Pages

Monday, May 23, 2016

The Possible Dry Run By The Alleged Abductor That Possibly Caused The Alleged Crying Incident.

If what kate claims is true and she then wondered if someone had tried the night before or made a 'dry run', why then did they still allegedly leave their children home alone again?

They didn't.

All the children were being babysat by the missing adult from the table each night.
They had to claim they were neglectful and leaving their children home alone each night in order for there to be an opportunity for an abduction.

She also fails to explain why, if they allegedly left the children home alone each night, the alleged abductor  would do a dry run.

An abductor is not going to go into the apartment, find the child they want to abduct, then leave without said child.
They are not going to do a dry run and think yep, we can do it in the time  they leave between checks, we will do the real abduction tomorrow night.
They will not know if the parents are going to be responsible for once and either take their children with them on the last night of their vacation to the tapas bar, hire one of the creche workers to babysit the children, leave the children in the evening creche or have dinner in the apartment.
Any of those options would remove the chance to abduct Maddie.

If they made all the effort to get into the apartment the night before and see their target in bed sleeping and no adults around, and they know the next check is not likely for X amount of minutes, they are going to take the opportunity and abduct Maddie there and then.

They come up with an explanation for something, be it to explain away the alleged crying, the stain on the t shirt, the checks etc and because it is deceptive, it leads to other questions being asked which they then need to explain away.

They came up with an explanation as to why Maddie asked why they didn't come when she and Sean were crying the previous night. They wondered if it was when they were being bathed etc failing to realize that if it were the mccanns bathing them and putting them to bed then the question would not have arisen as they would have heard them crying whilst they were bathing them and putting them to bed.

This then points to the children being either in another apartment whilst kate and gerry were in 5a getting ready or, ALL the tapas  children being in 5a whilst kate and gerry were elsewhere.


Interview broadcast: 01 May 2008

Gerry McCann: Anybody with young children will understand that children cry; they wake up at night. During that week there was one night, errr… and we can't give too much detail because it's part of the investigation file but there was one night where Madeleine came through and one of the other, errr… twins were crying, so, you know, and when she did mention to it… it to us and we asked her about it and she just dropped… she was completely fine and we thought, 'Was it when they were bathing, getting them, you know, first putting them down in that period when they're really tired. Of course, with hindsight, in the… in the context of what had happened; of Madeleine being abducted, it's put in a very different light and it's put in a very different light to us and, of course, we emphasized that to the police.

Note the self editing here,   was gerry going to say "OTHER CHILDREN, realized he was going to drop them right in by revealing all the children were in one apartment and thus changed it to OTHER TWINS.

The problem here though is there were no other twins, only Sean and Amelie.

However we do have  leakage of a marble.

 'Was it when they were bathing, getting them, you know, first putting them down in that period when they're really tired.'

Had it been kate and gerry doing it then the question would never have arisen since they would have heard it.
Since the question did arise then we know kate and gerry were not bathing them and putting them to bed.
Since they heard nothing we then have the following questions:

Who was bathing them and putting them to bed?

Where were the mccann children and where were kate and gerry?

If the children were in 5a where were kate and gerry?
If the mccanns were in 5a where were the children?

Then we have a change in what they claimed in  'Madeleine: One Year On' documentary, 30 April 2008

Kate McCann: Well, I... I can't remember if we'd just had breakfast, it was rou... it was, sort of, fairly early in the morning and she just very casually, really, said: (mimics Madeleine's voice) 'Where were you last night, when me and Sean cried?' and we immediately looked and said, you know: 'When was this, Madeleine? Was this when you were going to sleep?' and she didn't answer and then she just carried on playing, totally undistressed..

Gerry McCann: Madeleine's very articulate and, errr... for her age, and, errm... you know, it's unlike her, if she's got something to say, to drop it. She just did... literally, dropped it, errm... and we both, kind of, looked at each other and said: 'Was it when we had just put them down?'


Since they told us they made sure the children were asleep before they went to the tapas bar,  this version doesn't make sense.

Gerry tells us 'Was it when we had just put them down?'

Had that been the case, the mccanns would have heard them and the question would not have arisen since the would have heard them cry and, I would hope, gone into their bedroom to see why they were crying and to reassure them.
The only other option was put them to bed and then run like heck out the apartment to the tapas bar.

Kate asks if it was when you (Maddie) was going to sleep?
Had this been true, then kate and gerry would have heard her crying since it would have been kate and gerry putting her to bed and then waiting until the children were asleep before going to the tapas bar.

Since kate asks Maddie if it was when she was going to sleep then we have a problem.

Kate and gerry never heard the crying and asked when it was, this means that kate and gerry, unlike their story did not bathe the children nor put them to bed.

Since the mccanns heard no crying we have two options.

1) The children were bathed by someone other than kate and gerry and put to bed by someone other than kate and gerry in an apartment that was not 5a, IE one of the apartments occupied by one of the tapas friends.
Kate and gerry stayed in their own apartment getting ready to go to the tapas bar meaning they would not have heard any of the children crying.

2) Madeleine and her siblings as well as the other children were all in apartment 5a being babysat by whichever parent was missing from the table, allegedly due to illness.
Where then were kate and gerry that they never bathed the children nor put them to bed?
In whose apartment were they and why?

The mccanns never say anything without a good reason, either to explain away something they did or did not do or to preempt something seen or heard by another.

Was the 'crying incident'  created to explain away the crying heard by Mrs Fenn (if what she said she heard was true)

Was it said to set the scene for the alleged abduction?

Was it said to indicate Maddie was alive the night before the alleged abduction, especially if she was not seen by independent witnesses during the Thursday or  there was no definite, verified reliable sighting of her such as at the creche etc, the alleged sighting by payne can be discounted as he is not independent.

It would also indicate she was alive during the week even if the creche workers did not remember seeing her, especially when the image they released of her was an old photo and she looked nothing like that during the vacation.

Remember Thursday night was the only night where others from the tapas group checked on the mccann children, the only night where the routine changed.

Apart from the Sunday morning, there are no definite independent sightings of Maddie, even at the creche, the staff would not have known Maddie long enough to say for sure she had been present, especially with the old photograph of Maddie that was released to the media and public so people knew who and what to look for in their searching.

They would only know someone had been presented to them as Maddie.

Why would the mccanns tell us about the alleged crying incident, knowing that by doing so would make them appear even more neglectful?

Why did they tell us about the alleged crying incident that happened the night before Maddie was allegedly abducted knowing that by doing so, and then saying they decided to keep more regular checks on the children (if half hourly was more regular checking, what were the time gaps before the Thursday night?) it would make them appear heartless and negligent?

Why, knowing the children had allegedly cried the night before and they hadn't checked on them did they still decide to leave the children home alone rather than  make use of the free evening creche, use of the babysitting facility, taking the children to the tapas bar with them or, staying home and either having a take away or cooking their own dinner, again making them look heartless, uncaring and negligent.

Knowing that the public would consider them to be heartless and negligent, the damage to their reputations and that they could face charges of negligence and the risk of losing their children (perhaps even the other tapas members since they too were leaving their children home alone) why did they consider that to be the least damaging option?

What was so bad that they were willing to risk losing their children, possibly their jobs as well as their social standing, their family and friends, everything they had worked for, to be forever remembered as negligent parents rather than tell the truth?

Had it been an accident why lie?

Accidents happen all the time, even with the parents right next to the child.

Accidental overdose could have been explained away as them not knowing Maddie had eaten some pills thinking they were candy and they only found out the next day when they found her dead in bed.

Had Maddie fallen and died behind the sofa  they could have said they were drunk enough that they never heard a thing once asleep, and only when they went to wake her in the morning and she wasn't in bed and on searching, they found her dead behind the sofa again either having eaten pills or not.

They had a reason to be deceptive.
They had a reason to claim they were neglectful parents.
They had a reason  to hide a corpse and file a false police report.
They had a reason to make sure an autopsy could not be performed any time soon.


What would an autopsy have revealed that could not be explained away as accidental?

What would an autopsy have revealed that could not have been blamed on an abductor's actions within a couple of days or so?

Was it something the mccanns had done to their daughter?
Was it something the mccanns had allowed to be done to their daughter?
Was it something they could not have denied knowing about, something done that was so blatant that they could not have pleaded ignorance?

The mccanns had a reason to introduce the crying incident.

Learning the reason may well reveal who Maddie's killer is and their accomplices.

12 comments:

  1. This is what I really can't get my head around. If Madeleine had an tragic accident why the necessity to 'disappear' the body? For those people who believe that Madeleine died some time around tea time on Thursday 3rd why on earth would the McCanns hide that fact? I've read of theories where she fell from the balcony or down the apartment steps. Children have accidental falls all the time , some tragically so. No one blames the parents. There just HAD to be something about Madeleine's body that would have led to a criminal investigation . Thus the necessity for its disappearance. My first thoughts were that Kate had lost her temper with her eldest child and beat her. Lord knows three children of that age would have been difficult to cope with and a husband like Gerry who appears to have left most of it to Kate but since she routinely left the children in the crèche during the day, why would she be that stressed? Of course we always come back to the questions: Why did the 'great and good' immediately step in and why have the British investigations been a total sham? It's a question I just keep coming back to.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. They could simply have lied about where they were, bbacked up by the T7.
      So no reason to hide the body, nearest hospital in Lagos.. etc. Tried to do what they could, devastated, didn't want to leave twins and so on.

      Also:
      Ambassador there in hours
      Home Office/Foreign office both blocked PJ requests
      Cherie Blair, Brown phoning them, Brown being told by Gerry to phone him asap..

      Surely with those connections any kind of 'accident' could have been sorted? E.g. Minor headline in Leicester Mercury:
      Benefactor loans private plane to rush McCs daughter to hospital - sadly nothing could be done, parents who are doctors themselves say (copious possibilities to blame the Portuguese, food, facilities, slippery tiles) devastated etc.
      Inquest might even be avoided, if not -accidental death and coroner adds a rider to. Wear anti slip shoes...

      Except no fund and none of those weird and failed publicity trips to foreign parts.

      Delete
    2. Gordon Brown a friend of Clement Freud since 1974, and a high profile presence at his funeral. Probably mean nothing, but he did get involved so very fast, and one wonders what he might have known or even heard rumored.

      Delete
  2. On what evidence is your assertion that all the children were being babysat by one adult based? I can't find anything substantial to support that theory.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Shut up Gerry u Twat!√

      Delete
  3. Iirc There were two interviews on consecutive days and in one of them Gerry slips up and says the twins were crying.
    The main thing is that it wasn't M crying all by herself until September 2007. I don't know when the brown stain became part of the story.
    I think it was the twins crying and they were very keen to tell the PJ (cutting the crying time) because the PJ would have heard from another source, possibly MW staff as there is that story of MW staff going down to Chaplins to tell the McCs about their children crying.

    As Bell Pottinger were on the spot very soon, I would think that staff were told not to mention certain things. This, imo is the problem with a lot of the secondary evidence. (E.g. Cat Baker)

    Your analysis of the 2008 interview is just lovely, GM's foot on mouth habit is wonderfully well dissected.

    ReplyDelete
  4. - foot IN mouth (stylus). And I answered top comment but it came up as anon, just to be clear.

    ReplyDelete
  5. The evidence that at least one adult was missing from the table each night.
    The evidence from the alleged crying incident which, if true, would show that it wasn't the mccanns who bathed their children and put them to bed. The question would not have arisen.
    The comment about the twins being returned to the apartment.
    The comment/slip up by gerry where he went to say "one of the other children" before realizing the implications and self editing, pausing, before saying "one of the other...twins", except there were no other twins, only Sean and Amelie McCann.
    "One of the other children" would have revealed all the children were sleeping together in one apartment and being babysat by said missing adult.

    If there was no neglect there could be no abduction.
    If there was no abduction, then what happened to Maddie that required such a cover up?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Thanks for that Tania . It was me ( not Gerry ) who asked for 'proof' of your assumption that the children were altogether each night in one apartment. That scenario would certainly account for the report of a third cot being seen ( by the maid ) in the McCann apartment. I appreciate your reasoned polite answer and it does make me suspect that you may well be right .
    If the children WERE being babysat each night altogether, then there was no neglect and as you say, no neglect, no abduction. There HAD to be a reason why Madeleine's body could not be seen.( I'm presuming dogs don't lie ) It seems there are certainly dubious connections to child sexual abuse but I can't honestly see these activities taking place in a Mark Warner apartment so what DID happen in 5A to alert the dogs to a death? Is it possible a body was brought BACK in a hired car to the apartment to give the parents some sort of mourning period? Was Kate's comments in her book about Madeleine's torn private parts ( I can hardly bear writing that ) a part of real life? It had to be something really bad , something that even the back up team couldn't keep hidden with the help of a bought and paid for Portuguese post mortem .

    ReplyDelete
  7. I don't see that the crying incident was highlighted to prove that Madeleine was still alive on the Tuesday. We had the friends and a crèche sheet to support that. So why bring it into the equation? Maybe it was to 'use' Mrs Fenn's statement for their own ends. They would only have needed to do this if Mrs Fenn's statement was truthful. In her PJ statement she said she thought it was an older child crying, not a baby, so could she have heard Kate crying ' Maddie' ( mourning ) and not heard 'Daddy' as she thought? Why hadn't the other children woken up with the noise and why did the crying stop immediately someone entered through the patio doors? If there was 'no neglect' surely the patio doors would have been locked unless there was an adult already inside?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi. I'd not thought of the Maddie/Daddy thing, especially when someone is upset & crying you dont pronounce words properly, although young child crying Daddy isnt ruled out. An important tie in to this is that Kates phone records show her making 4 calls/texts between 10 & 1030 Tuesday to UK. CliarENCE Mitchell said they never wore watches or took phones to dinner hence unsure of times in story, bit hard to believe the watch thing, possibly phones given 10 yrs ago, data roaming charges etc so If we believed that part it puts Kate in the appt immediately before the crying starts 1030, whether her or Maddy. And if this was the case, the question of why not report still there eg evidence on body from past abuse, and /or died from being hit/pushed. I found it frustrating that one of the judges at some point was unhappy the records were got without complete paperwork & would only let the numbers be given, not the content of texts which would have been so much more revealing. And as for that 'wrong number' her & another rang in Wales or rang them-surely some ID blocking relay centre?
      The friends & the creche sheet dont really support it as friends are biased, and the creche sheets as very poor records as some days a child, & even M isnt signed out at all. Sure some of them likely made up cos it shows K/G collecting twins before M in time, only to walk further away to her creche then back again when natural route would be M then twins. Obously we are suspicious of Mrs Fenns statement due to it being 3 months later in August & after Metado3 had been on the ground agitating things, & her niece Carol Tranmer's regatory interview is one of the strangest I've read, says cant judge distances about something then says a gate is 69cm outside of a phtoto she's shown. And this 'suspect' she saw from above, with her back to him looking over her shoulder & down for a second yet produced an efit-shown one she says its not hers but just like it except for the hair eyes nose mouth lips & face shape! Interviewer odd too-asks a lot about her job at a royal palace who met etc & 'shame about Diana' then goes on to query all the female fenn relatives, ages, jobs etc. Bizarre.

      Delete
  8. Hobnob,
    I'm a big fan of your contributions on the internet to the McCann case. I also enjoy reading Peter Hyatt's statement analysis blog and came across some thoughts you put out in the replies section. Herewith a little "to do" I had years ago with professionally trained "scent" dogs. I was past airline TSA departing out of Honolulu HI, and going up an elevator when I noticed a darling little terrier type pooch closely tailing me. Sniff, sniff.. UhOh some guy with a shiny badge politely asks if he could take a look in my bag. "Sure" I replied. Oh Deary me..... there was a small long forgotten apple stuffed amongst my dirty clothes.... OuchyOuch! I'll the rest up to your imagination (yes I made it home on reserved flight abet with a wrist slapping). Those little sniffer dogs are nothing to mess with I learned for myself that day.
    Cheers & Thank you for expressing the difference between being told a lie and listening to reason, sane, common sense. Which of course we all know doesn't necessarily apply to law enforcement or a court of law.

    ReplyDelete

Post a comment