'And then she moved on..'

by worriedmum 10.07.13 23:00

We have had differing versions of the reported conversation between Madeleine and her parents about an incident of crying which Kate interpreted as
a possible indication that someone had been in the children's bedroom previously.

Several things strike me about the incident as reported;

Firstly, if the checks were as frequent as has been stated, how would any child of three and under have time to be alarmed enough, by the presence of a potential abductor, to cry and then fall asleep again before the next check? Gerry appears to dismiss the possibility of prolonged crying when he suggests that it may have happened 'while they were having their bath'.

Why didn't the crying of Madeleine/Sean and Madeleine wake Amelie?

If Madeleine was crying because she was afraid, this fear would probably have kept her awake and distressed IMO. So was she really distressed?

Assuming that she did just drop off to sleep, I would have expected her behaviour to reflect her anxiety as soon as she woke up again. I have never found any mention of this.

Her parents have described Madeline as 'clever' and 'articulate'. I am most surprised that she not only did not show any change her demeanour, but also that she did not say, if an 'abductor/stranger' had been in the room' WHY DIDN'T YOU COME WHEN ***WAS CRYING ,BECAUSE THERE WAS*****IN OUR ROOM?'

by suzyjohnson 10.07.13 23:25

One of the things I find strange about this incident is the answer to the question, why didn't they come while MM and SM were crying?

Was it while they were in the bath?

Would anyone leave a 3 yr old and two toddlers in the bath without adult supervision?

I can't understand how KM could have taken a shower (at 6.30pm May 3rd) and left the three in the lounge at this time either, it's just asking for trouble.

But then I wouldn't go out for the night and leave them alone. These parents seem to think all of this is acceptable.

It isn't really surprising something happened to MM is it?

by lufc50337 10.07.13 23:30

But now we know about the soothing couple

I'm sure KM was aware about this before she gave her interview on TV

by suzyjohnson 10.07.13 23:42

sally66 wrote:But now we know about the soothing couple

I'm sure KM was aware about this before she gave her interview on TV

I was just thinking, it's interesting that KM told Yvonne Martin on the morning of the 4th that a couple had taken MM.

Now, after all these years, we are told a couple were seen going into the apartment, to soothe a crying child.

'They've taken her' KM is reported to have said at 10pm on 3rd at the Tapas restaurant.

MM reportedly asked why her parents didn't come when they were crying, on the night of the 2nd.

KM thought someone may have been in the apartment on the previous night.

Does any of this connect up?

by margaret 11.07.13 9:55

suzyjohnson wrote:
sally66 wrote:But now we know about the soothing couple

I'm sure KM was aware about this before she gave her interview on TV

I was just thinking, it's interesting that KM told Yvonne Martin on the morning of the 4th that a couple had taken MM.

Now, after all these years, we are told a couple were seen going into the apartment, to soothe a crying child.

'They've taken her' KM is reported to have said at 10pm on 3rd at the Tapas restaurant.

MM reportedly asked why her parents didn't come when they were crying, on the night of the 2nd.

KM thought someone may have been in the apartment on the previous night.

Does any of this connect up?

Excellent points Suzy, but this only works if they had been neglecting the children all week and they (or Maddie) had been crying alot hence a couple going into the apartment to see what was going on.

The detective who took over after Snr.Amaral, (REbelo?) believed all the children were in one room with the person who was 'sick' each night babysitting.

As usual too much confusion!

by suzyjohnson 11.07.13 11:08

They had been out every night of the week. And Mrs Fenn, the upstairs neighbour, reported a child crying from downstairs, for over an hour on the 1st, Mrs Fenn was out on the evening of the 2nd.

The group booked the Tapas every night on the basis that they were leaving the children in the apartment and so needed to be near to check, there was a note about it at the restaurant from the start of the week, why say that if the intention was to leave someone to babysit?

Who was the 'they' KM was referring to on the 3rd? (before the police were informed) If KM had been told by the police that a couple had been seen at the apartment (KM told Yvonne Martin that a couple had taken MM) then why, in 6 years, have the McCanns never publicised this? If the police didn't tell KM about a couple then how would she know this? Did a local resident tell her? You would think the McCanns would have made as much information about this available as possible to help in the search.

by marconi 11.07.13 12:21

this story is not true at all.

That is the problem with the McCanns. They lie all the time.

somewhere I read " and she moved on, she dropped the issue and so did we." big grin

by Guest 11.07.13 12:35

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

More information about the "moving on" comment.

Love Gerry's remark that Madeleine was articulate - she certainly didn't get that from her ummm errr parents, did she?

I presume that there were no complaints of the other Tapas children being left alone crying at any time during the week?

by roy rovers 11.07.13 12:48

marconi wrote:this story is not true at all.

That is the problem with the McCanns. They lie all the time.

somewhere I read " and she moved on, she dropped the issue and so did we."

Absolutely. There is litttle point in picking up these little inconsistencies in their stories around the time of the 'abduction' if we are seeking the truth (other than to show that they are inconsistent). The apparent neglect was necessary to facilitate the 'abduction' story not the other way around. The story started days earlier IMO and involved Murat in some way, shape or form.

by Guest 11.07.13 14:19

marconi wrote:somewhere I read " and she moved on, she dropped the issue and so did we."

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

And don't forget this rather attractive face Kate pulled when recounting this sorry tale about the situation ~~Margaret~~, er...um Madeleine found herself in.

by lj 11.07.13 16:20

admin wrote:
marconi wrote:somewhere I read " and she moved on, she dropped the issue and so did we."

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

And don't forget this rather attractive face Kate pulled when recounting this sorry tale about the situation ~~Margaret~~, er...um Madeleine found herself in.

Yep, the disdain this so-called mother shows for the hurt of her child is nauseating. One more for the more than obnoxious pile.

by plebgate 11.07.13 17:46

You really can't believe some of the things they have said and yet still they are being fawned over by certain celebs and appear to be treated with kid gloves of the softest kind.

What an awful face to pull whilst recounting memories of your recently missing daughter.

by Guest 11.07.13 18:33

They do have difficulties with recounting memories. E.g. like Gerry's last memory of Madeleine being the PHOTO at the pool ...

by ProfessorPPlum 11.07.13 22:25

Yes please try to remember that if you believe the McCanns staged an abduction then everything they say has to be discounted and the case stripped back to only what is actually known from independent evidence I.e. anyone BUT the Tapas 9. From that start point you can throw away everything about checks every half hour and with it, the supposed order of checks.

All we know is at some point Jez and Gerry were talking (and recent information might start to cast doubt even on Jez's 'independence'), that busy restaurant staff saw the group leave the table and the Smiths saw a man very like GM carrying a child after 10pm.

90% of the story that we hear repeated on these threads is disposable because it originates from the Tapas 9 and if we disbelieve their abduction story, then to make sense of what happened we have to flush it all from our memory. That's not easy to do - as we keep seeing when people inadvertently re-tell the McCann story as if it was reality.

by Guest 12.07.13 9:30

I find this whole story gut-wrenching.

I don't, for one moment, think it happened but everything about it triggers warning bells:

- How did the McCanns manage to move on from the "where were you?" question? I would have tied myself in knots with guilt.

- Kids that age have big worries caused by small things because they don't yet have the experience or mental ability to put their concerns into perspective. Sometimes they mention a worry in passing, just casually, testing the waters. Most parents know this.

I don't know which alternative is worse; that they have a spectacular lack of parenting skills and no understanding of children or that they did something so bad that it would be better to be seen as incompetent parents.

Either way my heart bleeds for Madeleine, Amelie & Sean.

by Guest 12.07.13 9:37

It is certainly my belief that they had done something so bad that it was preferable to be seen as selfish and incompetent parents.

by **PeterMac** 12.07.13 10:00

No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:It is certainly my belief that they had done something so bad that it was preferable to be seen as selfish and incompetent parents.

That is certainly my thought too.
Like people who plead Guilty to Manslaughter instead of standing trial for Murder. Or to Handling stolen goods rather than aggravated Burglary,

Remember "Our lives are over". Why ? They still have two thirds of their children.
That, to me, means Professional lives. Something had happened so serious, or involving such a degree of negligence, or so unutterable dreadful, or illegal (!) that their professional lives would have been finished.
And that is not merely failing to notice a bump on the head.

by aiyoyo 12.07.13 11:08

PeterMac wrote:
No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:It is certainly my belief that they had done something so bad that it was preferable to be seen as selfish and incompetent parents.

That is certainly my thought too.
Like people who plead Guilty to Manslaughter instead of standing trial for Murder. Or to Handling stolen goods rather than aggravated Burglary,

Remember "Our lives are over". Why ? They still have two thirds of their children.
That, to me, means Professional lives. Something had happened so serious, or involving such a degree of negligence, or so unutterable dreadful, or illegal (!) that their professional lives would have been finished.
And that is not merely failing to notice a bump on the head.

Exactly!

Wrong/illegal medication pre and/or post accident, and blotched post accident treatment (tracheostomy for example) all can tantamount to professional negligence that will cost their professional lives.
There must be a good reason to hide the body from Pathologist.
No reason not to take her to the hospital unless accident wasn't self caused.

Question is: are the Yard detectives going to be able to solve this mystery of her death? Or definitive sign that Madeleine died in the Apt is good enough to bring charges?

by marconi 12.07.13 11:23

aiyoyo wrote:
PeterMac wrote:
No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:It is certainly my belief that they had done something so bad that it was preferable to be seen as selfish and incompetent parents.

That is certainly my thought too.
Like people who plead Guilty to Manslaughter instead of standing trial for Murder. Or to Handling stolen goods rather than aggravated Burglary,

Remember "Our lives are over". Why ? They still have two thirds of their children.
That, to me, means Professional lives. Something had happened so serious, or involving such a degree of negligence, or so unutterable dreadful, or illegal (!) that their professional lives would have been finished.
And that is not merely failing to notice a bump on the head.

Exactly!

Wrong/illegal medication pre and/or post accident, and blotched post accident treatment (tracheostomy for example) all can tantamount to professional negligence that will cost their professional lives.
There must be a good reason to hide the body from Pathologist.
No reason not to take her to the hospital unless accident wasn't self caused.

Question is: are the Yard detectives going to be able to solve this mystery of her death? Or definitive sign that Madeleine died in the Apt is good enough to bring charges?

The Yard would not have started this investigation if they would not have believed the PJ. Too much money, too much work. Don't forget that the British government want to get rid of the MccCanns, imo, otherwise they will continue being a pain in their ...

The McCanns behaved like a spoild child, demanding everything, knowing that the PJ did not want to reopen the case,taking profit of the support of the Murdoch's concern.

They are lost now. The cadaver scent is not the only evidence the police have. They have also "witnesses evidence" and I believe they come from Tapas 7.

by russiandoll 12.07.13 11:25

" and then she moved on........."

    I do not believe that this conversation took place, either. Like the Payne visit, I believe it was created to place Maddie alive and well 3rd May.
    I still have a gut instinct that whatever happened to Maddie might well not have been discovered for hours.....they did not check the children just before they went to bed, for whatever reason. It happened earlier than 3rd imo.

   I doubt that a 3 year old would have moved on. In any case, I am absolutely certain that no sensible parent, hearing what they had heard and not being able to pinpoint what had happened and when, would have allowed a child of that age to move on.
A parent would have made the decision when it was ok to let the matter rest. Or was Madeleine so advanced for her years that she was trusted to decide what was ok and what was not where she was concerned?

it is all b******s and b******t.

by AndyB 12.07.13 12:03

PeterMac wrote:Remember "Our lives are over". Why ? They still have two thirds of their children.
That, to me, means Professional lives. Something had happened so serious, or involving such a degree of negligence, or so unutterable dreadful, or illegal (!) that their professional lives would have been finished.
And that is not merely failing to notice a bump on the head.

I agree but what could be so serious for them to make that decision, yet not so serious that the other 7 agree a pact of silence and stick to it?

by Guest 12.07.13 14:17

Either the rest of the Tapas mob had a misguided sense of loyalty towards friends who were in a fix and agreed to back up a fictional version of events to support them (never realising that those sardine-munchers would see through it immediately) or they were as equally involved in whatever happened to Madeleine as were her parents.

In my opinion of course before anyone at Carter-Ruck starts spluttering.

by AndyB 12.07.13 14:35

Or they were all involved in something else that would have come to light had the investigation been into how a young child died rather than an abduction, although I struggle to imagine what that might be

by Monty Heck 12.07.13 14:51

suzyjohnson wrote:One of the things I find strange about this incident is the answer to the question, why didn't they come while MM and SM were crying?

Was it while they were in the bath?

Would anyone leave a 3 yr old and two toddlers in the bath without adult supervision?

I can't understand how KM could have taken a shower (at 6.30pm May 3rd) and left the three in the lounge at this time either, it's just asking for trouble.

But then I wouldn't go out for the night and leave them alone. These parents seem to think all of this is acceptable.

It isn't really surprising something happened to MM is it?

Sorry to go back a bit in the discussion - just catching up. I also find it hard to accept this claim by a GP that she went for a shower leaving three children of that age unsupervised when she was perfectly aware she had two hours to spare before the meet up for dinner and that her partner would be back in time to assist with the children. She has explained how she had time to apply make up and spend an hour drinking wine prior to going out, so time was not an issue. This story is simply not credible unless KMcC is a complete dunce.

by lj 12.07.13 17:33

Monty Heck wrote:
suzyjohnson wrote:One of the things I find strange about this incident is the answer to the question, why didn't they come while MM and SM were crying?

Was it while they were in the bath?

Would anyone leave a 3 yr old and two toddlers in the bath without adult supervision?

I can't understand how KM could have taken a shower (at 6.30pm May 3rd) and left the three in the lounge at this time either, it's just asking for trouble.

But then I wouldn't go out for the night and leave them alone. These parents seem to think all of this is acceptable.

It isn't really surprising something happened to MM is it?

Sorry to go back a bit in the discussion - just catching up. I also find it hard to accept this claim by a GP that she went for a shower leaving three children of that age unsupervised when she was perfectly aware she had two hours to spare before the meet up for dinner and that her partner would be back in time to assist with the children. She has explained how she had time to apply make up and spend an hour drinking wine prior to going out, so time was not an issue. This story is simply not credible unless KMcC is a complete dunce.

I think she is, a dunce I mean, and so are the others.
I also think that alcohol played a major role in their decisions.

I never left my kids unsupervised, not for a dinner, nor for a shower.. When they were smaller, they went in the bathroom with me. When they got bigger, and capable of a lot more mischief I waited until some one could watch them.