Madeleine McCann

[Darryl Kenyon]

Hi RJ

Who said anything about an accidental overdose ? That may have been the Portuguese Police's working theory but not mine . The fact is that at least one of the Tapas seven thought it was really strange neither twin woke up . She was there we where not. She would know about all the noise, the coming and goings in the flat which everyone readily admits. Plus we have reports of both Maddie's parents screaming and howling that evening. The twins also were carried to the Payne's apartment yet never woke. And what about Maddie ? No one heard a noise of her being abducted, her crying or anything.

As I pointed out in a previous post, the Mcann's had their own tests done on hair fibres supposedly off the twins via their lawyers . Strange ? Why not insist on independent tests if they had nothing to hide. It's like giving yourself a lie detector test and saying you passed.

The Mcann's knew two of their children were crying the night before . They knew they left the patio doors unlocked every night and why ? Well I have read that they could only be ,locked from the inside . So why not go out the front doors and lock them ? Too far to walk round perhaps and couldn't be bothered with the extra yardage ? Plus there is a chance they may have even left the bedroom window unlocked . And as for the checks Oldfield certainly didn't check on the Mcann's children, he says so . And we only have his word that he entered the apartment at all . And for Kate her check wasn't exactly thorough. She only became aware of Maddie missing and the open window when the door slammed shut.

Kate Mcann graduated with a degree in medicine . Other Doctor's were part of the Tapas 7 . Bearing in mind all the above , leaving their children alone in a strange room, two of them crying the night before etc Is it beyond the bounds of possibility that the children were given a mild sedative to help or make [ depending on your point of view ],them sleep by one or both parents, which thus then enabled the abductor to carry Maddie away more easily , which the Mcann's may be in self denial about ? Not in my book it isn't.

Regards Darryl

[rjpalmer]

Leicestershire Police interview with Dianne Webster - "The twins were still asleep in the cot and I, with all the noise going on I don’t know how they slept through it which makes me think there was, they must have been err drugged with something.”

For those who believe the McCanns sedated their children--what is the scenario? Did they bring syringes and sedatives along with them on this holiday to Portugal, anticipating doing this?

If so, why didn't they use them the previous night, when Madeleine woke up readily enough?

If not, are we supposed to believe the McCanns went down to the local chemist shop and secured a prescription and some hypodermics, yet despite the massive media coverage and the probing of Goncalo Amaral, everyone failed to trace this transaction?

Someone in the PJ apparently leaked a bogus story that traces of sedatives were found in a blonde hair in the McCann's apartment, but a doctor in the UK dismissed this as nonsensical because if someone was accidently killed with a sedative there wouldn't be time for the drug to metabolize and leave traces in the hair follicles.

[caz]

Just out of interest have you ever taken young children on holiday? They be absolutely shattered after playing all day. I took my 3 year to Spain a few years ago and by 8 o'clock he was out cold and I don't even think a bomb would have woken him.

A fair point, except that in Madeleine's case she did wake up, the night before she disappeared, and nobody was there to comfort her when she cried. I can't help but wonder if this may be significant. Would her abductor have had such an easy time of it on that occasion if faced with a crying child?

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

What particularly grates me about many peoples view on the case was that any inconsistency or anomaly was immediately pounced upon as evidence of some sort of cover up. In many ways inconsistency is exactly what one should expect from people when recollecting events that at the time appeared unimportant or insignificant but subsequently have a great deal of importance. People rack their brains, pour over every minute, think to themselves oh I might be wrong on that or 5 mins out. It happens. It's natural.

Absolutely right, Sunny.

There is more reason to suspect something amiss if all the witnesses to an event are note perfect and never differ from each other or have any doubts over time about what they experienced individually.

A true story would be one where there is an inconsistent consistency - if that makes sense.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Hi RJ

Jane Tanner also said that the person she saw carrying the child was Robert Murat after suspicions against him were first raised . Where as before she acknowledged she couldn't give a recollection of the man's face .

Factor that in and I would imagine why doubts were raised about what she did see . That doesn't mean she was lying of course . But the fact she said the man was Murat [ when he had an alibi ] , would make some people question her story

Here is an extract of her interview to Leicestershire police - ”I don’t think it was him that I saw. But I just thought that it was” A year later.

Makes you wonder if she would have persisted with her sighting being Murat if he hadn't been cleared ?

Regards Darryl

Quite scary, as I just happen to live in the house in East Devon where Robert Murat used to spend his summer holidays as a child! When his grandmother died in 2006, his mother inherited the house and Robert returned from Portugal temporarily to do a bit of renovation work before it was sold on. I actually met him recently when he delivered a parcel to us and we still occasionally get junk mail addressed to him. Thank goodness he was cleared early on, or there could have been a terrible miscarriage of justice.

Witnesses can be vital, and most are not lying about what they have seen, but there are so many ways in which a sighting can prove unreliable.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

No I don't believe you are correct. The Jane Tanner sighting has been discounted yes as a father carrying his child. A GP from England with a remarkable likeness to the Tanner description. The MET stated they felt extremely confident that this was not the abductor. The man seen by the Smiths has never been traced, this despite the MET accessing the night creche records. This was how they discovered the man seen by Jane Tanner.

There are a number of indicators in regards the man seen by the Smiths which make him an intriguing 'suspect'.

- The child he was carrying was a young girl with blonde hair according to the Smiths between 3-4 years of age.

- The girl was wearing pink pyjamas. She was not covered by a blanket nor a coat despite it being only 10 degrees Celsius or 50 degrees Fahrenheit.

- The man was carrying the child through the street at around 10pm. He was not using a buggy. He has not been found via a search of the night creche records. Where had he come from and where was he going?

- The sighting was at 10pm or so as stated and only around 400 yards from the McCanns apartment. At almost the exact same time Kate found Madeleine missing. To walk such a distance from the apartment would take 5-7 minutes meaning an abduction around 9:50-9:55 pm. The timings match quite well with what we know.

As I say I am not convinced this was not some dad with his daughter but there are some questions around the sighting which are very intriguing.

Hi Sunny,

That would have been a very audacious abduction, to carry a child through the streets when other people were out and about and enjoying their evening. Assuming Madeleine was asleep when she was snatched and taken from the apartment, the abductor could not have known if the cool outside air would instantly or gradually rouse her, causing her to cry out in alarm and struggle at finding herself in the arms of a strange man.

I don't think the original intention was burglary either. An active child abuser will look for opportunities and take what they are offered, so a child in an unattended apartment, while her parents can be seen dining elsewhere, would be seen as the star prize. Nothing else was wanted or taken, so I see a bit of planning here and a getaway vehicle, for the simple reason it was only 10pm and this was a holiday resort, not an isolated farmhouse.

Love,

Caz
X

[Darryl Kenyon]

I can't take the sedation idea seriously. They said they made a mental note about what Madeleine had said. Gerry seems a very cold person to me and although I have no doubt he loved his children leaving them whilst he went for dinner I don't think would have bothered him. Kate I think is different but these are only my perceptions.

Hi Sunny

Leicestershire Police interview with Dianne Webster - "The twins were still asleep in the cot and I, with all the noise going on I don’t know how they slept through it which makes me think there was, they must have been err drugged with something.”

Later on - ”Did you get any sleep that night?”
”Err well eventually err the twins were brought up into our apartment err and that again to me was err a very odd thing because they were fast asleep, they did not wake up.”

”Were they brought up, so had they been taken out of their cots and brought up?”
”Yeah, yeah. They were being carried, I think Fiona and Dave carried them up.”

”And they were still not awake?”
”Still not awake, and the cots were, because they were travel cots they brought up, you know and err put in the living room and they were put into the cots and they just carried on sleeping.”

Regards Darryl

[cobalt]

I am now a grandparent and can confirm the ability of young children to sleep through noise. However I am also aware that they are likely to wake up at any odd moment which is why they should not be left alone. No education is required to know this, merely parental instinct, which is why I distrust the McCanns' account.

'What particularly grates me about many peoples view on the case was that any inconsistency or anomaly was immediately pounced upon as evidence of some sort of cover up. In many ways inconsistency is exactly what one should expect from people when recollecting events that at the time appeared unimportant or insignificant but subsequently have a great deal of importance. People rack their brains, pour over every minute, think to themselves oh I might be wrong on that or 5 mins out. It happens. It's natural.'

I can't argue with any of that. Too many armchair detectives like to focus on small discrepancies. But there are some very large discrepancies as well.
The last sighting of Madeleine McCann was by David Payne, around 6pm. He remembers the meeting as being 30 minutes (for what was a quick 'check' on something vague) whereas Kate McCann remembers this as lasting merely 30 seconds. There is something seriously wrong here, and I tend to favour the Mrs. McCann version since Payne had a touch of amnesia when asked to describe what the three children were wearing. Granted, men are often blind to such matters, but it was he who had painted the rosy picture of family life he observed before being asked for detail.

The time of 'checks' on the children are another example of serious discrepancies, even if we accept the hare-brained game of musical chairs that it required. 15 minutes, 30 minutes and 60 minutes have all been offered up at various times to various parties.

And of course whether the patio doors were locked or unlocked, an extremely important point for the investigation which wasted crucial time on the 'intruder through window' theory that proved unfounded.

[rjpalmer]

Hi RJ

Jane Tanner also said that the person she saw carrying the child was Robert Murat after suspicions against him were first raised . Where as before she acknowledged she couldn't give a recollection of the man's face .

Factor that in and I would imagine why doubts were raised about what she did see . That doesn't mean she was lying of course . But the fact she said the man was Murat [ when he had an alibi ] , would make some people question her story

Here is an extract of her interview to Leicestershire police - ”I don’t think it was him that I saw. But I just thought that it was” A year later.

Makes you wonder if she would have persisted with her sighting being Murat if he hadn't been cleared ?

Regards Darryl

Hi Darryl.

It gets worse than that. Later, Tanner became convinced (or at least, '80% convinced') that the shaggy, bearded suspect (some called him 'George Harrison Man') was the man she had seen, even though he looked nothing like Murat.

It shows what the police are up against. Eyewitnesses aren't CCTV footage or taped telephone calls; they are flawed human beings who are suggestable and can be changeable and inconsistent and even self-deceiving.

The same can be said of Martin Smith. I read one of his later interviews. On seeing Gerry McCann disembark from the plane in the UK, carrying one of the twins, he was struck by how much McCann resembled the man he had seen carrying a 'limp' child. Reinterviewed by the police, he was "60-80% certain McCann was the man he had seen that night, even though McCann had been back at the Club, a quarter mile away, surrounded by dozens of witnesses, frantically searching for his daughter.

It's a wonder the police can solve anything. The same witness can be both valuable and muddled. As human beings they are complex, flawed, suggestable.

[Abby Normal]

I agree with sunny and rj young kids and babies can usually sleep through anything especially if they’re really tired. I remember it myself as a child doing it and my kids doing it. However, there are exceptions and Maddie apparently was one as she hadn’t slept through the night before and her mom knew it. Maybe Kate wanted to make sure she didn’t wake up again. I wouldn’t rule out them being sedated at all.

[erobitha]

“She didn’t scream”

https://7news.com.au/news/madeleine-mccann/madeleine-mccann-didnt-scream-german-suspect-christian-brueckner-told-friend-c-10876240.amp

[Sunny Delight]

It was Kate, I believe, who admitted to what Madeleine had said, so I see no reason to doubt that it happened, although it does show the parents in a pretty poor light. Any mother being asked by her young daughter why she didn't come when she was crying in the night, would be heartless to risk putting her through the same distress again, let alone the very next night. What if all three had woken up next time and been inconsolable? The fact that Madeleine had not thought to come looking for Mum the first time does not mean she would not have done so the second time. There would be more incentive after getting no response the previous night and telling her Mum about it over breakfast.

Kate's instant reaction - to say that Madeleine had been taken - could have been due to such a stab of guilt over the crying incident that she couldn't process the thought of her becoming distressed again and leaving her bed this time to come and find her Mum. The only alternative I can think of is that Kate or Gerry had taken steps to ensure all three would sleep through, to prevent any further distress, and Kate was therefore sure that something bad must have happened for Madeleine to be missing from her bed.

Love,

Caz
X

Would it not be more likely that an open shutter and window in the bedroom with your child missing would mean you immediately think abduction. And Madeleine had asked why neither parent had come to the room when the babies were crying the night before. For Madeleine to come looking for her parents or mummy would have meant her opening the curtains and sliding open the slide doors and closing them behind her, walking down the steps opening the gate then closing and locking it behind her. Kate would have walked in through that route and noticed nothing unusual. So why would she then think after seeing an open window in her child's bedroom that Madeleine had walked out the back to try and find her?

I can't take the sedation idea seriously. They said they made a mental note about what Madeleine had said. Gerry seems a very cold person to me and although I have no doubt he loved his children leaving them whilst he went for dinner I don't think would have bothered him. Kate I think is different but these are only my perceptions. For myself even the way the McCanns put the kids in a creche all day and went off playing tennis or running just dumbfounds me. When I go on holiday I do it to spend time with my kids- aged 6 and 2. I love playing with them in the pool etc and if they are too tired at night time to go out we just get a takeaway and eat on the balcony. But as my mum used to say to me- everyone raises them differently. Being from Ireland though family is so hugely important and almost everyone I know would not do what the McCanns did. But they paid a heavy heavy price as did their daughter unfortunately.

[rjpalmer]

Just out of interest have you ever taken young children on holiday? They be absolutely shattered after playing all day. I took my 3 year to Spain a few years ago and by 8 o'clock he was out cold and I don't even think a bomb would have woken him.

That's what I've always suspected about the 'sedated' theory.

When I was fairly young, but older than the McCann's twins, I visited my grandparents who lived out in the middle of the Great Plains. It was August and so hot that I insisted on sleeping in a pup tent in the front yard. That night, one of the loudest thunderstorms in memory rolled through; it sounded like cannons being fired. The whole town was up in arms; I later learned that my teenaged cousin shrieked herself into hysterics, believing the world was coming to an end.

The next morning, I woke up, refreshed. I hadn't heard anything.

[caz]

If it is true that Madeleine said she was crying because her parents had left her and her siblings alone in the apartment, and that Madeleine made no attempt to find them, why would her mother have deduced that when she went missing, she had gone looking for her?

It was Kate, I believe, who admitted to what Madeleine had said, so I see no reason to doubt that it happened, although it does show the parents in a pretty poor light. Any mother being asked by her young daughter why she didn't come when she was crying in the night, would be heartless to risk putting her through the same distress again, let alone the very next night. What if all three had woken up next time and been inconsolable? The fact that Madeleine had not thought to come looking for Mum the first time does not mean she would not have done so the second time. There would be more incentive after getting no response the previous night and telling her Mum about it over breakfast.

Kate's instant reaction - to say that Madeleine had been taken - could have been due to such a stab of guilt over the crying incident that she couldn't process the thought of her becoming distressed again and leaving her bed this time to come and find her Mum. The only alternative I can think of is that Kate or Gerry had taken steps to ensure all three would sleep through, to prevent any further distress, and Kate was therefore sure that something bad must have happened for Madeleine to be missing from her bed.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

The parents were secondary victims.

But would they have been secondary victims if Madeleine had accidentally fallen into the swimming pool and drowned, while trying to find them? The result would have been the same: a daughter who would never return home with them. But 100% of the blame would then have been on the parents, not on Madeleine or the water.

Bad things happen and bad people happen. If you leave small children alone, you leave them vulnerable to both.

Love,

Caz
X