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

by Guest 02.01.13 22:43

MADELEINE BY KATE MCCANN — II (The David Payne visit) - Page 4 4239481642

McCant - good name!

If the book was edited, goodness knows how awful deleted extracts must have been when you think about what was left in.......

by Guest 02.01.13 22:57

Forgive me for being a nitpick, but ... it is 'madeleine" [underscore] by KATE McCANN [capitals]. Says it all IMO.

by Guest 02.01.13 22:58

As a nitpicking pedant myself, I totally agree!

by Liz Eagles 02.01.13 23:00

Jean wrote:As a nitpicking pedant myself, I totally agree!

I third that.

by Guest 02.01.13 23:05

Châtelaine wrote:Forgive me for being a nitpick, but ... it is 'madeleine" [underscore] by KATE McCANN [capitals]. Says it all IMO.

MADELEINE BY KATE MCCANN — II (The David Payne visit) - Page 4 Images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSZ2q1e6STnoDWx0XeuCe7U54l_jXWfJ9oTZcg3XTxSq4E11i20IA

by Liz Eagles 02.01.13 23:09

candyfloss wrote:
Châtelaine wrote:Forgive me for being a nitpick, but ... it is 'madeleine" [underscore] by KATE McCANN [capitals]. Says it all IMO.

someone edited it. The title doesn't say 'our daughter's abduction' does it?

by Guest 02.01.13 23:11

Jean wrote:McCant - good name!

***
Reminds me of MACAND, the parents of the "missing" child in "Belle Famille".Does anyone know if it's meanwhile been translated and published in English?

by Guest 02.01.13 23:15

aquila wrote:

someone edited it. The title doesn't say 'our daughter's abduction' does it?[/quote]
***
No it doesn't. It say "disappearance". I have the original edition [a present, I didn't buy it ...]

by Liz Eagles 02.01.13 23:39

As the McCanns insist that Madeleine was abducted isn't it odd that the book title says 'disappearance'

by McCant 03.01.13 1:15

Everything is odd about this case. When the story first broke, I was working at the home of a Portuguese woman, and she said that the locals back home (in Portugal) suspected that the McCanns were involved. I was quite shocked by this; but as time went on, I became quite suspicious about it all, mainly due to the McCanns’ behaviour. I later heard that sniffer dogs had picked up some scents, but I didn’t hear anymore, and it’s not a story I’ve followed or come across much; but over the years, whenever it’s crossed my mind, I’ve always thought to myself: “Those sniffer dog handlers will know because they’ll know their dogs”. Then, about a month ago, I decided to google this info, and saw the footage of the dogs, which had been available for years!

I’ve learnt a lot over the last few weeks, and it seems that things are an even bigger mess now than they were when Madeleine McCann first went missing. Even the judges seem confused. I guess it’s unusual for so much evidence to be in the public domain about a case that never went to trial.

If the McCanns are completely innocent, I have every sympathy for them – they will have gone through hell. If they are aware of some kind of accident that caused Madeleine’s death, they will still have gone through hell, and I still have a level of sympathy for them; but if the latter, I think they should show restraint and more understanding of other peoples opinions, which have largely been formed by facts, rather than summons people to court for fines/imprisonment, when all they’ve tried to do is provide a likely explanation of events, which fits in with the known facts, something the McCanns, themselves, have failed to provide. The McCanns seem to be in a hole now with little to turn to other than the seeking out of new libel opportunities. This may, eventually, be their downfall – it’s not a good idea to make ongoing noise when highly reliable cadaver/blood sniffer dogs have pointed so many paws at locations particular to you; and that’s on top of everything else. Maybe they feel that a libel career is all that’s left for them. A sad story for all, in any event.

by Inspectorfrost 03.01.13 22:44

Mccant, hi. That's all very well saying you would have sympathy, if she had had an accident either in their prescence and they might have felt culpable or while they were not there, and tried to hide it to protect themselves and their family, but would you still hold that sympathy even after they have continued fund raising and campIgning for all these years?

Not to mention maligning, discrediting and defaming others.

by McCant 04.01.13 0:04

Inspectorfrost, if the McCanns were responsible in any way, I think they’ve gone way over the top now. If the events of 3^rd May 2007 had occurred in this country, and with the same amount of evidence, I believe that the McCanns would have been tried, and could well be behind bars now; but they are capitalising on the fact that they are still technically ‘innocent’.

The libel action is probably being led by the lawyers they’ve hired because the lawyers will get paid in any event, but whether the McCanns will be thanking them for their advice at the end of the day, we’ll just have to wait and see. I’d like to see the McCanns lose all libel cases that they have lined up for people whom have had the courage to stand up for justice and fairness. It’s time that the McCann merry-go-round came to an end.

by Inspectorfrost 04.01.13 2:55

McCant wrote:Inspectorfrost, if the McCanns were responsible in any way, I think they’ve gone way over the top now. If the events of 3^rd May 2007 had occurred in this country, and with the same amount of evidence, I believe that the McCanns would have been tried, and could well be behind bars now; but they are capitalising on the fact that they are still technically ‘innocent’.

The libel action is probably being led by the lawyers they’ve hired because the lawyers will get paid in any event, but whether the McCanns will be thanking them for their advice at the end of the day, we’ll just have to wait and see. I’d like to see the McCanns lose all libel cases that they have lined up for people whom have had the courage to stand up for justice and fairness. It’s time that the McCann merry-go-round came to an end.

Of course they have gone ott i simply asked why you would have sympathy with them if they knew their chikd was dead and asked for money

by McCant 04.01.13 10:37

When I said that I would still have a level of sympathy for the McCanns, had Madeleine died in the apartment as a result of an accident, I was referring only to their ‘possible’ immediate reaction of covering things up. I don’t have ‘sympathy for’ or support the subsequent collection of monies. However, once one lie has been told, others automatically follow, with actions relating to something completely different to what really what happened.

by Inspectorfrost 10.01.13 1:17

McCant wrote:When I said that I would still have a level of sympathy for the McCanns, had Madeleine died in the apartment as a result of an accident, I was referring only to their ‘possible’ immediate reaction of covering things up. I don’t have ‘sympathy for’ or support the subsequent collection of monies. However, once one lie has been told, others automatically follow, with actions relating to something completely different to what really what happened.

thats OK, but its a hypothetical now, as they decided to both ask for money in donations as well as flog gear to make money from the early days until now, how a fund full of money from donators In the millions wishing to help the search turned into a fund that asked people to buy posters is beyond me, whatever

by McCant 27.01.13 19:04

I recently bought a copy of ‘madeleine’. Fortunately, it only cost me £2.50. I’ve not read much of it, but I did read pages 70 & 71, where Kate talks about Gerry bumping into ‘Jes’ from the tennis group after he’d checked on Madeleine around 9.05. They were apparently seen talking by Jane Tanner. Kate goes on to say:

“For the record, there was subsequently some uncertainty about which side of the road Jes and Gerry were actually on. Jane and Jes remember it as the same side as the Tapas entrance, whereas Gerry is sure he crossed the street…”

It’s not realistically possible to remember talking to someone on a street but not remember what side of the street you were standing on. So what's that all about?!

by McCant 27.01.13 19:37

Presumably, this is Gerry ‘getting confused’. Might this be because Amaral’s theory is that Madeleine may have heard her father talking outside and climbed up on the sofa? Does Gerry’s recollection of where he was standing put him on the other side of the street, away from the apartment?

by Inspectorfrost 27.01.13 23:03

No reason for Jez to lie therefore Gerry is, or as you say *confused*
lol!

by Guest 30.06.13 10:53

I have deleted your post Woburn_exile, highly inappropriate and containing graphic detail. Please refrain from posting such things on this forum. This is at least the second time I have deleted a post, so please take this warning.

by Woburn_exile 30.06.13 13:07

McCant wrote:I recently bought a copy of ‘madeleine’. Fortunately, it only cost me £2.50. I’ve not read much of it, but I did read pages 70 & 71, where Kate talks about Gerry bumping into ‘Jes’ from the tennis group after he’d checked on Madeleine around 9.05. They were apparently seen talking by Jane Tanner. Kate goes on to say:

“For the record, there was subsequently some uncertainty about which side of the road Jes and Gerry were actually on. Jane and Jes remember it as the same side as the Tapas entrance, whereas Gerry is sure he crossed the street…”

It’s not realistically possible to remember talking to someone on a street but not remember what side of the street you were standing on. So what's that all about?!

Bit of a side issue this, could be a lie (what's new) could be down to the booze. A fair bit of wine was being guzzled by this mob.

by Seek truth 05.07.13 21:26

She is using every opportunity to blame others in her book, ACCEPT Jane Tanner who was the one who let the abductor get away! So who helped her write this if it wasn't her alone?

She leaves out why she didn't ask JT to point her the way she saw him go , so they could search! How is it possible to believe this? JT would have said "Let's go that way"

Doesn't talk about the important parts of the day, but other parts of the book have full details about unnecessary, rubbish.

So we are to believe they had a full course meal by 10pm? She was in the appartment at 10?

And criticises the Police and their dogs that they probably werent searching, but did not search HERSELF!
Gerry told her to stay in!
You'd automatically run out everywhere and search yourself, it doesn't make you SIT down inside!
Especially when it's your child.
Hypocrite.

Who do they think they're fooling?

by Guest 05.07.13 22:23

A boring "classic": you can fool some of the people all of the time. You can fool all of the people some of the time. But you cannot fool ALL of the people ALL of the time.

by windchime 02.09.13 16:08

If DP visited KM upon GMs request then why does KM say this in her interview statement of 06.09.07

'After the childrens bath, already alone, she put pyjamas and nappies on the twins gave them each a glass of milk and biscuit. (no mention on MBM??) Before bathing the children (which both GM & KM say they did together) and because it was early THEY had thought of taking them to the recreation area but then decided against this because of tiredness'

Now if THEY had decided this and come to the conclusion together that the children were too tired for the playground BEFORE GM had left for his mens only tennis game, WHY did GM then ask DP to visit? Also I find it very very odd that she only mentions the twins here and not MBM, is this a little slip up, is this where something happened and therefore she did not redress MBM? I know she mentions her again later but this is quite telling IMO.

Reference to GMs arguido statement

DP asked GM at 6.30 if he was still going to play. GM replied he didn't know because KM might need help with the three children even more so because they intended to bring them down to the recreation area after their showers. He thinks that DP offered to help.

But Kate clearly states that THEY had made the decision not to take them

And again GMs statement 10.05.07

at 18.30 the time when GM saw DP at the tennis courts. DP went to visit KM (no mention of why) and the children and returned close to 19.00 trying to convince GM to continue to play which he refused as he had already played for an hour.

Here he does not mention why DP needed to visit KM and I get the impression he is trying to 'drop DP in it' when he says 'trying to convince'

All very odd but it is my opinion that both GM & KM had clearly made a decision to NOT take the children to the play area and I am convinced that it is during this bath time ritual that something very bad happened.

by **tigger** 03.09.13 6:38

Imo that's one of the many slip ups in the statements.

Mentioning only the twins means to me that Maddie simply wasn't there.
The sequence of shower/play and teeth/biscuits is the wrong way round and I'm beginning to think Kate generally didn't do the evening ritual at all but the nanny in GB.
She may have had to do it in PDL and to me these episodes sound like someone describing an event they've never actually experienced.
E.g. Why read a story when you know they always fall asleep at 7.30? As someone else pointed out, singing songs before bedtime will just excite children.

Looks to me as if she's picked a number of activities from the big book of 'what to do with your toddler' at random.

by Truthmustout 03.09.13 8:44

The book is full of slip ups and stories that is not the same as they said before in statements or interviews, read more in this thread https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t3617p110-my-highlights-from-the-book

by Liz Eagles 03.09.13 9:04

It's the old 'answer the questions before they're asked' tactic. PR at it's best. Take the wind out of your opponents' sails.

by Hicks 07.09.13 13:41

windchime wrote:If DP visited KM upon GMs request then why does KM say this in her interview statement of 06.09.07

'After the childrens bath, already alone, she put pyjamas and nappies on the twins gave them each a glass of milk and biscuit. (no mention on MBM??) Before bathing the children (which both GM & KM say they did together) and because it was early THEY had thought of taking them to the recreation area but then decided against this because of tiredness'

Now if THEY had decided this and come to the conclusion together that the children were too tired for the playground BEFORE GM had left for his mens only tennis game, WHY did GM then ask DP to visit? Also I find it very very odd that she only mentions the twins here and not MBM, is this a little slip up, is this where something happened and therefore she did not redress MBM? I know she mentions her again later but this is quite telling IMO.

Reference to GMs arguido statement

DP asked GM at 6.30 if he was still going to play. GM replied he didn't know because KM might need help with the three children even more so because they intended to bring them down to the recreation area after their showers. He thinks that DP offered to help.

But Kate clearly states that THEY had made the decision not to take them

And again GMs statement 10.05.07

at 18.30 the time when GM saw DP at the tennis courts. DP went to visit KM (no mention of why) and the children and returned close to 19.00 trying to convince GM to continue to play which he refused as he had already played for an hour.

Here he does not mention why DP needed to visit KM and I get the impression he is trying to 'drop DP in it' when he says 'trying to convince'

All very odd but it is my opinion that both GM & KM had clearly made a decision to NOT take the children to the play area and I am convinced that it is during this bath time ritual that something very bad happened.

The mentioning of DP's visit to 5a at 6.30 on the 3rd was obviously intended to confirm that M was alive at that time which then indicates she was not.

Kate and her bruised wrists show that at some point during this time she and( most likely) GM had a fight/physical argument, she was restrained by the wrists, was it because she left M to look after the twins while she had a shower?Did M at this 'unsupervised' time go looking for her father,either by looking out of the window by the sofa or trying to climb over the gate? We know from a statement by one of the Nannies that she was clingy with her father, indeed, PF tells us she was crying for him for well over an hour. M apparently ran away from her mother and hid in the bushes for roughly 30 minutes. Other OC tourists heard Kate calling for her.

It would seem plausible that when KM was in the shower M, on looking for her father, had the accident.

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.

by Seek truth 07.09.13 14:12

Hicks wrote:
windchime wrote:If DP visited KM upon GMs request then why does KM say this in her interview statement of 06.09.07

'After the childrens bath, already alone, she put pyjamas and nappies on the twins gave them each a glass of milk and biscuit. (no mention on MBM??) Before bathing the children (which both GM & KM say they did together) and because it was early THEY had thought of taking them to the recreation area but then decided against this because of tiredness'

Now if THEY had decided this and come to the conclusion together that the children were too tired for the playground BEFORE GM had left for his mens only tennis game, WHY did GM then ask DP to visit? Also I find it very very odd that she only mentions the twins here and not MBM, is this a little slip up, is this where something happened and therefore she did not redress MBM? I know she mentions her again later but this is quite telling IMO.

Reference to GMs arguido statement

DP asked GM at 6.30 if he was still going to play. GM replied he didn't know because KM might need help with the three children even more so because they intended to bring them down to the recreation area after their showers. He thinks that DP offered to help.

But Kate clearly states that THEY had made the decision not to take them

And again GMs statement 10.05.07

at 18.30 the time when GM saw DP at the tennis courts. DP went to visit KM (no mention of why) and the children and returned close to 19.00 trying to convince GM to continue to play which he refused as he had already played for an hour.

Here he does not mention why DP needed to visit KM and I get the impression he is trying to 'drop DP in it' when he says 'trying to convince'

All very odd but it is my opinion that both GM & KM had clearly made a decision to NOT take the children to the play area and I am convinced that it is during this bath time ritual that something very bad happened.
The mentioning of DP's visit to 5a at 6.30 on the 3rd was obviously intended to confirm that M was alive at that time which then indicates she was not.

Kate and her bruised wrists show that at some point during this time she and( most likely) GM had a fight/physical argument, she was restrained by the wrists, was it because she left M to look after the twins while she had a shower?Did M at this 'unsupervised' time go looking for her father,either by looking out of the window by the sofa or trying to climb over the gate? We know from a statement by one of the Nannies that she was clingy with her father, indeed, PF tells us she was crying for him for well over an hour. M apparently ran away from her mother and hid in the bushes for roughly 30 minutes. Other OC tourists heard Kate calling for her.

It would seem plausible that when KM was in the shower M, on looking for her father, had the accident.

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.

Totally agree.
Just if it was just a simple accident why are they panicking this much. If Kate really did have bruised wrists it means there was a lot of violence, that's why she hides the truth.

by Guest 07.09.13 14:17

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.

by Hicks 07.09.13 22:20

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.