Re: Dr Martin Roberts: A crying shame

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?

by **tigger** 20.06.12 15:01

tcat wrote: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?

It can't have been the fact that Mrs. Fenn might have heard it. They themselves cannot have known how long it lasted so when they came in the crying could just have been going on for five minutes.
It is a fact that we have independent evidence that the crying went on for well over an hour and stopped abruptly when mrs. Fenn heard the patio doors slide.
We do know that Kate was in 5a just up to two minutes before the crying started whilst she made a number of phone calls.

But the point is, why mention it at all? Because they could just have denied it. After all, there were plenty of other children in nearby apartments and mrs. Fenn was hardly going to take them to court about it. Straight denial would have been easy. The T7 could have backed them up by saying one of them was 'ill'.

So, as Dr. Roberts and Prof. Plum say, it was a trade-off. Look neglectful, but the conversation proves that she was alive on 3/5. But that too, could have been made up. Which it was anyway. The conversation never took place but the crying did. Denial would have been the sensible option.
The crying was on the wrong night, the 1st, so that alone wouldn't agree with independent witnesses.

The crying incident was part of the story - I've even had a wild idea that it was another child or even a recording and the actual date for the faked abduction would have been the 2nd. The 2nd is a very strange day altogether. See again Dr. Roberts '30 days'.

Whichever way I cut it, it stays a problem. Or were they just over-egging the pudding? Getting the paedos in on the previous night?
It's as well to keep the psychology of the main players in mind: They very clever, we very stupid.

by sami 20.06.12 15:13

The use of the word "shaken" is worrying. For me this is an action carried out by a person who is very very cross indeed and somebody who is not at all in control of their temper.

Nobody shakes a child. For example a child running off, across a road with busy traffic. You get a major fright, you cross after them, you give out, then you hug them. This is almost instinctive. It is you who are shaking with fear, not shaking the life out of a child.

In the cirsumstances Kate describes, a child alone, in a dark room, in a strange country, wakes up and cries for parents who do not come. Why on earth would the thought of shaking her to answer your questions even cross your mind. Would Kate say I should have slapped the child across the face twice and questioned her further ? Same difference.

It is not a turn of phrase you use when speaking about a child, unless it is something you put into practice, imo.

by Guest 20.06.12 18:32

sami wrote:The use of the word "shaken" is worrying. For me this is an action carried out by a person who is very very cross indeed and somebody who is not at all in control of their temper.

Nobody shakes a child. For example a child running off, across a road with busy traffic. You get a major fright, you cross after them, you give out, then you hug them. This is almost instinctive. It is you who are shaking with fear, not shaking the life out of a child.

In the cirsumstances Kate describes, a child alone, in a dark room, in a strange country, wakes up and cries for parents who do not come. Why on earth would the thought of shaking her to answer your questions even cross your mind. Would Kate say I should have slapped the child across the face twice and questioned her further ? Same difference.

It is not a turn of phrase you use when speaking about a child, unless it is something you put into practice, imo.

Hello Sami,

I must admit that the use of the sentence with the word 'woke up' made me shudder

Why would the fact that the child admitted to having woken up, cause such a fury as to start shaking her, that is the question.

It can mean only one thing: that the child was not supposed to wake up.
That, waking up, she either saw/heard/perceived something untoward happening (being perpetrated) in her vicinity, or it was possible she saw/heard/perceived something untoward happening (being perpetrated) in her vicinity. Or to her own person, which she perceived only because she woke up. And, to boot, yet another angle is, that the person shaking the child because she found out that the child had woken up when she was not supposed to, that shaking person, was fully aware of what went on, what happened with or close to the child, and was either mortified (not likely with this bunch) or terrified, of the possibilty that the child would 'fess up to a wider audience.

Now, which is it? To me it seems that the anger was directed at the child, because of her waking up, witnessing what went on, and not immediately crying that persons name (but only for her father) but waiting for an opportunity when the perpetrator(s) had left.

So, the million dollar question is: who was the person leaving appartment 5a, closing the door behind him as was heard by mrs Fenn? For this was the person whose being seen/heard/perceived/felt or being subjected to by Maddie McCann so infuriated her mother that she almost commited a crime against her. Or not so almost?

by joyce1938 21.06.12 10:04

That post portia,just seemed to strike a feeling in me ,IT SOUNDS LIKE SOMETHING THAT COULD HAVE EASILY HAPPENED.What is more ,one thing went through my mind sometime ago when a bit of discrepecy of ,how long did dav pay, stop by for ,what may she have seen ? i believe maddy would be very savvy to some situation that parents were not aware that she could realize. ,did she speak of something she shouldnt have seen? joyce1938

by **tigger** 21.06.12 11:48

The whole conversation as reported didn't happen at that time. I'm convinced that Maddie was already gone by the morning of the 2nd at the latest.

But that absolutely doesn't diminish the revealing video above. Quite the contrary. Shaking a child to get her to answer you should never be in a mothers' head at all. Most of all the 'what do you mean you WOKE..?' Not 'you cried', the 'crime' was that she woke. Which obviously she shouldn't have done and which was quite an issue in the Rothley household, going by the stars on the fridge for every night she stayed in bed all night.

Joyce: Maddie was due to start school that year.

by russiandoll 21.06.12 18:45

I did not manage to watch interview all the way through as it stopped abruptly, did Kate use the word "shake", what I saw was her doing a grabbing motion as she mentioned getting hold of Maddie ?

by david_uk 17.07.12 10:36

has anyone any idea whats happened with Mccannfiles.com ??. its been months now, and I miss Dr Roberts!!

by Guest 17.07.12 10:56

Nige has posted this on his site:

Update: Unfortunately, sorting out the hardware problems this end has taken longer than expected and has been compounded by a number of issues unrelated to the Madeleine McCann case (and therefore irrelevant to this site) which have eaten into my time and ability to keep it updated. There is certainly no conspiracy involved and neither I, nor Dr Martin Roberts, have been 'silenced' in any way. If that were the case, the site would have disappeared completely.

I expect to get back to updating the site later this week, although some more patience will be required as it will take a bit of time to fully 'reconstruct' the events of the last 3 months. Nige, 16 July 2012

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

by david_uk 17.07.12 10:58

admin wrote:Nige has posted this on his site:

Update: Unfortunately, sorting out the hardware problems this end has taken longer than expected and has been compounded by a number of issues unrelated to the Madeleine McCann case (and therefore irrelevant to this site) which have eaten into my time and ability to keep it updated. There is certainly no conspiracy involved and neither I, nor Dr Martin Roberts, have been 'silenced' in any way. If that were the case, the site would have disappeared completely.

I expect to get back to updating the site later this week, although some more patience will be required as it will take a bit of time to fully 'reconstruct' the events of the last 3 months. Nige, 16 July 2012

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

Thank you Admin, I must of completely missed that post!. laughat

by lufc50337 20.07.12 11:01

GA is adamant that the last time Madeleine was seen was 5.30pm on the 3rd May

and I accept that he has good reason to be so sure (more than a Nanny statement)

There is a lot of anomolies within the phone and creche records but I don't think

it's because M had already died but because there was something else going on and connections/guests

we are unaware of which is causing confusion

The first few days things seemed to be done on the hoof, if it had happened earlier it would have

been slicker earlier, it took a few days for things to be set in motion

by **tigger** 01.10.12 16:19

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

This is a video from another topic but I found it instructive to see how Clarence was spinning the 'leak'. It appears that the crying episode was leaked just as the McCanns were in Brussels - pretending to launch a scheme which had in fact been initiated in Brussels before May 2007!

If that was leaked intentionally by the PJ, I don't blame them. Those two arguidos should have been in an interview room in Leicester for the rogatory interviews, which probably thanks to the Home Office, they didn't have to attend. Scandalous.

But the spin here! At this stage it's Maddie and Sean crying - Clarrie getting quite excited about there already having been 'someone there'. Clarrie being rather undiplomatic about the PJ who had released this information out of jealousy! spin

Latest topics