Interesting summary of the Timelines

by **PeterMac** 01.09.13 9:50

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

Much shorter and easier to digest, and as such makes some interesting points about the date on which they computer printed timeline was prepared,
and then Gerry's changing of his statement.

Well worth a look.
(I tend to copy, paste into a new document and then display it in a readable type face. )

by windchime 01.09.13 11:06

Great article and bloody hell - 14 visits in just over an hour!! How on earth can SY say they do not believe that this group of people are not suspects in the disappearance of MBM? There is no way on this planet an abductor had time to act or even MBM to have wandered off - there were far too many people scurrying around along the corridors outside the apartments - and one can only wonder why??

by **PeterMac** 01.09.13 11:14

windchime wrote:Great article and bloody hell - 14 visits in just over an hour!! How on earth can SY say they do not believe that this group of people are not suspects in the disappearance of MBM? There is no way on this planet an abductor had time to act or even MBM to have wandered off - there were far too many people scurrying around along the corridors outside the apartments - and one can only wonder why??

And that is 14 visits and 13 returns
27 movements, each of which takes more than two minutes to achieve . .
On reflection, the Window of Opportunity of One Minute and twenty seconds does actually seem a bit long !

by windchime 01.09.13 11:26

Just a quick question? Who actually made the statement 'window of opportunity'? It just struck me that it is a strange thing to say when a child has been abducted (supposedly) and another one of those statements that seems to have yet another underlying message.

by Guest 01.09.13 11:33

windchime wrote:Just a quick question? Who actually made the statement 'window of opportunity'? It just struck me that it is a strange thing to say when a child has been abducted (supposedly) and another one of those statements that seems to have yet another underlying message.

Kate McCann says it here..........

by **tigger** 01.09.13 11:45

Iirc the PJ did not allow the T7/9 to take in the computer print-out of the adjusted timeline into the interviews. In total three timelines of that night.

It also seems to me that the statement that they checked more often that night was to safeguard them from a child neglect issue. All these people seem to have such a strange take on the real world that their excuses have always seemed more like those of a 10-year old.
The dog got out, but Johnny says to his mother that he made him especially secure and looked every few minutes...

by **Hobs** 01.09.13 15:44

I am not sure where to post this particular thought, here seems as good as any.

Remember way back when kate said this interesting little nugget?

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 note

Not that she would do things differently, that she would not leave her children alone in an apartment in a strange foreign town.

Oh no, she would spend the second chance having a looksee around.

This simple phrase tells us where her priority is, that the abduction was lie.

She wouldn't stay home or have gerry stay home or even hire a baysitter, any of these options would nullify any chance of an abductor getting in, as there would be adults to protect the children, heck if she could go back in time, knowing what she k now knows, surely then she should have police there waiting to nab said abductor.

Maddie stays alive and with her parents and a paedophile abducotr is doing serious jail time for attempted kidnap and anything else they can think of.

Her own words tells us nothing would have changed what happed which begs the question, if nothing would have changed by them not leaving the children alone, Maddie is still missing.
Since we know then it wasn't an abductor, we are left with either accidental death or homicide.

As there were numerous doctors in the group and both parents are doctors, they could have rendered medical assistance whilst calling 911 for an ambulance.

They may not have been able to save Maddie, but they tried.
Maddie would not be missing, she would be dead but her parents did the right thing.

Since this would preclude accident we are left with homicide, either premeditated or accidental as the PL and Goncalo Amaral are allowing.
The disappearance of Maddie's body, the delay in calling 911, the conflicting stories and the non co-operation all point to this scenario.
Either the parents or a member of the tapas group is involved in someway or another in either the death, the disposal and definitely the subsequent cover up.

Innocent parents act a certain and very specific way

Guilty parents act a certain and specific way.

The two are mutually exclusive.

Maddie is long dead, the statistics indicate this, and should she have been abducted by a paedophile as claimed, she would have been dead within hours.

Children who have one missing to be found moths, or years later are all pubescent or teenagers.

They aren't going to take a 3 yr old and keep her for years since once she reached a certain age she would no longer fit their preferences.

They cite all these cases of children being found, and claim no evidence of serious harm, totally ignoring the fact that all these children were repeatedly raped and abused , even forced to have their rapists children.
If this doesn't count as serious harm kate and gerry, what does?

by **tigger** 01.09.13 15:53

This timeline may well have been helped by the work done on this forum. It's just that the movements of ROB on the 3rd have recently been brilliantly analysed here, sorry forgot who did it.

by jeanmonroe 01.09.13 16:50

tigger wrote:This timeline may well have been helped by the work done on this forum.

And they STILL got it WRONG!!!!!

by suzyjohnson 02.09.13 2:01

I was just looking at KM's 'small window of opportunity' video, see above. These people who, apparently, had been watching the apartment so carefully over the previous days, couldn't have 'known that Gerry had just been in the apartment' and then gone in could they? Because they didn't have time to break in through the window and climb out again before being seen by Jane at 9.15pm.

So therefore, as Gerry himself realised, someone must already have been in the apartment during the time he did his check at 9.05pm

But, anyone who had been watching the McCanns throughout their holiday would've known that they made regular checks, as the McCanns themselves tell us, every half hour. And on 3rd May we have exact evidence of this, they went to the Tapas bar at 8.30pm, Gerry returned to 5A at 9.04pm, Matthew Oldfield was sent instead of the McCanns at 9.30pm and then Kate went to check at 10pm.

Anyone watching the group would know that that the couples all walked round to the Tapas at various intervals between 8.30 and 9pm. About the very last time that anyone watching the group would have chosen to go into 5A would have been between 8.30 and 9pm. Nobody would have chosen to just wait around in the apartment for half an hour. For another thing it was still light at that time. And why would anyone go in at say 8.50-8.55, knowing that Gerry would be round the corner to do his check at 9pm?

by **tigger** 02.09.13 8:12

Hobs wrote:
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 note

Not that she would do things differently, that she would not leave her children alone in an apartment in a strange foreign town.

Oh no, she would spend the second chance having a looksee around.

This simple phrase tells us where her priority is, that the abduction was lie.

She wouldn't stay home or have gerry stay home or even hire a baysitter, any of these options would nullify any chance of an abductor getting in, as there would be adults to protect the children, heck if she could go back in time, knowing what she k now knows, surely then she should have police there waiting to nab said abductor.
Unquote
thumbsup

On the ball as ever!

by windchime 02.09.13 8:35

Excellent post Hobs and well spotted, yes you would think that any mother who had 'lost' a child through whatever circumstances would want to turn back the clock to the time when, say for example, your childs illness began and perhaps you could have spotted it sooner or when they were involved in an accident and you wanted to stop them going out to play for just 5 minutes and therefore they wouldn't have walked across the road at that time or in the case of abduction, had actually been with them, perhaps not let them out to play or not turned your back for 10 seconds and had held onto their hand so the abductor had no opportunity but no Kate just wants to turn it back to the day before so she can see who was watching them and planning this abduction so she could identify them BUT then let the abduction take place !!!! Now you have pointed it out it is the biggest load of c*** I have ever read, NO mother on this planet would say that it is so telling of the lies that she spews out whenever she opens her mouth, absolutely unbelievable. It makes me so so angry I could shake her. She acts and speaks like someone who is trying hard, too hard, to say the right things and be a great speaker yet because she cannot tell the truth she has to make up these ridiculous fairystories! Sorry but I just cannot understand a mother of 3 youngsters not saying 'I wish I could turn back the clock so that I could hold her again' or 'I wish I could turn back the clock so I could be there and then it would never have happened' or 'I wish I could turn back the clock and that we never agreed to go on the holiday in the first place'

Also, can someone point in the right direction please? I know it was widely reported that Kate said 'They've taken her' but am I right in saying that this was denied either by her or GM afterwards?

Thanks in advance

by russiandoll 02.09.13 9:43

Speaking of time.... I posted over the weekend [on the topic dealing with the book ], this reference to time by Kate.

She said that she wished it were possible to rewind, even if it could be only FOR AN HOUR.

I find this an intriguing statement, my immediate question being

Which hour? and then which day?

by windchime 02.09.13 10:20

russiandoll wrote:Speaking of time.... I posted over the weekend [on the topic dealing with the book ], this reference to time by Kate.

She said that she wished it were possible to rewind, even if it could be only FOR AN HOUR.

I find this an intriguing statement, my immediate question being

Which hour? and then which day?

I haven't the book but is it possible to say what this sentence is in relation to? What are the paragraphs before and after the statement regarding and what is the chapter about? Perhaps that will give a clue to which day and hour she is referring to - even it she has specifically left that out there must be some sub conscious referral to it.

by **PeterMac** 02.09.13 12:46

It is really weird (as normal) because Kate says this about 2nd May.

p. 59/60

We dropped the kids off at their clubs for the last hour and a half, meeting up with them as usual for tea. Only two minor aspects of that evening stand out as differing from the norm. The first was that Russell didn’t join us for dinner. Evie wasn’t well so he stayed with their girls in the apartment and Jane took his meal to him there. The second was that some time in the early hours Madeleine came through to our bedroom, complaining that Amelie was crying and had woken her up. Gerry checked on Amelie, who settled quickly, and we let Madeleine jump into bed with us.
Wednesday, 2 May 2007. Our last completely happy day. Our last, to date, as a family of five. If only it was possible to rewind. Even for an hour.
Today it rained. The children went to their clubs, but our tennis lessons were postponed. Instead we joined Fiona, David and Dianne at the Millennium restaurant for coffee. We then returned to our apartment and a little while later I left again, to go for a run with Matt. I’d bought a new pair of running shoes a few days before we’d left for Portugal and they were certainly getting a good initiation. They were pink, which I wasn’t quite sure about – I wondered how seriously a runner in pink trainers could be taken – but after a few outings in the sand they weren’t looking quite so glaring and girly. As we ran along the promenade, a small dog jumped out from under a bench and attacked my right calf. It was pretty sore and I was a bit shaken, but I carried on as coolly as I could manage. Maybe he just didn’t like those pink trainers.

Even accepting that this is a book written long after and does not have to be in chronological order, this seems very strange.
Unless of course something happened on 2nd.

Incidentally does Matt speak about the run and being attacked by the the dog ? Did he "save her from certain death" or being mauled ?

And edited to add - of course, theoretically they had a further 21 hours together as a family of five,
Assuming, of course that she did not wake up and find Madeleine dead behind the sofa, and then spend the remainder of the day cleaning up and creating alibis. . .

by aiyoyo 02.09.13 13:15

PeterMac wrote:It is really weird (as normal) because Kate says this about 2nd May.

p. 59/60
We dropped the kids off at their clubs for the last hour and a half, meeting up with them as usual for tea. Only two minor aspects of that evening stand out as differing from the norm. The first was that Russell didn’t join us for dinner. Evie wasn’t well so he stayed with their girls in the apartment and Jane took his meal to him there. The second was that some time in the early hours Madeleine came through to our bedroom, complaining that Amelie was crying and had woken her up. Gerry checked on Amelie, who settled quickly, and we let Madeleine jump into bed with us.
Wednesday, 2 May 2007. Our last completely happy day. Our last, to date, as a family of five. If only it was possible to rewind. Even for an hour.
Today it rained. The children went to their clubs, but our tennis lessons were postponed. Instead we joined Fiona, David and Dianne at the Millennium restaurant for coffee. We then returned to our apartment and a little while later I left again, to go for a run with Matt. I’d bought a new pair of running shoes a few days before we’d left for Portugal and they were certainly getting a good initiation. They were pink, which I wasn’t quite sure about – I wondered how seriously a runner in pink trainers could be taken – but after a few outings in the sand they weren’t looking quite so glaring and girly. As we ran along the promenade, a small dog jumped out from under a bench and attacked my right calf. It was pretty sore and I was a bit shaken, but I carried on as coolly as I could manage. Maybe he just didn’t like those pink trainers.
Even accepting that this is a book written long after and does not have to be in chronological order, this seems very strange.
Unless of course something happened on 2nd.

Story written long after may not have to be chronological but she states explicitly that May 2nd was last compete happy day as family of five...how strange is that?
It certainly gives the impression something happened on the 2nd.

On the 3rd they spent time at the swimming pool (last photo); then Tea Time at Tapas (Gerry with the Children joined by Kate from her jog at the beach = family of five), followed by bath and bed time stories done together with Gerry until he left for Men's tennis, again family of 5.

Incidentally does Matt speak about the run and being attacked by the the dog ? Did he "save her from certain death" or being mauled ?

And edited to add - of course, theoretically they had a further 21 hours together as a family of five,
Assuming, of course that she did not wake up and find Madeleine dead behind the sofa, and then spend the remainder of the day cleaning up and creating alibis. . .

by Seek truth 02.09.13 13:53

candyfloss wrote:
windchime wrote:Just a quick question? Who actually made the statement 'window of opportunity'? It just struck me that it is a strange thing to say when a child has been abducted (supposedly) and another one of those statements that seems to have yet another underlying message.
Kate McCann says it here..........

She doesn't SAY (as usual) she just uses her hands, and makes these weird sounds, that we have to guess!

Funny. What's wrong with saying "oh My daughter, She was taken, she was! Oh my beautiful daughter, oh"

It's just WHOOSH! And YOU KNOW ! Etc
She's had enough time already!
Or does she need Gerry to hold her hand first?

SPEAK woman SPEAK, can you not say it truthfully? Is that it?

shhhh

by Praiaaa 02.09.13 14:10

hmm, I bet she originally wrote ..'.our last day together'... ie for the pathos, and her editor (Clarrie?) added the 'to date',( 'cos of course they are hoping there will be more days when she is rescued from the lair.)

by lj 02.09.13 15:46

aiyoyo wrote:
PeterMac wrote:It is really weird (as normal) because Kate says this about 2nd May.

p. 59/60
We dropped the kids off at their clubs for the last hour and a half, meeting up with them as usual for tea. Only two minor aspects of that evening stand out as differing from the norm. The first was that Russell didn’t join us for dinner. Evie wasn’t well so he stayed with their girls in the apartment and Jane took his meal to him there. The second was that some time in the early hours Madeleine came through to our bedroom, complaining that Amelie was crying and had woken her up. Gerry checked on Amelie, who settled quickly, and we let Madeleine jump into bed with us.
Wednesday, 2 May 2007. Our last completely happy day. Our last, to date, as a family of five. If only it was possible to rewind. Even for an hour.
Today it rained. The children went to their clubs, but our tennis lessons were postponed. Instead we joined Fiona, David and Dianne at the Millennium restaurant for coffee. We then returned to our apartment and a little while later I left again, to go for a run with Matt. I’d bought a new pair of running shoes a few days before we’d left for Portugal and they were certainly getting a good initiation. They were pink, which I wasn’t quite sure about – I wondered how seriously a runner in pink trainers could be taken – but after a few outings in the sand they weren’t looking quite so glaring and girly. As we ran along the promenade, a small dog jumped out from under a bench and attacked my right calf. It was pretty sore and I was a bit shaken, but I carried on as coolly as I could manage. Maybe he just didn’t like those pink trainers.
Even accepting that this is a book written long after and does not have to be in chronological order, this seems very strange.
Unless of course something happened on 2nd.

Story written long after may not have to be chronological but she states explicitly that May 2nd was last compete happy day as family of five...how strange is that?
It certainly gives the impression something happened on the 2nd.

On the 3rd they spent time at the swimming pool (last photo); then Tea Time at Tapas (Gerry with the Children joined by Kate from her jog at the beach = family of five), followed by bath and bed time stories done together with Gerry until he left for Men's tennis, again family of 5.

Incidentally does Matt speak about the run and being attacked by the the dog ? Did he "save her from certain death" or being mauled ?

And edited to add - of course, theoretically they had a further 21 hours together as a family of five,
Assuming, of course that she did not wake up and find Madeleine dead behind the sofa, and then spend the remainder of the day cleaning up and creating alibis. . .

Apart from all the other obvious idiocies, this shows again what a lousy doctor she is and they are.
Being bitten by a stray dog and you don't have yourself treated for rabies?? Tsk Tsk.

by lj 02.09.13 15:47

Seek truth wrote:
candyfloss wrote:
windchime wrote:Just a quick question? Who actually made the statement 'window of opportunity'? It just struck me that it is a strange thing to say when a child has been abducted (supposedly) and another one of those statements that seems to have yet another underlying message.
Kate McCann says it here..........

She doesn't SAY (as usual) she just uses her hands, and makes these weird sounds, that we have to guess!

Funny. What's wrong with saying "oh My daughter, She was taken, she was! Oh my beautiful daughter, oh"

It's just WHOOSH! And YOU KNOW ! Etc
She's had enough time already!
Or does she need Gerry to hold her hand first?

SPEAK woman SPEAK, can you not say it truthfully? Is that it?

Kate is drunk or under the influence of another mind altering drug (altering, not improving).

by windchime 02.09.13 15:49

Correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't Wednesday night the night that KM & GM slept separately because GM had upset KM and walked off without her? If so then how was the 2nd 'our completely last happy day as a family of five' I do not call a row with my husband and sleeping in the kids bedroom the perfect end to a perfect day and I certainly wouldn't have slept soundly. There was obvious tension between these two right from the start and all through the holiday, they did not seem to spend anytime together as a couple - apart from boozing at night to put up a good show in front of friends. They played separate sports, jogged alone or with other friends and add to all that GMs wonderful comment on the bus.... - no I don't think if truth be known she can recall when and in what year their last truly happy day as a family of 5 was.

by Praiaaa 02.09.13 15:59

windchime wrote:I do not call a row with my husband and sleeping in the kids bedroom the perfect end to a perfect day and I certainly wouldn't have slept soundly. There was obvious tension between these two right from the start and all through the holiday, they did not seem to spend anytime together as a couple - apart from boozing at night to put up a good show in front of friends. They played separate sports, jogged alone or with other friends and add to all that GMs wonderful comment on the bus.... - no I don't think if truth be known she can recall when and in what year their last truly happy day as a family of 5 was.

Windchime - completely agree! many of us may have times when as a couple things are strained - this couple really does show those signs. Apart from Bridget McDonell's nauseating Mills and Boon article ' she gazed adoringly at him as he described his new tennis stroke, Jez said ruefully 'you never look at me like that' - the signs are all of a strained relationship.

by Seek truth 02.09.13 16:11

lj wrote:
Seek truth wrote:
candyfloss wrote:
windchime wrote:Just a quick question? Who actually made the statement 'window of opportunity'? It just struck me that it is a strange thing to say when a child has been abducted (supposedly) and another one of those statements that seems to have yet another underlying message.
Kate McCann says it here..........

She doesn't SAY (as usual) she just uses her hands, and makes these weird sounds, that we have to guess!

Funny. What's wrong with saying "oh My daughter, She was taken, she was! Oh my beautiful daughter, oh"

It's just WHOOSH! And YOU KNOW ! Etc
She's had enough time already!
Or does she need Gerry to hold her hand first?

SPEAK woman SPEAK, can you not say it truthfully? Is that it?

Kate is drunk or under the influence of another mind altering drug (altering, not improving).

Thanks. Got it!!

Get her drunk surely she'll say something. drinks

Or

Get her interviewed on live Tv more often, and get her to talk more, that's IF they want to catch her out. What are they waiting for?

by Guest 02.09.13 16:14

I would think that their numerous t.v. appearances are amongst the material being analysed in detail. Some are very telling ...

by windchime 02.09.13 16:17

Praiaaa wrote:
windchime wrote:I do not call a row with my husband and sleeping in the kids bedroom the perfect end to a perfect day and I certainly wouldn't have slept soundly. There was obvious tension between these two right from the start and all through the holiday, they did not seem to spend anytime together as a couple - apart from boozing at night to put up a good show in front of friends. They played separate sports, jogged alone or with other friends and add to all that GMs wonderful comment on the bus.... - no I don't think if truth be known she can recall when and in what year their last truly happy day as a family of 5 was.
Windchime - completely agree! many of us may have times when as a couple things are strained - this couple really does show those signs. Apart from Bridget McDonell's nauseating Mills and Boon article ' she gazed adoringly at him as he described his new tennis stroke, Jez said ruefully 'you never look at me like that' - the signs are all of a strained relationship.

It is all a lie, no one makes those comments about a married couple with three children under the age of 4!! There marriage was in a mess and everyone there knew it that is why they made these stupid statements to try to make us believe there were no problems. Probably why KM didn't want to go on the holiday in the first place and why GM made that comment on the bus. Afterwards - well they just make this big thing of holding onto each other, clasping hands in a show of unity that speaks a thousand words, because they never look into each others eyes. Kate is Gerrys puppet.

by russiandoll 02.09.13 16:19

windchime wrote:
russiandoll wrote:Speaking of time.... I posted over the weekend [on the topic dealing with the book ], this reference to time by Kate.

She said that she wished it were possible to rewind, even if it could be only FOR AN HOUR.

I find this an intriguing statement, my immediate question being

Which hour? and then which day?
I haven't the book but is it possible to say what this sentence is in relation to? What are the paragraphs before and after the statement regarding and what is the chapter about? Perhaps that will give a clue to which day and hour she is referring to - even it she has specifically left that out there must be some sub conscious referral to it.

Apologies windchime, I should have put the quote in context [and thanks to Petermac for doing so ]. It is interesting to note that Madeleine is not mentioned by name on the 2nd, on every other day we read her name, apart from 30th, a day when Kate does not write about anything but a supermarket trip and tapas evening meal. Nothing to do with any activities by any of her family that day. It is understandable that she would n ot go into great detail as she has written extensively about the 29th, and said that the days followed a particular pattern. This does not stop her from giving detail about the Tuesday, however, and The Wednesday, even though there is less here. About the Monday, zero. And the 2nd is a day that she appears to want to forget also.
There are many more words devoted to the pink trainer run and dog bite than there are to family activities 2nd, odd as it was their last completely happy day. If not its own chapter, I would have expected more.
We see the words " kids" and " children" used, not Amelie Sean or Madeleine on 2nd May.
And of course there is Kate wanting it on record where she slept that night.
Kate writes about wishing she could turn back time as soon as the date is mentioned, understandable in the context.
Then she narrows it down to one hour, so there is a significant period of time on this date in which she wishes she could undo events.
All imo.

by windchime 02.09.13 17:12

Thanks Russiandoll.

I think it has something to do with KM & GM having an argument of which I believe there were probably many. They have tried IMO to build this picture of a happy marriage but I really do not think that is or was the case.

If they had a row, yet another one, and this resulted in them not talking to each other and just putting on a show at the tapas bar during that evening resulting in GM walking off and KM following like a sheeples and that it carried on into the next day putting more and more pressure and stress on KM then perhaps just perhaps that is why (if she did of course) crack at bath time on the third, and why she would like to turn the clocks back 'just an hour' Or maybe it actually was the row that evening that started the ball rolling and she would like to turn the clocks back before then. Just thinking out loud really here.

Does she mention GM much this day?

by MissesWillYa 03.09.13 22:35

Hobs wrote:I am not sure where to post this particular thought, here seems as good as any.

Remember way back when kate said this interesting little nugget?

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 note

Not that she would do things differently, that she would not leave her children alone in an apartment in a strange foreign town.

Oh no, she would spend the second chance having a looksee around.

This simple phrase tells us where her priority is, that the abduction was lie.

She wouldn't stay home or have gerry stay home or even hire a baysitter, any of these options would nullify any chance of an abductor getting in, as there would be adults to protect the children, heck if she could go back in time, knowing what she k now knows, surely then she should have police there waiting to nab said abductor.

Maddie stays alive and with her parents and a paedophile abducotr is doing serious jail time for attempted kidnap and anything else they can think of.

Her own words tells us nothing would have changed what happed which begs the question, if nothing would have changed by them not leaving the children alone, Maddie is still missing.
Since we know then it wasn't an abductor, we are left with either accidental death or homicide.

As there were numerous doctors in the group and both parents are doctors, they could have rendered medical assistance whilst calling 911 for an ambulance.

They may not have been able to save Maddie, but they tried.
Maddie would not be missing, she would be dead but her parents did the right thing.

Since this would preclude accident we are left with homicide, either premeditated or accidental as the PL and Goncalo Amaral are allowing.
The disappearance of Maddie's body, the delay in calling 911, the conflicting stories and the non co-operation all point to this scenario.
Either the parents or a member of the tapas group is involved in someway or another in either the death, the disposal and definitely the subsequent cover up.

Innocent parents act a certain and very specific way

Guilty parents act a certain and specific way.

The two are mutually exclusive.

Maddie is long dead, the statistics indicate this, and should she have been abducted by a paedophile as claimed, she would have been dead within hours.

Children who have one missing to be found moths, or years later are all pubescent or teenagers.

They aren't going to take a 3 yr old and keep her for years since once she reached a certain age she would no longer fit their preferences.

They cite all these cases of children being found, and claim no evidence of serious harm, totally ignoring the fact that all these children were repeatedly raped and abused , even forced to have their rapists children.
If this doesn't count as serious harm kate and gerry, what does?

Didn't one of them also say they wish they'd been "with her at the time"? Which is a really strange thing to say, if they're talking about "the time" of the "abduction," since she couldn't have been "abducted" if they'd been "with her"! Do they mean the whole family of five would have been abducted together if only they'd all been in the apartment then? It's bizarre.

by **PeterMac** 04.09.13 7:42

MissesWillYa wrote:

Didn't one of them also say they wish they'd been "with her at the time"? Which is a really strange thing to say, if they're talking about "the time" of the "abduction," since she couldn't have been "abducted" if they'd been "with her"! Do they mean the whole family of five would have been abducted together if only they'd all been in the apartment then? It's bizarre.

I read that as "wish they had been with her 'at the time' to say their final goodbyes, hold her hand as she slipped away, etc etc"
Otherwise it makes no sense.

IIRC they each said something similar on different occasions. And more than once. Very odd.

by aiyoyo 04.09.13 12:38

lj wrote:
Seek truth wrote:
candyfloss wrote:
windchime wrote:Just a quick question? Who actually made the statement 'window of opportunity'? It just struck me that it is a strange thing to say when a child has been abducted (supposedly) and another one of those statements that seems to have yet another underlying message.
Kate McCann says it here..........

She doesn't SAY (as usual) she just uses her hands, and makes these weird sounds, that we have to guess!

Funny. What's wrong with saying "oh My daughter, She was taken, she was! Oh my beautiful daughter, oh"

It's just WHOOSH! And YOU KNOW ! Etc
She's had enough time already!
Or does she need Gerry to hold her hand first?

SPEAK woman SPEAK, can you not say it truthfully? Is that it?

Kate is drunk or under the influence of another mind altering drug (altering, not improving).

She looks high as a kite, euphoric from substance rather than drink, as I thought a drunk slurs their words.

It's ODD she used her hands and a thud sound to demonstrate the 1 min 20 sec Window of Opportunity., yet she wished to go back in time for more than 1min 20 sec, she wished to have ONE HOUR to be precise to have a good look round .........now wait for this --- not to see who took Maddie, but to see who was watching them!

If they'd been watched throughout their hol. it does not make sense to narrow it down to just ONE hour wish to have a GOOD look round.
So let's put this in the correct perspective - she's had the entire duration of the holiday while this stranger was observing them that she did not notice him, yet in retrospect she wished to have (to go back in time) just to ONE particular hour to suss him out. No wonder she sounds barking mad as frog.