were the chilren ever unsupervised at bath time....question arising from "Madeleine" book

I would be grateful for any thoughts or information concerning this topic as I was taken aback by what was written by Kate McCann in the opening paragraphs of chapter 5 of her book about her daughter's disappearance. It refers to the notorious question from Madeleine about why her parents didn't come when she and her brother were crying evening of 2 May.... and there is a mention by Kate Mc Cann of a possible scenario she then discounts, which I have not heard or read her mention elsewhere, please lets know if I have missed something in one of her interviews or statements.


I quote from chapter 5, p.62 :

" On Thursday 3 May I awoke in the children's bedroom " [she had slept there that night
having felt hurt by Gerry McCann's behaviour at the tapas bar the evening of 2 May, as described at the end of chapter 4. I have always wondered if there was more than meets the eye about that evening's events which she describes as a storm in a teacup and if it affected her or her husband's behaviour on 3 May, the routine seems to have changed on that day, but thats for another post].

"At breakfast time, Madeleine had a question for us. 'Why didn't you come when Sean and I cried last night?'
We were puzzled. Did she mean when they were having their bath? Or just after they'd gone to bed? Children often get a bit fractious around bedtime, though I had no recollection of any tears from either Madeleine or Sean before they settled the previous evening. And it certainly hadn't been in the early hours, because I'd been in the room with them, even closer than usual ."

This shouted out at me for 2 reasons. The first does not involve a lack of supervision at bath time, so please bear with me !
Firstly, an intelligent woman who states that she had not heard any cries when she was closer than usual to her children does not consider until she has mentioned and discounted 2 scenarios when she and Gerry were in the apartment, that the obvious time when she and her husband had not heard any crying would have been when they were at the biggest distance from them....at the tapas bar, and had not heard them as they were too far away[ also, she describes in this book noisy conversations at the dinner table due to the number in the party]. She does not suggest her son and daughter were not crying, clearly there is no sense in a 3 year old making this up. The clear message in this text is that the children did not cry when she and her husband were present, so they must have been absent[unless Madeleine is imagining things] and their absences were after 8.30 pm at the tapas bar every evening. [I thought this episode was the one Mrs Fenn talked about in her statement, although that seems to be an earlier evening....so now comes the question, were the children crying for a long time on a second evening? Or do I have my timelines wrong? Kate McCann actually seems to suggest in another section of the book that it is acceptable for a young child to spend 45 minutes crying him/herself to sleep and I quote :

p: 63 " Could Madeleine and Sean have woken up while we were at dinner? If so it was worrying, obviously, but it didn't seem very probable. As I've said,not only did they rarely stir at all at night, but if they did it was hardly ever, and I mean ever, before the easrly hours. IF THEY HAD DONE SO ON THIS OCCASION, IT WOULD MEAN THEY'D WOKEN UP, CRIED FOR A WHILE, CALMED THEMSELVES DOWN AND FALLEN ASLEEP AGAIN....ALL WITHIN THE SPACE OF HALF AN HOUR. OR FORTY-FIVE MINUTES , IF IT HAD BEEN AFTER OUR LAST CHECK. CHILDREN USUALLY NEED SOME SOOTHING BACK TO SLEEP ONCE THEY'VE WOKEN ESPECIALLY IF TWO OF THEM ARE AWAKE AND UPSET AT THE SAME TIME.
That makes sense but only in the way she accounts for not finding any problem at the checks. What is not only nonsensical but quite appalling in my view is she readily admits to children needing soothing after waking up and becoming distressed, but clearly seems not to care that no parent was there to provide it.... they would have cried themselves to sleep after 30 or maybe 45 minutes... a long long time for a distressed toddler. It beggars belief....



Secondly : about possible crying when they were having a bath. how was this a possible scenario?

The way Kate Mc Cann presents this scenario, it is clear that Madeleine is not referring to an occasion when one parent was present at bath time and the children cried for the absent one. Anyway, Kate MCann states the question was " for us". So, it appears that neither parent answered these cries, now let's look at Kate Mc Cann's first scenario in answer to her daughter's question, a theory she puts in question marks as though she is answering her daughter's question but could equally be just her thoughts when she made no response to her daughter at all...THE ONE WHICH COMES FIRST TO HER MIND IS ONE IN WHICH THE CHILDREN WERE HAVING THEIR BATH. Now it does not state after their bath, it says when they were having their bath[ note, not when they were being bathed by her and/or Gerry], of course they would not cry for present parents, so where were they both when their 2 and 3 year old children were in the bath? Not in the bathroom for sure, so were the toddlers unsupervised or was another adult in their party giving them their bath? I have asked myself is Kate Mc Cann is maybe referring to a situation the previous evening when the children were left alone for a minute while she went perhaps to fetch their p.js or a nappy or for some other reason, but if she or her husband only left them for a moment, surely the crying would have been responded to the minute she or Gerry returned and Madeleine would not have asked this question. For me it raises more qustions about the level of childcare and the possibility of an accident when they were left unsupervised
This incident she cannot recall is clearly because she and her husband were absent when it happened,,, she appears to deny the crying episode occurred or trivialises it...
" Madeleine didn't answer or elaborate. Instead she moved onto some other topic that had popped into her head, apparently unconcerned."

This is disingenuous nonsense from Kate Mc Cann. Her young daughter brings this subject up almost as soon as she is awake and a reader is meant to accept Madeleine as unconcerned even though it is not made clear that her parents answer her questions? She couldnt really answer Madeleine's questions satisfactorily though could she,,,,, no Madeleine we didn't come because we were too far away to hear you. Or she might have done but certainly would not put that reply in her book.

Also, I wonder if the police went into detail about her annoyance with her husband.I always have found it bizarre that she was so upset she slept apart from him, then all was fine the next day....could Madeleine and Sean have woken up due to being disturbed, then distressed by their parents' arguing? I am not convinced this episode has been truthfully relayed and am sure I will find more on it than I have read so far. Please direct me to it if possible and thank you.

Could you write to Dr. Roberts? at McCannfiles.com?
Because I think you've hit on an important slip in the bewk. (Sorry, can't dignify this auto hagiography with a proper noun).
The Gaspar statement shows that they were careful not to have their child alone at bath time anymore after she saw DP and GM make the gestures.
So if the parents weren't there at bathtime? Or just the men were doing the bathing, as was apparently the custom in Majorca. Hmm, not liking that very much at all.
And children crying and having to be soothed, crying for up to 45 minutes? Is this woman nuts?
Blacksmith called her book the longest suicide note in history. He may be right.

The explanation for bath time does seem odd.

I have a young daughter who will occasionally have a bath with friends' children if we are staying over, however one of us would always be present while bath time is going on. It sounds like Kate is suggesting that either someone else is bathing their three children, with neither her or Gerry present, or that she let three children under four have a bath unattended. Either scenario seems incredible. Although, no more incredible than leaving them unattended while they went out for dinner I suppose!

The crying episode heard by Mrs Fenn occured on the 1st of may between 10.30 and 11.45pm.

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id331.html#fenn1

The very night and times as the same frantic mobile phone activity of both the McCanns and Murat phones, and coincidentally the same day Murat arrived back in PDL after spending 10 days in the UK less than half a mile from 2 of the Tapas 9's house and the Garrods...Oh it is such a small world

Poco hila la vieja el copo !
Softly... softly... !

It is important that everyone understands that the Police in every country, and in particular in the the UK and Portugal, are useless, inefficient, corrupt and very, very stupid.
This MUSt be understood.
Otherwise the whole fabric of filling the prisons of the UK to well beyond their official capacity cannot be maintained.
Every prisoner is there because of a mis-carriage of justice. But only a very few are appealing against conviction .
Strange. ! During the trial their solicitors told the court that the witnesses were liars, that the Police officers had fabricated evidence, or that they had beaten confessions out of their lovely and cuddly clients.
But they accept their fate.
I wonder why.

jd wrote:The very night and times as the same frantic mobile phone activity of both the McCanns and Murat phones, and coincidentally the same day Murat arrived back in PDL after spending 10 days in the UK less than half a mile from 2 of the Tapas 9's house and the Garrods...Oh it is such a small world

jd, please help me out here, i cannot see any frantic phone activity on this day in the official files. Indeed it looks to me like there is very little activity (by any of the tapas group) until after Madeleine was reported missing.

Firstly thank you for your replies, I want to do some more reading of the files now, and to tigger you are way too kind, it was a reasonable point I raised given what Kate wrote, and far from superb given that I did what I stated I would NOT do when introducing myself to this forum a couple of days ago....I MISQUOTED THE BOOK !!
In fact when Kate McCann considers the possibilities surrounding Sean and Madeleine crying the night before and those cries not being responded to....she does say" we asked her" after mentioning the possibility it might have been when they were having their bath? So apologies....
there are quite a few occasions throughout the book when there is an internal dialogue taking place and I think I misread this part for that reason and should have been much more careful. It is really important only to put in quotation marks what is actually written, as not to do so can give a very different impression to the reader of a misquote.
One example I can think of, not sure if here or elsewhere I read Kate had written about the Rome trip " Rome was preparing itself for us" which exudes a rampant megalomania rather more shocking than the actual words in the book when Clarence Mitchell brought up the possibility of meeting the Pope, telling them that " the ' relevant people' in Rome....had already been making the necessary preparations".... which still displays quite dreadful narcissism [of which I found quite a few examples in the book].
To be fair, this might not be a misquote like mine was...I do recall reading that the " Rome was preparing itself for us" was a diary entry, if this is so it is no surprise this has been toned down for the book....but if this was a diary entry, it speaks volumes.
Again, apologies....and once again for the record, Kate McCann states chapter 5 ,p.62 of her book that she and Gerry asked Madeleine could the crying episode have happened when they were having a bath the previous evening.

Russiandoll, have you considered DP and the Gaspar statements? Its one (unsavoury) explanation...

I honestly feel sometimes that K makes these slip ups intentionally accidentally-on-purpose, though I'm not sure why.
Could it be
1)She wants to 'confess' but wants others to 'work it out' and do it for her OR
2)She enjoys 'playing' with us dumb members of the public, and is laughing herself silly at us tying ourselves up in knots trying to work out what she means.

Hell, maybe it's 3)She just thinks we're all stoopid and will swallow any cr*p she writes

Russiandoll, have you considered DP and the Gaspar statements? Its one (unsavoury) explanation...

I honestly feel sometimes that K makes these slip ups intentionally accidentally-on-purpose, though I'm not sure why.
Could it be
1)She wants to 'confess' but wants others to 'work it out' and do it for her OR
2)She enjoys 'playing' with us dumb members of the public, and is laughing herself silly at us tying ourselves up in knots trying to work out what she means.

Hell, maybe it's 3)She just thinks we're all stoopid and will swallow any cr*p she writes

rainbow-fairy wrote:2)She enjoys 'playing' with us dumb members of the public, and is laughing herself silly at us tying ourselves up in knots trying to work out what she means.

I opt for 2.

Hello...
I'm a newcomer so please be patient with me! Because I was struck by the opening section of chapter 5 in the book by Kate McCann, I posted something here yesterday asking for comments and suggestions. After reading replies I hastened to do what I had planned anyway.....re read the witness statements on the McCann files site.
This was due to Kate McCann having mentioned a possible scenario for the crying epsiode night time May 2 when she writes that at breakfast time 3 May Madeleine asked her and Gerry why they had not come when she and Sean had been crying the previous evening....the first scenario she considers,then seems to discount, was that they could have been crying at bath time..I wondered did this mean they had been left unsupervised otherwise why would two youngsters be asking why neither parent answered their cries? Or another scenario considered by this reader...that they were not unsupervised but crying when being bathed by somebody else ? We dont read any conclusion about when, where or why this spisode took place, it is left hanging in the air, with the implausible end to the breakfast questioning episode being that Madeleine was not bothered by it, even though as soon as she was awake and alert she had brought the subject up for their attention.
Kate McCann clearly states in her book that Madeleine addressed this question to both herself and her husband, this is borne out by their witness statements May 4th. I wanted to read these again as the book struck me due to that neither in their police statments or interviews, nor media interviews, had the bath time scenario been considered.


In their May 4th witness statements to the police, both Kate and Gerry McCann clearly state that on the morning of May 3, Madeleine asked why her parents did not come into the bedroom when the twins were crying.


In Gerry MCann's witness statement May 10th, this changes to morning May 3, Madeleine asked why her parents did not respond to her and her brother Sean crying. She was involved in this crying episode, and his statement is worded exactly as in the book.......he quotes Madeleine asking" Why didn't you come last night when Sean and I were crying? "

I cannot find a statement by Kate MCann May 10th, alongside her husband's very long and compreshensive one..she does not seem to make another statement until Septemeber 6, I am not sure if I am mistaken here or if I am correct, why she was not required to make one when her husband was.

Regarding her September statement, she says Madeleine asked her why she and Gerry had not come to her bedroom when she was crying.[not the twins, not Sean and Madeleine as in her book. Her confusion would be understandable but did she not say her starting a diary had given her accurate recall of detail? Or was she unable to access this for information she needed to give 6 September?

Then comes her arguida status and her refusal to answer all but one of many questions put to her 7 September.

At Gerry's arguida interview the same day he is not asked about Madeleine's question about why she/ the twins/she and one twin were left to cry evening May 2.

Summary....
Her parents are consistent about the date , evening/ night May 2 ,in their first statements made May 4.
Her parents are consistent May 4, that Madeleine said the twins were crying May 2 evning/night.
Her parents are consistent May 4 that Madeleine did not say she had been crying.
Gerry Mc Cann, unless he has misheard his daughter who did not ask " why didnt you come when Sean and I were crying last night?" and she actually said Amelie, not I...only a week later has changed the scenario.
It would seem from the statements of the parents alongside other witness statements, that there was rather a lot of crying taking place at different times, different children involved, yet the couple stick rigidly to one date whilst involving different children.
I would fully expect a 3 year old child to jumble up times, especially if she and/or her siblings had been crying more than once, a distinct possibility. This to me is why maybe the parents are talking about twins, Madeleine only crying, Madeleine and one of the twins crying. Because their daughter has referred to more than the one episode they mention to the police.
But for two adults to be so consistent about the time and date.....yet inconsistent about who was crying......this surely is because they recall clearly the times they were present but can't say anything about when they were absent. And it is my belief they weer absent for more than one episode.
And where in these statments to the police does either parent mention a bath time scenario when they didn't respond to Sean and Amelie crying? It is the first scenario Kate considers when asking her daughter if she and Sean cried when they were having their bath the previous evening[ May 2] Were they alone and unsupervised [ for enough time for there to have been an accident, maybe occasioning a head injury to account for Madeleines unusual tiredness the next evening? an injury her parents were unaware of?]
Or were they being bathed by someone else and crying? Kate states clearly that her daughter asked both her parents why neither answered her and her brother's cries. and was it at bath time May 2].
More and more intriguing.
Thanks for reading and sorry for being long -winded but this part of her book really really bothers me

russiandoll, I have merged your last post with this topic you started, as they are very similar.

Get 'em Gonçalo wrote:

rainbow-fairy wrote:2)She enjoys 'playing' with us dumb members of the public, and is laughing herself silly at us tying ourselves up in knots trying to work out what she means.

I opt for 2.

Get 'Em, that is the option I veer most towards also. Great minds, eh?

I'm wondering if you can help me with a query I have regarding this jokebook?

I have the following dilemma -

I would like to own a copy of the book, for research HOWEVER the thought of putting even a PENNY into those peoples ever-expanding pockets makes me feel like gouging my own eyes out with a rusty spoon!?!
Currently I'm reading through it, a page or so at a time (or however much more I feel I can push to) every time I visit my local Tesco!!! Yes, it's cheeky, but well, needs must!
Obviously though it's hard to remember and reference it without a hard copy in front of me.
Sooo... My question is this.
IF I were to buy the book, would the MCC's gain monetarily from this? Or, say, are they paid in advance for all the copies Tesco (or insert generic shop name here) have in stock already? If so my guess is they wouldn't gain extra from my buying a copy?
I HOPE it's the latter, as I really would like a copy (I've loved fairytales since childhood after all!), BUT I feel so strongly about not paying them anything. They've scammed enough to last a lifetime.

So I guess what I mean after all the waffle is are they paid already for what is on the shelves or is it on a sale or return basis?
ANY help with this would be appreciated. If I bought one then found out they'd get extra, I'd be gutted. But I don't do shoplifting :-)

How about getting it from the library? That is free.



I bought it on Kindle but that has given me the chance to go back and search for words etc to check what Katey actually said in her "truthful" YET lying novel. How dare they put it in NON FICTION I do not know!

rainbow-fairy wrote:Russiandoll, have you considered DP and the Gaspar statements? Its one (unsavoury) explanation...

I honestly feel sometimes that K makes these slip ups intentionally accidentally-on-purpose, though I'm not sure why.
Could it be
1)She wants to 'confess' but wants others to 'work it out' and do it for her OR
2)She enjoys 'playing' with us dumb members of the public, and is laughing herself silly at us tying ourselves up in knots trying to work out what she means.

Hell, maybe it's 3)She just thinks we're all stoopid and will swallow any cr*p she writes

I was watching a real-life crime programme from the USA earlier this year and one of the detectives did say that "a lot of criminals are anxious to confess their crimes, they get to the brink of doing it then back off, only to toy with us while we investigate. They think we're stupid but we're not".



Or words to that effect, I can't remember the exact words he used.



Another detective also said that "a lot of criminals keep revisiting the scene of their crime, they just can't help themselves". How many times has K Mcann visited PDL, 5 times was mentioned I believe. Hmmmmm!

One of the reasons Kate might want to "confess" to her crime is to show off. I don't think Kate has had one sleepless night about her involvement. Remember she only had 5 nights trouble sleeping because of Madeleine going missing.
No I don't think her conscience bothers her. She might hate it though that people don't acknowledge how smart she is and what she got away with.
That's why she might keep on dropping tidbits about what truly happened.

She is stupid enough to do that.

Rainbow fairy - how about getting a second hand copy from ebay- there are plenty around. You wouldn't be putting any more money into the McCanns pockets that way.

Newintown wrote:

rainbow-fairy wrote:Russiandoll, have you considered DP and the Gaspar statements? Its one (unsavoury) explanation...

I honestly feel sometimes that K makes these slip ups intentionally accidentally-on-purpose, though I'm not sure why.
Could it be
1)She wants to 'confess' but wants others to 'work it out' and do it for her OR
2)She enjoys 'playing' with us dumb members of the public, and is laughing herself silly at us tying ourselves up in knots trying to work out what she means.

Hell, maybe it's 3)She just thinks we're all stoopid and will swallow any cr*p she writes

I was watching a real-life crime programme from the USA earlier this year and one of the detectives did say that "a lot of criminals are anxious to confess their crimes, they get to the brink of doing it then back off, only to toy with us while we investigate. They think we're stupid but we're not".



Or words to that effect, I can't remember the exact words he used.



Another detective also said that "a lot of criminals keep revisiting the scene of their crime, they just can't help themselves". How many times has K Mcann visited PDL, 5 times was mentioned I believe. Hmmmmm!

I think it may be more times than that even, Newintown. But yes, I agree totally. It's always seemed really, really odd to me. I mean, do you imagine poor Sara Payne revisits the field where poor Sarah was abducted from? As a mum myself, I wouldn't want to be within 100 yards of the place.
Another curious thing is I remember reading that K had spoken of her deep upset when they first left PT, as she was 'leaving Maddie behind'. Seems a very odd choice of words, do you think? :-)

lj wrote:One of the reasons Kate might want to "confess" to her crime is to show off. I don't think Kate has had one sleepless night about her involvement. Remember she only had 5 nights trouble sleeping because of Madeleine going missing.
No I don't think her cons
cience bothers her. She might hate it though that people don't acknowledge how smart she is and what she got away with.
That's why she might keep on dropping tidbits about what truly happened.

She is stupid enough to do that.

Yes, lj! That was no 2 more or less on my post if u look. I don't believe a narcissist would suffer many guilt pangs, but they would think themselves 'superior' to others. They really are a nasty pair.

lj wrote:One of the reasons Kate might want to "confess" to her crime is to show off. I don't think Kate has had one sleepless night about her involvement. Remember she only had 5 nights trouble sleeping because of Madeleine going missing.
No I don't think her cons
cience bothers her. She might hate it though that people don't acknowledge how smart she is and what she got away with.
That's why she might keep on dropping tidbits about what truly happened.

She is stupid enough to do that.

Yes, lj! That was no 2 more or less on my post if u look. I don't believe a narcissist would suffer many guilt pangs, but they would think themselves 'superior' to others. They really are a nasty pair.

Miraflores wrote:Rainbow fairy - how about getting a second hand copy from ebay- there are plenty around. You wouldn't be putting any more money into the McCanns pockets that way.

Miraflores, that sounds like a plan! Maybe I'll end up with the copy from the lady whose post I read on either Amazon or Netmums shortly after the book went on sale. I am paraphrasing her but the post was pretty much this;
"I've supported the McCanns and believed that Maddie was abducted from the very first day, so I couldn't wait for the book to come out. As much to help with the Fund as read the story which I was sure would be heartbreaking. Well, I've now read the book, and I have to say honestly, I don't believe the McCann's anymore! There is just something 'off' about the whole thing, - can't place it, but it doesn't seem truthful'.

Ouch! Bet that had to hurt, Katey! A 'very truthful book' apparently 'Doesn't seem truthful'!

Oh, the sweet sweet irony - a PRO turned ANTI, by KATE'S OWN BOOK! No Amaral in sight. Talk about hoisted by your own petard!
Will Gerry sue K 'for libel' if their own book adversely alters opinions? Tee-hee!
Couldn't resist a little titter, sorry ;-)

Will someone help me out here......

Is this the sme evening as Gerry's flirting at the quiz?
Is this the same evening Kate said she slept alone?
Is this the same evening there was lots of(later deleted) phone activity?
Do we know WHEN KM returned to the apartment(not just from Mrs Fenn's (reasonable)reasoning that because the crying had stopped, a parent had returned...?)
Could it have been Someone crying'Maddie, Maddie' ? And they stop because someone else enters the apartment and tells them to shut up because they are drawing attention to the situation?
Could this be why there is an initial emphasis on the 'Madeleine cried ' story to explain it away.... then unfortunately the story grew legs and brought too much attention..'quote......she moved on'------then we are told that she was rarely called 'Maddie' ........???

worriedmum wrote:Will someone help me out here......

Is this the same evening as Gerry's flirting at the quiz?
Is this the same evening Kate said she slept alone?
Is this the same evening there was lots of(later deleted) phone activity?
Do we know WHEN KM returned to the apartment(not just from Mrs Fenn's (reasonable)reasoning that because the crying had stopped, a parent had returned...?)
Could it have been Someone crying'Maddie, Maddie' ? And they stop because someone else enters the apartment and tells them to shut up because they are drawing attention to the situation?
Could this be why there is an initial emphasis on the 'Madeleine cried ' story to explain it away.... then unfortunately the story grew legs and brought too much attention..'quote......she moved on'------then we are told that she was rarely called 'Maddie' ........???

One thing you can be very sure of, worriedmum, is that when the McCanns heavily press a point, there is a reason. Personally, I can think of two for this:
1)Kate crying 'Maddie, Maddie', Gerry returns and hisses 'shut up'. The 'Maddie was crying the night before' and 'We NEVER called our daughter Maddie' would pre-empt questions and deflect the real source of the noise;
2)If you subscribe to the 'substitute theory', maybe a creche worker addressed the child as 'Maddie', child indignantly replied (as Kate insists Maddie would do) "I'm not Maddie. My name is Madeleine". Obviously their story would then back this up. If Maddie was already 'departed', then the crying being assigned to M would be to draw attention to the 'fact she was alive' that night.

IMO, both this explanations work, I suppose it depends on which theory you go for. Actually, a mixture of the two reasons would work, also...

When I first read Kate's account of the crying incident, something struck me too as not being quite right. It took me a day or two for it to occur to me what it was.

Why were they "puzzled" about M's simple question? Asking her whether it was while they were being bathed? Why would Madeleine-supposedly an intelligent child- make reference to their absence if this was when the crying incident occurred?
Secondly, (and this really is stretching credulity beyond breaking point) is it conceivable that both she and Gerry would have both completely forgotten about it by the following morning? If we re-read it carefully, she doesn't actually say that she or Gerry bathed the children, just that they were bathed (or at least were meant to be). Even if they were unsupervised, at least one of them would have heard the crying from where they were in the apartment? Or were they there at the time? If someone else bathed them and they were elsewhere, then Kate's seemingly stupid question would be perfectly sensible in this context.

Did the crying incident actually take place?  Or, was this a bungled attempt to convince us that Madeleine was actually alive at that point.

If it is correct that Madeleine did actually die on April 29th, then the group are not likely to put the other children at risk by leaving them alone.

It is also suggested by the PJ that the children were all being cared for in one apartment. 

The fact there was no sign of children being present in the McCanns apartment (no toys etc) and that Madeleines' Dna was not found in the apartment, together with the fact that at least one member of the tapas group was away from the table able each night, adds credibility to this theory.

I would suggest that the crying incident was nothing more than a fabrication, invented to add credibility to the Madeleine abducted on May 3rd story.

sharonl wrote:Did the crying incident actually take place?  Or, was this a bungled attempt to convince us that Madeleine was actually alive at that point.

If it is correct that Madeleine did actually die on April 29th, then the group are not likely to put the other children at risk by leaving them alone.

It is also suggested by the PJ that the children were all being cared for in one apartment. 

The fact there was no sign of children being present in the McCanns apartment (no toys etc) and that Madeleines' Dna was not found in the apartment, together with the fact that at least one member of the tapas group was enteraway from the table able each night, adds credibility to this theory.

I would suggest that the crying incident was nothing more than a fabrication, invented to add credibility to the Madeleine abducted on May 3rd story.

No toys, no clothes, no colouring books, no soft drinks bottles or plastic, no mucky tell-tale signs of a child's presence in either the living quarters, the parents bedroom nor the kids bedroom - no photographs!  Just a crumpled bed below the window (enter and/or exit abductor through window), empty cots and a staged bed with cuddlecat and blanket (now you see it, now you don't) strategically placed.

Stands to reason, in the dead of night, if a child was crying for well over an hour, someone other than Pamela Fenn would have heard it.  One of the sick friends was in their respective apartments every night, other apartments in the vicinity were occupied - yet only Pamela Fenn heard it?  Even if one chooses to believe Pamela Fenn's testimony, there is no evidence to suggest it was Madeleine or one of the twins crying that night - why not one of the Tapas groups children or even someone elses child?  One of the neighbouring friends child was said to have been unwell one night - was that the crying child, or were they all accommodated in one apartment in which case it could be any child crying.

Yet another fabrication to support the abduction 3rd May storyline.