KM's Dream

I going through KM's book again. I can't tell you the page number as it's on kindle but the page marker is 52%. KM describes a dream months after the events in Praia da Luz. She describes the dream where 'I held her and held her and held her'...Quote: 'Then I woke up.

Ice began to course through my body, driving out every endorphin and remnant of warmth. I didn't understand. What was happening? How could this be? I could still feel her! A heavy boot connected with my stomach and the ache in my chest was worse than I'd even known it. I was struggling for breath, almost as if I were being strangled. Please God, don't let her go! Stay with me Madeleine. Please stay with me. Don't go - stay with Mummy. Please, sweetheart hold on. I love you so much.

I started to cry. The crying built into seismic sobs. An unearthly sound, like the howl of a wounded animal, was coming out of my mouth. The crushing pain in my chest intensified to the point where I thought I was going to die.

I'd been with her. And then she was gone. Again. Unquote.

Two points about this. First, the physical experiences she describes and the phrases she used when she was awake seem unlikely (in a wakened state.) I've also woken from dreams of somebody I lost (the death of the love of my life) but I have not reacted like this, all I felt was incredible sadness.

Secondly, if you reread the passage as if it is not a dream being described but the reaction to an actual event that happened months earlier, the immediate aftermath of some tragic accident or such, it makes a lot of sense. Maybe some forensic linguistics would be helpful here?

Mills & Boon writing style perhaps?

I posted the very same comment at same time as yourself Aquila but it does not seem to have made it to the forum. I would also say it is evidence of a ghost writer.

For the record it starts on p. 229 and finished the chapter called One Hundred Days.
The next chapter is called . . wait for it .. . . "Fantasy Land" (you couldn't make it up !)
I think it bears quoting in full, as I doubt if Kate wrote it. Style and content are very peculiar.

On the night of 1 September I dreamed about Madeleine for the first time in four months. I was astonished that this hadn’t happened before. The workings of the mind are impossible to fathom. It was a good thing it hadn’t, because it was such a dreadful experience – far more painful than anything that had occurred in real life since the night she was taken – I’m not sure I could have survived it in the early weeks.
We had a call from one of the girls at the children’s nursery school. ‘Guess what?’ she said. ‘Madeleine’s here! She’s been here for a couple of days. She’s fine.’ We rushed to the nursery immediately. And sure enough, there was our Madeleine. She looked beautiful, just as I remembered her. I ran over to her, my face split by the widest smile, the tears running down my cheeks, and just held her and held her and held her. Although I was dreaming, I could feel her. It was as if parts of my body that had been hibernating for four months suddenly began to stir. I could sense the cold, dark days lifting as I luxuriated in warmth and light. And Madeleine was holding me, her little arms wrapped tightly round me, and it felt so good. I could smell her. I could feel her with every one of my senses as I soaked up this heavenly moment.
My Madeleine. I wanted to stay like this for ever. And then I woke up.
Ice began to course through my body, driving out every endorphin and remnant of warmth. I didn’t understand. What was happening? How could this be? I could still feel her! A heavy boot connected with my stomach and the ache in my chest was worse than I’d ever known it. I was struggling for breath, almost as if I were being strangled. Please God, don’t let her go! Stay with me, Madeleine. Please stay with me. Don’t go – stay with Mummy. Please, sweetheart, hold on. I love you so much.
I started to cry. The crying built into seismic sobs. An unearthly sound, like the howl of a wounded animal, was coming out of my mouth. The crushing pain in my chest intensified to the point where I thought I was going to die.
I’d been with her. And then she was gone. Again.

If she did write it then the part

Please God, don’t let her go! Stay with me, Madeleine. Please stay with me. Don’t go – stay with Mummy. Please, sweetheart, hold on. I love you so much.

on any test sounds like the thoughts or a person cradling a dying child. One which perhaps is slipping out of consciousness.
We all know that after trauma you should try to keep the person awake. Is this what is happening here ?

And then again, was it Kate crying for an hour and a half the previous night, as Madeleine died in her arms ?
Maddie, Maddie !
Just a thought !

PeterMac wrote: [...]
We all know that after trauma you should try to keep the person awake. Is this what is happening here ?

And then again, was it Kate crying for an hour and a half the previous night, as Madeleine died in her arms ?
Maddie, Maddie !
Just a thought !

***
I am completely with you, PeterMac.
It would also explain the cadaver scent on HER clothes.

ETA Sean may have found her first. Red T-shirt ...

If I had had a dream like that of my missing child it would be such a personal, private and precious dream that I certainly would not be sharing it with readers. However a ghost writer may have teased it out of Kate and then just mills and Booned it.

Nina wrote:If I had had a dream like that of my missing child it would be such a personal, private and precious dream that I certainly would not be sharing it with readers. However a ghost writer may have teased it out of Kate and then just mills and Booned it.

It may all be due to a ghost writer anyway, left to herself imo Kate would have trundled on about how badly she was treated by X, Y and Z, how very helpful really important people were. How these important people did the right thing - private jets, Freud cooking for them, J.K. Rowling falling over herself to support them. How very hard they were working, how very hard she worked at being 'a mum'.
Someone - probably the editor - must have suggested inserting a bit of emotion and passion in the thing. Definitely Mills and Booned Nina! That whole dream, just like Gerry in church having a vision of a tunnel with lots of light at the end etc. didn't spring from a real experience imo. It was necessary to 'sex it up'. Thankfully he's not had another one.

The dream is a rare emotional description which isn't supported by any others - it ticks all the boxes: bring all the senses into a description, smell, touch, cold, warmth, light. Not forgetting 'She looked beautiful - just as I remembered her' - that's about all we know about Maddie: 'Bags of character. She is lovely, beautiful'.
So is my cat.

My Madeleine. I wanted to stay like this for ever. And then I woke up.

This jumps out at me, and is a dead giveaway.
Her dream may be real or it may be fabricated, but she her dream reflects her conscious - that she knew Maddie is dead.

When one dreams, the dream becomes one's reality for the time being, for the duration one is experiencing that occurrence.
Whether you have a pleasant dream, or a nightmare for dream, you would not know that it is not the reality until you wake up.
You can't wish for a pleasant feeling in a dream to remain with you any more than you can wish the fright you feel in a nightmare dream to go away, because at that stage you feel it is real. Else you wouldn't be frightened in a nightmare ; same applies when you have a pleasant dream, you don't know things are different until you wake up, so you cant wish for a different state of thing during dream.

When one is in a dream-conscious state, one's wake-conscious reality is no longer present during one's dream-conscious state, else one would know one is dreaming during dreaming and that is simply not possible. You would only realise you dreamed after you wake up, not while dreaming. That being the case, in her dream-conscious state how did she know she could never cuddle Maddie ever again that she made this wish " I wanted to stay like this for ever".

I believe she wrote the bewk herself. A ghost writer wont be able to describe the feelings Kate experieced post the dream.
The emotions she described post her dream is real - it was something she'd experienced, IMO - ie excruciating pain when Maddie died in her arms.

That would really tug at the heart strings if the book was ever made into a film wouldn't it. I would be sobbing my heart out if I watched a film with a scene like that in it.

I just don't think that tallies with the dismissive ' -- and then she moved on you know..' . Not to mention when asked to describe Maddie, she was 'just a happy little girl' and we should look for her because 'she's lovely'.
There are dozens of similar off-hand descriptions - the diary is just as bad. No recall, just abstract phrases with imo artificial emotion. It's like hearing someone trying to speak a language they've never heard or used before.
Recall is important, the book should be full of it and yet Maddie never emerges from the narrative. There is bit of 'we did this and we did that' but Kate telling us that Maddie was her 'best friend' just shows us how unrealistic even those descriptions are.

I very much get the impression that Kate hardly knew the little person Maddie was. She certainly didn't tell us much.

How could a three year old be her best friend. That makes absolutely no sense to me - what you say about her descriptions of Maddie makes sense to me. She could be describing any little girl really. "she's a happy little girl, she's lovely" you could say that about any child you might see on a fairly regular basis such as a little one who lives next door.

I'm sure I read somewhere that an individual who has something terrible to hide can sometimes refer to the secret in another context and therefore feel subconsciously 'absolved' by the covert confession. Probably Freud, sounds very Freudian.

This was the stand out part of the book for me. Kate had told us about how she went into emergency dr- trained mode when she found Maddie had gone,[ although she did not stay out and shout loudly for help as you are supposed to do].
Look at any documentary of an A and E department.......a patient is wheeled in and the GCS is immediately given, allowing the receiving doctors to work based on their patient's level of consciousness. As they work, if doctors, via monitors or other means, are made aware of a deepening of a patient's unconscious state, " stay with us/me" " is what they say.

It has been my belief that this was a recounting of Kate holding her dying child. Maybe Maddie was already dead and it was the anguished cry of a parent who could not bear to let go, something which would have to be done were it necessary at that time to remove the body.
I believe it is a real possibility that the crying was not for " Daddy" but for "Maddie " on the night Mrs Fenn reported that she heard noise from 5a.
The 2nd is the day along with 30th April that Kate will not talk about. Perhaps 30th was the date of the tragic event and 2nd was the day of removal. Maybe Tuesday was the last time Kate got to hold her child for the last time.
There was we know a series of frantic phone use by Kate very close to the time of the crying. Frantic calls for help after she found her daughter dead or dying? Or for some other reason?

I think Kate's impersonal talk re Maddie is her coping mechanism. There is nothing I have read or heard which indicates that Maddie was anything but loved deeply by her mother. I believe what happened on that holiday has made her mentally unwell.
Gerry imo is another matter. I believe that he loved his eldest child, but I also think that he is untimately a pragmatist. Very triage-like in his assessment of the emergent situation he found himself in. He operated in true doctor-mode. Nothing can be done for the dead or dying. As tragic as the loss of his daughter was, she was beyond help. But they could help themselves out of a situation. Why not report a simple accident? Because abuse would be discovered? Perhaps. More likely imo because if it was found that their neglect had contributed towards a fatal accident, they would be in a lot of trouble.
We can't do anything about what has happened, we can't bring her back. We must concentrate on the living, no good will come of being honest. We have to think of our living children and the life they will /will not have if they are taken away from us.
For them to have a good life we, I in particular, need a career. We must limit the suffering of our family. We ahve lost one, we must make damned sure the twins stay with us.
We can't let the truth come out.
Gerry is in the driving seat, imo all the women in this saga are submissive to their menfolk and are going along with this scandalous scenario of self-preservation.
It has always intrigued me, Kate likening herself to a lioness in her protectiveness of the twins. Lionesses do not leave vulnerable cubs prey to dangers. They are, however, in the habit of putting their menfolk before their cubs, totally submissive to the pride's male.

russiandoll wrote:. . Why not report a simple accident? Because abuse would be discovered? Perhaps. More likely imo because if it was found that their neglect had contributed towards a fatal accident, they would be in a lot of trouble.

Abuse, or substances.

The fact that they immediately concluded that she had been abducted by a pedophile did make me think ...

Châtelaine wrote:The fact that they immediately concluded that she had been abducted by a pedophile did make me think ...

Sadly I agree, and the infamous paragraph also makes on wonder if people were being prepared . . .

This is the first time I've read KM's discription of her dream, makes me wonder if she is telling everyone a part of what happened to Madaliene, in other words confessing to a crime simply to ease her conscience but also knowing some people will read that and feel sympathetic towards them, I will use the word pathetic. IMO neither KM or GM along with those who have made the pact of silence and anyone else who knows what has happened to Maddy have no conscience what so ever.

I am going to post this on stcky, Questions for theMcCann's.

For Kate McCann

On 30 April 2007 you signed Madeleine into the Cretch at 3.15 pm did you get a call or text to say Madeleine was ili ? You went back to the cretch and signed her out at 3.30 pm

Did Gerry carry Madeleine back to the apartment because she was tired ?

When you arrived at the apartment did Madeleine have a nose bleed ?

Did she throw a tantrum ?

Did she Climb onto the back of the sofa or anywhere else ?

Did you think "I've had enough of this" then went to grab her causing Madeleine to have a fatal accident, or did you shake her vigourously ?

When you went to look at her did you start to become uncontrolable ?

Is this when Gerry restrained you causing bruising on your upper arms ?

Did you nurse Madeleine when she was dying or had already died for several hours, causing cadavour odour on your clothes ?

While nursing Madeleine, did you read Samuel chapters 11 & 12 in the Bible, over and over again ?

When the time came to remove Madeleine's body, did you screw up the pages of the Bible you had been reading ?

PeterMac wrote:

russiandoll wrote:. . Why not report a simple accident? Because abuse would be discovered? Perhaps. More likely imo because if it was found that their neglect had contributed towards a fatal accident, they would be in a lot of trouble.

Abuse, or substances.

agreed, Peter. I should have elaborated...I would class the giving of any sedative by any route to a person, not intended for its purpose, as an abuse of that individual. It is not acceptable to sedate a child for your convenience, nor is it an acceptable argument that it is for the child's safety, he or she will remain unconscious and therefore will not be able to harm him/herself. It is a nonsense imo to argue that it as aid to child safety when one considers the many risks sedation carries.
It is difficult to credit that a doctor who would have done A and E training would leave a child vulnerable to any kind of accident, just as it incredible that a doctor would leave a baby with diarrhoea unattended. These people truly have a different mental wiring to most rational human beings imo. It is sad to contemplate such selfishness from so -called responsible adults.

russiandoll wrote: It has been my belief that this was a recounting of Kate holding her dying child. Maybe Maddie was already dead and it was the anguished cry of a parent who could not bear to let go, something which would have to be done were it necessary at that time to remove the body. I believe it is a real possibility that the crying was not for " Daddy" but for "Maddie " on the night Mrs Fenn reported that she heard noise from 5a. The 2nd is the day along with 30th April that Kate will not talk about. Perhaps 30th was the date of the tragic event and 2nd was the day of removal. Maybe Tuesday was the last time Kate got to hold her child for the last time. There was we know a series of frantic phone use by Kate very close to the time of the crying. Frantic calls for help after she found her daughter dead or dying? Or for some other reason?

That's very interesting. I read about the phone calls somewhere, I think there were 6 in the space of 15 minutes or something, about 10.15 to 10.30pm on Tues 1st May. The crying heard by Mrs Fenn went on for 75 minutes. Could Kate really have been crying for 75 minutes. Could Mrs Fenn really have been mistaken in thinking it was Maddie crying 'Daddy'? And is it likely that a 'tragic event' as you put it could have taken place a day earlier? How could they keep a body in their flat for another 24 hours or more? I think your theory is interesting, but it stil leaves a lot of questions unanswered.

Madeleine has always been, to me, a ghost child. We've never been given any anecdotes of her of a personal nature, ok we've had the odd relative say she could throw a tantrum, that she was a clever, charismatic child but never given any instances.
I could - and have [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] - bored for England with amusing, and not so amusing, stories about my grandchildren and managed to make the kids come alive to whoever I spoke to.
Madeleine has never been portrayed as anything other than a two-dimensional little girl with common-place descriptions of her that could apply to any child.
A little girl of no substance, a ghost child indeed.
Poor little girl.

quote MJC : That's very interesting. I read about the phone calls somewhere, I think
there were 6 in the space of 15 minutes or something, about 10.15 to
10.30pm on Tues 1st May. The crying heard by Mrs Fenn went on for 75
minutes. Could Kate really have been crying for 75 minutes. Could Mrs
Fenn really have been mistaken in thinking it was Maddie crying 'Daddy'?
And is it likely that a 'tragic event' as you put it could have taken
place a day earlier? How could they keep a body in their flat for
another 24 hours or more? I think your theory is interesting, but it
stil leaves a lot of questions unanswered.


I guess it depends on how loud the voice was, the crying would possibly have made more noise and if the voice was muffled through sobs then it might have been mistaken for a child's.
All I know is that 30th was a pivotal day. Nothing to account for Maddie's whereabouts between 3.30 and tea-time. No statement anywhere about who she was with and what doing. Then, 2nd a day which seems to have been more or less wiped from memory.
Forgive me if this sounds insensitive, perhaps Maddie seemed to be recovering from an accident which occurred close to the start of the holiday, then on 1st relapsed and something catastrophic happened. An overlooked head injury, seemingly minor but ultimately fatal. The removal would have taken place not so long afterwards,
Why would a doctor of all people not get a head injury checked out? Were they worried a routine blood test would show that she had been sedated, maybe over-sedated? Big trouble of that were the case.

I have read and read until I am cross eyed, wanting to give the couple the benefit of the doubt, but I can't find anything at all which supports the abduction theory. On the contrary, everything points away from it.
The child has vanished from the face of the earth. It looks improbable if not impossible that she was abducted in the alleged circumstances.

So what the hell has happened to her?

russiandoll wrote:

PeterMac wrote:

russiandoll wrote:. . Why not report a simple accident? Because abuse would be discovered? Perhaps. More likely imo because if it was found that their neglect had contributed towards a fatal accident, they would be in a lot of trouble.

Abuse, or substances.

agreed, Peter. I should have elaborated...I would class the giving of any sedative by any route to a person, not intended for its purpose, as an abuse of that individual. . .

And suppose the substance in question were not on the list of legal ones.

PeterMac wrote:

russiandoll wrote:

PeterMac wrote:

russiandoll wrote:. . Why not report a simple accident? Because abuse would be discovered? Perhaps. More likely imo because if it was found that their neglect had contributed towards a fatal accident, they would be in a lot of trouble.

Abuse, or substances.

agreed, Peter. I should have elaborated...I would class the giving of any sedative by any route to a person, not intended for its purpose, as an abuse of that individual. . .

And suppose the substance in question were not on the list of legal ones.

And, suppose also the substance in question was not meant for children, and not on legal list for adults as well.
Hence, the body had to be hidden, can't risk autopsy as can't explain away that kind of accident, without involving the individuals (not of the holiday group) or source of the substance. Think flying high as kites and think who's driving force behind them.

And look at the eyes.

''I believe it is a real possibility that the crying was not for " Daddy" but for "Maddie " on the night Mrs Fenn reported that she heard noise from 5a'' (Quote: Russiandoll)

Could this be the reason why they originally insisted that Madeleine was never addressed as Maddie and wouldn't answer to it? Had they discussed a loud crying voice saying 'Maddie, Maddie' and were worried somebody might have overheard it. Did they hope that if somebody had overheard it that they might assume they were hearing 'Daddy, Daddy' (as strangers wouldn't have known the child's name.) Or, in the event that somebody did overhear and heard 'Maddie' correctly, did they feel they could simply deny it and say that one of their children must have been crying 'Daddy'.