Re: MADELEINE BY KATE MCCANN — II (The David Payne visit)

by marconi 07.09.13 23:00

Hicks wrote:
Châtelaine wrote:
Hicks wrote: [...]

If we set the accident of somewhere around 6.00/6.30 it would then give the MC'S two hours to clean up.

I think Kate had the fateful shower then, later after the clean up, took that bath.
***
I could indeed be ONE of the possible reasons to have a shower and a bath within hours.
Going over GM statement taken 10th May, concerning the evening of the 3rd, I find this bit interesting-

'During the afternoon of that day, the rest of the group, including the children, were at the beach having returned at 18H30, the time at which he saw DAVID PAYNE next to the tennis court.
DAVID went to visit KATE and the children and returned 19H00( so half an hour in 5a ?).. TRYING TO CONVINCE THE DEPONENT TO CONTINUE PLAY TENNIS, which he refused as he had already been playing FOR OVER AN HOUR and had to go back to his wife.

I think you have to use reverse psychology when dealing with the MC'S, so DP was probably urging GM to get back to apartment 5a asap.

When he returns he says that he 'thinks' Kate has already bathed

Further down we have- At around 19H00 he made his way to the apartment finding Kate and the children playing ON THE SOFA (so implying that there is nothing out of the ordinary concerning the sofa!) About 10-15 minutes later the children are taken to the bedroom where the all sit ON MADELEINE'S BED to read a story.

In Kate's statement, taken on the 4th, she skips over the bath/bed routine between 6.00/6.30 by merely saying that-'After the daily routine Madeleine and the twins were taken to the bedroom and put in their beds at 7.30.
The witness and her husband stayed in the apartment, RELAXING, so that must mean ..PANICKING until 8.30,she took a bath( hang on a minute, kate already had a shower at 6.30, and, Gerry says in his statement that he thought Kate had already bathed prior to his return, well, she had been jogging a short while earlier so it must have been obvious to a one eyed bat whether she had washed or not!)

Kate's statement Sept 6th- Kate had a shower that lasted 5 minutes at 6.30, during this 5 minutes she heard someone knock the door, enter DP , though maybe not as she said that he didn't actually enter the flat and was only there for 30 seconds. DP then left for the tennis courts 6.30/40.

As another here has pointed out why would DP pop round to help take the children to the recreation area when it was already decided by the MC'S earlier on that they would not go.

This is where they all fall down by not getting their stories to match up correctly. In his statement, 4th May, DP does not mention that he was the last person, other than the parents, to see M alive.
In their very first statements GM,KM DP do not mention DP visit to 5a on 3rd at 6.30.

Another really interesting fact is that DP made a phone call, lasting 100 seconds, to the Metropolitan Police child Abuse Team on May 4th at 23.13, he tried to deny this call but after further questioning was forced to admit it. What other reason would DP ring a child abuse unit, especially late at night when none of the other couples or the MC'S were around, if it was not to report child abuse? Was DP tempted, if only for 100 seconds, to spill the beans?

http://thetapas9drdavidpayne.blogspot.co.uk/2012/03/mccann-david-payne-phoned-metropolitan.html.

On her 2nd statement Kate said the she left the bathroom, wrapped in a towel, to talk to payne. On his rogatory letter Payne could not recall how Kate was dressed up at that moment.

by Guest 07.09.13 23:20

marconi wrote: [...]
On her 2nd statement Kate said the she left the bathroom, wrapped in a towel, to talk to payne. On his rogatory letter Payne could not recall how Kate was dressed up at that moment.

***
That's been one of the biggest laughs I've had in my life. Not being able to remember a naked woman wrapped in a towel. Pull the other one. Unless ...

by marconi 08.09.13 0:57

yes, yes, unless...he would rather see Gerry wrapped in a towel...

I wonder what will happen when Kate will be quizzed by the Yard. Being all by herself in front of all of those British

f. tossers.

By the way: Kate says in her book that the Portuguese inspector asked her why she was not looking at him, during the interrogation (am I right?).

But her mother Mrs. Healy told on an interview that Kate had told her that HE was the one who avoided looking at her!

PS this time I could remember how to spell "quizzed".

by **tigger** 08.09.13 6:47

It's pointless to take evidence as read from :
A. People who change their statements
B. People who have a personal interest in the case

Analysing these statements for inconsistencies will point at what needs to be hidden.

There was simply no time to do all the things necessary to hide an accident. The cleaning, taking the body out of range of police dogs, persuading the friends to back them up. Finding and 'adjusting' photographs, deciding on a cover story. Finding a safe hiding place...

The apparent lack of Maddie's DNA in 5a would either mean she'd barely been there or the cleaning had been very thorough.
Since traces of blood were found under a tile it doesn't speak of a quick wipe down.
The accident on he third is a red herring imo. Never happened.

by aiyoyo 08.09.13 7:38

Châtelaine wrote:
marconi wrote: [...]
On her 2nd statement Kate said the she left the bathroom, wrapped in a towel, to talk to payne. On his rogatory letter Payne could not recall how Kate was dressed up at that moment.
***
That's been one of the biggest laughs I've had in my life. Not being able to remember a naked woman wrapped in a towel. Pull the other one. Unless ...

IMV, the visit never took place. It was planned into the plot for a purpose.
It's only between Kate and Payne to say so, so who can dispute their lie, if the visit was just a disinformation to fool the Police?

Since there was no possible reason for Payne to visit right after Gerry had left from there, what could be the reason for creating that lie, if not to lead to the false belief Madeleine was seen alive and well at that time?

by Guest 08.09.13 8:25

tigger wrote:It's pointless to take evidence as read from :
A. People who change their statements
B. People who have a personal interest in the case

Analysing these statements for inconsistencies will point at what needs to be hidden.

There was simply no time to do all the things necessary to hide an accident. The cleaning, taking the body out of range of police dogs, persuading the friends to back them up. Finding and 'adjusting' photographs, deciding on a cover story. Finding a safe hiding place...

The apparent lack of Maddie's DNA in 5a would either mean she'd barely been there or the cleaning had been very thorough.
Since traces of blood were found under a tile it doesn't speak of a quick wipe down.
The accident on he third is a red herring imo. Never happened.

seconded!

by Hicks 08.09.13 10:15

tigger wrote:It's pointless to take evidence as read from :
A. People who change their statements
B. People who have a personal interest in the case

Analysing these statements for inconsistencies will point at what needs to be hidden.

There was simply no time to do all the things necessary to hide an accident. The cleaning, taking the body out of range of police dogs, persuading the friends to back them up. Finding and 'adjusting' photographs, deciding on a cover story. Finding a safe hiding place...

The apparent lack of Maddie's DNA in 5a would either mean she'd barely been there or the cleaning had been very thorough.
Since traces of blood were found under a tile it doesn't speak of a quick wipe down.
The accident on he third is a red herring imo. Never happened.

My opinion is that there would have been time to deal with the accident, two hours is ample to thoroughly clean the accident area, the dogs alerted to the parents bedroom, the wardrobe shelf, which could have stored M until she was removed much later (Smith sighting).

KM and GM had jogged frequently on the beach, by the cliffs so they knew that area well. KM makes many references to the rocks saying that she feels closest to M there, talks to M by the rocks, and told of the dream she had where she saw M lying at this location.

Their cover story evolved over the weeks, the statements changing, adding new bits to ensure any loose ends could be accounted for.

The last photo was adjusted again at a later date. I think that the MC'S wanted a last photo of Madeleine smiling to add weight to their story that M had the 'best day ever' when it reality it was the worst.

by **tigger** 09.09.13 11:22

If an accident happened in the afternoon or early evening of the 3rd there was no need to stage a fake abduction that night, they still had a day and two nights in reserve.
It would also make it easier to find a hiding place for the body and although imo we're dealing with ''unusual" people, emotionally a death, a decision to hide a body barely cold, find a safe hiding place (Gerry wanted dogs as early as around 11.30) and a narrative to cover it all .. absolutely not possible imo.

There's quite a lot on the cliffs in the files. The PJ - believe it or not - had the beach and cliffs checked thoroughly. It's also impossible to throw a body into the sea from that point, it would land on the rocks.

by marconi 09.09.13 11:38

tigger wrote:If an accident happened in the afternoon or early evening of the 3rd there was no need to stage a fake abduction that night, they still had a day and two nights in reserve.
It would also make it easier to find a hiding place for the body and although imo we're dealing with ''unusual" people, emotionally a death, a decision to hide a body barely cold, find a safe hiding place (Gerry wanted dogs as early as around 11.30) and a narrative to cover it all .. absolutely not possible imo.

There's quite a lot on the cliffs in the files. The PJ - believe it or not - had the beach and cliffs checked thoroughly. It's also impossible to throw a body into the sea from that point, it would land on the rocks.

The nannies of the nursery would have missed her.

I thought of the possibility of the body under a rock surrounded by the sea, cold salt water.
Or it was premeditated ?

And why was Kate not invited to go to the beach? Own choice or Tapas 7's?

by Guest 09.09.13 12:09

tigger wrote:If an accident happened in the afternoon or early evening of the 3rd there was no need to stage a fake abduction that night, they still had a day and two nights in reserve.
It would also make it easier to find a hiding place for the body and although imo we're dealing with ''unusual" people, emotionally a death, a decision to hide a body barely cold, find a safe hiding place (Gerry wanted dogs as early as around 11.30) and a narrative to cover it all .. absolutely not possible imo.

There's quite a lot on the cliffs in the files. The PJ - believe it or not - had the beach and cliffs checked thoroughly. It's also impossible to throw a body into the sea from that point, it would land on the rocks.

Seconded!

by Mariita 09.09.13 13:07

I just can't believe 'it' happened on Thursday night, there are too many strange things the days before. Dr Martin Roberts, mccannfiles, wrote about the X factor about these things...if one tries to find some kind of logic in all those circumstances then 'it' happened some days earlier according to what makes sense and what doesn't.

Imo if Kate hardly mentions something (or not mentions it at all), it is a red herring, - meaning there's a lot. To hide. As Wednesday for instance..a rather empty day. What was really going on that day??

Many McCann-believers base their belief on just that...Thursday. They can't fit in an accident (with a following cover up;hiding the body,cleaning etc) in that day's busy evening schedule, and therefore it didn't happen at all. So the abduction has to be true, nothing else makes sense... But if this all takes place on Wednesday, Thursday or even Monday, the picture looks completely different. With the bonus that all strange things suddenly make a lot more sense. So this belief that it HAD to be on Thursday is, logically, a dead end. I wouldn't believe it either. But on the other hand, who picked Thursday as the day to be the 'abductionday'? The McCanns. Madeleine's last documented whereabouts come from statements made by people I can't trust...David Payne claims he visited the apartment Thursday evening, and Kate verifies it. This is also something the believers take as the absolute TRUTH.

How easy...commit a crime and just tell the world what happened, according to you. Why are there even investigations, lie detectors etc etc. Just make up a story and hope for the law enforcement to believe every word you say.
I CAN'T BELIEVE THEY ARE GETTING AWAY WITH THIS!!
Why do the police believe a single sound that comes out of Jane Tanners mouth, when thousands of people either laugh or cry when when they listen to this 'important witness statement'

No, let go off Thursday, then everything changes. Main thing, it gives the McCanns&co MORE TIME to do things without having the police or the press (or anyone else) behind them all the time. So much can be done when you're just one of many holidaymakers, especially as a part of a group with children. Who keeps on track who's who in that group, especially when the children spend so little time with their parents. I can't imagine anyone paying attention to what child is missing on this or that occasion (except Mr Abductor of course).

What I would do to see the activities not mentioned in 'Madeleine'...

by Hicks 09.09.13 13:53

tigger wrote:If an accident happened in the afternoon or early evening of the 3rd there was no need to stage a fake abduction that night, they still had a day and two nights in reserve.
It would also make it easier to find a hiding place for the body and although imo we're dealing with ''unusual" people, emotionally a death, a decision to hide a body barely cold, find a safe hiding place (Gerry wanted dogs as early as around 11.30) and a narrative to cover it all .. absolutely not possible imo.

There's quite a lot on the cliffs in the files. The PJ - believe it or not - had the beach and cliffs checked thoroughly. It's also impossible to throw a body into the sea from that point, it would land on the rocks.

You say that there would be no need to fake an abduction if the accident happened on the 3rd but the way I see it is that they would absolutely need to act fast.
For starters, having a corpse hanging around for two days, the smell would be awful, leaving far more odour around to detect, don't forget they are doctors who are very forensically aware, plus the weather was heating up.
Questions would have been asked about Madeleine's whereabouts on the last day of the holiday.
The deleted phone calls might have been to the 'person' who made M disappear.

I believe that the MC'S had help with the disposal, perhaps a millionaire friend who had a boat would take the body out to sea.
There is the Brit couple who saw a black package, 2-3ft long being put on to a jetski then taken out to an official looking grey boat early on the morning 4th May.
The man the Smiths saw( 10.00pm) was heading to the beach wasn't he? What if someone was waiting there ready to take delivery and do the disposal, by 11.00pm GM would have no qualms in getting the sniffers dogs in at that time as M was probably already way out to sea.

by Mariita 09.09.13 14:05

Hicks wrote:
tigger wrote:If an accident happened in the afternoon or early evening of the 3rd there was no need to stage a fake abduction that night, they still had a day and two nights in reserve.
It would also make it easier to find a hiding place for the body and although imo we're dealing with ''unusual" people, emotionally a death, a decision to hide a body barely cold, find a safe hiding place (Gerry wanted dogs as early as around 11.30) and a narrative to cover it all .. absolutely not possible imo.

There's quite a lot on the cliffs in the files. The PJ - believe it or not - had the beach and cliffs checked thoroughly. It's also impossible to throw a body into the sea from that point, it would land on the rocks.
You say that there would be no need to fake an abduction if the accident happened on the 3rd but the way I see it is that they would absolutely need to act fast.
For starters, having a corpse hanging around for two days, the smell would be awful, leaving far more odour around to detect, don't forget they are doctors who are very forensically aware, plus the weather was heating up.
Questions would have been asked about Madeleine's whereabouts on the last day of the holiday.
The deleted phone calls might have been to the 'person' who made M disappear.

I believe that the MC'S had help with the disposal, perhaps a millionaire friend who had a boat would take the body out to sea.
There is the Brit couple who saw a black package, 2-3ft long being put on to a jetski then taken out to an official looking grey boat early on the morning 4th May.
The man the Smiths saw( 10.00pm) was heading to the beach wasn't he? What if someone was waiting there ready to take delivery and do the disposal, by 11.00pm GM would have no qualms in getting the sniffers dogs in at that time as M was probably already way out to sea.

But they could have disposed the body earlier, why wait til Thursday if it all happened in the beginning of the week. Why insist on Thursday? The man Smiths saw coulde have been Gerry, but the child could have been someone else as a part of the script. Imo Madeleine was no longer with them on Thursday, no reliable witness confirm that.

by Mariita 09.09.13 14:28

Why fake an abduction at all after an accident? If I see the advantages with making the world believe my child's been abducted and might possibly be alive six years after, then I've proved myself to be icecold and an icecold person is capable of so much more than covering up an accident.

by Cristobell 09.09.13 14:43

Mariita wrote:Why fake an abduction at all after an accident? If I see the advantages with making the world believe my child's been abducted and might possibly be alive six years after, then I've proved myself to be icecold and an icecold person is capable of so much more than covering up an accident.

WOW, thats quite a statement and gives much food for thought.

by Hicks 09.09.13 14:51

Mariita wrote:Why fake an abduction at all after an accident? If I see the advantages with making the world believe my child's been abducted and might possibly be alive six years after, then I've proved myself to be icecold and an icecold person is capable of so much more than covering up an accident.

Thing is, we don't know if it was an accident do we? If it WAS an accident there still had to be a reason why M's body had to disappear.

Charlotte Pennington saw M alive on the 3rd, she read her stories, apparently.

I believe that M died on the Thursday, early evening, between 5.30 - 7.00 pm, disposed of by the late evening.

Pamela Fenn heard M crying on the 1st May, so we know she was alive then, pity Mrs Fenn was not at home all day on the Tuesday.
On the 3rd Mrs Fenn didn't hear any noise from below, not even the patio doors opening and closing that she usually heard other on other days.

by Mariita 09.09.13 15:15

Hicks wrote:
Mariita wrote:Why fake an abduction at all after an accident? If I see the advantages with making the world believe my child's been abducted and might possibly be alive six years after, then I've proved myself to be icecold and an icecold person is capable of so much more than covering up an accident.
Thing is, we don't know if it was an accident do we? If it WAS an accident there still had to be a reason why M's body had to disappear.

Charlotte Pennington saw M alive on the 3rd, she read her stories, apparently.

I believe that M died on the Thursday, early evening, between 5.30 - 7.00 pm, disposed of by the late evening.

Pamela Fenn heard M crying on the 1st May, so we know she was alive then, pity Mrs Fenn was not at home all day on the Tuesday.
On the 3rd Mrs Fenn didn't hear any noise from below, not even the patio doors opening and closing that she usually heard other on other days.

True, we don't know. But sometimes (quite often) I get the feeling that suggesting something else than the accident-scenario is a 'forbidden area'. Where, Imo, there are x number of reasons to abandon an accidental death...Not saying Im totally convinced all the time, as You say there could be certain reasons why an autopsy might be extremely uncomfortable for the McCanns. But then again, couldn't that be explained in a way that 'clears' them as parents. Or maybe they couln't take such a risk...? There are many possibilities, its just so frustrating when there never seems to come to an end and the truth is hidden.

Regarding the nannies, I have to go back and read their statements. I don't know, I think there is a thread somewhere here with facts that give reason to doubt them too. So many persons on that horrible holiday six years ago that seemingly were connected to each other from earlier on. And for some reason, they are anything but open about it...

by **tigger** 09.09.13 15:35

@Hicks. So in the space of 3 hours :
One McC says to the other : Darling our firstborn has just died - best thing is we call it an abduction.
You clean up, get some stuff from the supermarket whilst I phone our millionaire friend to see if he can dump the body in the sea, bring our friends up to speed and see if someone has sky news on speed dial.
I'll sort out some out of date photographs which don't look much like her and see if I can get hold of a car to get to the Lagos marina.
You think of a way we won't be blamed for leaving them alone - window? That will do. Just explain to Jane she could perhaps see an abductor - that's more or less all then. Still light now so need a large bag.
Right, when I come back we'll have a quick glass of New Zealand and tootle off to the Tapas. My check is at nine and you'll do the honours at ten. Don't forget to mess up the bed.

10.15 - don't tell me you forgot the bed!! O, Cuddlecat? That will do nicely...

by Hicks 09.09.13 15:45

Mariita wrote:
Hicks wrote:
Mariita wrote:Why fake an abduction at all after an accident? If I see the advantages with making the world believe my child's been abducted and might possibly be alive six years after, then I've proved myself to be icecold and an icecold person is capable of so much more than covering up an accident.
Thing is, we don't know if it was an accident do we? If it WAS an accident there still had to be a reason why M's body had to disappear.

Charlotte Pennington saw M alive on the 3rd, she read her stories, apparently.

I believe that M died on the Thursday, early evening, between 5.30 - 7.00 pm, disposed of by the late evening.

Pamela Fenn heard M crying on the 1st May, so we know she was alive then, pity Mrs Fenn was not at home all day on the Tuesday.
On the 3rd Mrs Fenn didn't hear any noise from below, not even the patio doors opening and closing that she usually heard other on other days.
True, we don't know. But sometimes (quite often) I get the feeling that suggesting something else than the accident-scenario is a 'forbidden area'. Where, Imo, there are x number of reasons to abandon an accidental death...Not saying Im totally convinced all the time, as You say there could be certain reasons why an autopsy might be extremely uncomfortable for the McCanns. But then again, couldn't that be explained in a way that 'clears' them as parents. Or maybe they couln't take such a risk...? There are many possibilities, its just so frustrating when there never seems to come to an end and the truth is hidden.

Regarding the nannies, I have to go back and read their statements. I don't know, I think there is a thread somewhere here with facts that give reason to doubt them too. So many persons on that horrible holiday six years ago that seemingly were connected to each other from earlier on. And for some reason, they are anything but open about it...

I know exactly what you mean about the 'forbidden area', it is much more comfortable to work on the idea of M having an accident than to go down the darker routes.

I think it was Charlotte Pennington who was supposed to have read stories to M on the 3rd. There are crèche records that indicate M was there on that day.

Some say that the crèche records have been falsified and that the Nanny is mistaken, or worse, knowingly telling lies. There is a tendency to 'overthink' the problem and see conspiracy where there really isn't any, to my way of thinking if the Nanny says she saw her on the 3rd and it corroborates with the crèche records then most likely M WAS there on the 3rd.

by Hicks 09.09.13 15:59

tigger wrote:@Hicks. So in the space of 3 hours :
One McC says to the other : Darling our firstborn has just died - best thing is we call it an abduction.
You clean up, get some stuff from the supermarket whilst I phone our millionaire friend to see if he can dump the body in the sea, bring our friends up to speed and see if someone has sky news on speed dial.
I'll sort out some out of date photographs which don't look much like her and see if I can get hold of a car to get to the Lagos marina.
You think of a way we won't be blamed for leaving them alone - window? That will do. Just explain to Jane she could perhaps see an abductor - that's more or less all then. Still light now so need a large bag.
Right, when I come back we'll have a quick glass of New Zealand and tootle off to the Tapas. My check is at nine and you'll do the honours at ten. Don't forget to mess up the bed.

10.15 - don't tell me you forgot the bed!! O, Cuddlecat? That will do nicely...

tigger...... very amusing!

Ok then, tell me your theory concerning the day of Madeleine's demise.

I will just say that doctors are trained to think on their feet.

by Hicks 09.09.13 16:13

tigger wrote:@Hicks. So in the space of 3 hours :
One McC says to the other : Darling our firstborn has just died - best thing is we call it an abduction.
You clean up, get some stuff from the supermarket whilst I phone our millionaire friend to see if he can dump the body in the sea, bring our friends up to speed and see if someone has sky news on speed dial.
I'll sort out some out of date photographs which don't look much like her and see if I can get hold of a car to get to the Lagos marina.
You think of a way we won't be blamed for leaving them alone - window? That will do. Just explain to Jane she could perhaps see an abductor - that's more or less all then. Still light now so need a large bag.
Right, when I come back we'll have a quick glass of New Zealand and tootle off to the Tapas. My check is at nine and you'll do the honours at ten. Don't forget to mess up the bed.

10.15 - don't tell me you forgot the bed!! O, Cuddlecat? That will do nicely...

By the way, the MC'S millionaire friend, who lives on the outskirts of PDL, did do them real big favours like getting the keys to the church for them to go and pray-or do whatever, storing the Renault Scenic on his property so that the MC'S could have their own forensic team go over it.
What's to say that this friend didn't help them in other areas as well.

by Mariita 09.09.13 16:23

Hicks wrote:
Mariita wrote:
Hicks wrote:
Mariita wrote:Why fake an abduction at all after an accident? If I see the advantages with making the world believe my child's been abducted and might possibly be alive six years after, then I've proved myself to be icecold and an icecold person is capable of so much more than covering up an accident.
Thing is, we don't know if it was an accident do we? If it WAS an accident there still had to be a reason why M's body had to disappear.

Charlotte Pennington saw M alive on the 3rd, she read her stories, apparently.

I believe that M died on the Thursday, early evening, between 5.30 - 7.00 pm, disposed of by the late evening.

Pamela Fenn heard M crying on the 1st May, so we know she was alive then, pity Mrs Fenn was not at home all day on the Tuesday.
On the 3rd Mrs Fenn didn't hear any noise from below, not even the patio doors opening and closing that she usually heard other on other days.
True, we don't know. But sometimes (quite often) I get the feeling that suggesting something else than the accident-scenario is a 'forbidden area'. Where, Imo, there are x number of reasons to abandon an accidental death...Not saying Im totally convinced all the time, as You say there could be certain reasons why an autopsy might be extremely uncomfortable for the McCanns. But then again, couldn't that be explained in a way that 'clears' them as parents. Or maybe they couln't take such a risk...? There are many possibilities, its just so frustrating when there never seems to come to an end and the truth is hidden.

Regarding the nannies, I have to go back and read their statements. I don't know, I think there is a thread somewhere here with facts that give reason to doubt them too. So many persons on that horrible holiday six years ago that seemingly were connected to each other from earlier on. And for some reason, they are anything but open about it...
I know exactly what you mean about the 'forbidden area', it is much more comfortable to work on the idea of M having an accident than to go down the darker routes.

I think it was Charlotte Pennington who was supposed to have read stories to M on the 3rd. There are crèche records that indicate M was there on that day.

Some say that the crèche records have been falsified and that the Nanny is mistaken, or worse, knowingly telling lies. There is a tendency to 'overthink' the problem and see conspiracy where there really isn't any, to my way of thinking if the Nanny says she saw her on the 3rd and it corroborates with the crèche records then most likely M WAS there on the 3rd.

But is it to 'overthink' when you clearly see the very least strange behaviour and statements made by Andy Redwood just to mention one. Which normal policeman with common sense would buy this fairytale and even defend it?
Normally I wouldn't quote, less agree with, anything that Joseph Goebbels said,- but maybe this statement contains an inch of the truth;
"The essential English leadership secret does not depend on particular intelligence. Rather, it depends on a remarkably stupid thick-headedness. The English follow the principle that when one lies, one should lie big, and stick to it. They keep up their lies, even at the risk of looking ridiculous." (Wikiquote)

So what secret is so damn important to keep sealed even if it makes you look terribly incompetent and ridiculous?
YES, I do think people are knowingly telling lies. Not all of them have the whole 'background' story, but what they know (or think they know) is enough for them to lie. And a nanny gets off easy, one lie and soon most people will have forgotten about who she is and she moves on with her life. Worse for those in powerful places, known and recognised by lots of people around the world.

by **tigger** 09.09.13 16:27

Hicks wrote:
tigger wrote:@Hicks. So in the space of 3 hours :
One McC says to the other : Darling our firstborn has just died - best thing is we call it an abduction.
You clean up, get some stuff from the supermarket whilst I phone our millionaire friend to see if he can dump the body in the sea, bring our friends up to speed and see if someone has sky news on speed dial.
I'll sort out some out of date photographs which don't look much like her and see if I can get hold of a car to get to the Lagos marina.
You think of a way we won't be blamed for leaving them alone - window? That will do. Just explain to Jane she could perhaps see an abductor - that's more or less all then. Still light now so need a large bag.
Right, when I come back we'll have a quick glass of New Zealand and tootle off to the Tapas. My check is at nine and you'll do the honours at ten. Don't forget to mess up the bed.

10.15 - don't tell me you forgot the bed!! O, Cuddlecat? That will do nicely...
By the way, the MC'S millionaire friend, who lives on the outskirts of PDL, did do them real big favours like getting the keys to the church for them to go and pray-or do whatever, storing the Renault Scenic on his property so that the MC'S could have their own forensic team go over it.
What's to say that this friend didn't help them in other areas as well.

It's quite a big favour to ask of any 'friend' at such short notice too. I wrote the post to show how impossible the timeframe is.

by Mariita 09.09.13 16:39

tigger wrote:
Hicks wrote:
tigger wrote:@Hicks. So in the space of 3 hours :
One McC says to the other : Darling our firstborn has just died - best thing is we call it an abduction.
You clean up, get some stuff from the supermarket whilst I phone our millionaire friend to see if he can dump the body in the sea, bring our friends up to speed and see if someone has sky news on speed dial.
I'll sort out some out of date photographs which don't look much like her and see if I can get hold of a car to get to the Lagos marina.
You think of a way we won't be blamed for leaving them alone - window? That will do. Just explain to Jane she could perhaps see an abductor - that's more or less all then. Still light now so need a large bag.
Right, when I come back we'll have a quick glass of New Zealand and tootle off to the Tapas. My check is at nine and you'll do the honours at ten. Don't forget to mess up the bed.

10.15 - don't tell me you forgot the bed!! O, Cuddlecat? That will do nicely...
By the way, the MC'S millionaire friend, who lives on the outskirts of PDL, did do them real big favours like getting the keys to the church for them to go and pray-or do whatever, storing the Renault Scenic on his property so that the MC'S could have their own forensic team go over it.
What's to say that this friend didn't help them in other areas as well.
It's quite a big favour to ask of any 'friend' at such short notice too. I wrote the post to show how impossible the timeframe is.

And this is again used by the McCanns as an explanation, nothing but an abduction could fit in. The problem is not even an abduction fits in, but for many 'believers' it's nevertheless the most likely scenario...all due to this timeframe.

by Guest 09.09.13 17:30

If someone, not a close friend, provides assistance under extreme circumstances, it's generally either someone who can gain a lot or someone who can lose a lot ... [Maman, early 2008, when we were on the "follow the money" trail].

by Newintown 09.09.13 17:38

Châtelaine wrote:If someone, not a close friend, provides assistance under extreme circumstances, it's generally either someone who can gain a lot or someone who can lose a lot ... [Maman, early 2008, when we were on the "follow the money" trail].

Didn't Gerry McCann say at a very early stage that he'd "brought in a few favours", I'm not sure if that is the exact wording but I don't think it's far off.

I also remember that one of the Tapas group had had an ongoing issue with a hospital and Gerry had stood by that person as a reference (again I'm not sure of the exact circumstances and am very vague on it, I remember reading about it a long time ago), could that be the "pact" that holds them together?

by Hicks 09.09.13 17:52

tigger wrote:
Hicks wrote:
tigger wrote:@Hicks. So in the space of 3 hours :
One McC says to the other : Darling our firstborn has just died - best thing is we call it an abduction.
You clean up, get some stuff from the supermarket whilst I phone our millionaire friend to see if he can dump the body in the sea, bring our friends up to speed and see if someone has sky news on speed dial.
I'll sort out some out of date photographs which don't look much like her and see if I can get hold of a car to get to the Lagos marina.
You think of a way we won't be blamed for leaving them alone - window? That will do. Just explain to Jane she could perhaps see an abductor - that's more or less all then. Still light now so need a large bag.
Right, when I come back we'll have a quick glass of New Zealand and tootle off to the Tapas. My check is at nine and you'll do the honours at ten. Don't forget to mess up the bed.

10.15 - don't tell me you forgot the bed!! O, Cuddlecat? That will do nicely...
By the way, the MC'S millionaire friend, who lives on the outskirts of PDL, did do them real big favours like getting the keys to the church for them to go and pray-or do whatever, storing the Renault Scenic on his property so that the MC'S could have their own forensic team go over it.
What's to say that this friend didn't help them in other areas as well.
It's quite a big favour to ask of any 'friend' at such short notice too. I wrote the post to show how impossible the timeframe is.

Madeleine was alive on the Tuesday 1st at around 23.45 according to PF and there is no reason to doubt her evidence, she states that when the patio doors opened the crying stopped, so M still alive for now.
I have read that antenna 3 (?) went to PDL with hidden cameras, interviewed a friend of PF who says that the McCann's were at CHAPLINS on the Tuesday night, this would fit as they definitely were not around to see to M.

So if the timeline for the 3rd doesn't fit(I'm not sure that it doesn't) perhaps then the fateful day must have been on the Wednesday, possibly the early hours of that day.

KM states that on the Tuesday night,' they went back to the apartment at 11.00pm,(lies) on this night, after midnight M went in to their room and said that her sister Amelie was crying, M slept in their room, she says that before M came in the room she had already heard A crying but did not go into the room as the crying started at the same time as M came into her room, Kate does not remember if she or Gerry went to the children's room after this but says that A cried for only a short time. Well... someone obviously went to the children's room and removed a cot.

I am going to suggest now, having thought about these timings that the McCann's were likely very tipsy, they got to the apartment a lot later than 11.00pm we know that for sure, with the children constantly crying that night and not getting much sleep perhaps 'something happened during this time.

A cleaner gave evidence that there was one cot in the MC'S room on Wed, one in the children's bedroom, the only bed used was the one pushed up by the window( did Kate sleep in this bed late Tuesday night or early hours of Wednesday morning instead of Wednesday night?)) Kate didn't seem to get much sleep as mobile phone records show that she was up very early on that day phoning her friend at 7.36 am.

Charlotte Pennington(again) states that she was one of the first people to go into children's bedroom just after 10.00pm there were NO children in the room, yet when the GNR arrive the twins are in there, where were they before 10.00pm on the night of the 3rd?

by j.rob 14.05.15 17:17

Hobs - the Chaplins story interests me. I wonder if it is true that on one occasion a MW member of staff went to find them their as a child had been heard crying in the McCann apartment for a long time? If you do a search including Chaplins and the McCanns you will find several references to people who claim to have been in the resort at the same time of the McCanns. And who claim that the McCanns did go to Chaplins on at least one occasion. IF this is true, it knocks the checking story right out of the water. But perhaps TM had persuaded a nanny to do some baby listening outside apartments and *something* happened then. It also allows a window of opportunity for "the abductor."

I agree with you theory that if the Mcs got back tipsy and there were children crying then something could have happened then in a moment of anger.

Then again, if the Mcs really did leave the children alone, then it is perfectly possible that Madeleine had an accident, as Amaral claimed.

by sar 15.05.15 15:51

j.rob wrote:Hobs - the Chaplins story interests me. I wonder if it is true that on one occasion a MW member of staff went to find them their as a child had been heard crying in the McCann apartment for a long time? If you do a search including Chaplins and the McCanns you will find several references to people who claim to have been in the resort at the same time of the McCanns. And who claim that the McCanns did go to Chaplins on at least one occasion. IF this is true, it knocks the checking story right out of the water. But perhaps TM had persuaded a nanny to do some baby listening outside apartments and *something* happened then. It also allows a window of opportunity for "the abductor."

I agree with you theory that if the Mcs got back tipsy and there were children crying then something could have happened then in a moment of anger.

Then again, if the Mcs really did leave the children alone, then it is perfectly possible that Madeleine had an accident, as Amaral claimed.

Cha..cha..cha...Chaplins! Rears it's head again??? Wonder why.

by Robittybob1 28.06.16 6:21

jd wrote:....... You know I, you know I did know the children very well, we'd all you know, met up many times before err you know I, you know again I'd be playing with Madeleine you know in the, err the play area err you know during that week, you know lifting her up, twizzing her round and everything, I knew her that well, you know, to do that, and as I say err she'd definitely know who I was and certainly, as I say, just to reinforce that she looked very happy.'

.....

Does anyone know what "twizzing her round" is?

Latest topics