Dr Martin Roberts: A crying shame

by **Jill Havern** 04.07.10 11:40

A Crying Shame

Dr Martin Roberts: A crying shame Kateint2

EXCLUSIVE to mccannfiles.com

By Dr Martin Roberts
[size=7]02 July 2010

A CRYING SHAME

Just when you think there's nothing more to add, that all of the inconsistencies have been thrashed out like grouse from the undergrowth, up pops another. Admittedly it's not totally new inasmuch as the topic in general has long since come to the media's, and hence public attention. However, the emergence of one extra, small, yet significant detail makes the overall picture just that little bit clearer.

For an en passant remark, adjudged (and so nearly dismissed) as whimsical, Madeleine McCann's question to her parents about why they didn't come when she was crying, must rank as one of the most widely reported quotes to have emerged from the McCann family's Portuguese holiday. 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. Further back in time it was repeated by Kate to Fiona Payne, Rachael Oldfield and Jayne Tanner on the evening of May 3, 2007 and by Kate and Gerry independently to the Portuguese police on the occasion of their initial interviews, as revealed by an apparent 'leak' to the media after a year had elapsed.

The bruhaha this 'leak' created when first reported arose on account of there being two implications entailed by the comment in question. The McCann stance was that the question was considered, with the benefit of hindsight, to be of potential significance, suggesting as it did that something or someone made Madeleine cry the night before she was reported missing. The alternative implication to be brought to the fore however was that Madeleine's crying, and hence Madeleine herself, was unattended for some time. This was the unspoken accusation which the McCanns' champion, Clarence Mitchell, stentoriously defended them against when answering questions put by to him by Anna Jones of Sky News, on 11 April, 2008. Clarence very helpfully confirmed that Rachael Oldfield, who happened to be in her own (adjoining) apartment that Wednesday night, heard no crying whatsoever, so slight and transient it must have been. When one considers that the partition walls within the Ocean Club complex are sufficiently insubstantial as to have allowed the Oldfields to hear their immediate neighbours in the shower, it seems rather to have been a case of 'silence is golden', i.e. Rachael Oldfield heard no crying, because there was no crying.

Already there is a chink in the curtains here. Had Madeleine been crying on the Wednesday night she would undoubtedly have been heard by Rachael Oldfield nearby, just as certainly as infant crying from 5A was heard by Mrs Fenn, resident in the apartment above, on the Tuesday night. 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).

We see this particular chink widening further, with the uncovering of a 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."

There is something distinctly unsettling about the McCanns' various bouts of selective amnesia in relation to events surrounding their daughter's as yet unexplained absence from apartment 5A (an unsubstantiated hypothesis, even one of abduction, is not an explanation). When interviewed for Spanish broadcaster Antena 3 they were each unable to offer up any recollection of their last sighting of Madeleine. And yet they attached such importance to one off-hand comment by her, a comment latterly reported as having no importance at all for the child herself, that they repeated it to several friends, and then, on several occasions, the Portuguese Police. They have, as we know from the intervention of their professional mouthpiece, vigorously refuted the implication of child abandonment, whilst publicly expressing the view that it is the implication of some unidentified intruder which drove them to alert the PJ to Madeleine's unusual tale of crying. These are the obvious alternatives. But there is a third, rather less obvious motive to consider; one which might offer a more convincing justification for the McCanns seeking to 'over-egg the pudding' than their calling attention to the possibility of prowlers in a sleepy holiday complex.

On the face of it there's nothing unusual about the McCanns 'wanting the PJ to be aware' of Madeleine's revelation concerning the Wednesday night. 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 5^th appears overly insistent.

It is noteworthy that, in terms of recollection, Wednesday 2 May in Praia da Luz represents something of a 'black hole' as far as the McCanns and their friends are concerned. We might then ask ourselves this question: As a bare minimum, what does Madeleine's mention of her being unattended confirm? Simply that she was able to refer to it subsequently. If 'the night before' is assumed to have been the Wednesday then the conversation in question can only have taken place on the Thursday morning, and Madeleine was in a position to be 'taken' that night. But there was no crying on the Wednesday to speak of, so why would Madeleine have spoken about it? Or are we to suppose she was referring to the Tuesday? (I ask you, does a 3/4 - year-old carry such issues forward over 30 hours? Certain adolescents of my acquaintance have difficulty in remembering something for 30 minutes).

What stands out most from this determination to bring Madeleine's transient unease to everyone's attention, is that Madeleine herself is portrayed as having drawn attention to it, on the Thursday, from which one is invited to conclude that she must have been in a position so to do - on the Thursday. Hence, verbal 'signs of life', promulgated, of course, by the McCanns, as was the untruth about 'jemmied shutters.'

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id232.html

[/size]

by Guest 04.07.10 12:23

Yet another very good piece from this author. It has never failed to amaze me that any parent would be so worried as to tell the police about this alleged crying, that they were worried it might have been the abductor who abandoned his plans that night, and then still go out the next day and leave the children on their own. Unbelievable!! Shocked

by Autumn 04.07.10 12:40

From Fiona Payne's Rogatory Interview:
1485
“Alright. Do you recall on the Tuesday night, I believe, Madeleine crying or somebody from the McCANN’s apartment crying?”

Reply
“I thought that was Wednesday night. You see, I mean, I only knew about that because on Thursday night Kate had said, erm, as we were chatting at the table ‘Oh’, you know, ‘I wonder’, you know, ‘what’, ‘what she cried about’ or, you know, she’d asked Madeleine, erm, because I think Madeleine had said something ‘Where were you mummy, me and Sean cried’ and, you know, ‘where were you’ and that had obviously worried Kate and she couldn’t get anything more out of Madeleine, Madeleine had sort of moved on and, you know, didn’t say anything more than that and wouldn’t say, you know, whether she’d heard anything or been woken up or whether she had just woken up herself”

1485
“Yeah”.

Reply
“So that was on her mind”.

1485
“Right. So Kate told you that that happened on the Wednesday?”

Reply
“Well she told me about it on the Thursday”.

1485
“Told you on the Thursday, yeah”.

Reply
“So, yeah, thinking now, I just was thinking it was the Wednesday night”.

00.12.42
1485
“But you can’t remember whether she said it was Wednesday night that it happened?”

Reply
“No, I can’t say that she said it was the night before”.

1485
“Right”.

Reply
“But I know I heard about it on the Thursday night when we were sat, sat down”.

1485
“Did you hear any shouting or crying at all?”

Reply
“No”.

1485
“No”.

Reply
“I mean, I know, I mean, there was lots of, you know, at bedtime there was lots of children’s noise, kids crying, because sort of kids do, but”.

1485
“Uh hu”.

Reply
“Erm, I never heard any crying after they’d gone down”.

1485
“Alright”.

Reply
“Not even, you know, not even in the middle of the night or, you know, erm, we never heard anything”.

http://themaddiecasefiles.com/topic40.html

by Guest 04.07.10 12:53

Interesting Autumn,

this phrase:

Madeleine had sort of moved on

Is the exact same phrase that KM uses in her interviews, strange that two people would use the same phrase, why would a child ask a question and then "move on" Would she not have said there was a strange man in the room, or we were frightened etc. If you were so worried as to tell your friends about it and also the police later, it begs the question why did they not persue it with Madeleine, and why leave her the next day?

by Autumn 04.07.10 13:00

A later extract from Fiona Payne's Rogatory Interview:

1485
“Just going back to your meal, where you say that Kate spoke about, this is probably a little bit out of synch”.

Reply
“Yeah”.

1485
“But you said that Kate told you about Madeleine waking up?”

Reply
“Yeah”.

1485
“And you couldn’t remember, you didn’t, you weren’t sure whether it was the night before?”

Reply
“Yeah”.

1485
“Or, you know, the night before that?”

Reply
“Yeah”.

1485
“What were the circumstances regarding her telling you that?”

Reply
“She did, she brought it up and that she, I mean, this is awful in retrospect as well, she asked what my opinion was on, erm, tut, on whether they were okay leaving the, the doors unlocked, because she was saying ‘Is it better that if Madeleine wakes up she can get out and find us or’, erm, ‘or locking it and, you know, finding that we’re not there and the door’s locked if she woke up’, because Madeleine had woken up, what I thought was the night before. Erm, tut, and it was in that context really, just asking, you know, what I thought. So it was obviously something that was on her mind a bit, huh”.

01.15.57
1485
“So she asked you what your thoughts were regarding locking?”

Reply
“Yeah”.

1485
“Did she say whether she had locked or?”

Reply
“No, that was the point, I think they said they’d left it, well she’d said she’d left it unlocked”.

1485
“Left the patio?”

Reply
“And she felt a bit nervous about it but Gerry, Gerry had sort of said ‘Oh it will be fine’, you know. But she was obviously, because it wasn’t something she was quite easy with, that’s the way it came across, you know, but, but Gerry said, you know, ‘It’ll be fine. It’ll be fine’. Because I don’t imagine she would have said anything otherwise if it hadn’t been on her mind. And the fact was she, she, you know, commented on it being really strange that, that Madeleine had said this about waking up and them not being there and she’d mentioned that in the context of that conversation”.

1485
“And can you remember exactly what she said that Madeleine had said?”

Reply
“Tut, just words such as, erm, ‘Sean and I woke up and we were crying mummy and where were you’”.

1485
“Okay. Did she say what she said to Madeleine after that?”

Reply
“No, I think, it was more, the conversation was more Kate said she was trying to get more out of Madeleine, but as kids are, you know, they sort of move on and she wouldn’t really, she couldn’t really get out of her what had caused her to wake up or, or, erm, you know, whether she’d just woken up anyway and, you know, she never, never got that out of Madeleine”.

01.17.29
1485
“And what did you say?”

Reply
“She didn’t seem frightened or anything, I mean, that is what Kate did say, you know, it wasn’t something that had frightened Madeleine. I said, in the context of the holiday, I guess I just said ‘Oh I’m sure they’ll be fine’”.

1485
“Right”.

Reply
“Much to my regret”.

1485
“Was that the early part of, I mean, because you have only got a window of about an hour really, haven’t you, in between, you know, you sitting down and Kate going and raising the alarm?”

Reply
“Yeah”.

1485
“So”.

Reply
“It was fairly early on in that evening”.

1485
“Fairly early?”

Reply
“Yeah, yeah”.

1485
“Could it have been the time that Gerry had gone to do the checking and then subsequently ran into Jez, could it have been around about that time?”

Reply
“I couldn’t say, I mean, you know, I’d say it was in the first half of the evening”.

1485
“Yeah. Is there anything else that you can remember about that conversation?”

Reply
“No, as I say, it just strikes me, in awful retrospect, that, you know, Kate, I think, had done something that she wasn’t quite happy with, in leaving the doors unlocked. And that is something again that she is going to beat herself up about for a long time to come because, you know, you, you like think that you acted on your instincts and I think her instinct was that that was something she wasn’t really happy to do”.

http://themaddiecasefiles.com/forum3.html

by Autumn 04.07.10 13:09

candyfloss wrote:Yet another very good piece from this author. It has never failed to amaze me that any parent would be so worried as to tell the police about this alleged crying, that they were worried it might have been the abductor who abandoned his plans that night, and then still go out the next day and leave the children on their own. Unbelievable!!

In an unlocked apartment so that, according to Kate, Madeleine could find them if she woke up and went looking for them Dr Martin Roberts: A crying shame 195540

Dr Martin Roberts: A crying shame 195540

by Guest 04.07.10 13:16

So, they had discussed that evening (Thursday) about the patio doors being left unlocked, and GM said it would be fine. An yet, we had all the family and friends claiming the window was "jemmied". So if KM and GM knew they were unlocked, why were these interviews and statements put out into the media when they knew they were not the truth?

quote Fiona Payne:
Kate, I think, had done something that she wasn’t quite happy with, in leaving the doors unlocked. And that is something again that she is going to beat herself up about for a long time to come

Thanks Autumn, it has been so long since I read these I had forgotten some of the points thumbsup

by Autumn 04.07.10 14:01

Same here Candyfloss, the statements are worth re-visiting every now and again - as time passes its easy to forget how damning they are Shocked

by **tigger** 17.06.12 18:39

I thought that this was an interesting topic to revive, there are several on this subject, but this one included Dr. Roberts 'A crying shame' as well.

The post below is in fact from Worriedmum and this is the video of the Sky interview Dr. Roberts refers to.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&v=QCMNWg0fE5Y&NR=1

Sky interviews, something apparently insignificant bugged me from the first time I saw the video. Kate is being asked about the'crying incident' and looks less than pleased to have to repeat the story.
If you watch at about 1;50-1;55 minutes in, she says 'not just to MUMMY by the way.' She is clearly miffed.

WHY is she so very keen to spread the blame around? WHY is she trying to drop Gerry in it as well. And , strangest of all, from my point of view, is HOW ON EARTH DOES SPREADING OF BLAME FIT WITH THE DAMAGE -LIMITATION EXERCISE WHEN WE KNOW THAT MRS FENN SAID SHE HEARD 'DADDY DADDY FOR ONE A HALF HOURS?

NOT JUST TO MUMMY?
DADDY DADDY?

Is this some version of the truth leaking out? Any thoughts?
Unquote.

Kate also looks persistently to her left, the direction the brain wants to go when making it up...

by ProfessorPPlum 18.06.12 1:47

She's trading here - turning a liability (an independent witness statement proving the kids were alone and/or distressed for 75mins on Tue night) into an asset. I believe she hopes to achieve two things: 1 to 'prove' Madeleine is alive on morning of 3rd and possibly also to distract attention from the night of 2nd by implying Mrs. Fenn got the days wrong (hey, she's dead so....).

This supposed statement by Madeleine is wrong at all levels. Like I say, I believe it's a calculated (and desperate) trade off sacrificIng public horror and condemnation ("how COULD you have left them again especially if the abductor had already been casing the joint...?") for the impression that Madeleine was alive on the morning of 3rd May.

If indeed that is what is going on here then the attention falls on May 2nd and the Fenn statement assumes proper importance.

by **PeterMac** 18.06.12 6:36

And actually grins, smiles, laughs at 1:55 when she makes the "not just to Mummy" remark.

by **tigger** 18.06.12 6:40

ProfessorPPlum wrote:She's trading here - turning a liability (an independent witness statement proving the kids were alone and/or distressed for 75mins on Tue night) into an asset. I believe she hopes to achieve two things: 1 to 'prove' Madeleine is alive on morning of 3rd and possibly also to distract attention from the night of 2nd by implying Mrs. Fenn got the days wrong (hey, she's dead so....).

This supposed statement by Madeleine is wrong at all levels. Like I say, I believe it's a calculated (and desperate) trade off sacrificIng public horror and condemnation ("how COULD you have left them again especially if the abductor had already been casing the joint...?") for the impression that Madeleine was alive on the morning of 3rd May.

If indeed that is what is going on here then the attention falls on May 2nd and the Fenn statement assumes proper importance.

Aren't trade-offs something that criminals do? I'll admit to x if you go lightly on y?
I'm having visions of this pair answering a straight question such as 'Where you there?' with the classic 'Might 'ave been.'
A cigarette cupped in the hand and a quick drag....

by jozi 18.06.12 8:36

ProfessorPPlum wrote:She's trading here - turning a liability (an independent witness statement proving the kids were alone and/or distressed for 75mins on Tue night) into an asset. I believe she hopes to achieve two things: 1 to 'prove' Madeleine is alive on morning of 3rd and possibly also to distract attention from the night of 2nd by implying Mrs. Fenn got the days wrong (hey, she's dead so....).

This supposed statement by Madeleine is wrong at all levels. Like I say, I believe it's a calculated (and desperate) trade off sacrificIng public horror and condemnation ("how COULD you have left them again especially if the abductor had already been casing the joint...?") for the impression that Madeleine was alive on the morning of 3rd May.

If indeed that is what is going on here then the attention falls on May 2nd and the Fenn statement assumes proper importance.

Hi Prof
Wasn't the Tues night,also the night Kate slept in the spare bed as Gerry was snoring ?

by **PeterMac** 18.06.12 9:48

jozi wrote:
Wasn't the Tues night,also the night Kate slept in the spare bed as Gerry was snoring ?

Or because he was flirting with the Quiz girl.
In any event the bed was scruffed up in the photos, so hadn't even been pulled straight, let alone 'made'. Contrast that with M's pristine bed, everything exactly perfect, with the sheets turned down the regulation two feet, which looked as if it had not been slept in at all.
Very strange.

by T4two 18.06.12 10:26

PeterMac wrote:
jozi wrote:
Wasn't the Tues night,also the night Kate slept in the spare bed as Gerry was snoring ?
Or because he was flirting with the Quiz girl.
In any event the bed was scruffed up in the photos, so hadn't even been pulled straight, let alone 'made'. Contrast that with M's pristine bed, everything exactly perfect, with the sheets turned down the regulation two feet, which looked as if it had not been slept in at all.
Very strange.

Yes, this and a whole raft of inconsistencies which indicate that elements of the story as told by the parents are not true. What I have never been able to understand is why such inconsistencies were apparently overlooked by two relatively intelligent and extremely duplicitous people.

by Nina 18.06.12 10:30

Interesting re reading this. Surely the Mrs Fenn statement referred to the 1st May not the 2nd, or is my brain so addled it needs a rest smilie

?

by dentdelion 18.06.12 10:45

I would imagine the beds were made up by the cleaning staff who came Monday and Wednesday. The tousled bed might have from previous night (Wed) and was not tidied during Thursday. Similarly was Madeleines bed 'used'/slept in, on Wednesday night in that it looks so well made? Wednesday was the night where Kate relates she did sleep with the children after Gerry left the Tapas earlier than her.

In the book, Kate says of Tuesday night that there were only two items of minor interest, one being Russel stayed 'home' that night with sick child and the other that Madeleine came to their room during the night as Amelie had woken her and was crying. Madeleine then 'jumped into bed' and spent the rest of that night with her parents. The parental bed consisted of two twin beds pushed together .... not the easiest set up to share between three. Perhaps the pushed together beds were to make space for one of the cots in that room?

by Hummingbird 18.06.12 11:53

dentdelion wrote:I would imagine the beds were made up by the cleaning staff who came Monday and Wednesday. The tousled bed might have from previous night (Wed) and was not tidied during Thursday. Similarly was Madeleines bed 'used'/slept in, on Wednesday night in that it looks so well made? Wednesday was the night where Kate relates she did sleep with the children after Gerry left the Tapas earlier than her.

In the book, Kate says of Tuesday night that there were only two items of minor interest, one being Russel stayed 'home' that night with sick child and the other that Madeleine came to their room during the night as Amelie had woken her and was crying. Madeleine then 'jumped into bed' and spent the rest of that night with her parents. The parental bed consisted of two twin beds pushed together .... not the easiest set up to share between three. Perhaps the pushed together beds were to make space for one of the cots in that room?

Yet another night then when one of the adults was not eating at the tapas! That makes every night of the week by the sounds of it.

I do not believe that the apartment was actually used much this holiday at all. Perhaps for the first night, maybe 2 but then whatever happened, happened early on even as early as the Saturday night and the McCanns moved in with one of their friends.

I suspect an accident occurred either in the presence of an adult babysitting as I think was the original plan for the holiday and they panicked, called the others back to help as they were Drs and nothing could be done and then more panic hence the fairy tales we now have and why they are all involved OR they did leave them all alone every night and the accident happened and it was then too late when they returned and then more panic!!

The Tuesdays 'crying' overheard by Mrs Fenn was not in my mind a child it was KM in distress, saying Maddie - hence the reason why we are not to call her that as' no one ever did '- yeah right!! (I hate to say this but maybe she was saying her goodbyes)

The Paynes tell us frequently that they 'had the biggest apartment' and I believe that the McCanns 'kipped' there after the event, it has never made sense why Granny says she slept in the lounge on a sofa bed when there were supposedly two spare beds in the bedroom.

5A was left to look like it was lived in for the sake of the cleaners and appearances but cleaned and the stage set for the fateful night when the plan was put into motion.

There is little if not any evidence of toys, food, beds being slept in etc etc in photos and no dna for MM. GM even tells us that he had to move the sofa back against the wall because the children were always playing behind it. They often tell us little things as 'excuses' for things happening before anyone has ever really questioned it and to me that is a dead give away, they are aware of the reasons why they moved this or slept elsewhere, or did that and they have to almost subconsciously tell us about it in the hope that we wouldn't then pick up on it and the excuse was already given. (this was of course mainly before they got really good at the lies and then employed a mouthpiece) If you were to put together all their early excuses and explanations and so called reasons you would have a pretty good idea of what happened - perhaps another thread!!

As for them using the patio doors - yes I believe they did use them and leave them unlocked because there were no children in the apartment until KM went back and put the twins in the room before shouting for help. There is no way that any parent would leave those patio doors open when they then leave tables and chairs to be climbed on to enable little ones to then fall straight over the top and down the concrete stairs, the stairs that MW even considered dangerous enough to protect with a stair gate. Again this is why it was 'put out there' that the doors were open - their 'excuses' give them away.

by **tigger** 18.06.12 16:31

We gone over that bed not long ago, can't find it so here is what I did keep:

It wasn’t until Kate walked into the villa at 10 and felt a sickening breeze—the front window had been jimmied open—that she realized something terrible had happened. “The scene was stark,” Gerry tells me. On one bed the twins lay sleeping. In the next lay only the plush cat toy Madeleine was never without. That was when Kate came out screaming, “Madeleine has gone!”

http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/features/2008/02/mccanns200802
unquote.

The McCanns were very unhappy about the Vanity Fair interview and one can see why, it's full of glaring mistakes. (see also page 1 Forensic Linguistics).
I think that the twins were already sleeping on a proper bed, the cots being too small. It explains why there were no sheets in the cots.

Kate had to think of something re the messy bed because if anyone would think the twins had been in there, it meant that the intruder would have stepped on top of them.
Sean in particular was already too big for a cot.

by Guest 18.06.12 16:41

tigger wrote:We gone over that bed not long ago, can't find it so here is what I did keep:

It wasn’t until Kate walked into the villa at 10 and felt a sickening breeze—the front window had been jimmied open—that she realized something terrible had happened. “The scene was stark,” Gerry tells me. On one bed the twins lay sleeping. In the next lay only the plush cat toy Madeleine was never without. That was when Kate came out screaming, “Madeleine has gone!”

http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/features/2008/02/mccanns200802
unquote.

The McCanns were very unhappy about the Vanity Fair interview and one can see why, it's full of glaring mistakes. (see also page 1 Forensic Linguistics).
I think that the twins were already sleeping on a proper bed, the cots being too small. It explains why there were no sheets in the cots.

Kate had to think of something re the messy bed because if anyone would think the twins had been in there, it meant that the intruder would have stepped on top of them.
Sean in particular was already too big for a cot.

I also posted a quote from a friend who said that Madeleine was taken from the bed {think it was the other room) in which she was sleeping between the twins. Can't remember where I posted it now.

by **PeterMac** 18.06.12 17:20

Interesting theory, but if you were going to put the twins into the bed under the window, you would collapse the cots and put them away. very easy to do, you just pull the cord int the middle of the base and pinch the hinge in the centre of each top tube

by **tigger** 18.06.12 17:34

But the twins had to be in that room, the children's room where they all slept every night, for the abduction story to stick. How was it going to look if the twins were in another room and Maddie on her own?

The twins were just hurriedly put in the cots just before the alarm was raised. So no sheets in the cots, twins comatose. Quick explanation for the bed.
When we had a discussion about this some time ago, most mothers said they did the same and pushed the cots against the beds for safety, in case the children fell off the bed.

The story about Madeleine being taken from the bed where she slept between the twins also came from Eileen. It was dropped fairly quickly - I' ve only seen it in one or two accounts . Early press reports I expect. I did see it recently.
Gerry should really have emailed the family a crib sheet.

by dentdelion 18.06.12 19:24

Interesting points.... but I do not think the late Mrs Fenn would have mistaken an adult's anguished crying for that of a child. She was perceptive enough to distinguish the sounds as being from an older child rather than a baby. I do not think Kate would have been let cry in such a manner for such a long period of time. What I do not understand is why the twins did not awaken with the racket and join in even if they slept in a different room of same apartment.

by Nina 18.06.12 19:33

dentdelion wrote:Interesting points.... but I do not think the late Mrs Fenn would have mistaken an adult's anguished crying for that of a child. She was perceptive enough to distinguish the sounds as being from an older child rather than a baby. I do not think Kate would have been let cry in such a manner for such a long period of time. What I do not understand is why the twins did not awaken with the racket and join in even if they slept in a different room of same apartment.

Imo dentdelion the twins didn't cry because they were not there, in 5A. But Madeleine was.

by russiandoll 19.06.12 9:04

dentdelion wrote:Interesting points.... but I do not think the late Mrs Fenn would have mistaken an adult's anguished crying for that of a child. She was perceptive enough to distinguish the sounds as being from an older child rather than a baby. I do not think Kate would have been let cry in such a manner for such a long period of time. What I do not understand is why the twins did not awaken with the racket and join in even if they slept in a different room of same apartment.

good point, seeing as one of the twins woke up seemingly without any disturbance one night, waking big sister Maddie who went into her parents and ended up sleeping in their room.
what I don't understand is why Mrs F did not mention this episode soon after the "event".

most people imo would not have allowed this to continue for such a long time, hearing that distress, believing it to be a toddler, without going downstairs,knocking at the door to check. The child could have been crying because he or she had seen a collapsed unresponsive parent.