Re: Dr Martin Roberts: A crying shame

by Liz Eagles 19.06.12 10:18

russiandoll wrote: I am very puzzled by it taking this lady 3 months to mention the crying episode. A small child goes missing and you do not tell the police in the area what happened 48 hours prior to the event and which bothered her so much she rang a friend for advice? There is no reasonable explanation for this imo.

Russiandoll that's a very good point. Perhaps the PJ didn't ask her in detail in their door-to-door enquiries. Perhaps she was completely overwhelmed with the press presence. Perhaps she was afraid of becoming embroiled. She certainly got short shrift from KM when she enquired.

by bobbin 19.06.12 10:30

russiandoll wrote: I am very puzzled by it taking this lady 3 months to mention the crying episode. A small child goes missing and you do not tell the police in the area what happened 48 hours prior to the event and which bothered her so much she rang a friend for advice? There is no reasonable explanation for this imo.

I don't feel it was Mrs. Fenn's duty to report the crying.
On the 3rd May, everybody was presented with an abduction.
It's only us, after the events and observations of the strange behaviour of K, G and the rest of their motley bunch, who are querying the 3rd May as being the actual 'abduction/death' day.

Many children cry and cry till they fall asleep. It is hard for parents, but sometimes you have to break the cycle and let the child cry and not go up to attend. Old school, even current thinking, a child can start learning manipulation at a very early age and it's for parents to determine if the child needs care or is playing for attention.

It would not follow that crying at night two nights before, and a child being 'abducted' on the third night would be consequentially linked. It is only because we do NOT believe the abduction story that we are looking at all possibilities of explanations other than those being given by the McCanns and their powerful side-kicks.

Mrs. Fenn, an aged and now, we understand, not well, local resident in a peaceful little mediterranean village would hardly be expected to be doing the forensic and deep analytical investigation that the police and non-believing bloggers are now doing.

Children cry, often very loud and for very long. Accepted fact.
Children getting abducted from a quiet back-water, that's not normal. (and in this case, almost 10,000 % not true)
It was not Mrs. Fenn's responsibility to inform the police. They are qualified to do their own investigation. If they had questionned her about any crying she might have heard in the previous days, she no doubt would not have denied it. She had been put to enough trouble by these common people, it was not her responsibility to try to give a solution to the 'acclaimed abduction'.

by russiandoll 19.06.12 10:30

didn't she just? I found it interesting in the book , Kate's change of verb, describing the "plummy voiced lady's" rather slight response to what she reported......not as if a child had been stolen, but as if " a can of beans had fallen off a shelf ".
You see, I would have expected " as if a wallet/ some jewellery had been STOLEN". The can of beans FALLING makes my brain ask......instead of what falling, Kate? Clearly something or someone much more valuable than a can of beans...

the truth is in her book, because she knows....she said so clearly at one time, outside a Portuguese courthouse to a reporter?

by Cristobell 19.06.12 11:01

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.

I very much doubt the frazzled mother of 3 toddlers would cry out loud. Most parents tiptoe around sleeping babies, keep their voices hushed and muffle their own tears into a pillow/cushion.

by **Nina** 19.06.12 12:00

bobbin wrote:
russiandoll wrote:
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.

It's possible that Mrs. Fenn was one of the old school, who do not like to interfere.
It's also possible that she thought the parents were there. Who would imagine they would not be.
Also, if, by Fiona and Kate's very rude response to her asking what was going on, on the 3rd May, according to Kate's bewk, she had probably already discerned that they were all a rather common, loud-mouthed, arrogant bunch and going down to enquire as to why the child continued to cry, would have elicited a vulgar and common response to p*** off and mind her own f****** business.
She was concerned enough however, to speak to her friend over the phone, perhaps seeking some sort of confirmation that she should or should not go down to intervene.
The matter sorted itself out though when she soon heard a door open/close and the crying stopped immediately.
I have long wondered about the coincidence of the crying stopping abruptly with the door movement.
I am also wondering if it could have been a recording, but feel it is unlikely, although possible.
I have wondered if the child was being abused and the person left because the child suddenly died.
My next query is, were the parents called back from Chaplins by MW staff, and if so, on which night.
Were the parents, or one of the returning parents, so annoyed at having been called away from all the fun, that they hit the child and she fell.
Did she bang her head at this, or an earlier stage.
She is supposed to have been hiding outside on one night at bed-time.
Had she been trying to get away from something/someone who abused her or she feared, or was she wandering about, drugged or just wakeful, or looking for mummy and daddy, and, if so, did she fall down the steps, incurr a head injury that was not visible, but an internal bleed developed, a swelling /pressure on her brain causing her to cry out in pain, louder and louder, until it was all too much and she passed away.
I also seem to recall that at some time Kate was 'pruning' the flowering bush beneath the patio. Like the washing of curtains, that is just not what you would do on holiday and where would she get pruning shears from, or did she use the kitchen scissors.
If she did prune, whatever she may have used, why would you do that on holiday, especially as the dogs later identified the garden area of the lower patio.
There is still a lot to go back over which is all too odd.

Hi Bobbin, I am wondering what would frighten Madeleine as you say here quote,
Had she been trying to get away from something/someone who abused her or she feared
We were led to believe that Madeleine was a Dr Who fan as well as Harry Potter and that she liked to play Monsters, so what would she be afraid of?
In this link Kate is saying to the 'abductor' not to scare her/Madeleine,

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Kate also mentions somewhere about her cursory search of the apartment and was Madeleine cowering in a wardrobe. Not hiding and having a game but cowering which means to crouch or shrink with fear.

by Cristobell 19.06.12 12:25

I think this video (Op pic) is particularly significant for a number of reasons. Its the only interview that reveals genuine emotion, the welling up of tears, the shakey voice, the near breakdown. The couple are not prepared as they are in all the other interviews, they are not groomed for the cameras nor are they composed. I think something may have happened prior to the interview - it would be interesting to check the date against the blogs. Gerry's facial expressions are inappropriate, exaggerated, almost cartoonish. One in particular mimics that of OJ Simpson. He builds up the dialogue to give the impression that he is about to reveal something major, but then seems to change his mind midway, and says 'they almost didn't go to the tapas' - and the viewer is left deflated, with a feeling of, that wasn't what I expected at all, and wondering what it was he was going to say. I think I am going to have another look at it, the body language speaks volumes, and is out of sync when compared to others.

by bobbin 19.06.12 13:55

nina,
I definitely agree that 'cowering' is a seriously strange word to use, especially applied to one's own daughter.
If I ever heard the word 'cower' applied to any of my children's responses, the place would be turned upside down and inside out until I found out why.

Cristobell,
In the video Kate has her fists clenched as she shakes her hands and arms in a void grip of something. She is talking about asking Maddie to explain what she meant by 'where were you when...crying last night'
Those actions look, along with the expression on her face, as if Kate is trying to shake some sense out of the child.

Instead of a little hand stroke and saying in a coaxing voice, Maddie, what do you mean? she is portraying someone wanting to shake the living daylights out of someone.

A very, very uncomfortable bit of visual insight, I'm afraid. I wonder how the body/behavioural analysts would honestly respond to that if they were not also party to the big whitewash.

by Hummingbird 19.06.12 14:36

Cristobell wrote:I think this video (Op pic) is particularly significant for a number of reasons. Its the only interview that reveals genuine emotion, the welling up of tears, the shakey voice, the near breakdown. The couple are not prepared as they are in all the other interviews, they are not groomed for the cameras nor are they composed. I think something may have happened prior to the interview - it would be interesting to check the date against the blogs. Gerry's facial expressions are inappropriate, exaggerated, almost cartoonish. One in particular mimics that of OJ Simpson. He builds up the dialogue to give the impression that he is about to reveal something major, but then seems to change his mind midway, and says 'they almost didn't go to the tapas' - and the viewer is left deflated, with a feeling of, that wasn't what I expected at all, and wondering what it was he was going to say. I think I am going to have another look at it, the body language speaks volumes, and is out of sync when compared to others.

Sorry to be thick - desperately trying to find this video link which one are you talking about and also where is the link to the cowering quote - can anyone help a fuddled brain?!

Thanks

by Guest 19.06.12 14:45

Cristobell wrote:I think this video (Op pic) is particularly significant for a number of reasons. Its the only interview that reveals genuine emotion, the welling up of tears, the shakey voice, the near breakdown. The couple are not prepared as they are in all the other interviews, they are not groomed for the cameras nor are they composed. I think something may have happened prior to the interview - it would be interesting to check the date against the blogs. Gerry's facial expressions are inappropriate, exaggerated, almost cartoonish. One in particular mimics that of OJ Simpson. He builds up the dialogue to give the impression that he is about to reveal something major, but then seems to change his mind midway, and says 'they almost didn't go to the tapas' - and the viewer is left deflated, with a feeling of, that wasn't what I expected at all, and wondering what it was he was going to say. I think I am going to have another look at it, the body language speaks volumes, and is out of sync when compared to others.

I thought the same when I watched them in this interview. Kate does get emotional, but only when she's talking about herself not Madeleine. It is very revealing I think, as are her completely bizarre bits in the Panorama film in 2007 (filmed just 3 months after Madeleine disappeared, and Kate looked and sounded completely detached from it. She's definitely one odd fish)

by Guest 19.06.12 14:58

Hummingbird wrote:
Cristobell wrote:I think this video (Op pic) is particularly significant for a number of reasons. Its the only interview that reveals genuine emotion, the welling up of tears, the shakey voice, the near breakdown. The couple are not prepared as they are in all the other interviews, they are not groomed for the cameras nor are they composed. I think something may have happened prior to the interview - it would be interesting to check the date against the blogs. Gerry's facial expressions are inappropriate, exaggerated, almost cartoonish. One in particular mimics that of OJ Simpson. He builds up the dialogue to give the impression that he is about to reveal something major, but then seems to change his mind midway, and says 'they almost didn't go to the tapas' - and the viewer is left deflated, with a feeling of, that wasn't what I expected at all, and wondering what it was he was going to say. I think I am going to have another look at it, the body language speaks volumes, and is out of sync when compared to others.

Sorry to be thick - desperately trying to find this video link which one are you talking about and also where is the link to the cowering quote - can anyone help a fuddled brain?!

Thanks

I think it's this one (this is the one I commented on anyway)

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

I don't know about the cowering quote.

by **Nina** 19.06.12 15:10

Hummingbird wrote:
Cristobell wrote:I think this video (Op pic) is particularly significant for a number of reasons. Its the only interview that reveals genuine emotion, the welling up of tears, the shakey voice, the near breakdown. The couple are not prepared as they are in all the other interviews, they are not groomed for the cameras nor are they composed. I think something may have happened prior to the interview - it would be interesting to check the date against the blogs. Gerry's facial expressions are inappropriate, exaggerated, almost cartoonish. One in particular mimics that of OJ Simpson. He builds up the dialogue to give the impression that he is about to reveal something major, but then seems to change his mind midway, and says 'they almost didn't go to the tapas' - and the viewer is left deflated, with a feeling of, that wasn't what I expected at all, and wondering what it was he was going to say. I think I am going to have another look at it, the body language speaks volumes, and is out of sync when compared to others.

Sorry to be thick - desperately trying to find this video link which one are you talking about and also where is the link to the cowering quote - can anyone help a fuddled brain?!

Thanks

Here you are, it's a fair way through this interview,

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

by russiandoll 19.06.12 17:59

quote bobbin :" Many children cry and cry till they fall asleep. It is hard for parents, but sometimes you have to break the cycle and let the child cry and not go up to attend. Old school, even current thinking, a child can start learning manipulation at a very early age and it's for parents to determine if the child needs care or is playing for attention.

It would not follow that crying at night two nights before, and a child being 'abducted' on the third night would be consequentially linked. It is only because we do NOT believe the abduction story that we are looking at all possibilities of explanations other than those being given by the McCanns and their powerful side-kicks."

agree about not linking the one with the other, however Mrs Fenn [whose duty I agree it wasn't to report crying at the time] did not hear the kind of crying associated with a child crying him/herself to sleep, with a gradual easing off until there is a quiet sobbing before the child literally has cried him/herself to sleep. I will re -read her statement, but I am sure she said it stopped abruptly upon the opening of the patio door [or closing, as she did not see what happened, someone could have left 5a].
Crying for 90 mins at the level of distress described by Mrs Fenn is not manipulation imo it is real anguish and I will always be puzzled as to why it was not mentioned for 3 months. We will have to disagree over this one!

She also refers to the day of the 1st May 2007, when she was at home alone, at approximately 22.30 she heard a child cry, and that due the tone of the crying seemed to be a young child and not a baby of two years of age or younger. Apart from the crying that continued for approximately one hour and fifteen minutes, and which got louder and more expressive, the child shouted ?Daddy, Daddy?, the witness had no doubt that the noise came from the floor below. At about 23.45, an hour and fifteen minutes after the crying began, she heard the parents arrive, she did not see them, but she heard the patio doors open, she was quite worried as the crying had gone on for more than an hour and had gradually got worse.

unless she heard voices she recognised, Mrs Fenn could not have known this was Kate and Gerry, nor could she tell if the door opening was due to person[s] entering or leaving.

by bobbin 19.06.12 19:32

russiandoll wrote:quote bobbin :" Many children cry and cry till they fall asleep. It is hard for parents, but sometimes you have to break the cycle and let the child cry and not go up to attend. Old school, even current thinking, a child can start learning manipulation at a very early age and it's for parents to determine if the child needs care or is playing for attention.

It would not follow that crying at night two nights before, and a child being 'abducted' on the third night would be consequentially linked. It is only because we do NOT believe the abduction story that we are looking at all possibilities of explanations other than those being given by the McCanns and their powerful side-kicks."

agree about not linking the one with the other, however Mrs Fenn [whose duty I agree it wasn't to report crying at the time] did not hear the kind of crying associated with a child crying him/herself to sleep, with a gradual easing off until there is a quiet sobbing before the child literally has cried him/herself to sleep. I will re -read her statement, but I am sure she said it stopped abruptly upon the opening of the patio door [or closing, as she did not see what happened, someone could have left 5a].
Crying for 90 mins at the level of distress described by Mrs Fenn is not manipulation imo it is real anguish and I will always be puzzled as to why it was not mentioned for 3 months. We will have to disagree over this one!

She also refers to the day of the 1st May 2007, when she was at home alone, at approximately 22.30 she heard a child cry, and that due the tone of the crying seemed to be a young child and not a baby of two years of age or younger. Apart from the crying that continued for approximately one hour and fifteen minutes, and which got louder and more expressive, the child shouted ?Daddy, Daddy?, the witness had no doubt that the noise came from the floor below. At about 23.45, an hour and fifteen minutes after the crying began, she heard the parents arrive, she did not see them, but she heard the patio doors open, she was quite worried as the crying had gone on for more than an hour and had gradually got worse.

unless she heard voices she recognised, Mrs Fenn could not have known this was Kate and Gerry, nor could she tell if the door opening was due to person[s] entering or leaving.

I agree with you russiandoll, that Mrs. Fenn could perhaps have reported the serious crying earlier, but I just feel that with the short shrift that she was given, according to Kate, for asking, and offering her help, she was probably reticent about putting her head above the parapet again.
Certainly, your final statement, that Mrs. Fenn could not tell whether it was the parent/s arriving/leaving or anyone else leaving is totally correct, and that is the really worrying bit.
The fact that the crying out for 'daddy' stopped, simultaneously with the door being moved, makes me fear very dark things.
The point is, this does not emanate from the fairy-story-make-believe-world of Kate's back-filling, but from a respectable, senior citizen who had been so concerned as to call a friend.
Possibly, had the noise continued a bit more, she might well have been driven to go and see what was wrong.

by Guest 19.06.12 20:16

[/quote]
I think it's this one (this is the one I commented on anyway)

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

I don't know about the cowering quote.[/quote]

Looking at this vid, the first 1.50 minutes. Kate describing how M asked why they did not come when...was CRYING. Then they wonder if this was when they put them to bed etc. ( and that raise the question why they wonder about that because if she cried when they put her to bed they would have been there and known , right ? )
But then look from1.22 minutes, she says while describing how she should have shaked her and asked her : what you mean we didn't come wen you WOKE .? Is that what she says? I'm sure she is not saying : what you mean we didnt come when you where crying ?

by Guest 19.06.12 20:57

Revealing isn't it? Kate says she thinks she should have shaken Madeleine and asked "What do you mean you woke up?" Like it was extremely rare for their children to ever wake up that soon after being "put down" (and why would that be?)

Emma Loach must have sprung this question on them before they had chance to avoid it. Gerry is panicking big time at the start of this but it looks like the film is edited - I really wish we'd seen the unedited footage. He's bad enough in the edited film but unedited his panic must have been really spectacular.

Maybe we'll see the unedited footage shown in a courtroom one day [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

by T4two 19.06.12 21:12

tcat wrote:Revealing isn't it? Kate says she thinks she should have shaken Madeleine and asked "What do you mean you woke up?" Like it was extremely rare for their children to ever wake up that soon after being "put down" (and why would that be?)

Emma Loach must have sprung this question on them before they had chance to avoid it. Gerry is panicking big time at the start of this but it looks like the film is edited - I really wish we'd seen the unedited footage. He's bad enough in the edited film but unedited his panic must have been really spectacular.

Maybe we'll see the unedited footage shown in a courtroom one day [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

There are some very clever people around who think she actually did just that... Shaking babies and toddlers is the number one cause of ....? We've all done it ... takes on a whole new meaning ... But of course we haven't all done it ... That's Clarence Mitchell spin ...

by **Nina** 19.06.12 21:19

T4two wrote:
tcat wrote:Revealing isn't it? Kate says she thinks she should have shaken Madeleine and asked "What do you mean you woke up?" Like it was extremely rare for their children to ever wake up that soon after being "put down" (and why would that be?)

Emma Loach must have sprung this question on them before they had chance to avoid it. Gerry is panicking big time at the start of this but it looks like the film is edited - I really wish we'd seen the unedited footage. He's bad enough in the edited film but unedited his panic must have been really spectacular.

Maybe we'll see the unedited footage shown in a courtroom one day [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

There are some very clever people around who think she actually did just that... Shaking babies and toddlers is the number one cause of ....? We've all done it ... takes on a whole new meaning ... But of course we haven't all done it ... That's Clarence Mitchell spin ...

T4two, I am not very clever at all but this shaken business and her anger braking furniture and her white knuckles indicates to me a person who snaps.

by T4two 19.06.12 21:31

Nina wrote:
T4two wrote:
tcat wrote:Revealing isn't it? Kate says she thinks she should have shaken Madeleine and asked "What do you mean you woke up?" Like it was extremely rare for their children to ever wake up that soon after being "put down" (and why would that be?)

Emma Loach must have sprung this question on them before they had chance to avoid it. Gerry is panicking big time at the start of this but it looks like the film is edited - I really wish we'd seen the unedited footage. He's bad enough in the edited film but unedited his panic must have been really spectacular.

Maybe we'll see the unedited footage shown in a courtroom one day [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

There are some very clever people around who think she actually did just that... Shaking babies and toddlers is the number one cause of ....? We've all done it ... takes on a whole new meaning ... But of course we haven't all done it ... That's Clarence Mitchell spin ...

T4two, I am not very clever at all but this shaken business and her anger braking furniture and her white knuckles indicates to me a person who snaps.

Nina, no false modesty please - you are so right - it wasn't an accident - she snapped and shook and something else snapped. We know - The Times told us very explicitly about a spray pattern of micro-droplets which had been undetected by conventional means until those pesky dogs marked the spot. The Times article was quickly whooshed - but we remember ...

by **Nina** 19.06.12 22:01

T4two wrote:
Nina wrote:
T4two wrote:
tcat wrote:Revealing isn't it? Kate says she thinks she should have shaken Madeleine and asked "What do you mean you woke up?" Like it was extremely rare for their children to ever wake up that soon after being "put down" (and why would that be?)

Emma Loach must have sprung this question on them before they had chance to avoid it. Gerry is panicking big time at the start of this but it looks like the film is edited - I really wish we'd seen the unedited footage. He's bad enough in the edited film but unedited his panic must have been really spectacular.

Maybe we'll see the unedited footage shown in a courtroom one day [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

There are some very clever people around who think she actually did just that... Shaking babies and toddlers is the number one cause of ....? We've all done it ... takes on a whole new meaning ... But of course we haven't all done it ... That's Clarence Mitchell spin ...

T4two, I am not very clever at all but this shaken business and her anger braking furniture and her white knuckles indicates to me a person who snaps.

Nina, no false modesty please - you are so right - it wasn't an accident - she snapped and shook and something else snapped. We know - The Times told us very explicitly about a spray pattern of micro-droplets which had been undetected by conventional means until those pesky dogs marked the spot. The Times article was quickly whooshed - but we remember ...

I have to say that I never actually read the article just posts about it because at that time I didn't know how to open a link titter

. Madeleine is said to have been a screamer and one who could throw a tantrum and Kate is not the calm gentle person some try to make her out to be. She does a lot of angry hand movements when she is speaking and imo Madeleine suffered her inability to cope with her children.

by Cristobell 19.06.12 22:14

In the early days the PJ suspected Kate. Presumably they had their reasons for this. Kate was interviewed for 12 or so hours, and it must have been stressful and traumatic, especially for a mother whose child has disappeared. Witness can and do 'crack' under interrogation. And the brief dramatic insight we are given in this particular interview, may have been far more extreme under the duress of intense questioning. It would be interesting to hear Petermac's thoughts on this.

In the immediate aftermath of Madeleine's disappearance, Kate looks traumatised, and actually looks as though she has been sedated. Not unreasonable of course, in the circumstances, but her eyes are filled with fear, and she looks as though she is being controlled. It is fleeting, within a few days, she changes, becomes more alert and aware of her surroundings and what is going on, but from then on she never lets go of Gerry's hand. He appears to tolerate the clingyness, as if it were part of some pact, and he takes the lead, guiding her through the obligatory interviews. Over time the lead role switches, subtlely, from one to the other, but Kate's need to hold onto him and touch him, stroke his thigh for example, has never diminished, and on occasion, Gerry looks uncomfortable with it, but he cannot break the pact.

Its endlessly fascinating to be sure, and something I will write about in much greater depth at some point. In the meanwhile, I would cite this particular interview as one of the most significant, especially when compared to the Antenna 3 interview, where the tears and the 'breakdown' are obviously staged.

by Miraflores 19.06.12 22:27

In the early days the PJ suspected Kate.

My personal feeling is that Kate is probably the one who snapped, but that Gerry is the one responsible for the cover up.

by Guest 19.06.12 23:02

Cristobell wrote:In the early days the PJ suspected Kate. Presumably they had their reasons for this. Kate was interviewed for 12 or so hours, and it must have been stressful and traumatic, especially for a mother whose child has disappeared. Witness can and do 'crack' under interrogation. And the brief dramatic insight we are given in this particular interview, may have been far more extreme under the duress of intense questioning. It would be interesting to hear Petermac's thoughts on this.

In the immediate aftermath of Madeleine's disappearance, Kate looks traumatised, and actually looks as though she has been sedated. Not unreasonable of course, in the circumstances, but her eyes are filled with fear, and she looks as though she is being controlled. It is fleeting, within a few days, she changes, becomes more alert and aware of her surroundings and what is going on, but from then on she never lets go of Gerry's hand. He appears to tolerate the clingyness, as if it were part of some pact, and he takes the lead, guiding her through the obligatory interviews. Over time the lead role switches, subtlely, from one to the other, but Kate's need to hold onto him and touch him, stroke his thigh for example, has never diminished, and on occasion, Gerry looks uncomfortable with it, but he cannot break the pact.

Its endlessly fascinating to be sure, and something I will write about in much greater depth at some point. In the meanwhile, I would cite this particular interview as one of the most significant, especially when compared to the Antenna 3 interview, where the tears and the 'breakdown' are obviously staged.

I'd say the footage of them taken by Jon Corner (and shown in parts on Panorama in Nov 2007) is also very significant, Cristobell. Kate in particular is very calm and relaxed and even making jokes. But Corner filmed them in early August before the dogs went into apartment 5a, and Kate certainly never looked relaxed in any interviews after that.

The footage of Kate Corner filmed is very important I think. As Richard Bilton said on Panorama:

"The footage wasn't offered to Panorama but the McCanns agreed to release it to us when word of its existence leaked out."

And I'm sure they weren't very happy about it either. It showed a very different Kate to all the other interviews.

by **tigger** 20.06.12 5:49

T4two wrote:
tcat wrote:Revealing isn't it? Kate says she thinks she should have shaken Madeleine and asked "What do you mean you woke up?" Like it was extremely rare for their children to ever wake up that soon after being "put down" (and why would that be?)

Emma Loach must have sprung this question on them before they had chance to avoid it. Gerry is panicking big time at the start of this but it looks like the film is edited - I really wish we'd seen the unedited footage. He's bad enough in the edited film but unedited his panic must have been really spectacular.

Maybe we'll see the unedited footage shown in a courtroom one day [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

There are some very clever people around who think she actually did just that... Shaking babies and toddlers is the number one cause of ....? We've all done it ... takes on a whole new meaning ... But of course we haven't all done it ... That's Clarence Mitchell spin ...

Thanks for that, the beauty of these discussions is that there are always new facets of explored. I hadn't seen this one before. I think when Kate genuinely gets upset, it's not about Maddie, it's about herself. She is near crying - although we get the whole thing bar the tears - for herself . That she is in this position of having to explain herself again and again.

That very revealing movement of her hands, the shaking motion instead of the normal reaction of a mother who's left her child alone in the dark. Guilt and a cuddle? Why on earth would you shake a child for that reason? You're having a conversation with her - correction not a conversation because these two always go through this pantomine: 'We looked at each other and we thought......etc.' Is there anywhere with a logical follow up such as asking Maddie a question in return?
'When was that sweetheart?'
'Why were you crying?'
'Was it when you were in the bath?' (one of their thoughts and as Russiandoll has pointed out it implies they weren't there at the time, so who was?')

by Guest 20.06.12 8:03

tcat wrote:Revealing isn't it? Kate says she thinks she should have shaken Madeleine and asked "What do you mean you woke up?" Like it was extremely rare for their children to ever wake up that soon after being "put down" (and why would that be?)

Emma Loach must have sprung this question on them before they had chance to avoid it. Gerry is panicking big time at the start of this but it looks like the film is edited - I really wish we'd seen the unedited footage. He's bad enough in the edited film but unedited his panic must have been really spectacular.

Maybe we'll see the unedited footage shown in a courtroom one day [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

I acually ment how she tells the storie. First they say they wonder when she had cried, if it was when they put them to bed, when they got a bath etc, then she regrets not asking her about when she woke up. If they wonder why and when she cried, how can the question change in to : what do you mean you woke up... That tells me Kate knows she didnt cry when put to bed or when bathing, so why act like they wonder? They clearly know.. A freudian slip , again...

So Kate knew Madeleine must have been crying, after waking up home alone..And why did they never answer her question ? "we where out at a restaurant enjoying us self when you cried M " Thats why we never came.

My experience is that a child of that age, waking up and crying, usually do not stop until someone comes, or they get out of bed to find their parents.

I also think most children in that age needs a "bedhorse"( thats what we call it if I translate directly lol) you know you have a little plank attached to the side of the bed to hinder the kid to fall out of bed when they sleep. I have a 6 year old , he falls out of bed if he dont have that little side protection. My little girl who is know very close to the age M was, she sleeps in a madrass bed 10 cm above the floor,I find her on the floor everynight in many strange positions.

I would never ever in that age put them in a bed like the one M had, with hard tiles floor without a bedhorse or any other protection from falling out. Cant see they did that in her bed.

As pointed out, her bed looks like it has not been slept in at all, but the other one does. Why is all bed tied up that day exept the one noone allegedy did not sleep in that night ?
And when 3 children and a mum sleep in one room, and they never opened the window? Must have been a lovely smell and air in that room !

When looking at the basics in this case I find it mindblowing they are still free and not charged with anything, I guess its not a question of who, its a question of good enough evidence.. Everyone must know by now they where involved ? Their story is so badly told IMO !!

by sweetex 20.06.12 8:26

Cristobell wrote:In the early days the PJ suspected Kate. Presumably they had their reasons for this. Kate was interviewed for 12 or so hours, and it must have been stressful and traumatic, especially for a mother whose child has disappeared. Witness can and do 'crack' under interrogation. And the brief dramatic insight we are given in this particular interview, may have been far more extreme under the duress of intense questioning. It would be interesting to hear Petermac's thoughts on this.

@Cristobell

Just to add to this, I have read this in the mccannfiles [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] It was part of an interview with Goncalo Amaral.

Q – It was said that Kate was very cold. But I've seen her cry.

A - So did I. She is not cold. There was a moment, in a meeting with them, when we set out the sofa theory. Kate put her head down, looking distant, and, after a few seconds, she looked up again as if nothing had happened. She looked like she was escaping from the role that she was interpreting.

Q - When you raised the hypothesis that the girl might have died after falling off the sofa, did Kate McCann answer?

A - She did not answer, she just dropped her head for a moment, as if she was about to faint. She had an emotional collapse that lasted just a moment.

by russiandoll 20.06.12 12:15

I have seen this video before but wanted to look at it again , annoyingly it played in fits and starts and then stopped.
What I saw was riveting, no matter- of -fact account from Kate of Maddie's question, where there was at the time a lack of any simple response to their daughter, we get Kate giving a performance [ and she is acting, watch the facial contortions and listen to the voice, it is like a role playing exercise] of her and Gerry's reactions to what their daughter said. Instead of simply asking her why she cried, they speak to one another in a mini-conversation of guesswork? And speaking of holding the child whilst seeming to get the imaginary little one in a firm grip and giving her a shake shows real frustration, but what with? The reference to waking rather than crying is telling........she was not meant to wake is the inference, that seems more of a surprise than whoever was crying[ there were permutations of different children in their statements ].
Not credible. They are making it up, hence the acting from Kate, it is a fiction, a mini- drama in hindsight though not so at the time according to them, hence the need to act.
Gerry is much more matter of fact compared to his wife. I am still left wondering who is protecting whom.

by **tigger** 20.06.12 12:44

The lack of interaction and the absence of a conversation with the child as reported several times -
not: was it when you were in the bath?
instead: we looked at each other and thought....

it's almost as if Maddie is another prop in the narrative they have constructed.

by Guest 20.06.12 14:17

It's interesting why they are so defensive about this (supposed) comment by Madeleine.

In both K & G's first statements to the police (4 May) they both say Madeleine's comment was strange because she'd never said anything like it previously on the holiday, but on 10 May in his 2nd statement Gerry says that Madeleine had previously said the twins were crying, on the Monday or Tuesday when she had slept for some time in her parents room. So the (supposed) comment on Thursday morning wasn't that strange at all.

Neither K or G mention Kate sleeping in the children's room on the Wednesday night in their first statements, though Gerry does mention it on May 10 and in Kate's 2nd statement in September she mentions it and says none of the children cried when she was sleeping in their room - it must have been while they were still out dining, she says.

When they were clearly so desperate in the first few hours and days after the disappearance to minimise how much of the whole truth of their negligence escaped to the watching world (some might say that was the most important thing to them, not Madeleine), I don't understand why they mentioned Madeleine's comment to the police at all.

A year later in May 2008 when Emma Loach interviewed them it's apparent it's a very big deal to them. By then everybody knew just how negligent they'd been on their holiday and I don't think their discomfort is down to them worrying just about a few more bad headlines in the papers. I think it shows they told the police about Madeleine's comment for a reason, and that's why they were so defensive when the comment hit the papers.

(I know most people on the site already think this, I'm just trying to reason it out based on the evidence of this interview with Loach)

by **tigger** 20.06.12 14:24

But at the time of this interview which was April 2008! the facts listed below have to be kept in mind. These are not distraught parents who've been unable to function.
They've been extremely busy on behalf of their beloved Company and their future careers:

Form the concise timeline:

So at this fairly early stage - from January on we have plans for:
a full feature film
a second documentary
a US talk show
a book - all these with hefty price tags.

Security:
the media are gagged - a payment of 550.000 by Express Newspapers is agreed.
no interviews of the McCanns by the LP or the PJ will take place
witnesses and ‘friends’ have been brought into line.

Career:
Kate has ‘given up work’ to be ‘ambassador’ for children’s charities.
Gerry is working full time - although taking a full and active part in the presentation of Amber Alert Europe in Brussels. There is still hope that the ambassadorial roles for both the McCanns will eventually be realised.
unquote

by Guest 20.06.12 14:37

Exactly and that's maybe why they are so shocked when Madeleine's comment (from their police statements) hits the papers?

By May 2008 they have as you say put an awful lot into place to defend themselves, both in the court of public opinion and also in a courtroom should they ever find themselves facing any charges. They have money in the fund, and lawyers and many powerful friends.

By May 2008 they have the power to do many things, but the one thing they can never change is what they said to the police a year earlier - in those first few days when they were still constructing their narrative about what had happened. That's where they're still vulnerable and maybe this interview with Loach (about parts of their police statements hitting the papers for the first time) shows it?

Latest topics