Would anyone do the supposed child checks without a mobile phone?

by Woofer 25.01.13 10:54

This may have been discussed before but whilst imagining being on holiday and leaving children alone such a long way away, and the walk there being dark and quiet (I think JT said it was quite creepy), I would definitely have my mobile phone with me. Also if, when doing the checks, I found a child had woken up, was in distress or ill, I would need to phone the gang and say I was held up and what I was doing or even ask for assistance. I may even hear someone else`s child crying and need to contact the parent. I just can`t believe none of them had their phones with them when doing the checking. Apparently one of them did find their child had been ill - so how did he let his partner know?

I was always amazed that KM, on finding Madeleine missing, did not just phone GM using her mobile, rather than run all the way back to the restaurant. It doesn`t wash that she didn`t have her phone with her.

by worriedmum 25.01.13 11:08

yes,leaving two babies behind if you think there is an abductor has always amazed me.......can anyone remind us when was the last time their phones were used before the alarm was raised, and where?
Just thought- Kate didn't use her mobile to raise the alarm . But why?because she didn't have it with her ?because it was
a) in the restaurant?
b)in the apartment?(!)

Trying to get my head around this............................

by Woofer 25.01.13 11:24

KM last used hers at 1pm on the 3rd, then both KMs and GMs were activated together at 11.14pm - nothing in between. [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

I just think its weird not to take one`s mobile phone with you when doing those checks. I know I would, especially if the walk to the flats was dark and quiet, but that`s me.

by Guest 25.01.13 11:38

Oh, that's not just you. Whenever I leave the house, even if I stay on my own property, I have a mobile with me. It has regularly served me, e.g. phoning back home about something I forgot or something that shouldn't be forgotten, when checking on my dogs in the dark, when the weather is bad and roads slippery, etc.

They must have had their phones, be it only to check the time for the many checks ... because they weren't wearing any watches [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

by worriedmum 25.01.13 11:45

but if Kate didn't have her mobile phone with her at the restaurant, where else could it be?

by Liz Eagles 25.01.13 11:58

Here is another thought. If I felt the trip up the road were a bit spooky I'd probably ask one of the people at the table to join me for the walk so we could check our kids at the same time. I wouldn't have left my kids alone in an unlocked apartment anyhow, but let's roll with the McCann version of things. JT didn't like the walk. They all had kids they left alone. One of the couples had a 'state of the art' digital baby monitor and apparently didn't leave the table.

This is how it would be imo if all of this were true. You are sitting having a great laugh, a lot of wine is flowing, you're enjoying each other's company. You've agreed it's ok to leave your kids and do checks every (whatever time-frame the McCanns feed us) wouldn't it be natural for people at your table to nip up to the apartments to check on the kids together? JT said she found the walk a bit spooky (or words to that effect), KM voiced her concern at leaving the kids alone (so we're told). Wouldn't it be a natural thing when you've had a bit too much wine and you have to go check on the kids to ask a friend to go with you and have company and a bit of a natter along the way? If you're pally in your 'cups' at the table then a quick nip up the road with a friend would be normal behaviour.

Just my opinion.

by monkey mind 25.01.13 12:23

Woofer wrote:KM last used hers at 1pm on the 3rd, then both KMs and GMs were activated together at 11.14pm - nothing in between. [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

I just think its weird not to take one`s mobile phone with you when doing those checks. I know I would, especially if the walk to the flats was dark and quiet, but that`s me.

Didn't Gerry make or receive a short call after midday on the third, just before 12.30pm hence K allegedly picking up M at creche.

by monkey mind 25.01.13 12:31

[quote="aquilaThis is how it would be imo if all of this were true. You are sitting having a great laugh, a lot of wine is flowing, you're enjoying each other's company. You've agreed it's ok to leave your kids and do checks every (whatever time-frame the McCanns feed us) wouldn't it be natural for people at your table to nip up to the apartments to check on the kids together? JT said she found the walk a bit spooky (or words to that effect), KM voiced her concern at leaving the kids alone (so we're told). Wouldn't it be a natural thing when you've had a bit too much wine and you have to go check on the kids to ask a friend to go with you and have company and a bit of a natter along the way? If you're pally in your 'cups' at the table then a quick nip up the road with a friend would be normal behaviour.

Just my opinion.[/quote]
Makes mor than perfect sense Aquila. The nonsense of them all going at separate times is simpy to paint the impression of a constant procession of tooing and froing.

Look how diligent we were!!

It's all nonsense. It's not so much a matter that if the children hadn't been left alone in an unlocked apartment the abducttion *wouldn't* have happened, more that it *couldn't* have happened. Imho.

by Woofer 25.01.13 12:40

monkey mind wrote:
Woofer wrote:KM last used hers at 1pm on the 3rd, then both KMs and GMs were activated together at 11.14pm - nothing in between. [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

I just think its weird not to take one`s mobile phone with you when doing those checks. I know I would, especially if the walk to the flats was dark and quiet, but that`s me.
Didn't Gerry make or receive a short call after midday on the third, just before 12.30pm hence K allegedly picking up M at creche.

Yes, he did MM. Then nothing until 23.14. My point is really that if they were doing checks, they would have had their phones with them and consequently why didn`t KM just phone GM when she found M missing? If it wasn`t for one of the Tapas waiters saying he saw them leaving the table now and again, its hard to believe the checks were done at all (but then someone leaving the table could just be visiting the loo).

GM	KM
03-May	03-May
	8.23
	8.24
12.24
	12.31
	13.34

23.14	23.14
23.17	23.17
23.40
23.52

by monkey mind 25.01.13 12:58

Yes sorry Woofer, point taken.

And it’s a good point, they would have been getting up for the toilet all of them, more than once by the amount they drank. I may be mistaken but am I right in thinking the only real independent evidence we have of them shall we say returning to the apartments is JW and G’s last visit?

But then in my opinion I don’t for one minute think that particular little visit was to check on the children, not at all.

by Liz Eagles 25.01.13 12:58

I can't do conspiracy theories. I don't have the imagination or inclination. I look at what the McCanns have said, what their friends have said and what their PR machine has said. I can work with that. IMO none of this 'holiday' rings true. It was the behaviour of the McCanns the moment after Madeleine's disappearance that made so many people not believe their story. Their behaviour before Madeleine disappeared just doesn't add up. Their subsequent behaviour is bizarre as far as I am concerned.

For any new people on the forum, take a look at Gerry's blogs. I re-read them this week. I have to say at first they were quite credible until not so many days into Madeleine's disappearance did I see megalomania traits (just my opinion here). It's good to read things for the first time and then re-visit them after gaining a little insight into this case. When I joined the forum I was annoyed that Madeleine was a 'case'. Gerry's blogs are only down to Gerry. He wrote them. Kate's bewk is only down to Kate, it doesn't matter if she didn't write it all, most authors don't write everything, but Kate had the final say on what was published.

Mobile phones, no mobile phones...of course they had mobile phones. Of course they had digital cameras. Of course they had credit cards. Of course there must be a paper trail of their holiday and their activities.

So, for the genuine new people on the forum, please ignore the trollish behaviour that's going on at the moment - it comes and goes (you'll recognise it from constant postings from new members to derail a topic). Stick with the facts and maybe, just maybe there will be justice for Madeleine McCann.

by bobbin 25.01.13 13:10

monkey mind wrote:Yes sorry Woofer, point taken.

And it’s a good point, they would have been getting up for the toilet all of them, more than once by the amount they drank. I may be mistaken but am I right in thinking the only real independent evidence we have of them shall we say returning to the apartments is JW and G’s last visit?

But then in my opinion I don’t for one minute think that particular little visit was to check on the children, not at all.

I have some vague memory of JW mentioning he thought he'd seen Gerry near the shutters, fiddling with them. Does anyone else recall this or is it some journalistic error.
The point being, what proof is there that JW and Gerry did meet where Gerry claims. Gerry is determined to state that he crossed the road to JW whilst Jane claims the meeting was on the side near the apartment.
The police? also cannot determine how Jane could see the 'egg man' in the place she stated, from the position she claimed to be when passing Gerry and JW.
Without the reconstruction, has there been independent proof of agreement from JW that the position of meeting 'claimed by Gerry' was in the road by the side/rear entrance/steps to 5A and that it was not nearer the shutters.

by southern_gal 25.01.13 13:34

IIRC none of the members of this group carried their phones to dinner which I found so strange especially since they were going back and forth in a scenario as described by JT. After the alarm is raised however most if not all of this group now have their cell phones. Did they have their phones during dinner or was there a period of time/activity that was left out of the timeline of events? For Gerry and Kate's phones to have been activated at the exact time were they talking to each other? From what I have seen they didn't start contacting family until after 11:30. Why would they start calling family that early in the process when there was still the possibility that Maddie had simply walked off and would be found quickly or (what they were claiming) Maddie was abducted and the police could quickly rescue her?

by monkey mind 25.01.13 13:48

aquila wrote:I can't do conspiracy theories. I don't have the imagination or inclination. I look at what the McCanns have said, what their friends have said and what their PR machine has said. I can work with that. IMO none of this 'holiday' rings true. It was the behaviour of the McCanns the moment after Madeleine's disappearance that made so many people not believe their story. Their behaviour before Madeleine disappeared just doesn't add up. Their subsequent behaviour is bizarre as far as I am concerned..

If more than two people come together and agree on a course of action that will result in the commission of an offence then by definition you have a conspiracy either under common law or under S.1 Criminal Law Act 1977. Most would agree that can be applied to whatever went on here, abduction or whatever.

If one does not know exactly what went on the appropriate course of action is to take the facts as known and mould a theory around them. This is valid and in fact what everyone on this forum is doing, discussing the theory of the conspiracy. It’s a valid practise and should not be derided in any way.

Yet, if someone has a view that does not fit our own views, because it seems outlandish to us when in fact the reality may be that our own personal view is narrow, if we call them a conspiracy theorist we succeed in marginalising them. Belittle.

In my opinion, all theories are valid providing they do not warp the true facts as known. The biggest mistake is to take the facts and try to squeeze, to manipulate them into your theory. It is doomed to failure, you may come close but there will always be something that doesn’t fit or like a wet bar of soap squeezes out.

On the other hand, if there is a theory which on the face of it is outlandish yetwill swallow up all the facts as known without regurgitating any, which is the more valid?

by monkey mind 25.01.13 13:59

southern_gal wrote:. Why would they start calling family that early in the process when there was still the possibility that Maddie had simply walked off and would be found quickly or (what they were claiming) Maddie was abducted and the police could quickly rescue her?

For the same reason Gerry was overheard around 11pm talking on the phone of gangs of paedophiles one presumes. If you had pre-existing knowledge of gangs of paedophiles roaming Portugal would you leave your children unattended every night for five nights in an unlocked apartment? (rhetorical)

But then it only became 'unlocked' when there wasn't sign of forceble entry as first claimed.

by monkey mind 25.01.13 14:08

bobbin wrote:[quote="
I have some vague memory of JW mentioning he thought he'd seen Gerry near the shutters, fiddling with them. Does anyone else recall this or is it some journalistic error.
.

I’d like to see that reference too Bobbin.

Thing is, speaking hypothetically of course, if I personally were to stage a break in and then claim that someone had forced the window, well now I really would want to make sure there was evidence of such. I couldn’t do it too much in advance either lest it be discovered early by accident, that wouldn’t do at all. I would have to set the scene close to the alarm time and hope I wasn’t interrupted by some casual passer by during or just before my noisy endeavours.

by southern_gal 25.01.13 14:20

How true Monkey. To this day I have yet to come across anything that would explain how or why this group latched on to this theory that quickly. As for the explanation Gerry gave of why Kate ran back to the bar instead of picking up a phone to sound the alarm, as a medical person you're trained to get help first, is ridiculous and misleading. My husband and I are both trained medical professionals and that explanation holds absolutely no water in this particular situation but then none of the behaviors of those in the group, who were medically trained, make any sense considering their profession.

by monkey mind 25.01.13 14:38

southern_gal wrote:How true Monkey. To this day I have yet to come across anything that would explain how or why this group latched on to this theory that quickly. As for the explanation Gerry gave of why Kate ran back to the bar instead of picking up a phone to sound the alarm, as a medical person you're trained to get help first, is ridiculous and misleading. My husband and I are both trained medical professionals and that explanation holds absolutely no water in this particular situation but then none of the behaviors of those in the group, who were medically trained, make any sense considering their profession.

And leaving two babies unattended once again in the same apartment that the predator had just stolen your eldest child from.
Yeah right. Some medical training that completely over riding the basic motherly survival instinct.
The ONLY way I personally can imagine ANY mother doing that is if she KNEW it was safe and that can only mean one thing....

by Guest 25.01.13 14:56

Oh, absolutely. I think "we" all agree on that. I would "sit" on the remaining kids and use my mobile to get help and maybe also already call the national alarm number. If somehow my panicstricken mind wouldn't function this way, I would be out and running, searching for my missing one, whilst I phone for help.

by southern_gal 25.01.13 15:10

When Kate left that apartment to go back to the bar to notify the group that Maddie was missing it delayed sounding the alarm. It's almost like she was trying to buy some more time, IMO, but why? I've always suspected that there is a piece events that's missing. The statements from this group for that brief period of time are vague, inconsistent, contradicting of each others and non-specific which makes me suspect I've missed something.

by southern_gal 25.01.13 15:15

Châtelaine wrote:Oh, absolutely. I think "we" all agree on that. I would "sit" on the remaining kids and use my mobile to get help and maybe also already call the national alarm number. If somehow my panicstricken mind wouldn't function this way, I would be out and running, searching for my missing one, whilst I phone for help.

If no cell phone was available I would have used the land line. If no land line was available then I would have went onto the porch and screamed like a mother who had just discovered their child was missing!

by rainbow-fairy 25.01.13 16:09

monkey mind wrote:
aquila wrote:I can't do conspiracy theories. I don't have the imagination or inclination. I look at what the McCanns have said, what their friends have said and what their PR machine has said. I can work with that. IMO none of this 'holiday' rings true. It was the behaviour of the McCanns the moment after Madeleine's disappearance that made so many people not believe their story. Their behaviour before Madeleine disappeared just doesn't add up. Their subsequent behaviour is bizarre as far as I am concerned..

If more than two people come together and agree on a course of action that will result in the commission of an offence then by definition you have a conspiracy either under common law or under S.1 Criminal Law Act 1977. Most would agree that can be applied to whatever went on here, abduction or whatever.

If one does not know exactly what went on the appropriate course of action is to take the facts as known and mould a theory around them. This is valid and in fact what everyone on this forum is doing, discussing the theory of the conspiracy. It’s a valid practise and should not be derided in any way.

Yet, if someone has a view that does not fit our own views, because it seems outlandish to us when in fact the reality may be that our own personal view is narrow, if we call them a conspiracy theorist we succeed in marginalising them. Belittle.

In my opinion, all theories are valid providing they do not warp the true facts as known. The biggest mistake is to take the facts and try to squeeze, to manipulate them into your theory. It is doomed to failure, you may come close but there will always be something that doesn’t fit or like a wet bar of soap squeezes out.

On the other hand, if there is a theory which on the face of it is outlandish yet will swallow up all the facts as known without regurgitating any, which is the more valid?

monkey mind, 100% yes!
There are hundreds upon hundreds of events and happenings that do not develop conspiracy theories. Why? Because what we are told matches with what we know, is rational and logical. I actually posted an article from rense.com under the heading 'Conspiracy Theorists - And What If We Are?' - I have no idea which section its in, but its well worth a read. The media have conveniently made out anyone who doesn't agree with the 'official line' to be a 'tinfoil hat nut job conspiracy freak' , therefore it is very easy to dismiss doubters as 'conspiracy theorists' so they are ridiculed an ignored. But it makes a good point - which is more crazy?
1)Believing blindly what the Government/media tell you, even when it goes against all known facts, stats, etc OR
2)Asking questions when the official line doesn't fit the facts?
I know which I think is madder!

monkey mind wrote:In my opinion, all theories are valid providing they do not warp the true facts as known. The biggest mistake is to take the facts and try to squeeze, to manipulate them into your theory. It is doomed to failure, you may come close but there will always be something that doesn’t fit or like a wet bar of soap squeezes out.

Absolutely! And it works that way for the McCanns, their 'accounts of the truth' and the abduction - they have never managed to make it fit. Why? Because it doesn't. You can't make an imaginary happening fit into what really happened, hence the failure to reconstruct. Like a square peg in a round hole, there will always be pesky gaps you can't fill...
Their story is like a leaking bucket fixed with plasticine. It may work for a while, haltingly, but then it leaks again - drip, drip, drip...
For nearly 6 years we have had enough leaks and drips to realise the party line just aint working!

by monkey mind 25.01.13 16:17

southern_gal wrote:When Kate left that apartment to go back to the bar to notify the group that Maddie was missing it delayed sounding the alarm. It's almost like she was trying to buy some more time, IMO, but why? I've always suspected that there is a piece events that's missing. The statements from this group for that brief period of time are vague, inconsistent, contradicting of each others and non-specific which makes me suspect I've missed something.

I would suggest that all of their contradictions of movements and changed stories and timelines stem from the fact that there was NO evidence of a break in at the window as stated. No sign of forced or jemmied shutters. Had there been where would be the need for all this business of different doors etc. In my opinion all stems from that one shall we say.....glaring error.

by monkey mind 25.01.13 16:33

Rainbow fairy, absolutely. In this instance there are facts and what is presented as fact. If you apply either or both of those to the two scenarios proposed by the McCanns and the PJ, abduction and accident, it is simply not possible to squeeze them all in there. They don’t fit. Struggle to push one in and you squeeze another out. Like trying to force a very big peg into a small hole, you try and try when all along the answer is obvious – you need a bigger hole!!

by Woofer 25.01.13 16:38

monkey mind wrote:Yes sorry Woofer, point taken.

And it’s a good point, they would have been getting up for the toilet all of them, more than once by the amount they drank. I may be mistaken but am I right in thinking the only real independent evidence we have of them shall we say returning to the apartments is JW and G’s last visit?

But then in my opinion I don’t for one minute think that particular little visit was to check on the children, not at all.

Yes, if we can believe JW is completely independent.

That whole scenario is confusing.