Re: Dr Roberts again - just a short one. Logical, Captain.

by Mirage 18.12.13 12:14

I have deleted the quotes as they have been altered

For me, none of this takes into account the DP visit with KM in her towel and the discrepancies given about the time he spent there, ranging from 30 seconds to 30 minutes depending who you listen to. Now, we see DP and FP conspicuous by their absence in CW.

Also, the whole business of all the tapas group with the exception of the Mcs being on the beach that afternoon is jarring. KM makes a big deal of it in her bewk, telling how she jogs past them and admitting to feeling slightly hurt at being left out, and her hope that MM was not too upset when JT's daughter was taken out of creche early .Still she waves at the group as she runs past and they wave back "at least I think they were waving" she jokes in her book. The whole anecdote smacks of placing her where she wants to be placed at that particular time. Her little quotes always stick out like a sore thumb for me. She is an appalling actress.

by Woburn_exile 18.12.13 12:29

From petermac

For me, none of this takes into account the DP visit with KM in her towel and the discrepancies given about the time he spent there, ranging from 30 seconds to 30 minutes depending who you listen to. Now, we see DP and FP conspicuous by their absence in CW.

Also, the whole business of all the tapas group with the exception of the Mcs being on the beach that afternoon is jarring. KM makes a big deal of it in her bewk, telling how she jogs past them and admitting to feeling slightly hurt at being left out, and her hope that MM was not too upset when JT's daughter was taken out of creche early .Still she waves at the group as she runs past and they wave back "at least I think they were waving" she jokes in her book. The whole anecdote smacks of placing her where she wants to be placed at that particular time. Her little quotes always stick out like a sore thumb for me. She is an appalling actress.

My bold. This is why I believe she would be easy to crack when confronted with irrefuteable evidence of her lies. The consistent quote we always get from her is "the wonderful British public who've been so supportive". What is the best site to test the water with this wonderful believing group?
Mrs

by suep 18.12.13 13:54

Woburn_exile wrote:
suep wrote:I think sedation is a central factor, not least because the McCs made a point of suggesting that an abductor may have done it - something that is clearly impossible in the time available and as Petermac has also previously demonstrated in his ebook, what possible means could they have used to do it?
Its my opinion that the McCs were the only couple actually leaving their children totally unattended. The Paynes had their baby monitor (for me not ideal at all but better than nothing at least) and I think the other two couples with the allegedly sickly babies were actually taking turns to go for dinner while the other partner stayed with the kids. It seems very odd to me that those babies were only sick at night yet were fit enough to go to the creche every day. I wouldn't want to take a vomiting child or one with diarrhoea to a creche in case they infected other children there and I'd want to keep a close eye on them myself anyway. So I think the sickly baby story was 'purported' after the fact to make it look like the leaving of children alone with 'regular checks' was a perfectly acceptable group thing to do. And if MO, RM,RO and JT were taking turns to have dinner every night a casual observer would have got the impression of a lot of coming and going at that table.

So we're left with the McCs on holiday with three small children under four who both want to enjoy some adult time with their mates. This is fine during the day but what do they do at night? Its clear from the creche records that whilst Gerry does his share of dropping off its Kate who gets lumbered with most of the picking up. IMO Gerry isn't big on childcare (I'm hypothesising here). Maybe his petulant outburst on the airport bus about not being there to enjoy himself had something to do with a discussion of what to do about the kids at night. Maybe Kate had insisted on a similar arrangement to MO/RM etc and he didn't like it. Who knows? For whatever reason it turned out that they did leave those children alone.

So, on to the issue of sedation. Again I'm speculating, but in my own experience of very young children bedtimes were always difficult. My first born was a wanderer and would regularly find her way into our bedroom at some point in the night. Because of this even after she'd learnt to climb stairs safely we needed the stair gate at the top of the stairs to prevent her possibly falling down them during the night. She gradually grew out of it but even after she reached the age for school I could never be absolutely certain she wouldn't do it. Which is why I'm not convinced by Kate's assertion that her reward chart worked and why I think its possible they left Madeleine sleeping in one of those cots when they went out. And, given the amazing sleeping abilities of the twins on 3rd May 2007, why I think its likely those children were sedated. So, the possibility remains for me that Madeleine could have woken up and tried to climb out and somehow hurt herself.

As for Calpol, well its just paracetamol and as far as I'm aware paracetamol doesn't have great sedative properties. There used to be a paediatric medicine on the market called Calpol Nightime which contained a mild sedative but I'm not sure if it was available in 2007. Even that though wouldn't have kept those twins so well sedated as they appear to have been on that terrible night.

Sorry to point out surep but Doctors have access to loads of drugs and can write prescriptions for anything they want without fear of investigation. Many Doctors do this to keep their children quiet at night. It's pretty obvious to me and my opinion is that the children were under some form of sedation otherwise they would all have woken up with all the disturbances. Because 2 of them had woken up the night before (I don't believe Mrs Fenn was involved until after the event) a decision was made to up the dose and this is what ultimately caused the fatality.
This would have been discovered during a post mortem , (deleted), So imo, all of them got together, signed a pact of secrecy, disposed of the body then alerted everyone on their extended network to publicise the abduction before the police could investigate the facts.

W_E please be very careful what you post and how you post it. This is a warning as I have deleted many of your posts to date

Woburn, I'm sorry but I'd be very very surprised if 'many doctors' were regularly sedating their children!! But I do take your point about the fact that doctors are more likely to have easier access to prescription medicines than the general public. GPs are often given free samples from pharmaceutical reps for instance. If they work in a hospital setting they would be in close proximity to ward drug trolleys or cupboards but these are kept locked and its usually nursing staff who have the keys so its not a case of just helping yourself. Also doctors aren't really able to write prescriptions for themselves, if they're ill they have to go to their GP like everyone else and KM is unlikely to have been her own children's /husband's GP. I'm not saying its impossible for the doctors in question here to get hold of a suitable sedative but it wouldn't be as easy as you're suggesting, they'd still need to be careful.
I'm not sure what you mean when you say Mrs Fenn wasn't involved until after the event. Can you explain?

by mysterion 18.12.13 14:11

Any adult can easily buy adult medicines otc and give them to a very young child. Don`t need to be doctors.

by Guest 18.12.13 14:52

suep wrote:Just had another thought about Madeleine and the cot. Apologies for going on so much.What follows is purely hypothetical and my own opinion.

If Madeleine was used to sleeping in a bed she may not have been very co-operative about sleeping in a cot like her baby brother and sister. The transition from a cot to a bed is a big step for a toddler and you can imagine her parents 'selling' the idea to her by telling her how she was a big girl now, not a baby like the twins, so she needed to sleep in a big girl's bed (I've done it myself). This could have been part of the reason for the reward chart. So if when on holiday they insisted she slept in a cot, being a bit of a 'screamer' you can imagine she'd make a big fuss.After all she's a big girl not a baby!
So...perhaps they put her down to sleep in the bed initially and transferred her to the cot once she was fast asleep, just before they went out. Its easy to then imagine that if she were to wake up and find herself in the cot she'd be disorientated and pretty upset.

On Tuesday 1st May 2007 Mrs Fenn in the flat above heard a child 'screaming and crying' for well over an hour. Its also been established from phone records that Kate's phone was used in the apartment some time before this crying started, suggesting that Kate was there. So here's the hypothesis...Madeleine wakes up discovers she's in the cot and starts to cry. Kate's upset over Gerry's alleged behaviour with the quiz woman. She's phoning or texting a friend and ignores the crying. She's too upset to go to Madeleine who tries to climb out of the cot, topples out and bangs her head on the hard tiled floor, Kate finds her and shouts 'Maddie! Maddie!' which Mrs Fenn hears and in the context of a child crying and with the muffling effect of being upstairs interprets as 'Daddy, Daddy'. The child is unconscious but now Kate is crying. Gerry comes homes. Kate stops crying. They attend to Madeleine.

They move the twins in their cot into their bedroom and one of them stays in the children's room in the bed by the window in order to observe Madeleine overnight. Maybe they take turns. At some point Madeleine dies of her injury. They know the cleaner will be coming in so they place her behind the sofa where said cleaner is unlikely to look. Blood from her head injury seeps onto the tiles and the bottom of the curtain. The cleaner notices that one of the cots is in the parent's bedroom.

They spend the Wednesday deciding what to do. The rest is ~~history~~ sorry - a mystery.

REPLY:

I am a new member so please be gentle!

Interesting what you say suep about Mrs Fenn hearing the crying and it possibly being "Maddie! Maddie!" not "Daddy! Daddy! as Mrs Fenn reported. Remember that Kate Maccan was at pains to stress that the family always called MBM 'Madelaine' not 'Maddy' (despite one of the twins (allegedy) immediately identifying MBM's pyjamas as belonging to 'Maddie') - could this be why??

Also Kate MaCann seemed to be at pains to emphasise the episode of MBM waking up and crying because she wasn't there on the night of the 2nd May despite it looking like extremely bad parenting that she did this in the first place and then unbelievably bad that they left them alone again on the following night (3rd May) when the supposed abduction took place. Is this because she was keen to stress that MBM was alive and well on the nights of the 2nd and 3rd May when she was in fact she could have been anything but??

Just my thoughts and all in my own opinion. I greatly respect all the work done here in Madelaine's name.

by suep 18.12.13 16:02

BlackCatBoogie wrote:
suep wrote:Just had another thought about Madeleine and the cot. Apologies for going on so much.What follows is purely hypothetical and my own opinion.

If Madeleine was used to sleeping in a bed she may not have been very co-operative about sleeping in a cot like her baby brother and sister. The transition from a cot to a bed is a big step for a toddler and you can imagine her parents 'selling' the idea to her by telling her how she was a big girl now, not a baby like the twins, so she needed to sleep in a big girl's bed (I've done it myself). This could have been part of the reason for the reward chart. So if when on holiday they insisted she slept in a cot, being a bit of a 'screamer' you can imagine she'd make a big fuss.After all she's a big girl not a baby!
So...perhaps they put her down to sleep in the bed initially and transferred her to the cot once she was fast asleep, just before they went out. Its easy to then imagine that if she were to wake up and find herself in the cot she'd be disorientated and pretty upset.

On Tuesday 1st May 2007 Mrs Fenn in the flat above heard a child 'screaming and crying' for well over an hour. Its also been established from phone records that Kate's phone was used in the apartment some time before this crying started, suggesting that Kate was there. So here's the hypothesis...Madeleine wakes up discovers she's in the cot and starts to cry. Kate's upset over Gerry's alleged behaviour with the quiz woman. She's phoning or texting a friend and ignores the crying. She's too upset to go to Madeleine who tries to climb out of the cot, topples out and bangs her head on the hard tiled floor, Kate finds her and shouts 'Maddie! Maddie!' which Mrs Fenn hears and in the context of a child crying and with the muffling effect of being upstairs interprets as 'Daddy, Daddy'. The child is unconscious but now Kate is crying. Gerry comes homes. Kate stops crying. They attend to Madeleine.

They move the twins in their cot into their bedroom and one of them stays in the children's room in the bed by the window in order to observe Madeleine overnight. Maybe they take turns. At some point Madeleine dies of her injury. They know the cleaner will be coming in so they place her behind the sofa where said cleaner is unlikely to look. Blood from her head injury seeps onto the tiles and the bottom of the curtain. The cleaner notices that one of the cots is in the parent's bedroom.

They spend the Wednesday deciding what to do. The rest is ~~history~~ sorry - a mystery.

REPLY:

I am a new member so please be gentle!

Interesting what you say suep about Mrs Fenn hearing the crying and it possibly being "Maddie! Maddie!" not "Daddy! Daddy! as Mrs Fenn reported. Remember that Kate Maccan was at pains to stress that the family always called MBM 'Madelaine' not 'Maddy' (despite one of the twins (allegedy) immediately identifying MBM's pyjamas as belonging to 'Maddie') - could this be why??

Also Kate MaCann seemed to be at pains to emphasise the episode of MBM waking up and crying because she wasn't there on the night of the 2nd May despite it looking like extremely bad parenting that she did this in the first place and then unbelievably bad that they left them alone again on the following night (3rd May) when the supposed abduction took place. Is this because she was keen to stress that MBM was alive and well on the nights of the 2nd and 3rd May when she was in fact she could have been anything but??

Just my thoughts and all in my own opinion. I greatly respect all the work done here in Madelaine's name.

You could be right,BlackCatBoogie. I've often wondered why they put out that story of the crying and never felt it was just to defuse Mrs Fenn's allegations and raise suspicions that an abductor had been in before. If they just wanted to do that why change the date it allegedly occurred? Unless, as you hypothesised, they wanted to reinforce the idea that Madeleine was alive until the 'abduction'.

by Bishop Brennan 18.12.13 16:33

suep wrote:
You could be right,BlackCatBoogie. I've often wondered why they put out that story of the crying and never felt it was just to defuse Mrs Fenn's allegations and raise suspicions that an abductor had been in before. If they just wanted to do that why change the date it allegedly occurred? Unless, as you hypothesised, they wanted to reinforce the idea that Madeleine was alive until the 'abduction'.

The Mrs Fenn reported story: 1.5 hours of her crying on the night of the 1st may, leading to one of the staff having to go and find the parents, was scandalous. There was no way this could be allowed to run in the media. Instead, they offered up the "why didn't you come" story. This had many advantages:

1. It was played as a minor 'mea culpa' event which didn't even happen while they were out at the restaurant
2. It successfully distracted the media from the Mrs Fenn 1.5 hours of crying story (rarely mentioned even now)
3. It allowed the 2 incidents to be blurred into one - as though Maddie's comment somehow related to the Mrs Fenn incident and explained it away
4. It meant Maddie was alive on the morning of the 3rd

(Note: a similar technique was employed to blur Tannerman with Smithman in the TV reconstruction and Kate's book)

All in all - part of the very good quality media management that was in place from Day 1.

by Over The Hill 18.12.13 19:50

Bishop Brennan said: If this is a logic thread, then:
It is just not logical (or credible) to believe that on one night they changed the habits and logic of a lifetime and left that patio door unlocked.
Q. Chances of McCanns leaving the patio doors unlocked that night for no apparent reason?
A. Zero.

Except that the patio doors might have been accidentally left unlocked. We've all done it
It's also possible that they were accidentally left unlocked after one of the checks (assuming checks were taking place), which would implicate whoever failed to lock them

by Guest 18.12.13 19:56

Over The Hill wrote:Bishop Brennan said: If this is a logic thread, then:
It is just not logical (or credible) to believe that on one night they changed the habits and logic of a lifetime and left that patio door unlocked.
Q. Chances of McCanns leaving the patio doors unlocked that night for no apparent reason?
A. Zero.

Except that the patio doors might have been accidentally left unlocked. We've all done it
It's also possible that they were accidentally left unlocked after one of the checks (assuming checks were taking place), which would implicate whoever failed to lock them

***
Accidentally? And we've all done it? No offense meant, but I never did ... And we have it from the horse's mouth [SECOND] statement, that they did leave it open - on purpose ...

by Over The Hill 18.12.13 20:00

The fact that you haven't ever done something doesn't mean that others haven't

And the fact that the door was said to have been deliberately left unlocked (which I don't believe, for all the reasons the Bishop gave) would be a very obvious attempt to cover the fact that it was accidentally left unlocked - it's called post-justification

by Over The Hill 18.12.13 20:10

If you leave an apartment by the front door, it would be easy to accidentally leave the back door unlocked (or even open), wouldn't it?

by Guest 18.12.13 20:11

Fair enough. If that's what you believe.
I tend to think [I know it's a mantra by now ...] : NO neglect, NO abduction ...

IMO the open patio doors have to explain away the non-jemmied shutters.

by Guest 18.12.13 20:16

Over The Hill wrote:If you leave an apartment by the front door, it would be easy to accidentally leave the back door unlocked (or even open), wouldn't it?

***
Leaving 3 very young children alone? No it wouldn't.

by Over The Hill 18.12.13 20:21

Yes it would, and simple human errors lead to disasters

The patio door is the single most important thing to consider

First it was said to have been locked, then unlocked

It was supposed to be in line of sight from the restaurant, but it wasn't

These two discrepancies are key inconsistencies

I suspect that somebody left via the front door, leaving the patio door unlocked (and possibly open)

But who?

by Guest 18.12.13 20:38

Over The Hill wrote:Yes it would, and simple human errors lead to disasters

The patio door is the single most important thing to consider

First it was said to have been locked, then unlocked

It was supposed to be in line of sight from the restaurant, but it wasn't

These two discrepancies are key inconsistencies

I suspect that somebody left via the front door, leaving the patio door unlocked (and possibly open)

But who?

***
In that case we would be talking at least TWO "simple" human errors.
They decided to leave their young kids alone [!] AND they forgot to check the back door.
How much New Zealand wine and beer did they have till then, to be so humanly mistaken?
And why would they lie about it the first time round and then admit they left the patio doors open "like they'd had done before" [apart from in daytime]?

You ask: WHO left the patio doors unlocked AND open by "accident"?
They both left at the same time, they say.

And then, in your scenario, just at that moment in time there was an opportunist abductor ... ????

by Over The Hill 18.12.13 20:54

Chatelaine, you are jumping to many conclusions

I never said anything about an abductor

And hardly anyone leaves a holiday apartment by the back door

You leave via the front door - the one that needs a key to open it from the outside

Most times you remember to close and/or lock the other doors and windows from the inside, but occasionally you are distracted by something, and forget

You keep referring to "they"

I didn't

by Guest 18.12.13 21:45

So, what are you trying to say, Over the Hills ... ?

by Beanie 18.12.13 21:48

Correct me if I am wrong but Kate admitted on the last night to Fiona that they were leaving the patio door open so that Madeleine could find them if she woke up.

Therefore no mistake that they had left the patio door open!

by Rasputin 18.12.13 22:01

Beanie wrote:Correct me if I am wrong but Kate admitted on the last night to Fiona that they were leaving the patio door open so that Madeleine could find them if she woke up.

Therefore no mistake that they had left the patio door open!

Am I right in thinking , leaving the patio open so Madeleine could find her parents would also entail leaving the gate open at the top of the steps ?

by Woburn_exile 18.12.13 22:02

Beanie wrote:Correct me if I am wrong but Kate admitted on the last night to Fiona that they were leaving the patio door open so that Madeleine could find them if she woke up.

Therefore no mistake that they had left the patio door open!

Beanie , where is this info from? I mean leave the patio doors open so a 3 year old can go searching for her parents in a strange place, in the dark, by a swimming pool, by a road, this sort of thing doesn't happen.
:wtf2: :wtf2: WTF F F.

by Beanie 18.12.13 22:12

Woburn_exile wrote:
Beanie wrote:Correct me if I am wrong but Kate admitted on the last night to Fiona that they were leaving the patio door open so that Madeleine could find them if she woke up.

Therefore no mistake that they had left the patio door open!

Beanie , where is this info from? I mean leave the patio doors open so a 3 year old can go searching for her parents in a strange place, in the dark, by a swimming pool, by a road, this sort of thing doesn't happen.
:wtf2: :wtf2: WTF F F.

Apologies I should have said unlocked not open. roses

by Guest 18.12.13 22:17

For what it's worth, Fiona Payne's rogatory:

"She did, she brought it up and that she, I mean, this is awful in retrospect as well, she asked what my opinion was on, erm, tut, on whether they were okay leaving the, the doors unlocked, because she was saying ‘Is it better that if Madeleine wakes up she can get out and find us or’, erm, ‘or locking it and, you know, finding that we’re not there and the door’s locked if she woke up’, because Madeleine had woken up, what I thought was the night before. Erm, tut, and it was in that context really, just asking, you know, what I thought. So it was obviously something that was on her mind a bit, huh”.

by Beanie 18.12.13 22:32

Châtelaine wrote:For what it's worth, Fiona Payne's rogatory:

"She did, she brought it up and that she, I mean, this is awful in retrospect as well, she asked what my opinion was on, erm, tut, on whether they were okay leaving the, the doors unlocked, because she was saying ‘Is it better that if Madeleine wakes up she can get out and find us or’, erm, ‘or locking it and, you know, finding that we’re not there and the door’s locked if she woke up’, because Madeleine had woken up, what I thought was the night before. Erm, tut, and it was in that context really, just asking, you know, what I thought. So it was obviously something that was on her mind a bit, huh”.

Thank you Châtelaine

The point I was trying to make to Over the hill was leaving the patio door unlocked was by no means a mistake.

by Woburn_exile 18.12.13 22:38

Châtelaine wrote:For what it's worth, Fiona Payne's rogatory:

"She did, she brought it up and that she, I mean, this is awful in retrospect as well, she asked what my opinion was on, erm, tut, on whether they were okay leaving the, the doors unlocked, because she was saying ‘Is it better that if Madeleine wakes up she can get out and find us or’, erm, ‘or locking it and, you know, finding that we’re not there and the door’s locked if she woke up’, because Madeleine had woken up, what I thought was the night before. Erm, tut, and it was in that context really, just asking, you know, what I thought. So it was obviously something that was on her mind a bit, huh”.

So lets get this straight. K + G were aware of what FP had said in her rogue interview that they expected a child to be frightened when woken up and come looking for her parents (what child wouldn't) so they were considering whether or not to lock the door? Then this same couple K + G petition the prime minister for money to investigate them?

If ever there was a second wft