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

Jean wrote: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!

Thanks Jean, that'll be the one! The brick wall is tempting I must admit. Talking to them resembles talking to a brick wall that's for sure...

Genbug wrote:

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.

Aunt Janet is playing the black face while Kate the white face.
It's a black and white thing the police use all the time to trip people up. I
n this case Maddie is not around to defend herself or to answer hence they can say what they want to paint kate whiter than white while at the same time validate kate's fabrication.

Rainbow fairy wrote today:
After all, this poster uses Kate's bewk as 'evidence', disregarding all that has gone before.. unquote

Tut, tut Rainbow Fairy, it is evidence for the prosecution! Exhibit A!

tigger wrote:Rainbow fairy wrote today:
After all, this poster uses Kate's bewk as 'evidence', disregarding all that has gone before.. unquote

Tut, tut Rainbow Fairy, it is evidence for the prosecution! Exhibit A!

Soorryy! *holds hand out for rapped knuckles*
Yep, Goncalo did say it may be evidence 'let us wait'
So, Mrs McCann, in this video you say you NEVER physically searched for your daughter, yet here, in Exhibit A (your novel) you state you did. Which is correct, and can we ever believe a word you say?'
And
'Here again, Mrs McCann, exhibits B and C, 'Look' poster and video 'Look into My Eyes', with a very noticeable coloboma. Yet in your novel, Exhibit A, you state it was 'a barely noticeable fleck'. Both cannot be true, so which, if either, is?'
Can you imagine it?

[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?[/quote]

I have indeed read KM's book, also Amarals, also the witness files. It is from those three sources that I mainly form my opinions on this case.

In the video the Interviewer speaks exclusively of the 'Locals' searching for Maddie. I presume most of them did not know what had happened until the next day - and it is from that time onwards that they gave up their time to search. Kate response is in that same context, referring to the same specific timescale which was AFTER the time that she and GM searched and also after the time that the Hotel staff searched. The hotel staff searching is not mentioned in the interview either - do we assume from that that it didn't happen? Of course we dont. Kate's response to the question 'did she not feel she wanted to be out their searching' was ....... ''I mean.... I did'' . Does that mean ''I did search'' or does that mean 'I did feel that way''. We have no way of knowing. She makes no secret of the fact that after that first search they did not search again themselves but nowhere does she say 'We NEVER searched'.

IMO after the first couple of day when they were mainly giving interviews to the police, they KNEW that the local area was being thoroughly searched. In that knowledge their main concern IMo was regarding Maddie being taken out of the country. They were being told nothing, except that 'no media' was allowed. That must have been very alarming. I understand that attempts to post photos of Maddie at the airport were stopped by the police. Apart from the massive language barrier the McCanns had no knowledge of the Portuguese procedures when a child went missing. They were putting their efforts into doing whatever they could to ensure that measures were being taken to prevent their child being taken out of the country. I see nothing wrong in that. .Apparently they received several phone calls from UK MPs, I would not have simply been asking for their help I would have been begging for it.

Once the Press arrived then IMO physically searching themselves would have been out of the question. You can't do much searching with a microphone being pushed in your face every few yards. Any attempt would have been a complete waste of time. IMO

Trauma, shock, distress, anxiety, grief is dealt with in different ways by different people. .. It is already documented that not all parents who have had children abducted searched for them themselves. Some were not physically or mentally able to - even though they were in their own country, did speak the language and knew the area. There is no right way or wrong way to cope or react - unless your name is McCann apparently - and then whatever you do will be wrong.

So, Merrymo, do you believe the right way to have handled this is by courting publicity at every turn, setting up a limited company which people believe is a charitable fund, telling a news reporter to "ask the dogs" when asked why did they alert to blood etc, having left children under 4 alone for several nights, then decide to set all this in motion with the help of high powered government officials and spin doctor supreme who is there to manipulate the media on behalf, when in fact it is erm, negligence,not naivity, or a mistake which has brought the whole situation about in the first place. This, you believe is how it should have been done is it? Now do me a favour,, massive language barrier, in a place where there are so many ex pats, , this, IMO of course is the problem,many people who support them have just taken in the story hook, line and sinker without even considering that there may be another side to it. Just answer this one question please. What evidence is there for an abduction?

[quote="Merrymo"
She makes no secret of the fact that after that first search they did not search again themselves but nowhere does she say 'We NEVER searched'.
snipped

Trauma, shock, distress, anxiety, grief is dealt with in different ways by different people. .. It is already documented that not all parents who have had children abducted searched for them themselves. Some were not physically or mentally able to - even though they were in their own country, did speak the language and knew the area. There is no right way or wrong way to cope or react - unless your name is McCann apparently - and then whatever you do will be wrong. [/quote]

Here's a thought, Merrymo, Kate said they were busy - in answer to the question why they didn't search. If they had searched for an hour the following morning - surely they could have said something like: we waited until it was light and etc. It only surfaces in the book because by then it had dawned on them it didn't look very good.

Despite their catatonic state she managed to cancel the groceries she'd ordered in Rothley. Here's the link:


Re: McCanns Easter break Donegal 2007
Stewie Yesterday at 4:52 pm

finch wrote:
If I remember correctly, Kate asked her mother to cancel the grocery delivery for the day after they should have gone back. Can't imagine that would be of any concern to me if my daughter had been 'taken'. I don't have the link right now, and I don't even remember if it was a news paper article or something she said herself in a statement. Maybe someone else remembers?


Hi Finch,
Great minds think alike! I was just reading about the grocery delivery and posted the link on the forensic analysis thread....

Here's the quote and the link:
I mean I know that the morning after it happened I -- Kate, you know, had phoned me because -- this sounds terribly trivial -- but they were due home the next day and she’d booked an online shop. I won’t give the name of the -- of the company -- of the supermarket -- and, you know, she sort of wanted something to be done about it. So I just went up to the house, you know, and erm -- to sort that out. And, you know, I just wasn’t prepared for the media interest at the house itself.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
unquote.

So the morning after it happened, just after the one hour search? Phone Mum to say Maddie still not found, better cancel the groceries?

Note the media, they phoned Sky news before they phoned the police on the night of the 3rd. They were advised no media by the PJ because that would endanger the child. The news appeared at 12.01 that night on the DT website.
Lori Campbell was on the spot on the fourth - thanks to Sky news and DT etc.
PdL was heaving with press as from the 4th.
Again - in the book it's changed, to 'no media, no media'. They controlled the media in no time, thanks to the FO lending them Clarrie free of charge
( well, he'd have to be).

Could I just correct the mention of the Daily Telegraph article please? It must have appeared at 12.01 just after midday. It would have said 00.01 if it was just after midnight. It should say PM and not AM. The story refers to searches going on until 4.30 and a TV interview in the morning so the 12.01 - one minute after midday - has to be correct.

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

Jean wrote:Could I just correct the mention of the Daily Telegraph article please? It must have appeared at 12.01 just after midday. It would have said 00.01 if it was just after midnight. It should say PM and not AM. The story refers to searches going on until 4.30 and a TV interview in the morning so the 12.01 - one minute after midday - has to be correct.

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

12:01AM BST 04 May 2007
It's a strange notation, but it should make it one minute after midnight? It must be set automatically 12.01 should read PM. DT take note!
Sky had it on the morning news?
It's on record that Rachel O was the one who phoned the press? She had connections there.
Thanks.

The mention of AM has got to be a mistake in view of the later events to which the report refers.

[quote="Jean"]The mention of AM has got to be a mistake in view of the later events to which the report refers.[/quote

sorry! just amended my answer! Braindrain - got a sick cat - poor little thing.

Left side of brain now working.

Was it Kate crying "Maddie" not a child calling "Daddy"?

This would explain the crying stopping the instant the door opened - Gerry telling her to shut up?
This would also explain why Kate & Gerry these days are always so insistent that Madeleine was never called Maddie even though Gerry refers to her as such on his Friends Reunited page.

Gillyspot wrote:Left side of brain now working.

Was it Kate crying "Maddie" not a child calling "Daddy"?

This would explain the crying stopping the instant the door opened - Gerry telling her to shut up?
This would also explain why Kate & Gerry these days are always so insistent that Madeleine was never called Maddie even though Gerry refers to her as such on his Friends Reunited page.

I fully agree with you!

They want to hide and protect the name of whomever the child was cyring our for:

• her father abusing her (not likely: Gerry seems 10000% normal according to Kate)
  
• her father not protecting her; could be;
  
• mrs Fenn was mistaken, and the wailing child was Oldfields
  

anil39200 wrote:So, Merrymo, do you believe the right way to have handled this is by courting publicity at every turn, setting up a limited company which people believe is a charitable fund, telling a news reporter to "ask the dogs" when asked why did they alert to blood etc, having left children under 4 alone for several nights, then decide to set all this in motion with the help of high powered government officials and spin doctor supreme who is there to manipulate the media on behalf, when in fact it is erm, negligence,not naivity, or a mistake which has brought the whole situation about in the first place. This, you believe is how it should have been done is it? Now do me a favour,, massive language barrier, in a place where there are so many ex pats, , this, IMO of course is the problem,many people who support them have just taken in the story hook, line and sinker without even considering that there may be another side to it. Just answer this one question please. What evidence is there for an abduction?

Think you could be waiting for a while for this one, anil39200 - seems Merrymo has gone off to confer with the 'others'.
How much would you like to bet that, if you DO get an answer it'll read like the following:-
Jane Tanner saw a man carrying Maddie away at 9.15
At 9.50, an Irish family saw the same man and child (think he'd been hiding for 35 minutes)
Or very similar? Heard it all before - Zzzzz.....

Merrymo has already said here tonight that a man carrying Madeleine in a bag would have trouble with the weight - I have rebutted with - Jane Tanner's statement of how "abductor" carried the child across the arms). Was there a worlds strongest man competition in PDL that week?

rainbow-fairy wrote:

anil39200 wrote:So, Merrymo, do you believe the right way to have handled this is by courting publicity at every turn, setting up a limited company which people believe is a charitable fund, telling a news reporter to "ask the dogs" when asked why did they alert to blood etc, having left children under 4 alone for several nights, then decide to set all this in motion with the help of high powered government officials and spin doctor supreme who is there to manipulate the media on behalf, when in fact it is erm, negligence,not naivity, or a mistake which has brought the whole situation about in the first place. This, you believe is how it should have been done is it? Now do me a favour,, massive language barrier, in a place where there are so many ex pats, , this, IMO of course is the problem,many people who support them have just taken in the story hook, line and sinker without even considering that there may be another side to it. Just answer this one question please. What evidence is there for an abduction?

Think you could be waiting for a while for this one, anil39200 - seems Merrymo has gone off to confer with the 'others'.
How much would you like to bet that, if you DO get an answer it'll read like the following:-
Jane Tanner saw a man carrying Maddie away at 9.15
At 9.50, an Irish family saw the same man and child (think he'd been hiding for 35 minutes)
Or very similar? Heard it all before - Zzzzz.....

So why is that not evidence? A little girl disappears and a man is seen carrying a little girl away - yards from the apartment at a time which would tally with the 'checking' times and then a man is seen within the hour whose description was so similar to the first sighting that it could not be coincidence - surely that cannot be viewed other than evidence ? The fact that no man came forward to be eliminated is also pertinent - also the fact that the Smiths did not know the McCanns or any of their friends is of importance. I am mystified as to why that evidence should be sneered at.

I'm not sure what evidence you would expect to find if Maddie had been abducted, especially by a professional gang who had targetted that resort, that complex, that particular apartment and who were just waiting for someone to come along to fit the bill. They walk in - open the window, pick up the child and leave. It could be done in seconds. It's not like a burglary when all the rooms are entered and ransacked. No fingerprints is not surprising. Any footprints would have been destroyed by the various traffic that went through the apartment before it was finally cordoned off.

The forensic evidence collected is suspect anyway IMO. Even Amaral commented in his book on the unprofessional approach of the person taking fingerprint evidence on the morning afterwards. One of the samples gathered from the floor of the apartment turned out to be the DNA of the person who collected it. So it's not impossible that evidence that may have existed was missed.

On the other hand the McCanns had no motive, no car, no knowledge of the area, and certainly no time to 'fake' an abduction with all that that would involve. Neither is it possible IMO that they could calmly stroll over to the Tapas Bar and eat, drink, chat and act perfectly normally, having just carried out the most horrific horrendous act EVER in their whole lives, and also knowing that in a couple of hours time, the police were going to be crawling all over the place and all hell was going to break loose. Even Pat Brown doesn't believe that. It's just not humanly possible for two people to behave like that.


The theory that the McCann family was targetted and their daughter abducted is at least credible. . The half theories (I've never heard a full one) that the McCanns killed their child, or they disposed of her body - simply do not stand up to scrutiny - and so are 'unbelievable' IMO.

Once you rule out the McCanns, then abduction is the only other feasible answer.

Once you rule out the McCanns, then abduction is the only other feasible answer.

No - if you are happy to go along with the story that the patio door was unlocked, then Madeleine waking, going to search for her parents, getting lost, and coming to some sort of harm outside is more feasible. But that puts it squarely back to negligence and we can't have that can we Merrymo?

Miraflores wrote:

Once you rule out the McCanns, then abduction is the only other feasible answer.

No - if you are happy to go along with the story that the patio door was unlocked, then Madeleine waking, going to search for her parents, getting lost, and coming to some sort of harm outside is more feasible. But that puts it squarely back to negligence and we can't have that can we Merrymo?

I don't know how you can rule out the McCanns, statistically the great majority of crimes against children are committed by their own parents or relatives.
You cannot assume that your own morals are shared by everybody.
I have a friend from a middle class family (mother nurse, father civil servant) who was quite willing to let a 43 year old man take her 14 year old daughter on holiday and have her stay with him - he gave the mother presents and she never gave a thought to how her daughter might feel.
I appreciate that merrymo is coming from a high moral standpoint, but there are immoral people in all classes and professions.

tigger wrote:

Miraflores wrote:

Once you rule out the McCanns, then abduction is the only other feasible answer.

No - if you are happy to go along with the story that the patio door was unlocked, then Madeleine waking, going to search for her parents, getting lost, and coming to some sort of harm outside is more feasible. But that puts it squarely back to negligence and we can't have that can we Merrymo?

I don't know how you can rule out the McCanns, statistically the great majority of crimes against children are committed by their own parents or relatives.
You cannot assume that your own morals are shared by everybody.
I have a friend from a middle class family (mother nurse, father civil servant) who was quite willing to let a 43 year old man take her 14 year old daughter on holiday and have her stay with him - he gave the mother presents and she never gave a thought to how her daughter might feel.
I appreciate that merrymo is coming from a high moral standpoint, but there are immoral people in all classes and professions.

I don't know how the McCanns can be ruled out. There are the questions KM didn't answer to the PJ. If she felt she was being framed in Portugal, then she could certainly have answered those questions to SY or answered them in her bewk, got it all out of the way, proved innocence and concentrated on finding Madeleine. She has the opportunity to do that and yet doesn't take it. Her PR machine could have seen to that for her and yet they haven't. So, imo that hinders the search for Madeleine because after almost 5 years it could have been dealt with in an honest, open and transparent way.

I understand the media is not easy to deal with but given the McCanns courted it from get-go and used it to their own ends until there was too much negative attention/speculation/sensational barmy things, they have imo sullied that relationship to the point that the media are quiet about Madeleine, which isn't going to find her is it?

Tigger, you are right that immoral people come from all classes and professions. Look at the emphasis in the media placed on "low-life" people from council estates with no jobs, living on benefits etc who leave their kids alone to go out on the lash (or if you are a McCann that is described as dining with friends) and they are subsequently named, shamed in newspapers, taken to court for child neglect and the readers' comments cast vitriol in their comments. How come the Mc's not only escaped this almost unscathed but gained enormous sympathy and huge amounts of money?

Just because someone is a professional, with a good social status doesn't mean they are good parents. It doesn't mean that we have to take their word as read - especially the medical profession imo as we are used to trusting them when we are ill.

[quote="Miraflores"]

Once you rule out the McCanns, then abduction is the only other feasible answer.

No - if you are happy to go along with the story that the patio door was unlocked, then Madeleine waking, going to search for her parents, getting lost, and coming to some sort of harm outside is more feasible.

I think if that had happened she would have headed off into the complex not away from it. I also think she would have taken cuddlecat with her and put her shoes on. But yes I agree that is a possibility, although if she came to any harm by herself - I think she would have been found during the massive search. The chances of a random abduction is also possible, but very unlikely IMO.

They left the patio door unlocked, because it could only be locked/unlocked from the inside and it was quicker for them to use that door to enter the apartment than walk round to the front of the apartment and go in via the front door.

But that puts it squarely back to negligence and we can't have that can we Merrymo?

I'm not sure why you say that? I have said I disagree with them leaving their children - even for half an hour at a time, because IMO they were too young to be left - and an accident only takes a second to happen. If anyone wants to hold them responsible because they created the situation where their child could be abducted - then I have no argument with that. Where I differ is that I don't believe any malicious intent was there - and that it was basically ''Human Error''at the end of the day.

A while back I read about a toddler who was strangled in his/her cot by a curtain cord - which was reachable from inside the cot and somehow got tangled round the baby's neck. That could have been avoided, but hindsight is a wonderful thing. I would put that down to '' Human Error'' too. It's not a common, universally known phrase for nothing. Humans make mistakes all the time and always will.

The McCanns thought their arrangements were OK -for various reasons.

They were wrong and as a result both their child and themselves have suffered the most horrific consequences imaginable. IMO

aquila wrote:

tigger wrote:

Miraflores wrote:

Once you rule out the McCanns, then abduction is the only other feasible answer.

No - if you are happy to go along with the story that the patio door was unlocked, then Madeleine waking, going to search for her parents, getting lost, and coming to some sort of harm outside is more feasible. But that puts it squarely back to negligence and we can't have that can we Merrymo?

I don't know how you can rule out the McCanns, statistically the great majority of crimes against children are committed by their own parents or relatives.
You cannot assume that your own morals are shared by everybody.
I have a friend from a middle class family (mother nurse, father civil servant) who was quite willing to let a 43 year old man take her 14 year old daughter on holiday and have her stay with him - he gave the mother presents and she never gave a thought to how her daughter might feel.
I appreciate that merrymo is coming from a high moral standpoint, but there are immoral people in all classes and professions.

----
I don't know how the McCanns can be ruled out. There are the questions KM didn't answer to the PJ. If she felt she was being framed in Portugal, then she could certainly have answered those questions to SY or answered them in her bewk, got it all out of the way, proved innocence and concentrated on finding Madeleine. She has the opportunity to do that and yet doesn't take it. Her PR machine could have seen to that for her and yet they haven't. So, imo that hinders the search for Madeleine because after almost 5 years it could have been dealt with in an honest, open and transparent way.

.

If the 48 (?) questions were so VITAL then why didn't 'Amaral' ask them the day before, when KM spent over 11 hours being 'interviewed at the same police station??

As a 'witness' she would have been obliged by Portuguese law to answer them. Why wait until the next day after she was made an Arguido when she was no longer obliged to answer any questions? I would be very interested to hear what Amaral's 'reasoning' behind that could possibly have been in your opinion?

A great deal of the questions had already been asked and answered previously. Some of them were lifted straight from scurrilous newspaper reports. I think the British police would have been embarrassed to come up with that list -but that's just my personal opinion.

It was KMs lawyer's duty to do what was best in his clients interest. It was obvious by that time that Amaral was no longer looking for a live child, but was hoping to pin the crime on the mother. Her lawyer would have been failing in his duty NOT to give her the advice he did. It's not that she didn't want to or couldn't answer the questions, but there is little point in haviing a lawyer (an expert) and then ignoring the advice given.

Perhaps her lawyer was guarding against the possibility of her being arrested as a result of answering the questions, and that the next time he saw her - she might have accidentally fallen down some stairs.

The fact that she did not answer the questions soon appeared in the Portuguese Press and was of course used by them in their smear campaign to reflect really badly on KM - which IMO was the reason why she was not asked the questions at a time she when was obliged to answer.

It worked very well, as it goes without saying that some people do still regard her refusal to reply as very damning.

------------------------------------

(ps) I have received a message - but have no idea how to reply to it. Being a complete technophobe doesn't help LOL) .... Anyway thankyou to the poster who sent it.

[quote merrymo]

It was KMs lawyer's duty to do what was best in his clients interest. It was obvious by that time that Amaral was no longer looking for a live child, but was hoping to pin the crime on the mother

Do you honestly believe a policeman with 30 years experience, a family man with children of his own would seriously do that? It was only after being made arguido could they ask more searching and serious questions, when the suspect is allowed to have a lawyer present. Isn't it the same in this country, when you are cautioned, and have the right to remain silent.

from Rainbow Fairy's post~:

'Here again, Mrs McCann, exhibits B and C, 'Look' poster and video 'Look into My Eyes', with a very noticeable coloboma. Yet in your novel, Exhibit A, you state it was 'a barely noticeable fleck'. Both cannot be true, so which, if either, is?'
Can you imagine it?


If I am correct Rainbow Fairy.. this fleck was how they described it to Piers Morgan in an interview...really played it down after it had previously being the thing by which their daughter became known.
in the book about her daughter , Kate does not mention this most distinctive physical feature at all.

from Merrymo's post :


Perhaps her lawyer was guarding against the possibility of her being arrested as a result of answering the questions, and that the next time he saw her - she might have accidentally fallen down some stairs.

could you please elaborate on this statement ? what exactly do you mean?

russiandoll wrote:from Merrymo's post :


Perhaps her lawyer was guarding against the possibility of her being arrested as a result of answering the questions, and that the next time he saw her - she might have accidentally fallen down some stairs.

could you please elaborate on this statement ? what exactly do you mean?

That sentence by Merrymo is imo disgraceful.