Re: Wednesday 2nd May why did things change?

by Guest 20.10.12 20:44

[quote="Woofer"]

candyfloss wrote:Thank you sami, someone could have been watching all week, why Wednesday.

Woofer wrote:

I`m sure they`re trying to build up a story for the Wednesday - trying to make out the crying was Wednesday when it was in fact Tuesday, trying to make out some stranger got into the apartment on the Wednesday - also wasn`t there something about seeing a stain on Maddie`s pyjama top one morning (can`t remember which morning that was). I think they`re just trying to get everyone to believe there was a stranger. But can`t see how this fits with the routine being changed on the Wednesday.[/quote]

****************************************************************************

Me neither Woofer, we are slightly veering off Wednesday, and going to Thursday. I would like if at all possible to see what it is about Wednesday, and why the patio door was used that day and not previously. GM says it was to let others check their children, but I can't find anyone who did apart from GM say David Payne, and yet DP says he didn't check his own or anyone else's. I had never picked that up about Wednesday.

ETA sorry quote button not worked again

by Woofer 20.10.12 20:50

Ah - perhaps they had to say the routine was changed on the Wednesday to allow for the `intruder` to get in and do his dry run.

by sami 20.10.12 21:15

[color:444d=000000]Wednesday was the night they stayed out[color:444d=000000] later according to Russell O'Brien. B[color:444d=000000][size=9]ut he also says he did some checks during the week, so[color:444d=000000][size=9] he is not subsc[color:444d=000000][size=9]ribing to the only parents checked their own children.[/size][/size]

On
Wednesday Rachael was ill, we stayed out later than normal, after our
meal we sat around and then moved into the bar
area we stayed for
around 45minutes to an hour, this was our only ‘late night’ of the
holiday, I recall we had
a cocktail. Checks were
made as usual we would alternate completing the checks and this was
done every half hour or
so. I listened at (page
5) the MC CANN’S apartment and believe that this was around 23:00hours,
on all occasions
the children were ok.
During the week I checked on some occasions and listened at others.[/size]

by Woofer 20.10.12 21:29

I`m looking for a chart someone did showing what each person was doing throughout each day of the holiday - I can`t find it. Anyone got any ideas?

by sami 20.10.12 21:39

Wednesday is also the night Gerry says he went back to the apartment before Kate, after the Tapas dinner. How long was he away from the group, on his own ? The statement is vague, it just says:

[color:d2b3=000000]Also on that day, and after dinner, he returned
to the apartment sooner than Kate. (From his Arguido statement September 2007)

by Guest 20.10.12 21:59

Yes, he returned on his own, before KM, but does not say why?? Also that he slept on his own and KM in Madeleines room, and that is all that is said. Strange no more on this.

Concerning his wife, he says that on the Wednesday she slept in the children’s room in the bed next to the window. He doesn’t know why, but thinks it could have been because of his snoring. Also on that day, after dinner, he returned to the apartment sooner than Kate.

by sami 20.10.12 22:09

candyfloss wrote:Yes, he returned on his own, before KM, but does not say why?? Also that he slept on his own and KM in Madeleines room, and that is all that is said. Strange no more on this.

Concerning his wife, he says that on the Wednesday she slept in the children’s room in the bed next to the window. He doesn’t know why, but thinks it could have been because of his snoring. Also on that day, after dinner, he returned to the apartment sooner than Kate.

Kate was slightly obsessive about not turning on lights or opening doors in case she woke the children. That room was like an obstacle course with the way the cots were positioned, doing it in the dark to get to the bed by the window would be an achieement.

The only reason I can think of for staying in that room would be to keep an eye on a sick child. I have done this myself with a little one after he fell down a stairs.

by **PeterMac** 20.10.12 23:04

sami wrote:The only reason I can think of for staying in that room would be to keep an eye on a sick child. I have done this myself with a little one after he fell down a stairs.

Good point. When we were on Poros rowing the Athenian Trireme on its first sea trials the father of one of the crew hired a bike which fell to pieces and he sustained serious head injuries. My brother, a GP, gave up the trials and went back to Athens with him, and slept in the hospital on the floor by the bed to ensure that the 2 hourly checks were done.
So that makes a lot of sense, and would add to the theory, (which we are allowed to "purport") of the head injury earlier that day, or even the day before.

It might also throw some light on the alleged expression "We've let her down"

by Guest 20.10.12 23:22

PeterMac wrote:
sami wrote:The only reason I can think of for staying in that room would be to keep an eye on a sick child. I have done this myself with a little one after he fell down a stairs.
Good point. When we were on Poros rowing the Athenian Trireme on its first sea trials the father of one of the crew hired a bike which fell to pieces and he sustained serious head injuries. My brother, a GP, gave up the trials and went back to Athens with him, and slept in the hospital on the floor by the bed to ensure that the 2 hourly checks were done.
So that makes a lot of sense, and would add to the theory, (which we are allowed to "purport") of the head injury earlier that day, or even the day before.

It might also throw some light on the alleged expression "We've let her down"

***
Yes, makes sense. An earlier serious [head?] injury, for whichever reason, and for whichever reason not reported to hospital, but kept under private control and gone wrong. Would explain quite a lot of things IMO. Also IMO one of the reasons to try and avoid a post mortem.

by Ribisl 21.10.12 8:51

sami wrote:

The only reason I can think of for staying in that room would be to keep an eye on a sick child. I have done this myself with a little one after he fell down a stairs.

It's possible but unlikely imo. If a child was critically ill with a head injury, wouldn't you at least take in turns to go out for dinner and make sure one of you stayed with the child all the time? Maybe they didn't consider the injury was fatal and therefore KM's 'We've let her down'. But if she was ill that night nonetheless, wouldn't GM be checking on her and even staying with her for a while instead of going straight to bed when he returned first?

I am more inclined to believe KM's version here when she says she slept in the other room that night because she was miffed with GM for getting up and leaving the crowd without saying anything to her. This indicates to me a strained relationship. Kate was often left on her own to care for three toddlers and GM, despite his famous utterance on the bus, gave the impression he was trying his best to ignore the family and enjoy himself as much as he could get away with. I can also imagine Kate reacting more aggressively under stress than simply sleeping in another room. She in known to be feisty but her book is void of real emotions up until M's disappearance. Whether this was the case of an 'accident' waiting to happen is open to interpretation.

by Nina 21.10.12 9:40

And wasn't it on the Wednesday evening that Kate carried madeleine back to the apartment as she was tired ?

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

by sami 21.10.12 9:44

Ribisl wrote:
sami wrote:

The only reason I can think of for staying in that room would be to keep an eye on a sick child. I have done this myself with a little one after he fell down a stairs.

It's possible but unlikely imo. If a child was critically ill with a head injury, wouldn't you at least take in turns to go out for dinner and make sure one of you stayed with the child all the time? Maybe they didn't consider the injury was fatal and therefore KM's 'We've let her down'. But if she was ill that night nonetheless, wouldn't GM be checking on her and even staying with her for a while instead of going straight to bed when he returned first?

I am more inclined to believe KM's version here when she says she slept in the other room that night because she was miffed with GM for getting up and leaving the crowd without saying anything to her. This indicates to me a strained relationship. Kate was often left on her own to care for three toddlers and GM, despite his famous utterance on the bus, gave the impression he was trying his best to ignore the family and enjoy himself as much as he could get away with. I can also imagine Kate reacting more aggressively under stress than simply sleeping in another room. She in known to be feisty but her book is void of real emotions up until M's disappearance. Whether this was the case of an 'accident' waiting to happen is open to interpretation.

I cannot disagree with anything in your post and I had those exact thoughts for a long time. Lately I have been looking at certain things and trying to consider another reason for some of the issues I long ago accepted as being the likely story, different things strike you every time you re-read something, with this story.

After falling you would not necessarily be able to identify a critical head injury immediately. Standard GP advice here for a child who falls and hits their head in particular if it is less than 12 hours before bedtime is - watch for vomitting, watch for drowsiness and wake them at intervals during the night to ensure you can wake them up. With three boys, I have been there lots of times !

Of course, this is just me putting myself in their position, why would I be in that bedroom, so total speculation. I do not believe the snoring story, did he snore just that one night ? Perhaps Gerry went home early that night to keep watch on the child. The other children were sick during the holiday and that did not deter the other parents from going to enjoy their meal, so unless Madeleine was visibly very unwell after falling, I do not think it would have stopped Gerry and Kate going out. Waking the child every two to three hours is sufficient, so they had a three hour gap to have a meal, then go back and wake her, if they were trying to follow usual medical advice.

The whole "sleeping in the spare room" story is just a little bit dramatic for me. Do people really do that after a small argument ? It cannot of been a huge disagreement, Gerry was blissfully unaware of any problems and they seem to have made up without discussion the next morning, otherwise he would not have had the snorning story. They had already pushed the beds together, why not simply pull them apart and stay in her own room.

Kate also talks of Madeleine being exceptionally tired on Thursday evening, her having to carry her home from the play group. She was doing this, I think, to re-inforce the Wednesday night dry run by the abductor and the possible administering of a sedative. Perhaps she was in part telling the truth, Madeleine was exceptionally tired, but in fact drowsy from a head injury. She was still within a 24 hour time frame, if she had a fall on Wednesday. It is unusual for a toddler to be tired in the way Kate describes. Tiredness would usually result in a mega tantrum, not the sleepy, unable to walk image Kate gives. Even Kate tries to explain away this unusual tiredness, albeit by a rather bizzare story, but in her own way she is acknowledging it is not the norm.

Wednesday is without doubt a strange day, the beginning of the end if you like, in my opinion of course.

by sami 21.10.12 9:49

Nina wrote:And wasn't it on the Wednesday evening that Kate carried madeleine back to the apartment as she was tired ?

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

Nina, I think that was Thursday, sorry our posts crossed earlier.

by Nina 21.10.12 9:50

sami wrote:
Nina wrote:And wasn't it on the Wednesday evening that Kate carried madeleine back to the apartment as she was tired ?

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

Nina, I think that was Thursday, sorry our posts crossed earlier.

Sami you are correct, flag

by sami 21.10.12 10:07

Nina, [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] the Tapas cannot remember what they themselves did on the holiday, so it is little wonder we get confused with the days.

by Nina 21.10.12 10:19

sami wrote:Nina, [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] the Tapas cannot remember what they themselves did on the holiday, so it is little wonder we get confused with the days.

Well it is difficult all singing from the same hymn sheet, a tune they had not yet learned by heart titter

by Liz Eagles 21.10.12 10:36

Nina wrote:
sami wrote:Nina, [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] the Tapas cannot remember what they themselves did on the holiday, so it is little wonder we get confused with the days.

Well it is difficult all singing from the same hymn sheet, a tune they had not yet learned by heart [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

What strikes me is that it was only a holiday for a WEEK. Madeleine disappeared on day 6. Day 1 of the holiday wasn't even an entire day and yet even that is blurry to T9. Now I can remember what I did last week and I haven't (thank God) had the horror of a friend's child disappearing which would no doubt sharpen my memory and make me want to go through every detail of every minute of the previous few days.

Just my opinion.

by Ribisl 21.10.12 10:37

@sami
A couple of points that raise doubts in my mind regarding the above.

I personally don't find Kate's reaction that hard to imagine. Unreasonable, ridiculous, even, but I have seen women react similarly in not too dissimilar situations. I agree that certain types of head injury eg minor concussion require a period of observation rather than emergency treatment, but how can that be the case here when enough blood had been spilt to stain the floor under the tiles? And even if the parents felt somehow responsible for such an accident, would a pair of doctors try to contain such a life threatening injury without seeking hospital care? That's why I cannot believe Madeleine was under observation that night, or any night for that matter.

According to KM, she found the children having tea with nanny on Thursday when GM was supposed to have picked them up, and had to carry Madeleine back to the apartment because she was extremely tired and peaky. Although this scenario may be based on facts, it could have happened earlier in the week. In the same way we all cast certain doubts on so much of the information contained in that book, I don't think we should necessarily believe this event happened on Thursday even when we assume something similar did take place. To me placing this episode on Thursday was another example of their attempt to establish that Madeleine was alive on that day. But it's just an opinion.

Frankly, I cannot believe the so-called dry run ever happened. It actually strikes me as a desperate attempt to convince the world there was indeed an abductor after all. It is as unbelievable as that the same abductor would then carry a sleeping child with his arms stretched out in front of him in an open street.

by sami 21.10.12 10:37

But that is the very odd thing about it. When you read the rogatory interviews, the huffing and puffing and tutting they all go on with. The sighs of "you know it is so long ago now it is hard to remember". It is as if the question is do you remember the day Kate lost her flip flop in PDL. This is surely one of the most harrowing, catastrophic experiences any of them have ever encountered, their friends child just disappeared but any questions in relation to that are an inconvenience and so hard to remember.

Most people who go through a traumatic experience will have exceptional re-call of the particular day in which the trauma happened, they will be able to re-call with unbelievable clarity the events leading up to the event. The will re-live it over and over again in their heads. This group of people can hardly remember being in PDL, if you believe their rogatory statements. They are so deliberately vague, it cannot be true. The talk about issues that are of no consequence, but never mention real issues, for example how have the other children of the group reacted to Madeline's disappearance, how have they as parents dealt with that. Most were too young I know, but one or two were friendly enough with Madeleine. Those interviews took place quite a while later, so there are many day to day things that should crop up in a normal conversation that are missing.

It is so frustrating.

by Ribisl 21.10.12 10:44

sami wrote:But that is the very odd thing about it. When you read the rogatory interviews, the huffing and puffing and tutting they all go on with. The sighs of "you know it is so long ago now it is hard to remember". It is as if the question is do you remember the day Kate lost her flip flop in PDL. This is surely one of the most harrowing, catastrophic experiences any of them have ever encountered, their friends child just disappeared but any questions in relation to that are an inconvenience and so hard to remember.

Most people who go through a traumatic experience will have exceptional re-call of the particular day in which the trauma happened, they will be able to re-call with unbelievable clarity the events leading up to the event. The will re-live it over and over again in their heads. This group of people can hardly remember being in PDL, if you believe their rogatory statements. They are so deliberately vague, it cannot be true. The talk about issues that are of no consequence, but never mention real issues, for example how have the other children of the group reacted to Madeline's disappearance, how have they as parents dealt with that. Most were too young I know, but one or two were friendly enough with Madeleine. Those interviews took place quite a while later, so there are many day to day things that should crop up in a normal conversation that are missing.

It is so frustrating.

Because imo, they were/are all lying. The story line didn't get sorted till they were all rounded up in Rotheley and properly briefed by the TM. Even then their statements are full of contradictions.

by suzyjohnson 26.09.13 11:11

jeanmonroe wrote:Anyone know why KM used her name K HEALY in their latest charity 'hi-jack'?

No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:

A woman often reverts to her maiden name when her marriage breaks up - not suggesting anything here of course!

It would be very interesting to know why, because Kate signed one of the creche records K Healy.
Lobster's creche records 2/5/07 (Wed) -
Madeleine McCann 5A - 14.45 signed K McCann 17.30 signed K. Healy
And then the Wednesday night KM slept in the children's room because she had fallen out with GM.
So, all really wasn't well on the holiday then. I think we need to take another look at Wednesday. What happened between them between 14.45 and 17.30 for a start.

by Guest 26.09.13 11:16

suzyjohnson wrote:
jeanmonroe wrote:Anyone know why KM used her name K HEALY in their latest charity 'hi-jack'?

No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:

A woman often reverts to her maiden name when her marriage breaks up - not suggesting anything here of course!
It would be very interesting to know why, because Kate signed one of the creche records K Healy.
Lobster's creche records 2/5/07 (Wed) -
Madeleine McCann 5A - 14.45 signed K McCann 17.30 signed K. Healy
And then the Wednesday night KM slept in the children's room because she had fallen out with GM.
So, all really wasn't well on the holiday then. I think we need to take another look at Wednesday. What happened between them between 14.45 and 17.30 for a start.

Iirc: in her book, KH describes what she put on going to the Tapas restaurant: a raincoat.

To cover some bruises?

by Guest 26.09.13 11:23

This thread is already about 2nd May, so will try and merge........

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

by Guest 26.09.13 11:26

candyfloss wrote:This thread is already about 2nd May, so will try and merge........

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

Have merged the two threads.

by **Hobs** 26.09.13 19:06

"I wish I could roll back time and go back to the day before Madeleine
was abducted. I would slow down time. I would get a really good look
around and have a really good think. And I'd think: Where are you? Who
are you? Who is secretly watching my family? Because someone was
watching my family very, very carefully. And taking notes."

This is entirely unexpected especially from the allegedly innocent parent of a missing child.

Given what they, and we all know now, if we could turn back time what would we do?

What would you as a parent do?

You can turn back time what would you do?

Like me and probably pretty much every parent in the world if given the chance to turn back time, we would change what we did

If we had a child allegedly abducted from her bed whilst we out out partying, if we had the chance to turn back time, we would stay in the apartment, we would stay right next to our child or children.
If we are there then there can be no abduction.
We know what time they child was abducted, we have a good idea how they gained entry.
I know i for one would be waiting right there and if anyone tried to get in and take my child they would be scraping him off the walls and ceiling, i would be there to protect my child so they could not be abducted.
If they aren't abducted then they are alive and with me.

As there was no abduction kate cannot bring herself to do what you and i would do, it simply wouldn't occur to her since Madeleine is dead.
She is stuck with the abduction theory thus she cannot say i would not go out that night, i would stay with my children.
Whatever happened was not due to abduction.
If she turned back time, according to her theory she would be looking around, wondering who is watching them, it is all she could do for a non existent situation.

She cannot turn back time to stop what happened and tell us this is what she would do.

Deleted

Whatever happened to Madeleine killed her.
Kate imo knows this and it is eating her alive.

Expect and assume the subject is telling the truth, this way the unexpected will stand out.

Sentence deleted, stating things as fact is libellous, we don't know what happened and can only theorise. Please be more careful when posting please