The Possible Dry Run By The Alleged Abductor That Possibly Caused The Alleged Crying Incident.

Monday, May 23, 2016

The Possible Dry Run By The Alleged Abductor That Possibly Caused The Alleged Crying Incident.

Equity wrote:Just joined the forum (been lurking for years) was a member of the maddiecasefiles for a long time, the 3As (veritas) and the mirror forum before that. I recently asked to be removed from the maddiecasefiles forum after I stuck up for 'cherry' who was being unjustly attacked by the usual suspects.

Back to the topic...

The 'Ponderings of Hobs' you linked to really struck a chord with me as I posted a very similar theory a couple of years back (but nowhere near as comprehensive). Unfortunately on the 'other forum', unless you are one of a very few regular posters, any post, no matter how insightful, is usually ignored.

I have thought for a long time that it was possible all the children were being babysat by the absent parent, more than likely in one apartment (not 5A). This would be the obvious solution in such a large group of adults with many young children. I think it was the reason they specifically asked Warner Holidays to accommodate all the families in the same block.

Rather than checking on the children, were they taking it in turns to take food and drink back to the absent parent to make their evening a bit more enjoyable?

I also considered the possibility that Madeleine, may have struggled to settle down in the makeshift 'creche' and was keeping all the other children awake. I have no idea what decisions may have been taken - whether to abandon the idea completely; 'punish' Madeleine by leaving her in 5A on her own at some point; administer something to 'help her sleep' without telling the other adults?

Unfortunately I'm not smart enough to come up with a credible scenario, but I have a gut feeling the answers to many (but far from all) of the nagging questions lie in the childcare arrangements that week.

I firmly believe that only two people know what happened to MBM - but somewhere in the above scenario is a reason all feel in some way responsible yet only two are fully culpable - hence the bizarre obfuscation from all those involved?

worriedmum wrote:And presumably the abductor had to go home after the 'dry run' and iron himself flat so  that he could hide between the wardrobe and the open bedroom door should the need arise...

HiDeHo wrote:BTW,,, Hi Equity and Welcome :)


I don't know about a theory, but I have come up with several questions regarding the childcare and crying

First... WHY did they claim it was the TWINS that were crying in their May 4th statement and then on May 10th it was Maddie and Sean?  What reason would there be for them to change that?


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




Second... IF Kate told Jane and Fiona as they claim the surely she would have told them what they told the police the following morning, it was TWINS that were crying, but Fiona and Jane BOTH claimed it was Maddie and Sean...leaving me to 'presume' they werent told until AFTER tit was changed (in other words...no mention of it Thursday night and possibly 'made up' as I have always believed anyway...

Third.... How many realise that Goncalo claims they DIDNT go through the front doors... ALL the tapas 7 went in via the patio doors.  That tells me there would have been someone in the apartment to let them in....

See this video at about 1.31







Four... Rachael claims that she wasnt sure if it was Thursday that she gave Ella a bath... now why would Ella be in her apartment in the evening.  Her little one was 1 year old so not a play friend... Why wasn't Russell or Jane giving her a bath on who knows what nights?


FIVE... What I find particularly interesting is why BOTH the McCanns claimed the cot was not in their room on Wednesday morning, even though the cleaner claimed it was!


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


I probably have more questions but five is enough for now :)

Ladyinred wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.], what you've suggested has been discussed here, but I can't remember where.

NickE wrote:

HiDeHo wrote:BTW,,, Hi Equity and Welcome :)


I don't know about a theory, but I have come up with several questions regarding the childcare and crying

First... WHY did they claim it was the TWINS that were crying in their May 4th statement and then on May 10th it was Maddie and Sean?  What reason would there be for them to change that?


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




Second... IF Kate told Jane and Fiona as they claim the surely she would have told them what they told the police the following morning, it was TWINS that were crying, but Fiona and Jane BOTH claimed it was Maddie and Sean...leaving me to 'presume' they werent told until AFTER tit was changed (in other words...no mention of it Thursday night and possibly 'made up' as I have always believed anyway...

Third.... How many realise that Goncalo claims they DIDNT go through the front doors... ALL the tapas 7 went in via the patio doors.  That tells me there would have been someone in the apartment to let them in....

See this video at about 1.31







Four... Rachael claims that she wasnt sure if it was Thursday that she gave Ella a bath... now why would Ella be in her apartment in the evening.  Her little one was 1 year old so not a play friend... Why wasn't Russell or Jane giving her a bath on who knows what nights?


FIVE... What I find particularly interesting is why BOTH the McCanns claimed the cot was not in their room on Wednesday morning, even though the cleaner claimed it was!


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


I probably have more questions but five is enough for now :)

Because they realized that they had to prove that Maddie was still around during week, just like the last photo that was flown in from the UK a few weeks later. 

BarryTheHatchet wrote:I can't remember which interview it was with Gerry, but he starts out with, "the twins were sleeping on the.... in their cots".
Sleeping on what, Gerry?  And why did you have to change it?

Maria wrote:, all the claims in the OP just show they had pre planned what to say to cover their asses for something someone else might possibly say or witnessed.  

It was a well thought out plan when you think about it, in the fe days they had to make it, but their mistake was not acting it out also, so they had no actual details, like for eg Paynes visit, (one of many 

melisande wrote:

worriedmum wrote:And presumably the abductor had to go home after the 'dry run' and iron himself flat so  that he could hide between the wardrobe and the open bedroom door should the need arise...

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

Have they questioned Flat Stanley?

Cherry wrote:Their is a section where members comment on MCF, you cant access that unless you are a member, I had heard they were not accepting new members, not sure if that still stands. Non members can only access the Reference parts of the site.

Cherry wrote:Would agree with your last statement 

Realist wrote:

Maria wrote:, all the claims in the OP just show they had pre planned what to say to cover their asses for something someone else might possibly say or witnessed.  

It was a well thought out plan when you think about it, in the fe days they had to make it, but their mistake was not acting it out also, so they had no actual details, like for eg Paynes visit, (one of many 

If it was a well thought out plan that that had been predetermined, why do you suppose that they needed to sit up all night of the 3rd/4th inst May supposedly working out timelines etc. on improvised writing material. That doesn't sound like a well thought out plan to me, it smacks of improvisation after the event.

Why not keep matters on a simple basis, for instance why would the McCanns have needed to complicate matters by insisting Payne saw Madeleine at 7 pm if he didn't, when they already had an independent witness in the form of Catriona Baker who testifies that she saw her alive at 6 pm.

I fully appreciate that all the party's statements are riddled with inconsistencies, some of them favour the McCanns, but most don't That is because there was a conflict of interest between the McCanns and their acquaintances, whereby it was in the interests of the former to show neglect, but not in the interests of the latter. No matter how hard you try to force the wrong pieces of a jigsaw into place, they jus' ain't gonna fit.

Maria wrote:

Realist wrote:

Maria wrote:, all the claims in the OP just show they had pre planned what to say to cover their asses for something someone else might possibly say or witnessed.  

It was a well thought out plan when you think about it, in the fe days they had to make it, but their mistake was not acting it out also, so they had no actual details, like for eg Paynes visit, (one of many 

If it was a well thought out plan that that had been predetermined, why do you suppose that they needed to sit up all night of the 3rd/4th inst May supposedly working out timelines etc. on improvised writing material. That doesn't sound like a well thought out plan to me, it smacks of improvisation after the event.

Why not keep matters on a simple basis, for instance why would the McCanns have needed to complicate matters by insisting Payne saw Madeleine at 7 pm if he didn't, when they already had an independent witness in the form of Catriona Baker who testifies that she saw her alive at 6 pm.

I fully appreciate that all the party's statements are riddled with inconsistencies, some of them favour the McCanns, but most don't That is because there was a conflict of interest between the McCanns and their acquaintances, whereby it was in the interests of the former to show neglect, but not in the interests of the latter. No matter how hard you try to force the wrong pieces of a jigsaw into place, they jus' ain't gonna fit.

 
I wouldn't say they sat up all night doing the timelines.  But anyway, it was a good plan but they obviously failed miserabely, like i said, if the had have acted the part out and went with those memories more people would have believed them. As it stood it wasnt perfect, they didn't think of details, timelines of the famous night was possibly one of them. The plan was well thought out, just not good enough.

Maybe payne was to prove she was still alive at that time, maybe they wanted more than one witness that she was alive that evening. Its best to have at least two witnesses. The only way the payne story complicated matters is because they didnt act it out, they forgot wether it was 30 seconds or 30 minutes. For eg, payne you say u went up to help kate and stayed for 30 minutes, but the kids were too tired and wanted to go to bed, and u saw all three kids alive and well.  Then when they were questioned neither of them knew the details of that visit, like what the kids and kate was wearing, how long he stayed for, if he went in or stayed at the door.  Because it likely didnt happen at all.  

I dont think there was much conflict between them all, little bits here and there, but the rest of the T7 happily statd they left their kids alone, even going as far as admitting one child was ill and puking and what not. Who in their right minds would admit to that in the interest of two other aquaintances, some who say they hardly knew the mccanns.
As you said, no matter how hard you try to force the wrong pieces of a jigsaw into place, they just wont fit.

Verdi wrote:

melisande wrote:

worriedmum wrote:And presumably the abductor had to go home after the 'dry run' and iron himself flat so  that he could hide between the wardrobe and the open bedroom door should the need arise...

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

Have they questioned Flat Stanley?

I'm liking it