Why didn't you come last night...?

by Ribisl 03.03.12 13:03

"Mrs Fenn says that two nights before Madeleine disappeared one of the children in the apartment was constantly screaming from around 10.30pm to 11.45pm.

"She was crying out for her dad and nobody answered until somebody returned.

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

GERRY Thursday, 3 May 2007, they all woke up at the same time between 07H30 and 08H00. While they were taking breakfast MADELEINE addressed the mother and asked her “why didn't you come last night when S*** and I were crying?”.

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

Mrs McCann also revealed she had tormented herself for a year for not paying more attention to Madeleine on the morning before her disappearance, when she told her parents that she had been crying the previous night in their absence, and asked them where they had been.

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

Maybe I am the only one but I had always imagined Mrs Fenn and the MCs were talking about the same night and had based my initial timeline of 2nd/3rd for her 'disappearance' on that mistaken premise. Comparing notes however it appears Mrs Fenn heard her crying on the night of the 1st and Madeleine mentioned about crying on the 3rd referring to the night before ie 2nd. It shows how easily one can make wrong assumptions. flag

But does this mean she was left crying both nights??

by **tigger** 03.03.12 13:44

It's a big problem. Mrs. Fenn states that t 11.45 pm. she heard the patio doors open and the crying stopped.
This was on the 1st and Mrs. Fenn was on the phone to a friend at that time and on that date. We can't move it to the 2nd however hard we can try.

One point: Kate's phone pings show a lot of activity up to 10.30. She wasn't at the Tapas and the crying started as the phone activity ceased.
The phone pings put her in the OC.

The general thinking is that the episode would be known to the police so it was incorporated in the narrative of the abduction as it were, enhanced by a little story of a stain on Maddie's pyjamas on the morning of the 3rd. We are supposed to believe that the abductors did a 'dry run' that night.

I had a theory that the staged abduction had initially been scheduled for the 2nd of May and what with taking a sub into account, the JT sighting and the Smiths' sighting (which I believe to be Gerry with Amelie or another child) the crying was possibly a recording.

This is over the top and I can see you raising your eyebrows sky-high!
But: telephone calls stopped, crying began.
Convince the police of an abduction: two sightings, one independent of a man with a child, proof of child's presence in 5a: crying. Plus convincing impossibility of Maddie walking out by herself, the shutters.
Only reason I'm thinking like this is because one tries to get into the mind of the people who are central to this affair. It's daft, but then, so are they.

'It's a disaster' says Gerry to his family around 10.30 p.m. Yes indeed.
He was intercepted by Jeremy Wilkins and JT had to use that time to give him an alibi when reporting the bundle man.
Second sighting wasn't a fleeting glance by some local person but a family of 9 Irish people who even spoke to him.
The shutters didn't open from outside and so the easily accessible patio doors had to be used.
The GNR didn't understand his masonic cry for help.

In any case the crying would be convenient for TM on the 2nd, for us - in case of a sub especially - not al all convenient.

by Ribisl 03.03.12 13:55

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

by **tigger** 03.03.12 14:03

Ribisl:

Brilliant! You are clever!

by Genbug 03.03.12 21:17

Tigger wrote:

One point: Kate's phone pings show a lot of activity up to 10.30. She wasn't at the Tapas and the crying started as the phone activity ceased.
The phone pings put her in the OC.

Tigger, the phone pings put her phone at the OC, not necessarily her. Could well have been somebody else using her phone. I know it doesn't prove anything one way or another, but they may well have been using each others phones.

by **tigger** 04.03.12 8:17

Genbug wrote:Tigger wrote:

One point: Kate's phone pings show a lot of activity up to 10.30. She wasn't at the Tapas and the crying started as the phone activity ceased.
The phone pings put her in the OC.

Tigger, the phone pings put her phone at the OC, not necessarily her. Could well have been somebody else using her phone. I know it doesn't prove anything one way or another, but they may well have been using each others phones.

So people phoning Kate would not know that she might not have her phone and someone else would answer? Then the message would have to be passed on to her or another number to the caller.
We really don't need more complications, because if that applies to one phone, it should apply to all the other phones too.
And what would be the reason for changing phones?

by Genbug 04.03.12 9:37

tigger wrote:
Genbug wrote:Tigger wrote:

One point: Kate's phone pings show a lot of activity up to 10.30. She wasn't at the Tapas and the crying started as the phone activity ceased.
The phone pings put her in the OC.

Tigger, the phone pings put her phone at the OC, not necessarily her. Could well have been somebody else using her phone. I know it doesn't prove anything one way or another, but they may well have been using each others phones.

So people phoning Kate would not know that she might not have her phone and someone else would answer? Then the message would have to be passed on to her or another number to the caller.
We really don't need more complications, because if that applies to one phone, it should apply to all the other phones too.
And what would be the reason for changing phones?

How is that statement causing complications? Phone pings don't put a person in a particular place, they just put the phone in a particular place. And do we know for certain that these were received calls and not calls that were made from the phone? Have you never said to anyone "hey can I borrow your phone, my battery's dead...?" Not complicating things, just trying to look at it from all angles.

by Gillyspot 04.03.12 10:02

Remember they were in Portugal using UK phones so the result of calls made following a "can I borrow your phone" would prove very expensive for the lender of the phone.

by **tigger** 04.03.12 10:45

Yes Genbug, from now on we will pretend all phones could be in locations that their owners might not have been in at the time they were in use.
The phone pings differentiate between received and sent calls.
So mathematically speaking - we now have variables of T9 phones where each phone might have been in one of 9 different locations. I'm trying to remember my maths - I think that makes (9 x 9 ) -n (9)? which is 72 locations which are possible for for the phones to be when they're not with the owner.

I'm open to corrections on my math!

by Genbug 04.03.12 15:50

tigger wrote:Yes Genbug, from now on we will pretend all phones could be in locations that their owners might not have been in at the time they were in use.
The phone pings differentiate between received and sent calls.
So mathematically speaking - we now have variables of T9 phones where each phone might have been in one of 9 different locations. I'm trying to remember my maths - I think that makes (9 x 9 ) -n (9)? which is 72 locations which are possible for for the phones to be when they're not with the owner.

I'm open to corrections on my math!

Is there really any need for sarcasm Tigger? I thought we were all on the same side? I am a professional researcher and if I stated as fact that a person MUST have been at a certain place because that was where their phoned pinged, then I would be sacked as my research must be based on fact, not assumption. The odds are that it WAS Kate using the phone. But we have seen so many lies and discrepancies in this case that in my opinion, just because a certain phoned pinged in a certain place at a certain time, it doesn't mean that it was the person owning the phone that was using it. It has nothing to do with maths, just common sense.

by **tigger** 04.03.12 16:01

Genbug wrote:
tigger wrote:Yes Genbug, from now on we will pretend all phones could be in locations that their owners might not have been in at the time they were in use.
The phone pings differentiate between received and sent calls.
So mathematically speaking - we now have variables of T9 phones where each phone might have been in one of 9 different locations. I'm trying to remember my maths - I think that makes (9 x 9 ) -n (9)? which is 72 locations which are possible for for the phones to be when they're not with the owner.

I'm open to corrections on my math!

Is there really any need for sarcasm Tigger? I thought we were all on the same side? I am a professional researcher and if I stated as fact that a person MUST have been at a certain place because that was where their phoned pinged, then I would be sacked as my research must be based on fact, not assumption. The odds are that it WAS Kate using the phone. But we have seen so many lies and discrepancies in this case that in my opinion, just because a certain phoned pinged in a certain place at a certain time, it doesn't mean that it was the person owning the phone that was using it. It has nothing to do with maths, just common sense.

My point was that one then has to include all the phones, because why should only Kate's phone be subject to being lent out? Therefore it makes sense to take the whole group into account as each one would be equally likely to have 'borrowed' that phone. In turn they could have lent their phones out at other times.
Therefore it's pointless to add this complication imo.

by Guest 04.03.12 16:14

Kiko`s research shows that the only information we have for Kate Mccann`s phone for the evening of May 1st, is the pings. We do not have any associated numbers or information on whether these were incoming or outgoing calls or incoming or outgoing texts ( although given the short time intervals between the pings these could relate to an exchange of texts).

It`s worth remembering that according to the information we have, GMcs phone was switched off all day on the 1st. So I don`t think it`s unreasonable to keep in the back of our minds the possibility that phones may have been used by people other than their owners. As Genbug says, the most likely explanation is that KMc was using her own phone. But GMcs phone silence over a long period is a key part of Kiko`s phone research - so access to another phone ( such as KMcs/an unregistered pay as you go phone/a phone not disclosed to the PJ) might have been necessary.

by **tigger** 04.03.12 16:24

alison wrote:Kiko`s research shows that the only information we have for Kate Mccann`s phone for the evening of May 1st, is the pings. We do not have any associated numbers or information on whether these were incoming or outgoing calls or incoming or outgoing texts ( although given the short time intervals between the pings these could relate to an exchange of texts).

It`s worth remembering that according to the information we have, GMcs phone was switched off all day on the 1st. So I don`t think it`s unreasonable to keep in the back of our minds the possibility that phones may have been used by people other than their owners. As Genbug says, the most likely explanation is that KMc was using her own phone. But GMcs phone silence over a long period is a key part of Kiko`s phone research - so access to another phone ( such as KMcs/an unregistered pay as you go phone/a phone not disclosed to the PJ) might have been necessary.

Yes, I'm fine with that. Just not with Kate's phone being used by somebody else at a time when she is also absent from the table.
It makes good sense for Gerry and Kate to use other phones - quite likely even. I'm surprised they used their own phones that much. There might only have been one unregistered phone around which might have been used between them?
So Kate using another phone makes sense, Kate's phone being used by someone else doesn't, not for me.

by Genbug 04.03.12 18:05

How do we know Kate was absent from the table?

by **tigger** 04.03.12 18:05

Genbug, I apologise for being rude - I'm still of the same opinion but I could have put it better.
No hard feelings I hope.

by Merrymo 04.03.12 18:45

Ribisl wrote:"Mrs Fenn says that two nights before Madeleine disappeared one of the children in the apartment was constantly screaming from around 10.30pm to 11.45pm.

"She was crying out for her dad and nobody answered until somebody returned.

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

GERRY Thursday, 3 May 2007, they all woke up at the same time between 07H30 and 08H00. While they were taking breakfast MADELEINE addressed the mother and asked her “why didn't you come last night when S*** and I were crying?”.

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

Mrs McCann also revealed she had tormented herself for a year for not paying more attention to Madeleine on the morning before her disappearance, when she told her parents that she had been crying the previous night in their absence, and asked them where they had been.

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

Maybe I am the only one but I had always imagined Mrs Fenn and the MCs were talking about the same night and had based my initial timeline of 2nd/3rd for her 'disappearance' on that mistaken premise. Comparing notes however it appears Mrs Fenn heard her crying on the night of the 1st and Madeleine mentioned about crying on the 3rd referring to the night before ie 2nd. It shows how easily one can make wrong assumptions. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
But does this mean she was left crying both nights??

Mrs Fenns report of a child crying was indeed on the 1st and not the 2nd as some people have wrongly surmised. I do find it difficult to believe that if as claimed Maddie cried for over an hour -(at such a level that it was heard by Mrs Fenn) that the twins, who were only inches away from Maddies bed did not wake up and cry too. On that same night Russell stayed in with his daughter who was unwell. Maybe it was that little girl who Mrs Fenn heard crying in one of the apartments below.

On the night of the 2nd May - which is the night Maddie was referring to, Racheal Oldfield was not well and stayed in. Their apartment was next door to the McCanns, in fact her bedroom was next to Maddies and the twins bedroom. I can't imagine that 2 children crying right next door for any length of time would have gone unnoticed by her.

The McCanns did not have to report what Maddie said to the police, no-one would have known if they had chosen not to mention it. I think the fact that they did - knowing that it could reflect badly on them - (and in fact it was eventually used against them by the Portuguese press) proved that finding Madeleine was more important to them than anything else.

by Genbug 04.03.12 22:09

tigger wrote:Genbug, I apologise for being rude - I'm still of the same opinion but I could have put it better.
No hard feelings I hope.

No worries tigger. I know you are passionate about this case, because of the work I do I just tend to look at facts - of which there are far too few. Doesn't mean I'm right and you're wrong, we just look at things from different angles.

by rainbow-fairy 04.03.12 22:28

Merrymo wrote:
Ribisl wrote:"Mrs Fenn says that two nights before Madeleine disappeared one of the children in the apartment was constantly screaming from around 10.30pm to 11.45pm.

"She was crying out for her dad and nobody answered until somebody returned.

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

GERRY Thursday, 3 May 2007, they all woke up at the same time between 07H30 and 08H00. While they were taking breakfast MADELEINE addressed the mother and asked her “why didn't you come last night when S*** and I were crying?”.

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

Mrs McCann also revealed she had tormented herself for a year for not paying more attention to Madeleine on the morning before her disappearance, when she told her parents that she had been crying the previous night in their absence, and asked them where they had been.

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

Maybe I am the only one but I had always imagined Mrs Fenn and the MCs were talking about the same night and had based my initial timeline of 2nd/3rd for her 'disappearance' on that mistaken premise. Comparing notes however it appears Mrs Fenn heard her crying on the night of the 1st and Madeleine mentioned about crying on the 3rd referring to the night before ie 2nd. It shows how easily one can make wrong assumptions. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
But does this mean she was left crying both nights??

Mrs Fenns report of a child crying was indeed on the 1st and not the 2nd as some people have wrongly surmised. I do find it difficult to believe that if as claimed Maddie cried for over an hour -(at such a level that it was heard by Mrs Fenn) that the twins, who were only inches away from Maddies bed did not wake up and cry too. On that same night Russell stayed in with his daughter who was unwell. Maybe it was that little girl who Mrs Fenn heard crying in one of the apartments below.

On the night of the 2nd May - which is the night Maddie was referring to, Racheal Oldfield was not well and stayed in. Their apartment was next door to the McCanns, in fact her bedroom was next to Maddies and the twins bedroom. I can't imagine that 2 children crying right next door for any length of time would have gone unnoticed by her.

The McCanns did not have to report what Maddie said to the police, no-one would have known if they had chosen not to mention it. I think the fact that they did - knowing that it could reflect badly on them - (and in fact it was eventually used against them by the Portuguese press) proved that finding Madeleine was more important to them than anything else.

It would be interesting to hear how you square 'finding Madeleine more important than anything else' with not searching, releasing an out-of-date photoshopped image of your daughter when allegedly you'd taken one at the pool that day, not speaking to the GNR or PJ officers 'that' night - the list goes on.
I don't believe the conversation haPpened at all, that is if Maddie even cried at all (as you state, Rachel was 'ill' next door and heard nothing). I see this as a pathetic attempt to sell the 'abduction hypothesis and the dry run the previous night', nothing more nothing less.

by Merrymo 04.03.12 23:04

rainbow-fairy wrote:
Merrymo wrote:
Ribisl wrote:"Mrs Fenn says that two nights before Madeleine disappeared one of the children in the apartment was constantly screaming from around 10.30pm to 11.45pm.

"She was crying out for her dad and nobody answered until somebody returned.

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

GERRY Thursday, 3 May 2007, they all woke up at the same time between 07H30 and 08H00. While they were taking breakfast MADELEINE addressed the mother and asked her “why didn't you come last night when S*** and I were crying?”.

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

Mrs McCann also revealed she had tormented herself for a year for not paying more attention to Madeleine on the morning before her disappearance, when she told her parents that she had been crying the previous night in their absence, and asked them where they had been.

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

Maybe I am the only one but I had always imagined Mrs Fenn and the MCs were talking about the same night and had based my initial timeline of 2nd/3rd for her 'disappearance' on that mistaken premise. Comparing notes however it appears Mrs Fenn heard her crying on the night of the 1st and Madeleine mentioned about crying on the 3rd referring to the night before ie 2nd. It shows how easily one can make wrong assumptions. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
But does this mean she was left crying both nights??

Mrs Fenns report of a child crying was indeed on the 1st and not the 2nd as some people have wrongly surmised. I do find it difficult to believe that if as claimed Maddie cried for over an hour -(at such a level that it was heard by Mrs Fenn) that the twins, who were only inches away from Maddies bed did not wake up and cry too. On that same night Russell stayed in with his daughter who was unwell. Maybe it was that little girl who Mrs Fenn heard crying in one of the apartments below.

On the night of the 2nd May - which is the night Maddie was referring to, Racheal Oldfield was not well and stayed in. Their apartment was next door to the McCanns, in fact her bedroom was next to Maddies and the twins bedroom. I can't imagine that 2 children crying right next door for any length of time would have gone unnoticed by her.

The McCanns did not have to report what Maddie said to the police, no-one would have known if they had chosen not to mention it. I think the fact that they did - knowing that it could reflect badly on them - (and in fact it was eventually used against them by the Portuguese press) proved that finding Madeleine was more important to them than anything else.

-----------
It would be interesting to hear how you square 'finding Madeleine more important than anything else' with not searching,

My point was as already stated. The McCanns did not have to reveal what their daughter had said to them. But they did. The fact that they knew that information could reflect badly on them was put to one side because they wanted to give every bit of info they could to the police. What Madeline said to them has indeed been used against them ad nauseum, so the point is proven.

Gerry McCann did search on that first night and they both did at the break of daylight the next morning. However, the following days were taken up at the police station and trying to find out what was happening. People tend to forget they were in a foreign country, did not know the area and did not speak the language or know anything about Portuguese procedures regarding missing children. They knew that a massive hunt by locals and the police - helicoptors etc was already being carried out. On another thread there is a photograph of GM and a relative near water on the 7th May - could it be that they were looking for clues or evidence regarding Maddies disappearance. I doubt if they were out for stroll.

Not all parents of missing children search for them. There was prog on TV only today about a Scottish child missing from the age of 3. His mother did not physically search herself for her son. No-one has criticised that lady.

releasing an out-of-date photoshopped image of your daughter when allegedly you'd taken one at the pool that day, not speaking to the GNR or PJ officers 'that' night - the list goes on.

Re the photograph - I have no idea why. Except I find nothing sinister in it. I do find the attitude of some people who appear to expect the McCanns to have behaved as calmly and rationally as if their pet hamster had disappeared rather strange though.

Speaking to the police would not have been straighforward because of the language barrier. I understand that the PJ left and told them they would be returning after 9.00 the next morning. I don't think that would have happened in this country. They must have felt pretty abandoned at that point. Perhaps the PJ would have been better employed gathering any CCTV evidence from the route that Jane Tanner told them that she saw a man carrying a child - instead of leaving it until it was too late. Even Goncalo admitted that was an error.

I don't believe the conversation haPpened at all, that is if Maddie even cried at all (as you state, Rachel was 'ill' next door and heard nothing). I see this as a pathetic attempt to sell the 'abduction hypothesis and the dry run the previous night', nothing more nothing less.

I can't think of any reason why they should make up something that was potentially so damaging to themselves. If they wanted to do what you suggest regarding pushing the abduction theory - then surely they could have come up with something better. e.g. that Maddie had told them she had a nasty dream about a man in her room - or something similar to that.

by **HiDeHo** 05.03.12 0:34

Just to remind you of the 'Crying Video' (turn volume down slightly)

There were THREE crying episodes

Najoua the quiz mistress claimed there was an empty place setting as if someone had left and she didn't recall seeing Kate or DP (ROB was 'supposedly' looking after his youngest and she does not recall anyone getting up from the table while she was there (from approx 9pm - 10.00pm?)

The McCanns denied there was a cot in the parents room the following day after the cleaner claimed she saw it.

Makes sense to me that they would distract from the crying on a 'sensitive' day and claim it happened on other days so as not to allow for pinpointing the ACTUAL day of the crying.

by Genbug 05.03.12 8:12

The following, taken from Kate's Aunt Janet's statement, has always disturbed me. It appears to me that she is suggesting that Madeleine made the whole thing up! In my experience with small children, a child of that age does not lie. Okay, they may say "no, it wasn't me" when you discover the sweetie jar empty and the child has chocolate all around their face, but make up a story about her brother crying the night before and nobody came? A child of her age wouldn't do that. And why would she if it wasn't true?

"I feel a great injustice in relation to Kate and Gerry—to the way people judged them. They checked on their children constantly; the children always came first so that their routine was not disturbed. Kate and Gerry believed that it was safe. Relative to the allegation that Madeleine made regarding Sean’s crying, I do not have any idea what possessed Madeleine to make such an affirmation and also would state that Madeleine had a very fertile imagination."

by **tigger** 05.03.12 8:25

Genbug wrote:The following, taken from Kate's Aunt Janet's statement, has always disturbed me. It appears to me that she is suggesting that Madeleine made the whole thing up! In my experience with small children, a child of that age does not lie. Okay, they may say "no, it wasn't me" when you discover the sweetie jar empty and the child has chocolate all around their face, but make up a story about her brother crying the night before and nobody came? A child of her age wouldn't do that. And why would she if it wasn't true?

"I feel a great injustice in relation to Kate and Gerry—to the way people judged them. They checked on their children constantly; the children always came first so that their routine was not disturbed. Kate and Gerry believed that it was safe. Relative to the allegation that Madeleine made regarding Sean’s crying, I do not have any idea what possessed Madeleine to make such an affirmation and also would state that Madeleine had a very fertile imagination."

V. Interesting! Especially in view of the fact that seeing the McCanns discuss this so enthusiastically on video makes me reach for the sickbag.
Gerry says in one: 'She was very articulate' - all the same they ignored it - easy since imo it didn't happen. The only two conversations reported are between the parents and Maddie on the 3rd. Only on that day. One in the morning and one in the evening - she talked, so she must have been alive.

by rainbow-fairy 05.03.12 8:50

tigger wrote:
Genbug wrote:The following, taken from Kate's Aunt Janet's statement, has always disturbed me. It appears to me that she is suggesting that Madeleine made the whole thing up! In my experience with small children, a child of that age does not lie. Okay, they may say "no, it wasn't me" when you discover the sweetie jar empty and the child has chocolate all around their face, but make up a story about her brother crying the night before and nobody came? A child of her age wouldn't do that. And why would she if it wasn't true?

"I feel a great injustice in relation to Kate and Gerry—to the way people judged them. They checked on their children constantly; the children always came first so that their routine was not disturbed. Kate and Gerry believed that it was safe. Relative to the allegation that Madeleine made regarding Sean’s crying, I do not have any idea what possessed Madeleine to make such an affirmation and also would state that Madeleine had a very fertile imagination."

V. Interesting! Especially in view of the fact that seeing the McCanns discuss this so enthusiastically on video makes me reach for the sickbag.
Gerry says in one: 'She was very articulate' - all the same they ignored it - easy since imo it didn't happen. The only two conversations reported are between the parents and Maddie on the 3rd. Only on that day. One in the morning and one in the evening - she talked, so she must have been alive.

Bingo, tigger! It.Did.Not.Happen... considering the bewk is called 'Madeleine' and she was supposedly so articulate, she didn't say a lot on the holiday, did she? In fact, who was Madeleine? She reads like a ghost from another era, two-dimensional, no substance.
Incidentally, no lie I have tried EIGHT TIMES to reply to Merrymo's last post, is forumotion trying to tell me something? Eg "rainbow-fairy, you are wasting your time..."
After all, this poster uses Kate's bewk as 'evidence', disregarding all that has gone before... Does anyone have a link to the 'Kate admits she NEVER physically searched for Madeleine' youtube? IIRC, Kate clearly stated that she NEVER physically searched for Madeleine, not just that night but EVER'. Merrymo has us believe that they DID search the following morning - more backfitting after the taxi driver spoke out about seeing a couple out and about who upon seeing his lights jumped into an alleyway. I firmly believe this WAS Gerry and Kate, not searching for a live Maddie though - more checking things hadn't been found?

by Genbug 05.03.12 8:56

tigger wrote:
Genbug wrote:The following, taken from Kate's Aunt Janet's statement, has always disturbed me. It appears to me that she is suggesting that Madeleine made the whole thing up! In my experience with small children, a child of that age does not lie. Okay, they may say "no, it wasn't me" when you discover the sweetie jar empty and the child has chocolate all around their face, but make up a story about her brother crying the night before and nobody came? A child of her age wouldn't do that. And why would she if it wasn't true?

"I feel a great injustice in relation to Kate and Gerry—to the way people judged them. They checked on their children constantly; the children always came first so that their routine was not disturbed. Kate and Gerry believed that it was safe. Relative to the allegation that Madeleine made regarding Sean’s crying, I do not have any idea what possessed Madeleine to make such an affirmation and also would state that Madeleine had a very fertile imagination."

V. Interesting! Especially in view of the fact that seeing the McCanns discuss this so enthusiastically on video makes me reach for the sickbag.
Gerry says in one: 'She was very articulate' - all the same they ignored it - easy since imo it didn't happen. The only two conversations reported are between the parents and Maddie on the 3rd. Only on that day. One in the morning and one in the evening - she talked, so she must have been alive.

It appears to me that Aunt Janet is protecting Kate and Gerry with that statement and putting the blame on Madeleine! They talk about her as if she were an eight year old rather than a three year old. I have a grandaughter that is almost the age that Madeleine was when she disappeared. She is clearly way behind Madeleine in intellect and wordly ways! In my opinion, it either DID happen or it didn't and Kate is making it up. I don't believe for one minute that Madeleine made it up as Janet is suggesting.

by Guest 05.03.12 9:15

Rainbow-Fairy: here's a link to the Queen of Waffle's interview about not searching for Madeleine.

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

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] for your valiant efforts to communicate with the troll fraternity without [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] - not yet anyway!