Assumptions

by phil_burton 06.10.14 22:37

I'm forever theorising about this case, and I think there are certain key assumptions we can make to help us get closer to the truth.

1) the people whose behaviour stands out the most on may 3rd is that of Gerry and David Payne. Their stories don't match and seem concocted. Therefore I think we can assume whatever happened to Maddie involved these 2 as the main protagonists

2) the blood behind the sofa was cleaned rigorously, they needed to have time to do this. Therefore we can assume that whatever happened to Maddie happened earlier on May 3rd, or on a previous day.

3) the "jemmied shutters" was the first major detail to hit the press about the incident. Not only has this been proven to be false, it also suggests a rushed, early attempt at distraction of the press and police. Why do I say rushed? Well, it's clear that the Mccanns and the T7 tried to artificially align their stories, but obviously this little detail slipped through the net. It was also not clearly thought out, the logistics of either ingress or egress through the window was not plausible.

4) the dogs alerted to Kate's clothes, so we know that Kate knows that Maddie was dead. Coupled with her "they've taken her" cries of anguish, we can make an assumption that she didn't necessarily want to cover the death up. From this, I believe that a dead or dying Maddie was left in the apartment for most of, if not all of May 3rd. Kate's cries were genuine. She then had no choice to follow the plan. The body was probably hidden or disposed of immediately prior to the alarm being raised. I seem to remember Kate being very quiet in the early days, standing silently next to Gerry.

5) the flurry deleted texts and phone calls during the crucial 48 hours were an indication something was going, or had gone wrong. IMO those calls and texts hold the key to what happened. Who were they too? What was the content of those texts? Obviously explosive enough to require being deleted.

6) I believe the body was hidden initially then moved using the car. This sounds incredibly implausible, but the evidence of the ERVD dogs points this way. I find it amazing that the PJ didn't bug the car.

That's all I've got for now. I know it's not even a theory, I'm just trying to piece stuff together because I think there are things we can reasonably assume

by sallypelt 06.10.14 22:48

phil_burton wrote:I'm forever theorising about this case, and I think there are certain key assumptions we can make to help us get closer to the truth.

1) the people whose behaviour stands out the most on may 3rd is that of Gerry and David Payne. Their stories don't match and seem concocted. Therefore I think we can assume whatever happened to Maddie involved these 2 as the main protagonists

2) the blood behind the sofa was cleaned rigorously, they needed to have time to do this. Therefore we can assume that whatever happened to Maddie happened earlier on May 3rd, or on a previous day.

3) the "jemmied shutters" was the first major detail to hit the press about the incident. Not only has this been proven to be false, it also suggests a rushed, early attempt at distraction of the press and police. Why do I say rushed? Well, it's clear that the Mccanns and the T7 tried to artificially align their stories, but obviously this little detail slipped through the net. It was also not clearly thought out, the logistics of either ingress or egress through the window was not plausible.

4) the dogs alerted to Kate's clothes, so we know that Kate knows that Maddie was dead. Coupled with her "they've taken her" cries of anguish, we can make an assumption that she didn't necessarily want to cover the death up. From this, I believe that a dead or dying Maddie was left in the apartment for most of, if not all of May 3rd. Kate's cries were genuine. She then had no choice to follow the plan. The body was probably hidden or disposed of immediately prior to the alarm being raised. I seem to remember Kate being very quiet in the early days, standing silently next to Gerry.

5) the flurry deleted texts and phone calls during the crucial 48 hours were an indication something was going, or had gone wrong. IMO those calls and texts hold the key to what happened. Who were they too? What was the content of those texts? Obviously explosive enough to require being deleted.

6) I believe the body was hidden initially then moved using the car. This sounds incredibly implausible, but the evidence of the ERVD dogs points this way. I find it amazing that the PJ didn't bug the car.

That's all I've got for now. I know it's not even a theory, I'm just trying to piece stuff together because I think there are things we can reasonably assume

Phil-burton, for what it's worth, I believe that everything was planned, right down to the "jemmied windows" but this was thrown into disarray when GMc met Jeremy Wilkins. The meeting meant that things had to be rearranged around the meeting, hence the two hurried timelines on Madeleine's sticker book. I read way back that someone saw GM "tampering with the shutters", but this was interrupted so no "jemmied shutters. This really threw a spanner in the works, but with all the confusion caused by the meeting, apart from the attempts at a different timeline, they all went along with the original plan, and it backfired.

Just my opinion, of course!

by Okeydokey 07.10.14 1:51

phil_burton wrote:I'm forever theorising about this case, and I think there are certain key assumptions we can make to help us get closer to the truth.

1) the people whose behaviour stands out the most on may 3rd is that of Gerry and David Payne. Their stories don't match and seem concocted. Therefore I think we can assume whatever happened to Maddie involved these 2 as the main protagonists

2) the blood behind the sofa was cleaned rigorously, they needed to have time to do this. Therefore we can assume that whatever happened to Maddie happened earlier on May 3rd, or on a previous day.

3) the "jemmied shutters" was the first major detail to hit the press about the incident. Not only has this been proven to be false, it also suggests a rushed, early attempt at distraction of the press and police. Why do I say rushed? Well, it's clear that the Mccanns and the T7 tried to artificially align their stories, but obviously this little detail slipped through the net. It was also not clearly thought out, the logistics of either ingress or egress through the window was not plausible.

4) the dogs alerted to Kate's clothes, so we know that Kate knows that Maddie was dead. Coupled with her "they've taken her" cries of anguish, we can make an assumption that she didn't necessarily want to cover the death up. From this, I believe that a dead or dying Maddie was left in the apartment for most of, if not all of May 3rd. Kate's cries were genuine. She then had no choice to follow the plan. The body was probably hidden or disposed of immediately prior to the alarm being raised. I seem to remember Kate being very quiet in the early days, standing silently next to Gerry.

5) the flurry deleted texts and phone calls during the crucial 48 hours were an indication something was going, or had gone wrong. IMO those calls and texts hold the key to what happened. Who were they too? What was the content of those texts? Obviously explosive enough to require being deleted.

6) I believe the body was hidden initially then moved using the car. This sounds incredibly implausible, but the evidence of the ERVD dogs points this way. I find it amazing that the PJ didn't bug the car.

That's all I've got for now. I know it's not even a theory, I'm just trying to piece stuff together because I think there are things we can reasonably assume

These are all excellent observations.

1. I certainly accept that theoretically there may have been varying degrees of knowledge in play within the Tapas 9.

2. There's logic in what you say, but there are sightings and other factors that make an earlier date problematic. I don't think we can just dismiss Amaral's conclusion.

3. True, but doesn't that suggest more a "same day" scenario?

4. I am not sure what you are trying to say. Why would she come to the restaurant to make that statement if - as you suggest - it was a genuine cry of anguish.

5. Well clearly this is key evidence. But we have also to accept that back then some phones did automatically delete messages. If you have a really good link to the delete messages that would help.

6. Theoretically, couldn't clothes, a "shroud" or other material have been disposed of?

by **tigger** 07.10.14 7:39

Point 4: above

I feel taking any of the statements of those closely involved as a basis to reconstruct the events of the 3rd of May 2007 is going to muddy the waters.

There are conflicting statements as to time and what -if anything - was said. Kate running to the Tapas bar at just after 10.00 pm is not backed up by impartial witnesses. In fact based on these statements it seems there were two separate alarms.

I tink Phil's ideas are a good starting point - looking at the time needed to clean e.g. Taking the whole holiday as from Saturday, many 'facts'. Given us by the group simply do not fit with evidence from e.g. Tennis time tables, creche sheets etc.

So 'a genuine cry of anguish' is imo not evidence and certainly not an impartial statement.

by kimHager 16.10.14 15:47

Phil, i too sit and try to piece together the puzzle with.so many pieces that none fit together..soo frustrating. Tigger is right with how the.timelines never add up and THAT is where GM's confusion is good theory makes sense.Spread.as.many lies, inconsistencies, and theories out to the public BEFORE any facts and ....you have nothing but a jumbled mess

by jeanmonroe 16.10.14 16:29

I read way back that someone saw GM "tampering with the shutters", but this was interrupted so no "jemmied shutters. This really threw a spanner in the works, but with all the confusion caused by the meeting, apart from the attempts at a different timeline, they all went along with the original plan, and it backfired
--------------------------------------------------------

How THICK then, have you got to be, to continue, to phone and tell family and friends, in the UK, to 'impress' on them to say, without deviation, 'the shutter was SMASHED/FORCED/BROKEN/JEMMIED' as to HOW the 'abductor' got into the apartment?

KM herself, phoned Jon C (4) FOUR HOURS after the shutter was established as not having been 'tampered' with in ANY WAY, and STILL she told him the shutter had been 'SMASHED'!

Which he dutifully 'reported' word for word to the 'press'!

As did Brian Healy, Trish Cameron, Philomena McCann, Jill Renwick etc.,

WHAT they 'said' to K&GM, when they 'found out' from the resort manager and the PJ that the shutter was in FACT 'untouched' is anybody's guess!

Perhaps that's why GM's mother and KM's mother were put on the 'Granny Express' back to the UK, within HOURS,!

Asking TOO many 'questions'?

Ssomething was 'said' to GM and he went 'froot Loop' apparently, and the 'grannies' were OUTTA THERE!

Wonder what was 'said or asked' to Gerry?

Still dosen't matter now, BOTH grannies will be deemed implicit to have been 'involved', and charged with perverting the course of justice, if the McCanns are 'arrested'.
--------------------------------------

Unless, of course, they know, KNOW, that Madeleine IS just 'fine and dandy' completely 'unharmed', 'somewhere', (like a Scottish castle spa, say) just waiting for the grand 'reveal'!

Books, films, Zleb etc.,

THAT would certainly EXPLAIN why NONE, repeat NONE, of the 'family', when they 'rushed' to OC, PDL, ACTUALLY 'SEARCHED' for their 'missing' family member!

The 'family' even packed and took their swimming 'cossies' with them, for time 'spent' BY THE SWIMMING POOL!

For Christ's sake!

Everyone thinks first thing to 'pack' is 'my swimming 'cossie'" when going to desperately 'search' for a 'missing' family member, don't they??

WHY would they bother ('searching') if they know, KNOW, it's all been a 'scam'?

AND THEY DIDN'T 'SEARCH' DID THEY?

I'd 'look' a LOT 'closer' to home, to 'solve' this 'case'!

by HelenMeg 16.10.14 16:35

phil_burton wrote:I'm forever theorising about this case, and I think there are certain key assumptions we can make to help us get closer to the truth.

1) the people whose behaviour stands out the most on may 3rd is that of Gerry and David Payne. Their stories don't match and seem concocted. Therefore I think we can assume whatever happened to Maddie involved these 2 as the main protagonists

2) the blood behind the sofa was cleaned rigorously, they needed to have time to do this. Therefore we can assume that whatever happened to Maddie happened earlier on May 3rd, or on a previous day.

3) the "jemmied shutters" was the first major detail to hit the press about the incident. Not only has this been proven to be false, it also suggests a rushed, early attempt at distraction of the press and police. Why do I say rushed? Well, it's clear that the Mccanns and the T7 tried to artificially align their stories, but obviously this little detail slipped through the net. It was also not clearly thought out, the logistics of either ingress or egress through the window was not plausible.

4) the dogs alerted to Kate's clothes, so we know that Kate knows that Maddie was dead. Coupled with her "they've taken her" cries of anguish, we can make an assumption that she didn't necessarily want to cover the death up. From this, I believe that a dead or dying Maddie was left in the apartment for most of, if not all of May 3rd. Kate's cries were genuine. She then had no choice to follow the plan. The body was probably hidden or disposed of immediately prior to the alarm being raised. I seem to remember Kate being very quiet in the early days, standing silently next to Gerry.

5) the flurry deleted texts and phone calls during the crucial 48 hours were an indication something was going, or had gone wrong. IMO those calls and texts hold the key to what happened. Who were they too? What was the content of those texts? Obviously explosive enough to require being deleted.

6) I believe the body was hidden initially then moved using the car. This sounds incredibly implausible, but the evidence of the ERVD dogs points this way. I find it amazing that the PJ didn't bug the car.

That's all I've got for now. I know it's not even a theory, I'm just trying to piece stuff together because I think there are things we can reasonably assume

I agree with a lot of your assumptions and really like it when someone goes back to the very key basics. What stands out for me is that when they first addressed the media Kate looked thoroughly and naturally distraught. She must have been in deep grief. More than that she appeared angry and had to be held tightly by Gerry. At that point (when in the grey T shirt ) she was a dangerous loose cannon.

by kimHager 16.10.14 16:55

I agree HelenMeg Kate appeared distraught and I thought Gerry the one keeping control. The bruises on kates arms lookes like someone restrained her...perhaps her anger says a story too...
1. Bruises are generally on body parts like legs,knees, not arms on adults.children are different as they get scrapes etc...
2.sleeping apart ...only an angry person or perhaps sick(flu cough etc) sleeps alone..
3.GM sends someone else (DP) to check on KM and kids.
4.bewk..kates talk on her lack of lovelife.That has noplace there..right?

Unless something so shocking and sinister happened to Maddy and perhaps KM walked in on it or saw something ....she pushed the pedo subject almost from day.1... Certain things are so prominent and stick out taking my thoughts to horrible places and wonder how much that little girl suffered. My opinions of course

by Dont Make Me Laff 16.10.14 17:51

How about this?
The PDL holiday was a boys venture
The women/wives cashed in, attempting to make it a family holiday (since previous similar holidays had gone quite well)
This fits with GM comment ref "I'm not effing here to have fun"

that statement has always bothered me!

Sunday at the quiz GM ignores KM and flirts with quizz miss/aka miss big t*ts
KM gets annoyed and storms off back to 5A
MBM wakes up (hearing some noises in 5A)
MBM realising its her mummy gets out of bed and KM and MBM sit together n the sofa (as per the bewk) - consoling herself in the company of her lovely little girl, KM chats to MBM and the engagement ring scenario occurs, the eating of snacks occurs, the reading of stories occur, THIS IS A MUMMY AND DAUGHTER TIME
MBM falls back to sleep and Just as KM is putting an almost asleep MBM to bed
GM rolls in pissed up, tries to make up with KM who is not being fobbed off and tells him to be quiet for the kid's sakes
KM - goes to close the door to the kids room
GM - PULLS/SLAMS the door shut (as to make a point)
GM & KM argue (gm "you and the kids weren't supposed to be here blah blah blah)

KM then goes into the kids room to get away from GM and attempts to sleep in the Kids bedroom

GM - Is not having his wife sleep away from him and gets out of bed and carries on the argument in the kids room DEMANDING that KM comes back to bed in their room.
MBM who is awake - tells her daddy to stop shouting

IMAGINE where Gm is standing in the room

.........................By the door
.........................MBM to his left
.........................Cots in between
.........................KM in the bed under the window

MBM shouts daddy stop shouting at mummy
GM turns to address MBM and shouts at her to go to sleep/its not your business/who asked you/ ....................
KM flies to defend her daughter but there are 2 bulky travel cots in her way and GM in his rage gives MBM a Left hander sending her flying back into her bed?

The result is history

Just my opinion

by sammyc 16.10.14 21:41

Sounds very plausible DMML. From spending little time at home together due to work commitments, nursery, Gerry socialising after work with his colleagues whilst Kate is sat at home looking after 3 children under 4 years old, etc and then to go on a family holiday with a group of 7 others where Gerry had to pretend to be the dutiful husband and doting father by sticking with his family 24/7 - I think that was where the true Gerry came out. Still thought himself as the life and soul of any gathering,cocky, jovial,innuendos, star of the show, 'i'm here, can you hear me' type - perhaps something dawned on Kate such as she is doing all the hard work alone with the children and Gerry is having a great holiday by himself, or just another child she has to look after and not the husband she thought.

I reckon either Kate or Gerry snapped and Madeleine was caught up in it somehow. As an aside, did Gerry send Payne 'to check on Kate ' to see if she had calmed down from a situation and it was safe to return to the apartment without getting another earbashing? If the visit ever happened.

by Guest 16.10.14 22:06

kimHager wrote:I agree HelenMeg Kate appeared distraught and I thought Gerry the one keeping control. The bruises on kates arms lookes like someone restrained her...perhaps her anger says a story too...
1. Bruises are generally on body parts like legs,knees, not arms on adults.children are different as they get scrapes etc...
2.sleeping apart ...only an angry person or perhaps sick(flu cough etc) sleeps alone..
3.GM sends someone else (DP) to check on KM and kids.
4.bewk..kates talk on her lack of lovelife.That has noplace there..right?

Unless something so shocking and sinister happened to Maddy and perhaps KM walked in on it or saw something ....she pushed the pedo subject almost from day.1... Certain things are so prominent and stick out taking my thoughts to horrible places and wonder how much that little girl suffered. My opinions of course

Excerpt from Kate's bewk:

The idea of a monster like this touching my daughter, stroking her, defiling her perfect little body, just killed me, over and over again. It didn't make any difference that this might not be the explanation for Madeleine's abduction (and, please God, it isn't); the fact that it was a possibility was enough to prevent me from shutting it out of my mind. Tortured as I was by these nauseating images, it's probably not surprising that even the thought of sex repulsed me.
I would lie in bed, hating the person who had done this to us; the person who had taken away our little girl and terrified her; the person who had caused these additional problems for me and the man I loved. I hated him. I wanted to kill him. I wanted to inflict the maximum pain possible on him for heaping all this misery on my family. I was angry and bitter and I wanted it all to go away. I wanted my old life back.

Could be only odd wording but 'additional problems'? It does create some rather horrendous thoughts doesn't it.

ETA: This woman does seem to have a very volatile temperament. IMO if anything sinister was going on she was aware and complicit with the aftermath clean up operation, so to speak.

by HelenMeg 16.10.14 22:30

Gollum wrote:
kimHager wrote:I agree HelenMeg Kate appeared distraught and I thought Gerry the one keeping control. The bruises on kates arms lookes like someone restrained her...perhaps her anger says a story too...
1. Bruises are generally on body parts like legs,knees, not arms on adults.children are different as they get scrapes etc...
2.sleeping apart ...only an angry person or perhaps sick(flu cough etc) sleeps alone..
3.GM sends someone else (DP) to check on KM and kids.
4.bewk..kates talk on her lack of lovelife.That has noplace there..right?

Unless something so shocking and sinister happened to Maddy and perhaps KM walked in on it or saw something ....she pushed the pedo subject almost from day.1... Certain things are so prominent and stick out taking my thoughts to horrible places and wonder how much that little girl suffered. My opinions of course

Excerpt from Kate's bewk:

The idea of a monster like this touching my daughter, stroking her, defiling her perfect little body, just killed me, over and over again. It didn't make any difference that this might not be the explanation for Madeleine's abduction (and, please God, it isn't); the fact that it was a possibility was enough to prevent me from shutting it out of my mind. Tortured as I was by these nauseating images, it's probably not surprising that even the thought of sex repulsed me.
I would lie in bed, hating the person who had done this to us; the person who had taken away our little girl and terrified her; the person who had caused these additional problems for me and the man I loved. I hated him. I wanted to kill him. I wanted to inflict the maximum pain possible on him for heaping all this misery on my family. I was angry and bitter and I wanted it all to go away. I wanted my old life back.

Could be only odd wording but 'additional problems'? It does create some rather horrendous thoughts doesn't it.

ETA: This woman does seem to have a very volatile temperament. IMO if anything sinister was going on she was aware and complicit with the aftermath clean up operation, so to speak.

I do think she was incredibly angry in the early days after 3rd May. I think she was angry at someone and the book helped her to express that anger and she was probably talking to someone through the book... .

by secrets and lies 16.10.14 22:43

I've always assumed that Kate/Gerry kept up the laughable "jemmied shutters" story because there was no other plausible way to explain the "abduction". With their backs to the wall, having presumably not gotten to tamper effectively with the shutters themselves, they had no choice but to stick with the story.

What was the alternative? Tell the PJ, actually the front door or the patio doors to the apartment were open? Meaning that anyone could walk in or, indeed, walk OUT. How bad would that look with a child apparently "taken"?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but they only admitted to open doors at a later stage? Perhaps Gerry managed to cause some sort of very minor visible tampering with the shutters and imagined this would be enough to convince the police.

How ludicrous it seems now. An abductor or burgler or bogeyman smashing away at the shutters without any fear of waking the children and causing a scene. And we are expected to believe this person had chosen/picked on this family despite knowing they did "regular checks" on the kids/apartment? What would have happened if one of the nice people from the tapas group had walked in unbeknownst to the abductor as he/she struggled away to jemmie those shutters and climb in the window. It is the stuff of grimms fairytales.

Putting all that aside, another vague curiosity here is the kids. If the "they've taken her" performance was planned surely any good actress would know that no mother would abandon her two remaining infants with one child already "stolen"? She would grab the other two in her arms and run off to find help or she would get on her mobile phone and scream her head off but she would NOT leave without her babies. All the more, perhaps, if she was a caring professional. A Doctor. A person trained to think calmly, logically.

Perhaps the reason Kate was not able to use her twins as part of the fiasco was because they simply weren't available to take part in the drama. She couldn't rouse them had she wanted to. We can imagine why.

But if Maddie had died a day before, or earlier why sedate the twins that night? Surely they could have been placed elsewhere while a clean up was afoot. Drugging them, if indeed this did happen, was a huge risk, but would explain why they couldn't be used as part of the story that night. Had they been examined by the PJ, and were found to be in a drug induced state, it could well have been game over.

The fact that the two of them slept through the entire night (from 7 pm) brings incredulous to a whole new level of disbelief.

Again, this is all purely speculative and theory based. Just an unfounded opinion !

by juliet 16.10.14 23:43

It's a good point that they expected people to believe someone actually jemmied those shutters, noisily forcing them open and up (and surely breaking any mechanism that would hold them up while he exited with a child). Even odder is that no-one seems to have ever asked why they changed their story. Why say jemmied when it was an obvious lie?? And to change it to "I forgot...we left the door unlocked". And police and media say "Oh whatever."

by jeanmonroe 17.10.14 0:44

secrets and lies wrote:

How ludicrous it seems now. An abductor or burgler or bogeyman smashing away at the shutters without any fear of waking the children and causing a scene.
========================================

And not KNOWING a possible baby sitting 'nutter', armed to the teeth, for 'protection' against possible 'abductors/burglators' breaking in, was a waiting the other side of the lowered, closed, steel shutter!

Ludicrous?

'PINK' poodle-crous!

by LombardySkeptik 17.10.14 1:29

Gollum wrote:

Excerpt from Kate's bewk:

The idea of a monster like this touching my daughter, stroking her, defiling her perfect little body, just killed me, over and over again. It didn't make any difference that this might not be the explanation for Madeleine's abduction (and, please God, it isn't); the fact that it was a possibility was enough to prevent me from shutting it out of my mind. Tortured as I was by these nauseating images, it's probably not surprising that even the thought of sex repulsed me.
I would lie in bed, hating the person who had done this to us; the person who had taken away our little girl and terrified her; the person who had caused these additional problems for me and the man I loved. I hated him. I wanted to kill him. I wanted to inflict the maximum pain possible on him for heaping all this misery on my family. I was angry and bitter and I wanted it all to go away. I wanted my old life back.

Could be only odd wording but 'additional problems'? It does create some rather horrendous thoughts doesn't it.

ETA: This woman does seem to have a very volatile temperament. IMO if anything sinister was going on she was aware and complicit with the aftermath clean up operation, so to speak.

Rather -- this is the writing of a seriously disturbed woman - voyeuristic beyond compare...which actually makes me think even worse of her

by jeanmonroe 17.10.14 10:16

"I wanted my old life back." (KM)
--------------------------------------------------

???

"old life?

'back' to 'where'?

'to' BEFORE having the kids?'

"Hot lips Healy" ('life, carefree') ?

by plebgate 17.10.14 10:25

Snipped from the excerpt from the book :

"
I would lie in bed, hating the person who had done this to us; the person who had taken away our little girl and terrified her; the person who had caused these additional problems for me and the man I loved. I hated him. I wanted to kill him"

IMO, if anybody is subjected to terror, never mind a little three year old girl, then harm has come to them. What's the mantra? - No evidence of any harm to Maddie.

eek

I am utterly gobsmacked at some of the things I have read in excerpts from the book. Totally gobsmacked and yet questioners suffer terrible abuse at the hands of "pros" for QUESTIONING things that don't appear to make sense to them.

Ya couldn't make it up.

by cockerspaniel 17.10.14 16:32

Gollum wrote:
kimHager wrote:I agree HelenMeg Kate appeared distraught and I thought Gerry the one keeping control. The bruises on kates arms lookes like someone restrained her...perhaps her anger says a story too...
1. Bruises are generally on body parts like legs,knees, not arms on adults.children are different as they get scrapes etc...
2.sleeping apart ...only an angry person or perhaps sick(flu cough etc) sleeps alone..
3.GM sends someone else (DP) to check on KM and kids.
4.bewk..kates talk on her lack of lovelife.That has noplace there..right?

Unless something so shocking and sinister happened to Maddy and perhaps KM walked in on it or saw something ....she pushed the pedo subject almost from day.1... Certain things are so prominent and stick out taking my thoughts to horrible places and wonder how much that little girl suffered. My opinions of course

Excerpt from Kate's bewk:

The idea of a monster like this touching my daughter, stroking her, defiling her perfect little body, just killed me, over and over again. It didn't make any difference that this might not be the explanation for Madeleine's abduction (and, please God, it isn't); the fact that it was a possibility was enough to prevent me from shutting it out of my mind. Tortured as I was by these nauseating images, it's probably not surprising that even the thought of sex repulsed me.
I would lie in bed, hating the person who had done this to us; the person who had taken away our little girl and terrified her; the person who had caused these additional problems for me and the man I loved. I hated him. I wanted to kill him. I wanted to inflict the maximum pain possible on him for heaping all this misery on my family. I was angry and bitter and I wanted it all to go away. I wanted my old life back.

Could be only odd wording but 'additional problems'? It does create some rather horrendous thoughts doesn't it.

ETA: This woman does seem to have a very volatile temperament. IMO if anything sinister was going on she was aware and complicit with the aftermath clean up operation, so to speak.

I would lie in bed, hating the person who had done this to us; the person who had taken away our little girl and terrified her; the person who had caused these additional problems for me and the man I loved. I hated him. I wanted to kill him. I wanted to inflict the maximum pain possible on him for heaping all this misery on my family.

Is Kate talking about David Payne here. Its a lot easier to hate someone if you know them than if you dont I imagine? To me it almost seems as if she is talking about someone she knows, talking about additional problems, could DP have caused problems for them in the past? I have underlined the word pain above, ha s it slipped out?
all just opinion of course

by LombardySkeptik 17.10.14 16:47

cockerspaniel wrote:
Gollum wrote:
kimHager wrote:I agree HelenMeg Kate appeared distraught and I thought Gerry the one keeping control. The bruises on kates arms lookes like someone restrained her...perhaps her anger says a story too...
1. Bruises are generally on body parts like legs,knees, not arms on adults.children are different as they get scrapes etc...
2.sleeping apart ...only an angry person or perhaps sick(flu cough etc) sleeps alone..
3.GM sends someone else (DP) to check on KM and kids.
4.bewk..kates talk on her lack of lovelife.That has noplace there..right?

Unless something so shocking and sinister happened to Maddy and perhaps KM walked in on it or saw something ....she pushed the pedo subject almost from day.1... Certain things are so prominent and stick out taking my thoughts to horrible places and wonder how much that little girl suffered. My opinions of course

Excerpt from Kate's bewk:

The idea of a monster like this touching my daughter, stroking her, defiling her perfect little body, just killed me, over and over again. It didn't make any difference that this might not be the explanation for Madeleine's abduction (and, please God, it isn't); the fact that it was a possibility was enough to prevent me from shutting it out of my mind. Tortured as I was by these nauseating images, it's probably not surprising that even the thought of sex repulsed me.
I would lie in bed, hating the person who had done this to us; the person who had taken away our little girl and terrified her; the person who had caused these additional problems for me and the man I loved. I hated him. I wanted to kill him. I wanted to inflict the maximum pain possible on him for heaping all this misery on my family. I was angry and bitter and I wanted it all to go away. I wanted my old life back.

Could be only odd wording but 'additional problems'? It does create some rather horrendous thoughts doesn't it.

ETA: This woman does seem to have a very volatile temperament. IMO if anything sinister was going on she was aware and complicit with the aftermath clean up operation, so to speak.
I would lie in bed, hating the person who had done this to us; the person who had taken away our little girl and terrified her; the person who had caused these additional problems for me and the man I loved. I hated him. I wanted to kill him. I wanted to inflict the maximum pain possible on him for heaping all this misery on my family.

Is Kate talking about David Payne here. Its a lot easier to hate someone if you know them than if you dont I imagine? To me it almost seems as if she is talking about someone she knows, talking about additional problems, could DP have caused problems for them in the past? I have underlined the word pain above, ha s it slipped out?
all just opinion of course

Are you suggesting that DP was the primary culprit, and everything that followed was to protect him/his actions?

I'm not suggesting DP is innocent in any of this but my belief is that his greatest crime is his clumsy complicity rather than as an actual (and chief) participant - infact my view (primarily of the Gaspars statements) is that he has been positioned as an alternative to RM in the great '......confusion is good but it certainly wasn't us' McCann shell game

..and of course..the query Hire car DNA and all subsequent shenanigans all took place independent of DP

by kimHager 17.10.14 16:49

Cockerspaniel..bingo!i had saw on another level how many references there was to pain in the bewk.my other post (deleted as liabous) was maddys fear of pain, which i like u.saw a possible double meaning.My opinion

by sparkle 17.10.14 16:49

Perhaps the reason Kate was not able to use her twins as part of the fiasco was because they simply weren't available to take part in the drama. She couldn't rouse them had she wanted to. We can imagine why.

Are you thinking that the twins were actually asleep elsewhere and later brought back to Apt 5a when the alarm was raised?

I have a vague recollection of one of the witness statements from that night saying something about bringing the twins back there - will have to go and have a look - anyone else remember?

by secrets and lies 17.10.14 16:59

Not sure, Sparkle, really. It's more to do with being surprised that they would drug the twins again that evening if they knew that police would be on the scene and stomping through the apartment etc.

If the twins HAD witnessed something terrible happening to Maddie at some point that day they may well have been extremely upset and had to be "calmed down".

Other than that I imagine why the parents would risk drugging them on the night, if indeed they did, unless they were already sedated when the accident happened and the whole thing was a massive rush-which seems unlikely.

by secrets and lies 17.10.14 17:10

With regard to those extracts from the book-they make me really nauseous.

I have been unable to even pick up that book in a bookstore because the whole premise of it makes me hugely uncomfortable.

I would agree with some posters who seem to feel that Kate's dialogue about Madeleine is often full of either symbolism or strange ambiguity. Reading those extracts, though granted they are out of context, is very alarming.

As if the author is caught up in a rambling fantasy. Has lied to themself so much that they are believing their own story now. And yet the choice of words reveal a different and darker story lurking beneath the official one.

As you gather, I am not a psychologist or a literary critic but it seems evident that the author is moving back and forth between fact and fiction in some way. Though all the while dropping tiny clues left, right and centre. Deliberate or bubbling up from her unconscious, it's impossible to say. But it's as if she feels compulsed to go into these odd, not terribly savoury details. A much more sanitary version could easily be written, based on the few extracts I have seen. Would any mother want to share with the public her fears about a stranger sexually abusing her child? And in such an explicit way. My only conclusion is that some sort of comfort and healing is to be gained from confessing these "fears".

I should imagine the writing of these words was hugely important and in some way cathartic to Kate. Perhaps the closest she can get to allowing us into her private world and the world she and her husband must now inhabit together.

For clarity, this is merely an impression. An opinion.

by HelenMeg 17.10.14 18:27

secrets and lies wrote:With regard to those extracts from the book-they make me really nauseous.

I have been unable to even pick up that book in a bookstore because the whole premise of it makes me hugely uncomfortable.

I would agree with some posters who seem to feel that Kate's dialogue about Madeleine is often full of either symbolism or strange ambiguity. Reading those extracts, though granted they are out of context, is very alarming.

As if the author is caught up in a rambling fantasy. Has lied to themself so much that they are believing their own story now. And yet the choice of words reveal a different and darker story lurking beneath the official one.

As you gather, I am not a psychologist or a literary critic but it seems evident that the author is moving back and forth between fact and fiction in some way. Though all the while dropping tiny clues left, right and centre. Deliberate or bubbling up from her unconscious, it's impossible to say. But it's as if she feels compulsed to go into these odd, not terribly savoury details. A much more sanitary version could easily be written, based on the few extracts I have seen. Would any mother want to share with the public her fears about a stranger sexually abusing her child? And in such an explicit way. My only conclusion is that some sort of comfort and healing is to be gained from confessing these "fears".

I should imagine the writing of these words was hugely important and in some way cathartic to Kate. Perhaps the closest she can get to allowing us into her private world and the world she and her husband must now inhabit together.

For clarity, this is merely an impression. An opinion.

I agree Secret and LIes, with a lot of what you say.

Kate would probably have used the book to get things off her chest. She also used it to explain to us, the general public, why they did certain things. It was basically a PR exercise and a defence. But at the same time she could use it to vent anger and send messages to people she hated. We only have to observe Kate to see that when she doesn't like you, she really 'hates' you and wants you to feel pain and fear...
I can imagine that she can be pretty vindictive and therefore would see the book as a good way of expressing anger to certain people...she would feel satisfied when she had done it - although probably would come to regret it later. Like when I write an angry e-mail I always regret it later.