Madeleine was alive the morning on May 3 ".

(Sorry can't find the quote function on my phone - could a  mod oblige)

Could this statement have been made to pre-empty claims of the children being sedated on previous nights?

If we look at Mrs Fenn's statement, only 1 child was crying - I don't know how many of you are parents, but I know from experience that if you've got more than 1 child in a room that starts crying, they all will - but after all that time, still just MM crying? That would suggest to me that the twins were sedated then too IMO of course

Yes it's possible the statement could have been made to counter suggestions that the children could have been sedated on previous nights.

You're right of course, Mrs Holmes. that one child crying will usually wake other children. I think that's a good observation, now that you've said it, it seems so obvious

Perhaps Madeleine was crying in the lounge on the Tuesday night, or her parents bedroom, where the younger ones couldn't hear her?

Perhaps Madeleine did say, on the Thurs morning, that both she and Sean had been crying on the Wed night? If the McCanns had decided to sedate all three children as a result of this on the Thurs evening, it would seem quite an odd thing to tell people about that conversation with Madeleine.

On the other hand, children don't usually set each other off crying and then just drift back off to sleep, so why were none of them awake when the McCanns got back from dinner? Unless the children had fallen asleep from crying and crying and crying on the Wed night, but then nobody reported hearing them cry on the Wed night.

Perhaps the McCanns did arrive back and find them crying, or playing, on the Wednesday night? Perhaps the explanation is that the children were sedated on Wed / thurs after Mrs Fenn complained, or just the Thurs night because the children were wide awake on the Wed night?

aiyoyo wrote:

nikeE wrote:"Kiko" have been in Contact with Robert Naylor,who admitted that the McCann's took Elizabeth to the Creche for 5 days,and what about Elizabeth's friend Madalene,who took her to the Creche?

Hang on a wait!  That is new to me, first time I heard that.
On the basis of that info, if Mccanns helped RN take their daughter to the creche for 5 days in a row with the agenda to sign Elizabeth in and at the same time made false entries for Madeleine, then not necessary RN knew about their agenda or was complicit in their scheme.

and what about Elizabeth's friend Madalene,who took her to the Creche?

This bit I don't understand?  Who took who to the creche?  
Who is Elizabeth and who is Madalene referred to here?

NickE wrote:

aiyoyo wrote:

nikeE wrote:"Kiko" have been in Contact with Robert Naylor,who admitted that the McCann's took Elizabeth to the Creche for 5 days,and what about Elizabeth's friend Madalene,who took her to the Creche?

Hang on a wait!  That is new to me, first time I heard that.
On the basis of that info, if Mccanns helped RN take their daughter to the creche for 5 days in a row with the agenda to sign Elizabeth in and at the same time made false entries for Madeleine, then not necessary RN knew about their agenda or was complicit in their scheme.

and what about Elizabeth's friend Madalene,who took her to the Creche?

This bit I don't understand?  Who took who to the creche?  
Who is Elizabeth and who is Madalene referred to here?

Elizabeth's friend Madalene Ri*er travelled to pdl and OC with the Naylor.
Madalene's parents was not with them on this trip.

aiyoyo wrote:

NickE wrote:

BlueBag wrote:Tuesday night is the key.

What happened Tuesday night?

Gerry slipped up on TV and said Kate slept in the kids room on Tuesday night - "when Amelie was crying".

All the out of normal behaviour started Tuesday night.. Kate's flurry of phone activity, child crying for 75 minutes, Kate sleeping in a different room.

  Focus should be at Tuesday night.

But they kept with the normal group routine activity on Wednesday, no deviation from norm.
Says who?

Wednesday night is the key.
No, tuesday for the reasons already stated.

Change of routine happened on Thursday.
No, according to Gerry, Kate slept in the room on Tuesday. "Unprecedented.

BlueBag wrote:

aiyoyo wrote:

NickE wrote:

BlueBag wrote:Tuesday night is the key.

What happened Tuesday night?

Gerry slipped up on TV and said Kate slept in the kids room on Tuesday night - "when Amelie was crying".

All the out of normal behaviour started Tuesday night.. Kate's flurry of phone activity, child crying for 75 minutes, Kate sleeping in a different room.

  Focus should be at Tuesday night.

But they kept with the normal group routine activity on Wednesday, no deviation from norm.
Says who?

Wednesday night is the key.
No, tuesday for the reasons already stated.

Change of routine happened on Thursday.
No, according to Gerry, Kate slept in the room on Tuesday. "Unprecedented.

aiyoyo wrote:

BlueBag wrote:

aiyoyo wrote:

NickE wrote:

BlueBag wrote:Tuesday night is the key.

What happened Tuesday night?

Gerry slipped up on TV and said Kate slept in the kids room on Tuesday night - "when Amelie was crying".

All the out of normal behaviour started Tuesday night.. Kate's flurry of phone activity, child crying for 75 minutes, Kate sleeping in a different room.

  Focus should be at Tuesday night.

But they kept with the normal group routine activity on Wednesday, no deviation from norm.
Says who?

Wednesday night is the key.
No, tuesday for the reasons already stated.

Change of routine happened on Thursday.
No, according to Gerry, Kate slept in the room on Tuesday. "Unprecedented.

And, the body?  What did they do with the body meanwhile?

Justformaddie wrote:

NickE wrote:

aiyoyo wrote:

nikeE wrote:"Kiko" have been in Contact with Robert Naylor,who admitted that the McCann's took Elizabeth to the Creche for 5 days,and what about Elizabeth's friend Madalene,who took her to the Creche?

Hang on a wait!  That is new to me, first time I heard that.
On the basis of that info, if Mccanns helped RN take their daughter to the creche for 5 days in a row with the agenda to sign Elizabeth in and at the same time made false entries for Madeleine, then not necessary RN knew about their agenda or was complicit in their scheme.

and what about Elizabeth's friend Madalene,who took her to the Creche?

This bit I don't understand?  Who took who to the creche?  
Who is Elizabeth and who is Madalene referred to here?

Elizabeth's friend Madalene Ri*er travelled to pdl and OC with the Naylor.
Madalene's parents was not with them on this trip.

Ohh, very risky, if true, I would not be happy at all if I was Madalenes parents. A step too far IMO
Come to think about it, who would let their 3/4yr old go to portugal with a friend? I know I wouldn't .

Blue bag wrote:

What was done with the body under any scenario?

XTC wrote:

stillsloppingout wrote:

worriedmum wrote:What stands out for me is the fact that there was criticism of the 'non-preservation' of the crime scene because of the volume of people in it, with GNR officers, Tapas friends and others present(including Yvonne Martin?)and yet AND YET the twins slept through it all...

That last line is key " YET THE TWINS SLEPT THROUGH IT ALL ". If it is to believed Maddie died the day before which is a real possibility , then not only have the parents committed a crime, they have the next day, drugged there children [ which due to them not waking , and Kate's visual checks is a IMO given .

But SURELY more likely they were all over sedated on the fateful day, resulting in the death of Maddie , as it would be beneath contempt to after losing a child say the day before, then drug / sedate  your children the next day . 

Which ever way the sleeping children [ and its implications ] is the glue that binds them all together . hence there will be NO break of the pact .

Yes . Thanks Peter.

Blacksmith can write some good stuff at times. As do many others on here and elsewhere.

If I may say I've been hanging round this extremely unusual case from the days of the 3a's and it's good to see a few familiar names still
theorising. I do it all the time and have many many theories as to what happened.

One to throw in the ring is whether any of the children were in 5a that night?

I like many can sometimes find myself sticking to a particular theory because it appears to be the logical one. Yet if it is revised due to info that wasn't known or someone makes an interesting and informative point then looking again in context of that point and relating it to my semi - fixed theory can give rise to a newish ( not necessarily new theory).

I/We  have assumed over a long period of time that all the action occurred in 5a. Mr Amaral thinks that the action happened in 5a. But just for a while could we postulate on a possibility that what happened did not happen in 5a? Say it happened elsewhere?

The story of the shutters and unlocked doors is not a great one for a staging of an abduction or anything else in my opinion. It has always been not a story badly told but a story quickly thought up possibly? If the accident happened elsewhere and the alleged staging in 5a was to cover up where the incident really happened then what can we make of say the cadaver scent or the neat bedding or the ruffled bedding on the bed near the window. Did someone ruffle up the wrong bed? Were MW sheets all the same style and could be swapped without losing a pair between apartments?

The cots were set almost to collapse from the PJ photo's and shelves didn't exist where the were meant to exist etc etc. All in 5a appeared to be done in hurry.


Linking to this: If Smithman wasn't GM as many think - who is he and where was he going at 10pm bearing in mind that if Mrs Fenn was correct in her timing ( 10.30 pm ) of the commotion beneath her flat the alarm may have gone off later than we assume?

Pure speculation this though. If the man the Smiths saw was not GM and they were able to describe vaguely his common features then RO is very tall. MO is taller ( possibly GM was wearing his jacket on the night of the torchlight appeal?)  than GM and DP is bald. Lump these together and prove beyond doubt via Tapas Bar witnesses that GM was at the table at 10pm then it wasn't any of the known Tapas men. If it was someone else carrying Madeleine who could it be and where was he going or coming from? Possibly not 5a? He has not ' revealed himself
a la JT Bundleman despite the Crimewatch appeal. Perhaps he never will - who knows.

p.s Despite the theory it is equally possible that an earlier demise occurred in 5a I wouldn't dispute that yet Mrs Fenn's testimony sticks deep in my mind. She may have been old but she wasn't an old fool in my opinion. She knew the time alright. Fortunately you can't libel a deceased person.

Just an opinion and food for thought.

p.p.s. Petermac's Anaethetists points are exceptionally well made. Makes a lot of sense.

aiyoyo wrote:

Justformaddie wrote:

NickE wrote:

aiyoyo wrote:

nikeE wrote:"Kiko" have been in Contact with Robert Naylor,who admitted that the McCann's took Elizabeth to the Creche for 5 days,and what about Elizabeth's friend Madalene,who took her to the Creche?

Hang on a wait!  That is new to me, first time I heard that.
On the basis of that info, if Mccanns helped RN take their daughter to the creche for 5 days in a row with the agenda to sign Elizabeth in and at the same time made false entries for Madeleine, then not necessary RN knew about their agenda or was complicit in their scheme.

and what about Elizabeth's friend Madalene,who took her to the Creche?

This bit I don't understand?  Who took who to the creche?  
Who is Elizabeth and who is Madalene referred to here?

Elizabeth's friend Madalene Ri*er travelled to pdl and OC with the Naylor.
Madalene's parents was not with them on this trip.

Ohh, very risky, if true, I would not be happy at all if I was Madalenes parents. A step too far IMO
Come to think about it, who would let their 3/4yr old go to portugal with a friend? I know I wouldn't .

Oh Wow!  Let me get this right.  

So, the Naylors allowed the Mcs to take their daughter Elizabeth and presumably also her little friend Madelene (whose parents did not go to the PDL but entrusted her to the Naylors)  to the creche 5 days consecutively?  
Why would the Naylors want to do that?   Why would they allow  Kate or Gerry to take the pair of girls to the creche daily?
 Could they not get out of bed in time?  What about afternoon session creche?  Surely no one spends all their time sleeping on holiday?

This is head spinning revelation if true.
Obviously that opens up the possibility of a substitute child, same name as Madeleine, except for slight variation in spelling, to be signed in as Madeleine.  Provided (1) the creche staff were not aware of the spare child Naylors brought along also named Madelene ; and (2) provided the PJ hadn't sussed this out thus not looked at this angle.

This is really mind boggling.  I need to go lie down in a dark room.