Re: "She's Cowering In a Wardrobe Or Something" Kate McCann on Oprah

by Verdi 16.12.15 23:36

sharonl wrote:
Hobs wrote:
We learned that Maddie hid from you in the bushes one night, something that has yet to be explained away.

Sorry, I am going a little off topic here but for ages I have been searching, very unsuccessfully, for an article where Kate says that Madeleine did not like to come in at bedtime and would often run around outside, playing hide and seek, in order to get a little more time. I think that this is the closest that I have got to someone else remembering it.

This could possibly be very significant to the question "what really happened to Madeleine", and I would like to read this article again. If anyone has more information or a link to this, please would you let me have it.

I don't recall the particular article you refer to but maybe this helps..

In a further twist, locals now claim that Madeleine did not always settle well. One evening they allege she ran away into the paths between the apartments, hiding for half an hour when it was time for bed.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-474656/Madeleine-missing-hour-did-McCanns-check-children.html

Not sure but I think this may have come from a vague comment GM made in one of his witness statements about Madeleine running off and hiding one day on the way back to their apartment. Haven't time to look at present.

by **Hobs** 17.12.15 1:19

The mccanns statements about the night of may 3rd is more revealing than they think.

In statement analysis it is well known that references to doors open/closing, lights on/off and water washing hands/showering/bathing can all indicate sexual activity has taken place.

It doesn't mean it did, it means that further investigation and questioning needs to be done to learn why such references were included in the subject's statement.

First we have kate and her infamous shower scene and payne turning up.
Note also the large discrepancy in time, she said 30 seconds, he said 30 mins.

I can understand a couple om minutes either way, especially in long conversations.

29 minutes is a major difference in time and I would probe further into what happened.

Kate told us she was showering whilst the children were eating and looking at some books

From her Sept 6th Rog interview

While the children were eating and looking at some books, Kate had a shower which lasted around 5 minutes. After showering, at around 6:30/6:40 p.m. and while she was getting dry, she heard somebody knocking at the balcony door. She wrapped herself in a towel.

Now in her statement to Police

Thursday May 3rd 2007

Kate Marie Healy's statement 04/05/07 @ 14.20pm

Yesterday, after the daily routine, Madeleine and the twins went to bed at around 7.30. They were in their respective beds. The interviewee and her husband stayed in their apartment to relax until 8.30pm. She took a bath, did her make-up and drank a glass of New Zealand wine with her husband.

Now. me being me would be asking the following (I'm nosy like this)

We have kate taking a shower.
We have payne showing up and we effectively have a temporal lacuna of approx 30 mins ( the time difference between kate's claim and payne's claim.
We then have kate taking a bath.

Given that introducing water into a statement can indicate sexual activity taking place.
I wonder if kate and payne got it on and kate then had to have a bath to wash any evidence away?

by Guest 17.12.15 8:45

Where has this water=sex stuff come from? I'm not buying that.

The statement shower/bath contradictions are interesting in their own right.

I don't think anyone was "getting it on" if Madeleine was already dead which is a logical conclusion of the dog alerts.

by woodpecker 17.12.15 10:35

I find 'taking a shower' when you are on your own with 3 small children very odd. Why not wait until Gerry came back and have a relaxed shower? The noise of the shower running particularly if the bathroom door was closed would surely drown the noise of children fighting/calling for mummy etc? Even if you left the door open, you still might not hear the children. You cannot assume because you left the children sitting quietly they will remain that way. The twins were only 2!

It is not credible that she took a shower and a bath within an hour of each action UNLESS of course there was a reason why she had become hot and sweaty after the shower.....

I tend to believe Payne never came to the apartment and they just didn't get their stories straight. His 'visit' was needed to establish that madeleine was alive that evening. There was no shower and she had a bath when Gerry was back to keep an eye on the children. However I don't understand why she mentioned a shower as it wasn't necessary to the story that Payne had called........

by Verdi 17.12.15 12:25

sharonl wrote:
Hobs wrote:
We learned that Maddie hid from you in the bushes one night, something that has yet to be explained away.

Sorry, I am going a little off topic here but for ages I have been searching, very unsuccessfully, for an article where Kate says that Madeleine did not like to come in at bedtime and would often run around outside, playing hide and seek, in order to get a little more time. I think that this is the closest that I have got to someone else remembering it.

This could possibly be very significant to the question "what really happened to Madeleine", and I would like to read this article again. If anyone has more information or a link to this, please would you let me have it.

Eureka - found it!

Gerry McCann witness statement - 10th May 2007

That, between Monday and Wednesday, not knowing the precise date, when they left the residence by the main door, to place the children in the respective creches, MADELEINE left [went] running to the left to the extreme opposite of the residential blocks where they were lodged, playing with the twins. That they had gone down to the furthest point away from those blocks, not knowing exactly how, the three children got into the gardens at the rear [of the blocks]. Then they followed the inside corridor [pathway] at the rear, next to the hedges [fences] up to the street that led to the secondary reception.

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN-10MAY.htm

by Non believer 17.12.15 12:52

Verdi wrote: according to Gerry McCann when he checked on the children at 9.something pm on the night of 3rd May he noticed the children's bedroom door was open wider than they left it

Strange he can remember how wide the bedroom door was open but couldn't remember if he went in the front door of the appartment or the back patio door Does this guy think every body is thick or something He said at first it was the front door then changed his mind to the patio door

by Verdi 17.12.15 15:42

Non believer wrote:
Verdi wrote: according to Gerry McCann when he checked on the children at 9.something pm on the night of 3rd May he noticed the children's bedroom door was open wider than they left it

Strange he can remember how wide the bedroom door was open but couldn't remember if he went in the front door of the appartment or the back patio door Does this guy think every body is thick or something He said at first it was the front door then changed his mind to the patio door

Yes, I believe he really does think we're all thick but then - I doubt it ever occurred to him that one day in the future his words would be out there in the public arena - bet he curses Portuguese law for allowing all that incriminating information to be presented before the world.

Talking of doors, I'm sure Hobbs won't object to a slight deviation from topic, reading through GM's statements without exception he says that when leaving the apartment in the daytime, the misses and kids left by way of the patio door whist he left through the front door after locking the patio door from the inside. No doubt they had their reasons for such a curious ritual but I've never seen an explanation as to why they deemed it necessary to exit through separate ends of the apartment - Katie must have found it a bit difficult negociating her way down those treacherous stone steps with gate with three young toddlers in tow - guess it was another instance of Ger just being Ger. They appear to have an obsession with windows and doors don't they. So, apartment locked during the day when they're all out yet they thought it safe to leave three very vulnerable young children alone at night in an unlocked apartment?

Not that I believe the nonsense for a second but if they're going to pave the way for an abductor to enter and steal a single child, leaving no trace of being in the apartment, without waking the twins, snatching one particular child out of the three from a darkened room and not apparently having a rummage about for swag (clearing not a burglar)? Still, as GM said, nothing of value was taken !!!!!!

by **Hobs** 17.12.15 18:43

BlueBag wrote:Where has this water=sex stuff come from? I'm not buying that.

The statement shower/bath contradictions are interesting in their own right.

I don't think anyone was "getting it on" if Madeleine was already dead which is a logical conclusion of the dog alerts.

Hi BlueBag.

It is something that is learned in statement analysis.
it is a common denominator in sex crimes and even murder.
When someone, using the process of free editing tells they washed their hands, they took a shower and towel dried themselves off the question is asked why do they feel the need to include such minutia.
It crops up a lot in sex crimes, sexual abuse/domestic violence and child abuse.
Example a child who had to be reminded to wash his hands after going to the bathroom and then it is noticed he is always washing his hands, can indicate something is going on in the home situation

A recent example which i spotted right away as a red flag, was in relation to the murder of Becky Watts by her step-brother and his girlfriend.
In the police interview with shauna hoare

Hoare described how when they visited the home she usually did the washing up while Matthews took a dog for a walk or did some vacuuming.

She said on this occasion she went to the kitchen and then out into the garden for a cigarette for some 20 minutes.
She said: "I came back in to the kitchen to drink some water.
"I washed my hands.
"I heard the front door slam. I assume Becky was leaving the house.
"I went into the living room and CBeebies was on the telly.

As we learned, Becky was the victim of a sexual homicide and both were involved.

It doesn't always mean sexual activity took place, it does however warrant closer investigation as water crops up in many crimes ( symbolic cleansing /washing away of the crime perhaps)

In child sexual abuse cases, investigators have noted that many times doors opening and closing can indicate a sexual crime ( the door opening is when the abuser arrives and the victim is terrified and the door closing when it is over and the victim feels les stresed.
The same with lights on or off.

Even adults for example suffering from PTSD will mention lights and doors and coverings.

With the mccanns we have water, showering/bathing lights on/off, doors open/closed.
All of which would cause me to ask why the need to introduce this into the statement?
Why it was given such prominence (angle of door) when we had already been told that both gerry and matt had allegedly checked on the children and so the door would appear slightly different?

http://www.itv.com/news/west/2015-10-12/watch-shauna-hoare-calmly-describes-events-to-police/

by **sharonl** 17.12.15 20:28

Verdi wrote:
sharonl wrote:
Hobs wrote:
We learned that Maddie hid from you in the bushes one night, something that has yet to be explained away.

Sorry, I am going a little off topic here but for ages I have been searching, very unsuccessfully, for an article where Kate says that Madeleine did not like to come in at bedtime and would often run around outside, playing hide and seek, in order to get a little more time. I think that this is the closest that I have got to someone else remembering it.

This could possibly be very significant to the question "what really happened to Madeleine", and I would like to read this article again. If anyone has more information or a link to this, please would you let me have it.
Eureka - found it!

Gerry McCann witness statement - 10th May 2007

That, between Monday and Wednesday, not knowing the precise date, when they left the residence by the main door, to place the children in the respective creches, MADELEINE left [went] running to the left to the extreme opposite of the residential blocks where they were lodged, playing with the twins. That they had gone down to the furthest point away from those blocks, not knowing exactly how, the three children got into the gardens at the rear [of the blocks]. Then they followed the inside corridor [pathway] at the rear, next to the hedges [fences] up to the street that led to the secondary reception.

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN-10MAY.htm

Thanks Verdi - that's great.

So, Madeleine was in the habit of running off, hiding in the bushes etc. I also a remember Kate McCann stating that Madeleine was difficult to get in at bedtime.

Complete speculation I know but no stone unturned. This has been niggling away at me for ages:

When we consider that there was an argument between Kate and Gerry, a broken shutter, a broken bed, Kates' bruises etc. I just wondered whether this was relevant - imagine all the group at the tapas bar, Kate is desperately trying to get herself ready and Madeleine is playing games with her. Even worse if Gerry says that he was going on ahead, and possibly the aerobics instructor was likely to be there.

Kate said that Gerry upset her by ignoring her on the back one night, Was he also in the habit of ignoring her on the way out?

by Verdi 17.12.15 22:59

sharonl wrote:
Verdi wrote:
sharonl wrote:
Hobs wrote:
We learned that Maddie hid from you in the bushes one night, something that has yet to be explained away.

Sorry, I am going a little off topic here but for ages I have been searching, very unsuccessfully, for an article where Kate says that Madeleine did not like to come in at bedtime and would often run around outside, playing hide and seek, in order to get a little more time. I think that this is the closest that I have got to someone else remembering it.

This could possibly be very significant to the question "what really happened to Madeleine", and I would like to read this article again. If anyone has more information or a link to this, please would you let me have it.
Eureka - found it!

Gerry McCann witness statement - 10th May 2007

That, between Monday and Wednesday, not knowing the precise date, when they left the residence by the main door, to place the children in the respective creches, MADELEINE left [went] running to the left to the extreme opposite of the residential blocks where they were lodged, playing with the twins. That they had gone down to the furthest point away from those blocks, not knowing exactly how, the three children got into the gardens at the rear [of the blocks]. Then they followed the inside corridor [pathway] at the rear, next to the hedges [fences] up to the street that led to the secondary reception.

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN-10MAY.htm

Thanks Verdi - that's great.

So, Madeleine was in the habit of running off, hiding in the bushes etc. I also a remember Kate McCann stating that Madeleine was difficult to get in at bedtime.

Complete speculation I know but no stone unturned. This has been niggling away at me for ages:

When we consider that there was an argument between Kate and Gerry, a broken shutter, a broken bed, Kates' bruises etc. I just wondered whether this was relevant - imagine all the group at the tapas bar, Kate is desperately trying to get herself ready and Madeleine is playing games with her. Even worse if Gerry says that he was going on ahead, and possibly the aerobics instructor was likely to be there.

Kate said that Gerry upset her by ignoring her on the back one night, Was he also in the habit of ignoring her on the way out?

Don't know about running off, sounds more like The Great Escape to me. The way I read GM's statement, the twins were with Madeleine on this particular occasion - how old were they at the time, about two years? If memory serves me well, they knocked the Millennium restaurant on the head because it was too far for the twins without a buggy yet here we have them cavorting about the Ocean Club resort faster than the parents can even think.

The way the McCanns explain away the bedtime routine, you'd think a glass of milk a few biscuits and a packet of crisps (thank goodness they didn't mention a pint of lager) worked miracles. Excited children of that age range are seldom that easily controlled at bedtime - I can imagine tantrums abundant interfering with that long awaited adult only time. You know, the adult only time they didn't achieve during the day because the kids were all ensconced in the crèche facilities - eh?

ETA: Wish to hell I never lost the text of 'madeleine' by KATE MCCANN, a novel of epic proportions. Reluctant to purchase even the cheaper paperback as I strongly object to helping fund their lifestyle preferences.

by plebgate 18.12.15 18:38

Now I know I am a bit daft, but is anyone able to explain to me in simple terms how Mrs. would even begin to think that Maddie had possibly been cowering anywhere.

Given that at the time of Oprah's interview Mr. Redwood had never been heard of in relation to the case and therefore the timelines given by The Tapas Crew were the ones where an abductor only had a matter of minutes to get into the apartment, snatch Maddie and open a window in order create a red herring, then I do not believe that Maddie would have had time to wake up, run and try and get away from an abductor and cower in a corner or wardrobe.

No that does not make any sense to me at all and I have to wonder why Mrs. would even think this was a possibility given that abductor would have had so little time to carry out this heinous crime.

by **Hobs** 18.12.15 20:17

plebgate wrote:Now I know I am a bit daft, but is anyone able to explain to me in simple terms how Mrs. would even begin to think that Maddie had possibly been cowering anywhere.

Given that at the time of Oprah's interview Mr. Redwood had never been heard of in relation to the case and therefore the timelines given by The Tapas Crew were the ones where an abductor only had a matter of minutes to get into the apartment, snatch Maddie and open a window in order create a red herring, then I do not believe that Maddie would have had time to wake up, run and try and get away from an abductor and cower in a corner or wardrobe.

No that does not make any sense to me at all and I have to wonder why Mrs. would even think this was a possibility given that abductor would have had so little time to carry out this heinous crime.

Hi Plebgate.

It's called leakage.

Kate is telling us what she knows Maddie does.

She doesn't tell us Maddie could be hiding, Maddie doesn't do that.

She tells us Maddie might be cowering, Maddie does that and , it would seem, more than once.

Every time they speak, they leak more marbles.

by Verdi 18.12.15 20:21

plebgate wrote:Now I know I am a bit daft, but is anyone able to explain to me in simple terms how Mrs. would even begin to think that Maddie had possibly been cowering anywhere.

Given that at the time of Oprah's interview Mr. Redwood had never been heard of in relation to the case and therefore the timelines given by The Tapas Crew were the ones where an abductor only had a matter of minutes to get into the apartment, snatch Maddie and open a window in order create a red herring, then I do not believe that Maddie would have had time to wake up, run and try and get away from an abductor and cower in a corner or wardrobe.

No that does not make any sense to me at all and I have to wonder why Mrs. would even think this was a possibility given that abductor would have had so little time to carry out this heinous crime.

I believe the cowering malarky was KM fantasizing, a sort of mental re-enactment, of her reaction when she first realized that Madeleine wasn't where she should be at around 10:00 pm on the night of the third i.e. in her own bed with cuddly cat! Like before she became aware that Madeleine had been abducted, having first thoroughly searched the apartment for a cowering little Madeleine or a sneaked off into our bed little Madeleine.

Cowering from what I hear you ask - well, in the absence of a potential abductor or bungling burglar at that stage, it must have been the bogey man. That 'oribble monster that they later told the twins snatched Madeleine from her bed. Then again, Madeleine could have been just petrified when she realized that she'd been left all alone in a dark strange place with her even younger brother and sister.

I could of course be wrong.

by plebgate 18.12.15 23:17

Hobs wrote:
plebgate wrote:Now I know I am a bit daft, but is anyone able to explain to me in simple terms how Mrs. would even begin to think that Maddie had possibly been cowering anywhere.

Given that at the time of Oprah's interview Mr. Redwood had never been heard of in relation to the case and therefore the timelines given by The Tapas Crew were the ones where an abductor only had a matter of minutes to get into the apartment, snatch Maddie and open a window in order create a red herring, then I do not believe that Maddie would have had time to wake up, run and try and get away from an abductor and cower in a corner or wardrobe.

No that does not make any sense to me at all and I have to wonder why Mrs. would even think this was a possibility given that abductor would have had so little time to carry out this heinous crime.
Hi Plebgate.

It's called leakage.

Kate is telling us what she knows Maddie does.

She doesn't tell us Maddie could be hiding, Maddie doesn't do that.

She tells us Maddie might be cowering, Maddie does that and , it would seem, more than once.

Every time they speak, they leak more marbles.

Thanks Hobs. thumbsup

by plebgate 18.12.15 23:43

Verdi wrote:
plebgate wrote:Now I know I am a bit daft, but is anyone able to explain to me in simple terms how Mrs. would even begin to think that Maddie had possibly been cowering anywhere.

Given that at the time of Oprah's interview Mr. Redwood had never been heard of in relation to the case and therefore the timelines given by The Tapas Crew were the ones where an abductor only had a matter of minutes to get into the apartment, snatch Maddie and open a window in order create a red herring, then I do not believe that Maddie would have had time to wake up, run and try and get away from an abductor and cower in a corner or wardrobe.

No that does not make any sense to me at all and I have to wonder why Mrs. would even think this was a possibility given that abductor would have had so little time to carry out this heinous crime.
I believe the cowering malarky was KM fantasizing, a sort of mental re-enactment, of her reaction when she first realized that Madeleine wasn't where she should be at around 10:00 pm on the night of the third i.e. in her own bed with cuddly cat! Like before she became aware that Madeleine had been abducted, having first thoroughly searched the apartment for a cowering little Madeleine or a sneaked off into our bed little Madeleine.

Cowering from what I hear you ask - well, in the absence of a potential abductor or bungling burglar at that stage, it must have been the bogey man. That 'oribble monster that they later told the twins snatched Madeleine from her bed. Then again, Madeleine could have been just petrified when she realized that she'd been left all alone in a dark strange place with her even younger brother and sister.

I could of course be wrong.

Even if Maddie had been petrified about being left alone, the timings given by the Tapas crew IMO would not allow time for Maddie to have woken up, cowered in the wardrobe then been snatched by an abductor all in the space of a few minutes. Mr. saw the three siblings fast asleep at 9 o'clock and very shortly afterwards JT " saw the abductor ". Didn't Mr. at one stage say that Jane had nearly caught the abductor? Therefore I still cannot understand why it would have entered her head that Maddie would have been cowering in the wardrobe.

Ref. a bogey man, I would be rather surprised if a bogey man had been mentioned on the holiday. Didn't Mrs. say that it all felt so safe? If it did then there would have been no need to mention bogey man/men IMO.

by worriedmum 18.12.15 23:45

plebgate wrote:Now I know I am a bit daft, but is anyone able to explain to me in simple terms how Mrs. would even begin to think that Maddie had possibly been cowering anywhere.

Given that at the time of Oprah's interview Mr. Redwood had never been heard of in relation to the case and therefore the timelines given by The Tapas Crew were the ones where an abductor only had a matter of minutes to get into the apartment, snatch Maddie and open a window in order create a red herring, then I do not believe that Maddie would have had time to wake up, run and try and get away from an abductor and cower in a corner or wardrobe.

No that does not make any sense to me at all and I have to wonder why Mrs. would even think this was a possibility given that abductor would have had so little time to carry out this heinous crime.

That's a really interesting and important point, plebgate.

by Mother bear 18.12.15 23:57

Hobs and Plebgate, you are both forgetting that Maddie was obviously "cowering" due to the abductors "TRIAL RUN" the night before. Don't forget Kate knew Maddie had been crying the evening before,....

by plebgate 19.12.15 9:21

No I hadn't forgotten that Mother bear. We have been told how Maddie was quite able to speak out when needed and IMO she would have said along the lines of - why didn't you come when we were crying because we were frightened when a nasty man was here.

My point really was about the timelines given and imo there being no time for Maddie to have woken up after her father last seeing her fast asleep, so much so that she didn't stir whilst he gazed at her and thought how lucky he was to have such a beautiful child, Maddie then possibly cowering in a corner and an abductor at that very same time entering the apartment and snatching her. All that within minutes. Still makes no sense to me.

Of course I think your post was tongue in cheek Mother bear but as has been said before, who on earth would leave their children alone the next night if they thoughtthe children had been crying let alone if there had been a trial run the night before?

by canada12 19.12.15 19:35

The whole "cowering" thing makes me wonder if this is what happened previously and it's Kate "leaking" the exact details of what happened.

For instance, let's assume that it was Madeleine crying the night that Mrs Fenn heard her. If it was Kate who came back to the apartment, and heard her crying, perhaps Madeleine knew from previous experience that her mum was someone to be feared if she was angry. It wasn't her daddy coming back, but her mum. So she ran and tried to hide in a cupboard... and Kate found her "cowering"... and then perhaps vented her anger at her...?

This makes sense to me.

by Verdi 19.12.15 20:39

plebgate wrote:
Verdi wrote:
plebgate wrote:Now I know I am a bit daft, but is anyone able to explain to me in simple terms how Mrs. would even begin to think that Maddie had possibly been cowering anywhere.

Given that at the time of Oprah's interview Mr. Redwood had never been heard of in relation to the case and therefore the timelines given by The Tapas Crew were the ones where an abductor only had a matter of minutes to get into the apartment, snatch Maddie and open a window in order create a red herring, then I do not believe that Maddie would have had time to wake up, run and try and get away from an abductor and cower in a corner or wardrobe.

No that does not make any sense to me at all and I have to wonder why Mrs. would even think this was a possibility given that abductor would have had so little time to carry out this heinous crime.
I believe the cowering malarky was KM fantasizing, a sort of mental re-enactment, of her reaction when she first realized that Madeleine wasn't where she should be at around 10:00 pm on the night of the third i.e. in her own bed with cuddly cat! Like before she became aware that Madeleine had been abducted, having first thoroughly searched the apartment for a cowering little Madeleine or a sneaked off into our bed little Madeleine.

Cowering from what I hear you ask - well, in the absence of a potential abductor or bungling burglar at that stage, it must have been the bogey man. That 'oribble monster that they later told the twins snatched Madeleine from her bed. Then again, Madeleine could have been just petrified when she realized that she'd been left all alone in a dark strange place with her even younger brother and sister.

I could of course be wrong.
Even if Maddie had been petrified about being left alone, the timings given by the Tapas crew IMO would not allow time for Maddie to have woken up, cowered in the wardrobe then been snatched by an abductor all in the space of a few minutes. Mr. saw the three siblings fast asleep at 9 o'clock and very shortly afterwards JT " saw the abductor ". Didn't Mr. at one stage say that Jane had nearly caught the abductor? Therefore I still cannot understand why it would have entered her head that Maddie would have been cowering in the wardrobe.

Ref. a bogey man, I would be rather surprised if a bogey man had been mentioned on the holiday. Didn't Mrs. say that it all felt so safe? If it did then there would have been no need to mention bogey man/men IMO.

Your point wasn't lost on me, I was merely pointing out (albeit in a round about way and with a failed attempt at a touch of levity) that during the interview with Oprah Winfrey she appeared to be re-enacting the moments she first discovered Madeleine was missing - or at least how she thought people might accept a panic situation. Not later events as they developed. If it helps, this is roughly what she said..

"She wasn't in bed so I thought maybe she's wandered through to our bed and that's why the door is open so I went through to our bedroom and she wasn't there and that's when I kinda started to I kinda started to panic a bit so I ran back to their room, literally as I went back into their room, the curtains that were drawn over just 'shreesh' flew open and that's when I saw the shutter was right up and the window was pushed right open - and that's when I just knew that someone had taken her.

So I mean I ran to the window, don't know what I thought I was going to see but I ran to the window, then I quickly 'foof' looked through the wardrobes, I suppose this temporary thought perhaps she's cowering in the wardrobe or something, anyway she wasn't there and I just ran out [Oprah interrupts] - yeah you know I just thought maybe she was hiding or something..."

Given the fact that this interview took place in 2009 - after the PJ files were made public, I'm more interested to understand why they were both still claiming that the shutter and window was open when the PJ files made clear that this was not the case. Shortly following KM's above words, Gerald took the helm as follows.....

"You know the way the room was, the way that window was you know the shutter up and the window, there is no way Madeleine could have done that - errr - at that age and err - it's just terrifying."

Didn't they realize at the time that the Oprah Winfrey show attracts an international audience who would already be aware that the crime scene was fabricated, or were they just flying in the face of reason - as in if you say it often enough people might believe you?

by plebgate 19.12.15 23:22

Verdi wrote:
plebgate wrote:
Verdi wrote:
plebgate wrote:Now I know I am a bit daft, but is anyone able to explain to me in simple terms how Mrs. would even begin to think that Maddie had possibly been cowering anywhere.

Given that at the time of Oprah's interview Mr. Redwood had never been heard of in relation to the case and therefore the timelines given by The Tapas Crew were the ones where an abductor only had a matter of minutes to get into the apartment, snatch Maddie and open a window in order create a red herring, then I do not believe that Maddie would have had time to wake up, run and try and get away from an abductor and cower in a corner or wardrobe.

No that does not make any sense to me at all and I have to wonder why Mrs. would even think this was a possibility given that abductor would have had so little time to carry out this heinous crime.
I believe the cowering malarky was KM fantasizing, a sort of mental re-enactment, of her reaction when she first realized that Madeleine wasn't where she should be at around 10:00 pm on the night of the third i.e. in her own bed with cuddly cat! Like before she became aware that Madeleine had been abducted, having first thoroughly searched the apartment for a cowering little Madeleine or a sneaked off into our bed little Madeleine.

Cowering from what I hear you ask - well, in the absence of a potential abductor or bungling burglar at that stage, it must have been the bogey man. That 'oribble monster that they later told the twins snatched Madeleine from her bed. Then again, Madeleine could have been just petrified when she realized that she'd been left all alone in a dark strange place with her even younger brother and sister.

I could of course be wrong.
Even if Maddie had been petrified about being left alone, the timings given by the Tapas crew IMO would not allow time for Maddie to have woken up, cowered in the wardrobe then been snatched by an abductor all in the space of a few minutes. Mr. saw the three siblings fast asleep at 9 o'clock and very shortly afterwards JT " saw the abductor ". Didn't Mr. at one stage say that Jane had nearly caught the abductor? Therefore I still cannot understand why it would have entered her head that Maddie would have been cowering in the wardrobe.

Ref. a bogey man, I would be rather surprised if a bogey man had been mentioned on the holiday. Didn't Mrs. say that it all felt so safe? If it did then there would have been no need to mention bogey man/men IMO.
Your point wasn't lost on me, I was merely pointing out (albeit in a round about way and with a failed attempt at a touch of levity) that during the interview with Oprah Winfrey she appeared to be re-enacting the moments she first discovered Madeleine was missing - or at least how she thought people might accept a panic situation. Not later events as they developed. If it helps, this is roughly what she said..

"She wasn't in bed so I thought maybe she's wandered through to our bed and that's why the door is open so I went through to our bedroom and she wasn't there and that's when I kinda started to I kinda started to panic a bit so I ran back to their room, literally as I went back into their room, the curtains that were drawn over just 'shreesh' flew open and that's when I saw the shutter was right up and the window was pushed right open - and that's when I just knew that someone had taken her.

So I mean I ran to the window, don't know what I thought I was going to see but I ran to the window, then I quickly 'foof' looked through the wardrobes, I suppose this temporary thought perhaps she's cowering in the wardrobe or something, anyway she wasn't there and I just ran out [Oprah interrupts] - yeah you know I just thought maybe she was hiding or something..."

Given the fact that this interview took place in 2009 - after the PJ files were made public, I'm more interested to understand why they were both still claiming that the shutter and window was open when the PJ files made clear that this was not the case. Shortly following KM's above words, Gerald took the helm as follows.....

"You know the way the room was, the way that window was you know the shutter up and the window, there is no way Madeleine could have done that - errr - at that age and err - it's just terrifying."

Didn't they realize at the time that the Oprah Winfrey show attracts an international audience who would already be aware that the crime scene was fabricated, or were they just flying in the face of reason - as in if you say it often enough people might believe you?

For me the timings are the important thing. They sat down and wrote them out as a group. IMO whatever they said afterwards had to make sense and tie in with those timings but for me it didn't. Is it any wonder so many people questioned and are still quesitoning what was said?

by **Jill Havern** 05.12.16 10:05

Bumping this statement analysis by Hobs for the benefit of new members.

by worriedmum 02.01.17 1:18

I've just rewatched this video. What on earth is Gerry talking about at about 27 minutes?

Gerry: 'You'd already had the biggest insult you could have as a parent and then to be accused or it ... suggested that you were involved in your ow daughter's disappearance,that was pretty bad.'

So what is he saying is 'the biggest insult'?

by MayMuse 02.01.17 1:21

worriedmum wrote:I've just rewatched this video. What on earth is Gerry talking about at about 27 minutes?

Gerry: 'You'd already had the biggest insult you could have as a parent and then to be accused or it ... suggested that you were involved in your ow daughter's disappearance,that was pretty bad.'

So what is he saying is 'the biggest insult'?

I think he meant that their child was "abducted" that was the biggest insult in my opinion, then second was the suggestion they were involved.

by MayMuse 02.01.17 1:31

Kate says she quickly looked through the wardrobes, I wonder how long it took her to move the travel cots so she could open the wardrobe doors,as I recall from the crime photos of the bedroom, there wasn't much room to swing a cat let alone fling open wardrobes...and all without disturbing the sleeping twins?

Log in for more topics