Where would a body be hidden?

j.rob wrote:
< snip >
A few pages on Kate (still the same eventful day) writes: "Not knowing where your child is, how your child is, who she's with or indeed whether you will ever see her again is a glimpse of hell. Not knowing, either, about anything that is (or worse, isn't) being done to find her, or whether those looking for her are privy to more information about her circumstances than you are, only piles on the agony."

It really does seem to me that Kate at this stage is not 'in the picture' in terms of what has happened to Madeleine and how she is. And she appears to have an awareness that there are others who know more than she does about what happened to Madeleine. 
< snip >

Expressing grief or anguish at the loss of her firstborn doesn't come easily to Kate, does it?   Indeed, it seems to me she's totally devoid of any sorrow at Madeleine no longer being with her and that all she's doing in the first sentence (above) is parrotting what other parents have told her but, for Kate, the 'not knowing' about her eldest daughter''s fate or whether she'll see her again is 'a glimpse' of hell, whereas for most parents in similar circumstances their every waking moment would be hell.    

What appears to torment Kate far more than the loss of her daughter is the not knowing whether those 'looking for her' are privy to more information than she is, and the agony of not knowing what they may have found while, for example, she's happily having her roots retouched or buying expensive strawberries in Waitrose can easily be imagined.  

As for the rest, from 4 May 2007 and their first appearance on the world stage I've been convinced that both of the McCanns are complicit in the disappearance of their eldest daughter and it's inconceivable to me that one of them knows more than the other about what became of her.

ultimaThule wrote:

j.rob wrote:
< snip >
A few pages on Kate (still the same eventful day) writes: "Not knowing where your child is, how your child is, who she's with or indeed whether you will ever see her again is a glimpse of hell. Not knowing, either, about anything that is (or worse, isn't) being done to find her, or whether those looking for her are privy to more information about her circumstances than you are, only piles on the agony."

It really does seem to me that Kate at this stage is not 'in the picture' in terms of what has happened to Madeleine and how she is. And she appears to have an awareness that there are others who know more than she does about what happened to Madeleine. 
< snip >

Expressing grief or anguish at the loss of her firstborn doesn't come easily to Kate, does it?   Indeed, it seems to me she's totally devoid of any sorrow at Madeleine no longer being with her and that all she's doing in the first sentence (above) is parrotting what other parents have told her but, for Kate, the 'not knowing' about her eldest daughter''s fate or whether she'll see her again is 'a glimpse' of hell, whereas for most parents in similar circumstances their every waking moment would be hell.    

What appears to torment Kate far more than the loss of her daughter is the not knowing whether those 'looking for her' are privy to more information than she is, and the agony of not knowing what they may have found while, for example, she's happily having her roots retouched or buying expensive strawberries in Waitrose can easily be imagined.  

As for the rest, from 4 May 2007 and their first appearance on the world stage I've been convinced that both of the McCanns are complicit in the disappearance of their eldest daughter and it's inconceivable to me that one of them knows more than the other about what became of her.

I totally agree, it's as if she says things and they reveal underlying issues about what is really going on within that don't express a genuine person, as if the words are scripted, and they are not really her true feelings.
I have always noticed that actions speak louder than words, and with the vengeful nature of the pair, they are only interested in their reputations because they want to silence anyone that doesn't agree with what they say. It's all about "them" and not their missing daughter, IMO.

secrets and lies wrote:Very interesting thoughts J.Rob.

In my heart I have always felt that the covering up of some form of child abuse, most likely sexual, lies at the heart of this strange and complex case.

Did anybody else watch this week's Silent Witness?

If the BBC teeter around the edge of the McCann case any longer they might eventually fall in.

There's a thread here on which, presumably, the guilty party will be revealed, Clay: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

secrets and lies wrote:Very interesting thoughts J.Rob.

In my heart I have always felt that the covering up of some form of child abuse, most likely sexual, lies at the heart of this strange and complex case.

Reading through your post am I correct in thinking you speculate that Kate might genuinely have thought, at the very outset, that her daughter had genuinely been abducted? That whatever was done to, or happened to Madeleine to cause her death (if that is what happened) was unknown to Kate?

Or that Kate was privy to and perhaps even present at the time of death? But that Maddie's remains were either moved/stolen by someone else without Kate's knowledge and she is, during that excerpt in her book, reflecting on actual real events, thoughts, feelings. If so, I get the same impression. She is either in a total fantasy or there is some actual truthful information presented in that passage. 

This makes a lot of sense. Perhaps whomever else was involved felt that Kate had to be kept out of the loop for a time, at least until some "immunity" was guaranteed to her and GM. She seems like a pretty mentally and emotionally fragile individual with a very big temper. Perhaps it had necessary to keep her in the dark in case she said the wrong thing at the wrong time and hung everyone else involved. What she didn't know she could not accidentally reveal. So perhaps the cry of "they've taken her" makes perfect sense.

I don't think it's feasible that she was not somehow involved herself initially. But perhaps later facts and details of "the clean-up operation and removal" had to have been withheld from her given her state of mind.

I don't think that Kate genuinely thought Madeleine had been abducted. But I do think Kate might not be entirely 'in the picture' with regards to exactly what happened to Madeleine. How, why, when, and so on. For instance, I suspect that the Gaspers were right about David Payne and, by implication (as Gerry considered David Payne's gesture to be inoffensive) Gerry McCann. Whereas I suspect that Kate McCann may have adopted the ostrich approach with regard to Gerry and his friends' deviances. 

I think Kate was involved on one level or another. But her involvement might have been different to that of Gerrys. 

I think Madeleine woke up one night early that week - Saturday night even - and was inconsolable. I think Kate may have shaken her vigorously and/or struck out. Kate pretty much tells us that this happened in that early media interview when she gets quite agitated when she recounts this incident. She mimics shaking Madeleine by the shoulders and Kate cries out several times: 'What do you mean, you woke up?' I think sedation also plays a part in all this. I suspect that, as Madeleine was inconsolable and maybe also abused/ill/had had an accident (I really hate thinking about all this) that a decision was made by GM, DP and possibly other male tapas. A certain course of action was decided upon. Kate I suspect was dragged into submission - the bruises on her hands, wrists and forearms on Friday 4th May (which she writes about in her book) suggest, to me,  that she had been very heavily physically restrained earlier in the week. If Kate had lashed out at Madeleine in some way, then that would explain, partly, why she had stuck by Gerry. She feels a level of responsibility for what happened to Madeleine. Also, in that media interview already mentioned, when the interviewer asks if Madeleine was annoyed with them for not going to her when she cried that night, Kate's reaction is quite telling. She looks sad and maybe even a bit guilty and shakes her head saying 'no' in such a way that you get the impression that Madeleine's reaction had been an entirely different one. As already said, I think Madeleine was inconsolable - crying out in fear; deeply upset. I think this incident is highly relevant to what happened that week.

I agree that Kate seems emotionally quite unstable. A bit of a loose cannon. That's probably why she didn't extricate herself from GM even though she probably suspected that the gossip she had heard about him (which she mentions in her book - talk of his womanizing, for instance, which makes her hold back from going out with him) had some truth to it. Who knows what other gossip there was about him? The Gaspers certainly decided that David Payne - one of Gerry's best friends - was not a father they wanted anywhere near their young daughter. I think that is incredibly damning. The friends you chose tend to reflect your own values.

When I saw the 'shaking' movement it looked to me like it was something she'd done before - pounce..shake! I agree with your thinking about the bruises too. The statements by the Gaspers I cannot work out. He seems to be playing the matter right down, and she 'believed' they were referring to Madeleine - not 100% sure. Having said that, I can't think why a doctor would make such an allegation about another doctor unless she was truly worried.

Yep, J.Rob, the shaking is definitely of interest and something that appears to have happened for real. 

I can only imagine the depths of this woman's temper. Can't recall momentarily which interview it was, but she gets VERY, very angry with an interviewer who is digging a bit about the Maddie anecdote "where were you when I was crying last night". She seems to be barely able to stop herself from letting her mask slip. She is angry but her irritation seems misplaced. And this is in a "propaganda piece" tv interview.

Most likely that anecdote was made up to cover the crying heard by Mrs. Fenn and then became a sort of burden to carry, since it leads to speculation as to why the parents would continue to leave the child after such an incident. Kate is visibly irritated that somebody would refer to it again. Annoyed that she has previously shot herself in the foot by making this yarn up?

I think it is quite likely that a person with deeply conflicted and troubled emotions and a huge physical temper could lash out and harm their child in a moment. 

That said, with regard to The Gaspers account of the GM/DP conversation, I agree it is highly relevant and if it is true, rather damning. They have given two accounts of such conversations-so highly unlikely that they simply misinterpreted something that was said the first time.

Is it possible that Madeleine was being abused unbeknownst to Kate? I'm always inclined to think, in such cases, and particularly if the abuse has been going on for a long period of time, the mothers do know. They either bury their heads in the sand, as you mention, or are more overtly complicit for other psychological reasons. But, for all her education, how bright is KM? Is it possible something was happening right under her nose and she was oblivious to it? Tranquilliers, antidepressants, alcohol. They might all have been a feature here. Perhaps KM was not functioning fully.

And if, indeed, no maternal bond had formed between her and Maddie she might have been less likely to pick on queues or signs of her child's distress in relation to being abused.

Naturally, this is all speculation on my part. We have no evidence. But at some level, I think this is the true nuts and bolts of the story. A very troubled, dysfunctional family and perhaps, an accident simply waiting to happen.

The 'blue eyeshadow' photo of Madeleine is not one that I would consider normal

G-Unit wrote:Here is an interesting quote from the book;
p.219
Did they really believe that a dog could smell the ‘odour of death’ three months later from a
body that had been removed so swiftly? They were adding two and two and coming up with
ten. 

Why does she say that? Firstly she seems to be accepting there was a body, secondly she says it was removed so swiftly! Am I taking this quote out of context I wonder?

Interesting observation.

Kate writes in the sentence before the one quoted above: "Supposing she had been killed - and we think this is extremely unlikely - she must have been taken out of the apartment within minutes."

I think the first part of the sentence tells us that it is extremely likely that Madeleine was killed. I believe this is the case. I don't think she died wholly because of an accident/drug over-dose. I think it is more calculated than that. To the extent that perhaps a decision was made not to try to save her. Sadly, I think she would have 'talked' and this could not be allowed to happen (hence the 'pact' of silence by all the tapas and why they have stuck to their terrible script.)

I think the second part of the sentence is deliberate obfuscation. The body was in the apartment for much longer than a few minutes, imo. (And in several different places in the apartment, hence the dog alerts). However, I am still of the opinion that it is possible that Madeleine did not actually die inside the apartment. Something terrible may have happened to her in the apartment earlier in the week. She may then have been removed from the apartment while it was decided what to do. I suspect there was blind panic for a few days and Robert Murat flew out at the last minute to botch up a bad mess.

Madeleine's  body may have been put back into the apartment (some time that fateful week)while a last-minute plan was hatched to cover-up Madeleine's fate.  It is even possible that Madeleine's body was returned to the apartment after the faked abduction. This especially could be the case if there were third parties involved in any of the process. Which is not impossible. TM like to get others to do the dirty work. I know the apartment was sealed off after 4th May but that does not entirely exclude Madeleine's body having been hidden at some point in the weeks following the faked abduction and eventual disposal of the body, whenever that was. I suppose that apartment 5A would be one of the few places where you would not expect the body to be hidden!

(Early sniffer dogs on several separate occasions strongly alerted to empty apartment 5J - could this apartment too have been used to store poor Madeleine's body for a while, perhaps even in a fridge/freezer?)

Although Matt's comment in one of his rogatories, where he flags up having noticed Cemetary Road while searching, allegedly, for Madeleine late in the evening of Thursday 3rd May strongly suggests to me that he knew by Thursday evening (and that would also mean the other tapas knew too, imo) that Madeleine was already dead by then.

Matt says: "I think this road unfortunately is called, erm, which road is it, Cemetery Road I think it's called, I seem to remember noticing it because it seemed like a horrible, I think it's this bit here." Surely this is as good as hard evidence that, by this time (at the latest) Matt and probably most of the other tapas already know that Madeleine is dead. 

A large cast of players was assembled. Many seem to have their own reasons for remaining silent on what might really have gone on that week.

 And we know that, in the summer of 2007, Marin Grime's cadaver dogs alerted to the car hired by the McCann's three weeks after Madeleine's disappearance. Which  does tend to suggest that this car was used to transport a dead body, or items that had been in contact with a dead body. If Madeleine's  body was in the car three weeks (at least) after the faked abduction, then where was the body kept during those preceding three weeks? (The million dollar question, I know.) That's an  long time to hide a body. 

In wonder when 'the funeral' was? Or the 'remembrance'? 

I also wonder who was in possession of this car from 28th April until 8th May 2007? Although I can also see from the thread linked below that the people who hired the car on the 8th May and the 15th May 2007 have been interviewed. And they did not report bad smells in the car. Or any reason for blood being in the car. So that does tend to exclude any possibility that this car was used to transport a body prior to TM hiring it on 24th May 2007 (eg: any possibility that it was used to transport a body away from Ocean Club during that fateful week.)

And golfers who hired the car prior to the McCanns holiday were also traced and interviewed. The Walkdens  hired the car for a week ending on 1st April 2007. They just happen to be members of Gerry's golf club, it would seem, Rothley Golf Club. Quite a strange coincidence although, of course, the Algarve is a golfing destination, so maybe not that strange. 

It is not a coincidence, imo, that a neighbour noticed that the McCanns left the Scenic car boot open overnight. I think night after night. Which you might do if you wanted to get rid of a bad smell. And Michael Wright commented on a bad smell coming from the car, apparently due to dirty nappies and rotten food. Yeah, right. 

The McCanns I think I have read did not return the car to the hire company until September. Which I suppose gives quite a lot of time for deep cleaning, if necessary. Not to mention trips to local dumps. 

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

All of the group except the McCanns breakfasted together and lunched together, went in and out of each other's apartments etc. Various reasons were given by the others for this; The McCanns had three children, so it was easier for them to have breakfast and lunch in their own apartment. The McCann children were always in the creche, unlike the others who had afternoon naps. Kate and Gerry had a 'routine' to keep to. Kate and Gerry were into their tennis. 

The McCann family breakfasted at the Millenium and lunched on the Payne's veranda on the Sunday with everyone else, but never again. Perhaps something happened, possibly with Madeleine and they were not really welcome after that. Jane Tanner was a little wary of how her daughter would get on with Madeleine as her daughter was quiet and Madeleine was not. Possibly Kate and Gerry rowed and then he kept her away from the others, or she kept him away from the others to help her with the children. He has been described as the centre of attention, extrovert and jokey. (Stephen Carpenter and Jeremy Wilkins). I can imagine him as one of the lads while Kate totters behind with three children in tow.

Certainly Kate was not happy with him on the Wednesday night when she slept in the other room. Mr Sensitive didn't really notice 'maybe he snored' he said. Drunken snoring perhaps?


Kate seemed hurt that everyone went to the beach on Thursday afternoon without her family, but Fiona Payne said she was invited and declined. The situation sounds uneasy. If Fiona had to issue a formal invitation was she was trying to bring the group together again?


Given all the above, I think Kate may have been very unhappy by Thursday evening, and that could be when she cracked. Just a theory, of course. 
Difficult to give references for all I say, the facts are in the PJ Files.

Yes, more interesting ideas to chew over, j.rob. AND G-Unit.

We might never know the full details of what happened to the poor child, whether she died deliberately or accidently, how and where she was hidden and all the other gruesome truths there may be.

But we are in a position to examine the psychology of her parents through all the interview footage, comments on blogs, books, body language.

And what I have seen genuinely disturbs and frightens. Which is why the case intrigues me. You get the impression that no theory is too outlandish or far-fetched to be true. Simply because these people seem impossible to know, to relate to, to trust.

Indeed.

Kate's diary entry for Saturday 2nd June 2007 is of interest (my bolding and underlining): 

She writes: "Cried again in bed' I can't avoid it. I need her close to me. Thinking about her fear of pain breaks my heart. Thinking about paedophiles makes me want to tear at my own skin. Of course these people, like psychopaths, aren't 'normal' human beings. I was never in favour of the death penalty, but these people should be kept in a secure place. I wouldn't even complain if it was in nice surroundings, but, certainly in the case of paedophiles always distanced from any type of contact with children.
Whose human rights are more important' Those of a paedophile or of a vulnerable, defenceless child."


------


Says it all, really, imo. 

Who exactly is she thinking of, I wonder? Who needs to be kept in a secure place distanced from contact with children? Madeleine's "abductor/s" presumably? But it's okay if they have nice surroundings - and she is not in favour of the death penalty, even for the potential paedophile abductor/s of her own daughter.

I wonder why that would be?

Why would a 3 year old have a 'fear of pain' that is worthy of comment?

The 3 year olds I've met hurl themselves around without fear of any pain that may be caused if they fall over or otherwise hurt themselves in the course of their activities, and if a child has a pronounced fear of pain I would expect this to be remarked on in their nursery school/day care reports.

ultimaThule wrote:Why would a 3 year old have a 'fear of pain' that is worthy of comment?  

The 3 year olds I've met hurl themselves around without fear of any pain that may be caused if they fall over or otherwise hurt themselves in the course of their activities, and if a child has a pronounced fear of pain I would expect this to be remarked on in their nursery school/day care reports.

It's an interesting point. As a foster carer a lot of children we deal with are referred to as "traumatised" and a LOT have a sort of hypochondriac tendency over their health BUT they also throw themselves about with no thought or awareness of what they're doing to their bodies. Our current charge, a 4 year old, throws himself about and bashes himself constantly and also picks at the skin around his nails. When he bleeds (as in peeling too much skin or jagging himself on something) he really panics about it. The first time we took him for a haircut he was saying it was sore!

Just thought it was an interesting point that a lot of traumatised children have this characteristic.

G-Unit wrote:All of the group except the McCanns breakfasted together and lunched together, went in and out of each other's apartments etc. Various reasons were given by the others for this; The McCanns had three children, so it was easier for them to have breakfast and lunch in their own apartment. The McCann children were always in the creche, unlike the others who had afternoon naps. Kate and Gerry had a 'routine' to keep to. Kate and Gerry were into their tennis. 

The McCann family breakfasted at the Millenium and lunched on the Payne's veranda on the Sunday with everyone else, but never again. Perhaps something happened, possibly with Madeleine and they were not really welcome after that. Jane Tanner was a little wary of how her daughter would get on with Madeleine as her daughter was quiet and Madeleine was not. Possibly Kate and Gerry rowed and then he kept her away from the others, or she kept him away from the others to help her with the children. He has been described as the centre of attention, extrovert and jokey. (Stephen Carpenter and Jeremy Wilkins). I can imagine him as one of the lads while Kate totters behind with three children in tow.

Certainly Kate was not happy with him on the Wednesday night when she slept in the other room. Mr Sensitive didn't really notice 'maybe he snored' he said. Drunken snoring perhaps?


Kate seemed hurt that everyone went to the beach on Thursday afternoon without her family, but Fiona Payne said she was invited and declined. The situation sounds uneasy. If Fiona had to issue a formal invitation was she was trying to bring the group together again?


Given all the above, I think Kate may have been very unhappy by Thursday evening, and that could be when she cracked. Just a theory, of course. 
Difficult to give references for all I say, the facts are in the PJ Files.

It is very strange and suspicious, imo, that the McCann family chose to have breakfast every day (apart from Sunday). Kate and Gerry strike me as the kind of people who like to get their money's worth. Why would they chose the expense, hassle and mess of making breakfast for five every day in a cramped apartment? Even if they didn't all make it to the Millennium every morning, you would still expect that Madeleine would want to join the others at breakfast time. 

Why didn't Madeleine join her friend Ella at breakfast? The Paynes could easily have come by to the apartment to take her up to the Millennium, even if it was too much hassle to get the twins ready in time? This is such a red flag, imo, as nearly four year olds love doing things with their friends and peers. No way would a child of this age - unless exceptionally shy perhaps - would want to be stuck every morning having breakfast in the apartment when the rest of the group are all together having breakfast in the hotel restaurant.

The twins too, probably. Children of this age are bouncing off the walls by 7.30am in the morning. They would love the buzz and choice of the breakfast buffet. Choosing cereals and so on.  Particularly when you consider that the family allege that they also had lunch in their apartment as well! That's two meals a day to shop for, prepare, serve and clear up. A lot of work when you have two year old twins and a nearly four year old.

I know the McCann's excuse is that the Millennium is a long walk away. But a ten minute (or whatever) stroll through the grounds is no big deal when you have very active young children who are raring to go in the morning. And we know that, at a later stage, the McCanns had a double buggy which I presume they borrowed from the Ocean Club? I am sure there were some strollers or similar available for families, given that the resort is so spread out. Even beach buggies or something?

This tells me that something had happened by Monday morning which meant that the whole family had to drastically change the routine. 

"Jane Tanner was a little wary of how her daughter would get on with Madeleine as her daughter was quiet and Madeleine was not."


I'm sceptical about this claim of Jane Tanner's. I think it is deliberately misleading. Previous nannies of Madeleine have described her as a shy child and looking at photos and videos of Madeleine she does look like she could be shy sometimes. Ella does not appear especially shy from the few photos that I have seen of her - that one with the sunglasses, for instance. She looks quite outgoing. 


Something had happened by Monday morning. Of this I am pretty sure. There is no mention of activities in Kate's book for Monday. Only that in the evening she went to the supermarket for some 'essentials'. Hmmm. 

What I find chilling is that, if something bad had already happened to Madeleine by Monday, it is extraordinary that Gerry (according to witness testimony from other guests) kept up such a boisterous front throughout the week. Even if it was all show and bluster. 

Certainly Kate was not happy with him on the Wednesday night when she slept in the other room. Mr Sensitive didn't really notice 'maybe he snored' he said. Drunken snoring perhaps?


This is likely to have happened earlier in the week if some mishap had happened to Madeleine by Monday. Maybe it happened on Sunday evening/night? I suspect Madeleine became inconsolable. I really dread to think what happened to her that week. My mind does not want to go there. Poor child really did deserve better, imo.

nomendelta wrote:

ultimaThule wrote:Why would a 3 year old have a 'fear of pain' that is worthy of comment?  

The 3 year olds I've met hurl themselves around without fear of any pain that may be caused if they fall over or otherwise hurt themselves in the course of their activities, and if a child has a pronounced fear of pain I would expect this to be remarked on in their nursery school/day care reports.

It's an interesting point. As a foster carer a lot of children we deal with are referred to as "traumatised" and a LOT have a sort of hypochondriac tendency over their health BUT they also throw themselves about with no thought or awareness of what they're doing to their bodies. Our current charge, a 4 year old, throws himself about and bashes himself constantly and also picks at the skin around his nails. When he bleeds (as in peeling too much skin or jagging himself on something) he really panics about it. The first time we took him for a haircut he was saying it was sore!

Just thought it was an interesting point that a lot of traumatised children have this characteristic.

I think Madeleine was badly traumatized (by something that week). 

There is some serious dysfunction going on within the family dynamic, imo.

Watch the 'Madeleine was Here' series purporting to show normal family life chez Mc. There is one scene which I have repeatedly flagged up where Gerry arrives back at the family home. Kate lets him into the kitchen unlocking the kitchen door with a key that is hanging around her neck. Given the emphasis that the Mcs have put on keys and on locking or unlocking of doors, I find the symbolism of this disturbing. 

Amelie becomes agitated as Gerry comes into the kitchen. 

I'm not going to write any more because this takes me to places where my mind does not want to go. All I will say is that the evidence is there on film for the whole world to see. This is not normal behaviour, imo. So many red flags.

I find it beyond extraordinary that the Mcs and TM have not had the book thrown at them. 

How many social workers/counsellors/psychotherapists/"experts" must have watched this series and shaken their heads in sheer disbelief? It is simply dripping with clues and symbolism. 

The Emperor really does have no clothes on when it comes to this case.

The 'Snow White' video of Madeleine is strange. It seems to have been taken at some kind of celebration. Normally we video the children playing together, but she is just standing alone. She sees the camera then her eyes go up higher than the camera. It suggests to me that the camera is being held lower down, not close to the eyes as is normal. She seems to be trying to make sense of what is happening. 


Poor child, all dressed up and not seeming to be enjoying herself. 


I had another look at the kids club sheets for the afternoons. Sunday, after lunch with the group, Madeleine was signed in at 2.45pm, the same time as Ella O'Brien, which makes sense if they all lunched together. It was Gerry who signed her in and Jane who signed Ella in, though. Kate took the twins. I myself would have expected the two women to be together, so maybe something not right there? Ella came out early too - 3.30pm. 


Monday Kate signed M and the twins in (3.15 - 3.25pm) and out in the afternoon. Very unclear what time she signed M out though, looks like 15? Russell signed Ella in at 4pm, she was not signed out. Gerry not pulling his weight this day then?


Tuesday Gerry managed to sign M and the twins in at the same time -2.30pm. Ella was signed in at the same time by Cat nanny and out at 5.30 by Jane. M was not signed out, twins signed out by Kate at 5.20pm.
 
(This was supposedly the day of the lunchtime trip to the beach, meaning that Madeleine would have had to set off immediately with the other Lobsters to go back to the beach for ice-cream. Two in one afternoon!) Stephen Carpenter said he saw the McCanns at the beach on
Sunday or Monday though. On Monday Madeleine was signed in at 3.15, which sounds like she may have been to the beach that day with her parents. I wonder why they insisted that it was Tuesday?


Wednesday Kate signed M and twins in, and M out. Gerry signed twins out. Ella was signed in and out by Russell. 



Thursday Kate signed all three children in and out. Russell signed Ella in at 2.30, she was signed out at 4.30pm by Cat nanny. Russell did say he collected her before they went up to the Tapas for tea, although others at the beach said he and Matthew were sailing until at least 4.30pm. He appeared with her on the beach bar CCTV at 5.52pm, although she could have been playing outside for a while. Another interesting point about the CCTV is that I can see the two older children when the three men stand up to go back to the tennis. The next frame shows Fiona, Dianne, Rachael and Jane. I can see only one small child. Were the older girls back outside playing or did they go with the men, I wonder? That might explain why they left the beach at 6.15pm but only began playing tennis at 7pm when the women returned.



Gerry said that Russell showed him a shortcut to the Lobster club on Tuesday lunchtime when they collected the children. Gerald signed for Madeleine, Ella was not signed out by Russell.



Gerry signed the children into the kids clubs three times in the afternoons between Sunday and Thursday, Kate seven times. Perhaps he was making the lunches and washing up as his share of the chores?

nomendelta wrote:

ultimaThule wrote:Why would a 3 year old have a 'fear of pain' that is worthy of comment?  

The 3 year olds I've met hurl themselves around without fear of any pain that may be caused if they fall over or otherwise hurt themselves in the course of their activities, and if a child has a pronounced fear of pain I would expect this to be remarked on in their nursery school/day care reports.

It's an interesting point. As a foster carer a lot of children we deal with are referred to as "traumatised" and a LOT have a sort of hypochondriac tendency over their health BUT they also throw themselves about with no thought or awareness of what they're doing to their bodies. Our current charge, a 4 year old, throws himself about and bashes himself constantly and also picks at the skin around his nails. When he bleeds (as in peeling too much skin or jagging himself on something) he really panics about it. The first time we took him for a haircut he was saying it was sore!

Just thought it was an interesting point that a lot of traumatised children have this characteristic.

I thought i would comment here. 
My son who has Autism has a fear of pain. He also has no sense of danger. So although he fears pain, he will still do things (like walking over the lego he has on the floor) without realising this will hurt him.
He is not as bad now as i have worked with him over the years. BUT, as a younger child, if he fell and cut his knee and a tiny bit of blood showed, he would panic that all the blood in his body was going to pour out. Real real panic, sometimes it could take over an hour to let him see there was no blood "pouring" out of him. Its the same with a lot of children who have Autism. Also the haircut you mentioned, my son too would say it hurts, again not so much now as we have done a lot of work together to help him.

A part of me thinks Madeleine may have had Autism, especially when they go on about "routine". Routine is very important for Autistic children. They need to know what they are doing, what is coming next, etc and so on. There is no way in the world that you could leave an Autistic child on their own, no matter how much "Me" time you would need. My son will be going to high school soon, and i still wont leae him alone, even in another room, as i have said, he has no sense of danger. Children with Autism also self harm when frustrated, my son hasnt harmed himself too much as i am there with him all the time, in fact what he will do on occasion is hit his hand off his head when he is frustrated or when he cant have his own way. But i am always ther when this happens to step in and help him hit a pillow or cushion instead so he wont hurt himself. 

Before i go any further, yes, it can be challenging having a child with Autism, but i want to say i feelblessed to be a mother to such a wonderful boy. He brings me so much joy and laughter and help me realise what is important in life. I feel rich, as in the relationship i have with my son that i know friends dont have the same relationship with their children............anyway, i digress....


So, it is not only children who have been traumatised that can display such behaviours.......just wanted to put another reason out ther..... food for thought.
Also some of the comments from the McCann extended family(i think) that she was a difficult child

All IMO

j.rob wrote:Indeed.

Kate's diary entry for Saturday 2nd June 2007 is of interest (my bolding and underlining): 

She writes: "Cried again in bed' I can't avoid it. I need her close to me. Thinking about her fear of pain Payne breaks my heart. Thinking about paedophiles makes me want to tear at my own skin. Of course these people, like psychopaths, aren't 'normal' human beings. I was never in favour of the death penalty, but these people should be kept in a secure place. I wouldn't even complain if it was in nice surroundings, but, certainly in the case of paedophiles always distanced from any type of contact with children.
Whose human rights are more important' Those of a paedophile or of a vulnerable, defenceless child."


------


Says it all, really, imo. 

Who exactly is she thinking of, I wonder? Who needs to be kept in a secure place distanced from contact with children? Madeleine's "abductor/s" presumably? But it's okay if they have nice surroundings - and she is not in favour of the death penalty, even for the potential paedophile abductor/s of her own daughter.

I wonder why that would be?

In the light of the Gaspar statements, I find the above highlighted words very interesting; especially immediately preceding a sentence about paedophiles.

An intentional 'play on words?'

Brain leaking information?

I wonder what Nic Wall thinks of that? Or what Andy thought of it? Or don't they give a flying fig?

jrob, i wasnt impyling that there was an innocent explanation, just an observation that i believe Madeliene may have had Autism or something similar.

There is without a doubt that this is a huge cover up...of what, i dont know. And everything they say is so strange and not the thoughts, myself as a parent would have.

I also think they try too hard when saying they thought it was safe etc and so on. 

And like many other parents, if someone took my child and did the unthinkable to them, firstly, i could never forgive them and secondly i wouldnt say things like "I wouldnt mind if it was nice surroundings"...who the hell would say that.
People would have to stop me from doing the worst thing i could imagine to anyone who did anything to my child. 


I fear at times that we will never know what happened, but i want to believe it will all come out as it should.

Gaggzy wrote:

j.rob wrote:Indeed.

Kate's diary entry for Saturday 2nd June 2007 is of interest (my bolding and underlining): 

She writes: "Cried again in bed' I can't avoid it. I need her close to me. Thinking about her fear of pain Payne breaks my heart. Thinking about paedophiles makes me want to tear at my own skin. Of course these people, like psychopaths, aren't 'normal' human beings. I was never in favour of the death penalty, but these people should be kept in a secure place. I wouldn't even complain if it was in nice surroundings, but, certainly in the case of paedophiles always distanced from any type of contact with children.
Whose human rights are more important' Those of a paedophile or of a vulnerable, defenceless child."


------


Says it all, really, imo. 

Who exactly is she thinking of, I wonder? Who needs to be kept in a secure place distanced from contact with children? Madeleine's "abductor/s" presumably? But it's okay if they have nice surroundings - and she is not in favour of the death penalty, even for the potential paedophile abductor/s of her own daughter.

I wonder why that would be?

In the light of the Gaspar statements, I find the above highlighted words very interesting; especially immediately preceding a sentence about paedophiles.

An intentional 'play on words?'

Brain leaking information?

I wonder what Nic Wall thinks of that? Or what Andy thought of it? Or don't they give a flying fig?

How very astute of you. Of course, fear of pain Payne. 

Followed by: "Thinking about paedophiles makes me want to tear at my own skin." 


That is a very interesting sentence. Tear is  a verb which means to pull apart but of course a tear is also a noun. 


And to want to 'tear at my own skin' - that's suggestive of self-harming, of course. 


Kate was in denial over what was going on, imo. Also interesting that Kate mentions psychopaths because I have long suspected that she is married to one. Perhaps she has too!


Oh dear. 

Mini Slueth wrote:jrob, i wasnt impyling that there was an innocent explanation, just an observation that i believe Madeliene may have had Autism or something similar.

There is without a doubt that this is a huge cover up...of what, i dont know. And everything they say is so strange and not the thoughts, myself as a parent would have.

I also think they try too hard when saying they thought it was safe etc and so on. 

And like many other parents, if someone took my child and did the unthinkable to them, firstly, i could never forgive them and secondly i wouldnt say things like "I wouldnt mind if it was nice surroundings"...who the hell would say that.
People would have to stop me from doing the worst thing i could imagine to anyone who did anything to my child. 


I fear at times that we will never know what happened, but i want to believe it will all come out as it should.

I agree, her anger/rage seems very misdirected IMO. She wishes horrible things for Goncalo Amaral, and who was it she said she wanted to kill but couldn't? was it Murat? because she felt sure he had something to do with Maddie's disappearance, and i think from memory that was just before they realized they mistook Murat for their friend David Payne. But she doesn't feel quite the same way about a potential paedo/abductor that stole her child and did something horrendous to her little girl. She makes no sense whatsoever. Wonder if she has ever had a psyche eval.?