View Single Post
  #818  
Old 02-01-2017, 09:15 AM
Abby Normal Abby Normal is online now
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 6,176
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by caz View Post
Hi Louisa, All,

I find it instructive that nobody has ever questioned Kate's freely volunteered 'admission' that Maddie had been crying for her the previous night and they had still left all three children alone again while dining out with their friends. Why would they question this? After all, it was such a dreadful thing for any mother to do, let alone admit. So why did she admit it? There has to be a reason. Maddie was in no position to give her mum away on this sad episode of neglect and Kate herself was not there when her little girl had supposedly been crying in vain for her. So what possible advantage did Kate see in saying anything at all about it? Did she think the brownie points for her refreshing honesty would make up for her 'horrible mother of the year' award?

It would be interesting to know if Kate made this strangely incriminating admission after the woman who was living in a neighbouring apartment claimed she heard a young child crying on the night before Maddie was reported missing. It would still beg the question why Kate offered this apparent confirmation - which she could only give by saying Maddie herself had told her about it the next morning. She could have pleaded ignorance and said the children were all sound asleep on their return.

Is it possible that Kate latched onto this witness account and used it to imply that Maddie must still have been alive and safe in her bed the night before, even if she was sobbing and distressed over mummy's (and presumably daddy's) absence? Did she consider this was preferable to any awkward questions that might subsequently arise about the last 100% reliable sighting of Maddie?



Hi HH,

This is a very good question. None of the witness accounts of seeing Maddie alive and well and enjoying her holiday after about the first two or three days appear to have been either 100% independent or 100% verifiable.

It would have seemed unthinkable in the immediate wake of a little girl's sudden disappearance, as reported by her mother, for anyone at the resort, whether they knew the family or not, to consider the possibility that she had already been gone for two or more days and nobody had noticed.

It would have been difficult for the casual holiday maker to swear they had seen Maddie and not some other little fair girl. In my experience - even as the parent of a pretty daughter who was blonde as a child - one doesn't make a habit of looking too openly or too long at pretty children in their summer outfits or beach attire. It's better not to take photos and not to pay any special attention to an individual child who is just minding their own business.

As for those who were holidaying with the McCanns, and the creche staff, there have been question marks from the outset over the reliability of their individual claimed sightings of Maddie right up until Kate reported her missing. The McCanns did not spend much time during the day with their friends, either as a family or individually. In fact I'm not sure how many times the McCanns were seen as a family of five after their arrival at the resort. It's almost like they went out of their way not to spend time together as a family. There are discrepancies between the claims made by the McCanns as to which parent signed the kids in or out of their respective creches on any particular day and which name actually appeared on the register for that day.

Was it always one or the other who dropped them off or picked them up - never setting off all together from the apartment, never arriving at the first creche together and never returning to the apartment together? Their routine was for one to enter the apartment via the front door, the other via the patio door at the rear. Why? Anyone watching one parent and seeing only the twins, or seeing no children at all, would naturally have assumed Maddie was with the other parent.

Staging, I heard someone ask? The stage for a possible abduction was set - by accident or design - when the apartment was left unlocked on the evening Maddie was reported missing. Another sad episode of neglect to add to the one where Maddie had supposedly cried for her mum the night before. If that was true, she could have been woken by noises which frightened her and led to her calling out. Yet the apartment was left unlocked the very next night? Luckily the twins were not only left alone by Maddie's abductor, but slept so soundly they had no idea she was being taken. No whimpering roused them, no screaming for mummy. Did the twins sleep equally soundly the night before, so they never heard Maddie crying then either? Or did they sleep so soundly every night that they would not have known if she was there or not?

Were the twins busy playing in the creche one day when Maddie could have had a tantrum and refused to go to hers, resulting in parental loss of temper?

Who will ever really know?

Love,

Caz
X
Hi Caz
great post.

Quote:
I find it instructive that nobody has ever questioned Kate's freely volunteered 'admission' that Maddie had been crying for her the previous night and they had still left all three children alone again while dining out with their friends. Why would they question this? After all, it was such a dreadful thing for any mother to do, let alone admit. So why did she admit it? There has to be a reason. Maddie was in no position to give her mum away on this sad episode of neglect and Kate herself was not there when her little girl had supposedly been crying in vain for her. So what possible advantage did Kate see in saying anything at all about it? Did she think the brownie points for her refreshing honesty would make up for her 'horrible mother of the year' award?
Kate backed up this story by saying in retrospect they came to believe that an intruder tried to take her the night before, which caused her crying out. so its been said its the McCanns inventing this to back up there intruder story. and or, if she died earlier, to show(lie) that she was still alive the night before she went "missing".

but for the life of me, if this is indeed a lie, I cant envision a scenario where an intruder and would be abductor could have made such an impression on a child and yet not been able to make off with her. I mean he was able to do it apparently the next night. and wouldn't the child be even more scared the next night to be left alone--and therefore even more likely to awake and cry?

then there is Kates use of having Maddie say "..when we cried.." Does she want to show(lie) that all three kids were also awake and therefore none were giving a sleeping aid??


Quote:
This is a very good question. None of the witness accounts of seeing Maddie alive and well and enjoying her holiday after about the first two or three days appear to have been either 100% independent or 100% verifiable.
didn't the police scheck with the kids club workers to verify Kates story that she picked Maddie up from there the late afternoon she went missing?
__________________
"Is all that we see or seem
but a dream within a dream?"

-Edgar Allan Poe


"...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

-Frederick G. Abberline
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote