Pre-meditated and planned long in advance?

by Lemain 04.10.11 9:41

Pre-meditated and planned long in advance? I doubt it. There must be an easier and safer way, especially for doctors, than the hit-and-miss and uncontrollable environment in a holiday flat. Whatever happened must have been unplanned. I'm sure that any of us could come up with safer and easier ways. While it is common for one parent to abuse his/her child, it must be uncommon for both to do so? So statistically, that seems unlikely. I suspect that it was a simple accident but maybe following sedation...all the floors were, in the Iberian style, hard tiles. A dopey toddler falling from a chair or window ledge could be very damaging.

by littlepixie 04.10.11 10:08

"While it is common for one parent to abuse his/her child, it must be uncommon for both to do so?"

It is fairly common for one to abuse and the other to enable or turn a "blind eye". I have even heard of grandparents turning a blind eye in order to protect their offspring from prosecution.

by juliet 04.10.11 10:21

There is so much that is odd, not least the fact that the McCanns seemed to arrive at PdL with posters of the child all ready to give to the police. The story about printers and cameras doesn't add up.

Plus the fact that the Telegraph story was ready to run before midnight, less than two hours after Madeleine "disappeared".

And all the friends like Jill Renwick all ready with tales for Sky News early the next morning about a girl with white blonde hair, very pretty, taken by an abductor, and police doing nothing to help, none of which was correct.

And Bell Pottinger (very hugger mugger with Carter Ruck) being already on site at PdL that week on some sort of PR "exercise".

Plus so very many photo anomalies. And DNA mysteries. And weirdness from Gerry McCann about sedatives, his books about crimes against children, acquaintanceship with Murat, etc etc.

by jmac 04.10.11 10:56

Like Lemain I too have trouble accepting that the disappearance of Madeleine was premeditated. The witness statements are too glaringly contradictory to have been planned well in advance. I admit that the photos/posters are a mystery but less of a mystery if Madeleine disappeared earlier.

by frank zappa 04.10.11 11:15

Panned all the way

by **tigger** 04.10.11 17:29

Lemain wrote:Pre-meditated and planned long in advance? I doubt it. There must be an easier and safer way, especially for doctors, than the hit-and-miss and uncontrollable environment in a holiday flat. Whatever happened must have been unplanned. I'm sure that any of us could come up with safer and easier ways. While it is common for one parent to abuse his/her child, it must be uncommon for both to do so? So statistically, that seems unlikely. I suspect that it was a simple accident but maybe following sedation...all the floors were, in the Iberian style, hard tiles. A dopey toddler falling from a chair or window ledge could be very damaging.

The picture we have been given is not the real Madeleine, who was a troubled and difficult child. She didn't look so special except in the doctored photographs. In short, Madeleine was a big disappointment. Any family can rustle up a few videos where they appear happy and loving. I speak from experience.
I think there was planning involved on the part of the parents. Not on the part of the rest of the group, who therefore made a total mess of the back-up stories. IMO, no neglect, no accident, no abduction.
There is a big question mark of wether Maddie was alive even on the 28th April. If you look at older photographs of Maddie, she doesn't look all that well to me. Thick bags under her eyes for a start. Air brushed out on all the popular photographs. It was not a happy girl and not a happy family.
The health records of the child were refused when the PJ asked for them. Why?
There is an empty CAT file on Gerry McCann, another mystery.
You could read the Dr. Ludke topic (here), Dr. Roberts' comments and The Cracked Mirror (McCannfiles). These are balanced commentaries and well researched. Also very well written.

by Guest 04.10.11 19:32

Juliet: the timing of the Daily Telegraph story has recently been discussed somewhere on the forum. It has to have been at 12.01 (one minute after noon) rather than at 00.01 (one minute after midnight). "AM" appears in error for "PM". That explains why the article refers to searching until 4.30 and an interview by Jill Renwick on the morning of 4th May.

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

I certainly agree that the "abduction" theory was being promoted right from the start when it was too early to have any clear idea as to what might have happened.

by **tigger** 04.10.11 20:06

Marian wrote:Juliet: the timing of the Daily Telegraph story has recently been discussed somewhere on the forum. It has to have been at 12.01 (one minute after noon) rather than at 00.01 (one minute after midmight). "AM" appears in error for "PM". That explains why the article refers to searching until 4.30 and an interview by Jill Renwick on the morning of 4th May.

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

I certainly agree that the "abduction" theory was being promoted right from the start when it was too early to have any clear idea as to what might have happened.

Thanks also from me, Marian, because I have all along thought it was just after midnight.
But didn't Rachel phone Sky news? around 10 - 11 pm on the 3rd? I'll have to see when it appeared there. The calls to the family were imo also laced with instructions to alert all the media and exactly what to tell them.

by **tigger** 04.10.11 20:17

jmac wrote:Like Lemain I too have trouble accepting that the disappearance of Madeleine was premeditated. The witness statements are too glaringly contradictory to have been planned well in advance. I admit that the photos/posters are a mystery but less of a mystery if Madeleine disappeared earlier.

I don't think that the rest of the group was in on it.
Now if they had been told that Maddie was ill due to negligence and then died, they could have agreed to the 'neglect' scenario to help friends and colleagues.
It explains Rachel M's remark that they could have resuscitated Maddie.
It would explain that Kate said to them'We've let her down!' A medical term when a patient under treatment dies.
It would explain the planned, faked abduction when Kate said to everybody else: 'They've taken her'. First line, first paragraph, first chapter of the story.

by Miraflores 04.10.11 20:28

There is a big question mark of wether Maddie was alive even on the 28th April.

The big problem I have with this, is who then, did Mrs Fenn hear crying on the Tuesday evening? There seems to be no reason to doubt her word.

I always wonder if this is what happened - parents come back, find Maddie crying and deliver a hard smack to shut her up, she falls and hits her head on the tiles.......

by Gillyspot 04.10.11 20:35

Miraflores wrote:
There is a big question mark of wether Maddie was alive even on the 28th April.

The big problem I have with this, is who then, did Mrs Fenn hear crying on the Tuesday evening? There seems to be no reason to doubt her word.

I always wonder if this is what happened - parents come back, find Maddie crying and deliver a hard smack to shut her up, she falls and hits her head on the tiles.......

I am with you Miraflores. Mrs Fenn had no reason to lie. I think Kate has a short fuse and could possibly have hit Madeleine then or more likely on the evening of the 3rd. Madeleine generally looks so unhappy in most of her photographs (particularly those as she gets older). I feel she felt pushed out by the twins arrival (Kate even says something regarding having to fend her off the twins in her book doesn't she)?

by **tigger** 04.10.11 20:51

Miraflores wrote:
There is a big question mark of wether Maddie was alive even on the 28th April.

The big problem I have with this, is who then, did Mrs Fenn hear crying on the Tuesday evening? There seems to be no reason to doubt her word.

I always wonder if this is what happened - parents come back, find Maddie crying and deliver a hard smack to shut her up, she falls and hits her head on the tiles.......

One of the things Mrs. Fenn said was that the crying stopped the moment the parents came in. That isn't normally the case with a crying child, it will keep on crying until comforted physically. I had a weird idea that the crying was either Sean and/or Amelie, they would certainly be able to call for Daddy (why not Mummy? another aberration) or even a recording to add proof to Maddie being alive at that date.
I know, it's mad, but everything except the crying fits. (No DNA, no toothbrush, no artwork from the creche, no trainers? Shared sandals etc.)
Gerry visited Mrs. Fenn (interfering with witnesses) at some point. Kate completely slates her in the book and tells outright lies about her.
Gerry and Kate were at Chaplin's (next to the church they said they didn't know and asked the police where to find it on 3/5) when staff from OC came to tell them that the children were crying. I don't know what date that was, but not the 1st or the 2nd I think. More digging!

by Zelina 04.10.11 20:52

I'm not much into conspiracy theories and I tend to favour the simplest explanation but I have to say that some articles have made me reconsider my views in this case.

There are some questions, particularly about the timeline (not just on the day itself, but the days before) that have not been answered satisfactorily.

by Guest 04.10.11 22:14

A child is heard crying and we are to assume it was Madeleine, but why? It could have been any child. Sean, Amelie, the Payne's two, Tanner's two, it could have been any one of them. Mrs Fenn could not tell how old the child was, or whether it was a boy or girl. A child heard crying proves nothing in this instance.
Where you need to be looking and consider the time of death, is in the creche records.

by Guest 04.10.11 22:17

frank zappa wrote:Panned all the way

I'm gradually coming round to that way of thinking.

by Guest 05.10.11 8:12

Tigger: this link might help with the timing of early Sky news reports.

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

I can't access the individual stories but maybe you can. I presume that the 0'53 is the time on the first one but it's an odd way of putting it.

by **tigger** 05.10.11 18:35

Jean wrote:Tigger: this link might help with the timing of early Sky news reports.

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

I can't access the individual stories but maybe you can. I presume that the 0'53 is the time on the first one but it's an odd way of putting it.

When I click on that link, I get a time of 21.00 plus on the 4th. These are all encrypted videos I think. That one must have the interview with the British Ambassador on it. Well, even that is pretty speedy. At 10 am. the Consul was at the police station, telling his boss that the PJ were doing nothing! Later that day the Ambassador starred in this video to be aired the same day. All wrapped up within 24 hours of the disappearance.

by Bebootje 05.10.11 19:49

Gillyspot wrote:
Miraflores wrote:
There is a big question mark of wether Maddie was alive even on the 28th April.

The big problem I have with this, is who then, did Mrs Fenn hear crying on the Tuesday evening? There seems to be no reason to doubt her word.

I always wonder if this is what happened - parents come back, find Maddie crying and deliver a hard smack to shut her up, she falls and hits her head on the tiles.......

I am with you Miraflores. Mrs Fenn had no reason to lie. I think Kate has a short fuse and could possibly have hit Madeleine then or more likely on the evening of the 3rd. Madeleine generally looks so unhappy in most of her photographs (particularly those as she gets older). I feel she felt pushed out by the twins arrival (Kate even says something regarding having to fend her off the twins in her book doesn't she)?

Iam also with you Miraflores. No reason to doubt Fenns words. But I was always puzzled that the McC's thought it was necessary to mention the crying incident cause it wasn't make them looking good. It was odd at the time and still is. They must have had a reason for that. Could IMO be 2 explanations: Was mentioning the crying incident which according to the McC's happenend on May 2nd (while Fenn overheard it on May 1st) ment to make us believe that nothing happened on May 1? Or, did McC's not knowing that Fenn was out on May 2, wanted to explain something that happened on May 2 that could have involved Maddy crying.
IMO that what happened with Maddy, happened on May 1 or May 2.

by Bebootje 05.10.11 19:53

Stella wrote:A child is heard crying and we are to assume it was Madeleine, but why? It could have been any child. Sean, Amelie, the Payne's two, Tanner's two, it could have been any one of them. Mrs Fenn could not tell how old the child was, or whether it was a boy or girl. A child heard crying proves nothing in this instance.
Where you need to be looking and consider the time of death, is in the creche records.

Cause mrs. Fenn told us that the crying and shouting Daddy Daddy seemed to come from an older child (like Madeleines age).

From Fenns' statement:
"...She states that onthe day of the 1st May 2007, when she was at home alone, at approximately 22H30 she heard a
child cry, and that due the toneof the crying seemed to be a young child and not a baby of two years of age or younger.

Apart from the crying that continued for approximately one hour and fifteen minutes, and which got louder and
more expressive, the child shouted "Daddy, Daddy", the witness had no doubt that the noise came from the floor below. At about 23H45, an
hour and fifteen minutes after the crying began,
she heard the parents arrive, she did not see them, but she heard the patio doors open, she was quite worried as the crying
had gone on for more than an hour and had gradually got worse.

When questioned, she saidthat she did not know the cause of the crying, perhaps a nightmare or another destabilising
factor.

As soon as the parents entered the child stopped crying.

That night she contacted a friend called XXXX XXXX, who alsolives in Praia da Luz, after 23H00, telling her about the situation, who was not surprised at
the childs crying.

She did not have anything to report for the 2nd May, because she was only home at night.

by Guest 05.10.11 20:22

Bebootje wrote:
Stella wrote:A child is heard crying and we are to assume it was Madeleine, but why? It could have been any child. Sean, Amelie, the Payne's two, Tanner's two, it could have been any one of them. Mrs Fenn could not tell how old the child was, or whether it was a boy or girl. A child heard crying proves nothing in this instance.
Where you need to be looking and consider the time of death, is in the creche records.

Cause mrs. Fenn told us that the crying and shouting Daddy Daddy seemed to come from an older child (like Madeleines age).

But there was only 18 months between the twins and Madeleine and I do not believe for one minute that she would have been able to tell the difference. Tanner's eldest was 3 years old. The Payne's eldest was nearly 3 years old. It could have been any of these children heard crying from that apartment. Not to mention other friends children potentially also using that apartment.

What makes you think that Madeleine ever stayed in that apartment in the first place? They never found her full DNA there, did they?

by **tigger** 06.10.11 0:34

Yes the crying incident, we need to know:

when the McCanns incorporated it in their story (but moved it one night and used it to say a paedophile may have done a 'dry run' on the 2nd)
did the McCanns know about it before Mrs. Fenn gave her statement to the police - the 10th I think, did they get this information from Murat? who was still doing the translating then?
when did the crying appear in Jane's story, she said Kate had told her about it on the night of the 3rd when they were already at the Tapas.
in which statement of Jane is that first mentioned.
which night was it that a member of staff of OC walked all the way to Chaplin's (happy hour) late at night to tell the McCanns their children were crying?
I believe the daughter of Mrs. Fenn worked at Chaplins?

Personally, seeing all the faked photographs, I wouldn't put it past them to have a fake audio available as well.
In Mrs. Fenn's statement it is clear that the crying stopped almost the moment she heard the patio doors open.
Children get into such a state when crying for prolonged periods, that you need to hold them, still crying and slowly calm them down. They don't suddenly stop in my experience.
Crying for Daddy instead of Mummy doesn't make sense, unless Kate's 'best friend' as she called Maddie, was closer to Daddy and that opens a whole new can of worms.
I've always found it strange, as did Mrs. Fenn, that Gerry told her 'a little girl was missing' . He did this again on video in front of Lisbon court; 'It's about this girl', he said several times. Errm, Ger, it's your daughter, or is it just easier to distance yourself from the father-daughter relationship?

by Guest 06.10.11 0:41

tigger wrote:which night was it that a member of staff of OC walked all the way to Chaplin's (happy hour) late at night to tell the McCanns their children were crying?

There is no official statement from anyone I believe to back this up, so I think this was a forum myth.

by Guest 06.10.11 1:07

Perhaps the 'crying incident', was never even a child.

Could it have been pre-recorded and this is why it stopped instantly when the patio door was heard opening, someone switched off some sort of device?

by **PeterMac** 06.10.11 1:26

Stella wrote:Perhaps the 'crying incident', was never even a child.
Could it have been pre-recorded and this is why it stopped instantly when the patio door was heard opening, someone switched off some sort of device?

NO.
I think Occam's Razor needs sharpening !

by Guest 06.10.11 1:42

But don't you think it's funny that Mrs Fenn only ever mentions this one incident of crying? Three children under the age of 4, staying 5 nights and she only remembers this one night. thinking

how strange...

Was that night much louder than normal and this is why she heard it?

Or are we to believe that there was no other crying incident that entire week? nah