Was the crying incident on the Tuesday or the Wednesday?

[Benice]

Keep up Benice, she  wondered about it BEFORE thw abduction Sheesh, give up LOL
,

She wondered about it after Madeleine said it.  She discussed it with Gerry, but because Madeleine hadn't said any more and was away playing happily it wasn't pursued.   She mentioned it on the night - not as a big deal, but in conversation.      If Madeleine had not been abducted, she wouldn't have thought about it again.  I  can't find anything strange about any of that.

AIMHO

[AnneGuedes]

The evidence that Madeleine asked her mother on the morning of the 3rd and not the 2nd is in the files.  To dispute that you have to claim that KM and her friends all lied.    IMO that's just an easy 'get out' when faced with unpalatable facts.     The clear evidence that Amaral lied in his book doesn't suit you and so you simply claim Kate lied - and that's problem solved as far as you are concerned.     

We are talking about Amaral claiming that it was on the morning of the 2nd May that Madeleine spoke to her mother.   He did that because that was the next morning after Mrs Fenn heard a child crying - and so the reader would be more likely to believe it was Madeleine she heard.  There is no proof that it was Madeleine in the files.   He deliberately lied to hoodwink his readers.    Why are you trying to excuse that?

IMO it is you who is trying the create a myth here.

Benice, I'll repeat in case you didn't understand my poor English. If you insist again, I'll have to avoid your posts.
1) Mrs McCann said Madeleine asked why etc. This is not a fact. There's no evidence of this. You weren't having breakfast with them or did you ? What is in the file is the McCanns said...
2) Mrs McCann told her friends that Madeleine on that morning had asked etc. This is a fact. It was corroborated by those friends. I do believe most of their statements by the way, so you better stop arguing they're all guilty when I suggest the McCanns didn't say the truth.
3) I don't defend Mr Amaral whom I don't know and whose theory I don't agree with.
4) Mrs Fenn lived in this flat and knew the noises of the building. If she determined the sliding door she heard was the 5A (besides the unique used sliding door) and the cries were coming from the 5A, I'm prone to believe her. She was a thoughtful lady, she showed it refusing gossiping to the media. You proceed with Mrs Fenn the same way you proceed with Mr Grime - discrediting  and this way feeding myths -, because Mrs Fenn revealed indirectly the McCanns weren't checking as much as they did, as the AG underlined.
Benice, I feel you're a nice person, but your bad faith goes beyond reasonable limits. I hardly can imagine you're not part in this case and have no ties with the McCann family. In a word you're not neutral.
Neutrality is a condition sine qua non for interesting debate.

[faithlilly]

Kate needn't have mentioned it at all, but she did, thinking it could have been relevant to the case.
Didn't Mrs Fenn deny ever saying it, on video?

No she didn't. She denied talking to reporters not the police.

[Benice]

Benice, I feel you're a nice person, but your bad faith goes beyond reasonable limits. I hardly can imagine you're not part in this case and have no ties with the McCann family. In a word you're not neutral.
Neutrality is a condition sine qua non for interesting debate.

Ahh the usual last resort of a sceptic - i.e. - accuse the poster of being a relative of the McCanns. (sigh)

I do not know the McCanns and have never met them or spoken to them.   I support them because I do not believe they had anything to do with their daughter's disappearance.  That belief is based on the available evidence, common sense and logic.       After six years even the most dedicated sceptic has not been able to come up with an alternative theory to adbuction which doesn't crash and burn under scrutiny.  They should ask themselves why.

IMO The McCanns were an ordinary, normal  family who went on holiday and suffered the worst nightmare of any parent - in that their child was abducted and they do not know what happened to her after that - and until someone comes up with the evidence which proves that is NOT what happened then I shall continue to believe it. 

If you can't understand that Anne -  that is not my problem.



 

   

[Albertini]

Thank you Mr Moderator.

Their saint, Amaral has spoken.   

They Will believe him .... even if they disbelieve the Mccanns and the rest of the Brits, on everything .. twist their words ... and continually call them liars.

I don't understand why discussion has to be broken down along the lines of, those who don't believe the McCann's "hate" them and think Amaral is a saint, and those who believe the parents think they have done everything right and nothing wrong and think Amaral is the devil incarnate.

Nothing in life, certainly something as complex as this case, is ever so black and white.

Do i think Amaral is saint? No
Do i believe he made mistakes? Yes (as Amaral himself has admitted)
Do i believe he should be able to defend himself? Yes
Do i believe the McCann's version of events? No
Do i believe the McCann's have lied? Yes
Do i believe the Mccann's and the group killed the investigation? Yes
Do i believe this should raise suspicion which requires further investigation? Yes
Do i "hate" the McCann's? No
Do i think the parents should be thoroughly questioned and suspected, given their statements and other indications? Yes
Do i think they should be given a free ride just because they say there was an abduction? No
Do i think it was right for the PJ to treat them as suspects? Yes
Do i think the parents were guilty of neglect? Yes

You can adopt a stance without it being as clear cut as "Amaral good, McCann's bad" and vice versa.

This is the main problem with the other forums that discuss the case they are either all or nothing on the above staement one way or the other, and i don't believe it is as clear cut and simplistic as that.

[Albertini]

Ahh the usual last resort of a sceptic - i.e. - accuse the poster of being a relative of the McCanns. (sigh)

I do not know the McCanns and have never met them or spoken to them.   I support them because I do not believe they had anything to do with their daughter's disappearance.  That belief is based on the available evidence, common sense and logic.       After six years even the most dedicated sceptic has not been able to come up with an alternative theory to adbuction which doesn't crash and burn under scrutiny.  They should ask themselves why.

IMO The McCanns were an ordinary, normal  family who went on holiday and suffered the worst nightmare of any parent - in that their child was abducted and they do not know what happened to her after that - and until someone comes up with the evidence which proves that is NOT what happened then I shall continue to believe it. 

If you can't understand that Anne -  that is not my problem.



 

   

Hi benice

I haven't studied this in much detail but what do you think of this theory:

http://unterdenteppichgekehrt.blogspot.co.uk/p/theory-english.html

It is too long to cut and past here.

[Benice]

Hi benice

I haven't studied this in much detail but what do you think of this theory:

http://unterdenteppichgekehrt.blogspot.co.uk/p/theory-english.html

It is too long to cut and past here.

'Morning Albertini

Good grief - I must admit that after reading that Madeleine died on the 2nd May, I skipped through the rest.

According to the author it would seem that anyone who thought they saw Madeleine on the 3rd was either lying, stupid or blind.    I presume the author also thinks that Madeleine was simply a figment of their imagination in the minds of all the other children who were with her on that day at the Kiddies club, and also any other holidaymakers/parents who may have seen her - but were not interviewed.     
 
I can safely say I've never read anything so ludicrous in my life. 

[Rachel Granada]

Hi benice

I haven't studied this in much detail but what do you think of this theory:

http://unterdenteppichgekehrt.blogspot.co.uk/p/theory-english.html

It is too long to cut and past here.

Thanks for posting this up Albertini.   It's an interesting read but I have to echo what Benice said.  I just can't believe that Madeleine passed away on the 2nd, she was seen on 3rd May. 

[Albertini]

'Morning Albertini

Good grief - I must admit that after reading that Madeleine died on the 2nd May, I skipped through the rest.

According to the author it would seem that anyone who thought they saw Madeleine on the 3rd was either lying, stupid or blind.    I presume the author also thinks that Madeleine was simply a figment of their imagination in the minds of all the other children who were with her on that day at the Kiddies club, and also any other holidaymakers/parents who may have seen her - but were not interviewed.     
 
I can safely say I've never read anything so ludicrous in my life.

Well maybe the reason you haven't found a valid accidental death theory is because you stop reading them the moment you happen across something you refuse to believe is possible.

Is it an absolute physical impossibility that some misfortune befell Madeleine on the 2nd May?

I'd say everything is on the table unless it is proven that it is a physical impossibility.

[Albertini]

Thanks for posting this up Albertini.   It's an interesting read but I have to echo what Benice said.  I just can't believe that Madeleine passed away on the 2nd, she was seen on 3rd May.

But not impossible though?

[Benice]

Well maybe the reason you haven't found a valid accidental death theory is because you stop reading them the moment you happen across something you refuse to believe is possible.

Is it an absolute physical impossibility that some misfortune befell Madeleine on the 2nd May?

I'd say everything is on the table unless it is proven that it is a physical impossibility.

Of course it's an absolute impossibility that Madeleine died on the 2nd May - unless you want to dispense with all common sense and logic and believe that all the people who claim to have seen her alive and well on the 3rd May are mistaken.    Sorry - far too many witnesses that we know about, let alone the people at the OC that day who saw her that we don't know about - because they had no reason to come forward just to say 'We saw Madeleine on the 3rd' before they went home.    Why would they?     

IIRC wasn't there a photograph of another family's children showing her in the background on 3rd May - which was forwarded to the authorities?  I vaguely remember Bennet wrote to the owner - but I'm happy to be corrected if that's wrong.

[Redblossom]

I don't understand why discussion has to be broken down along the lines of, those who don't believe the McCann's "hate" them and think Amaral is a saint, and those who believe the parents think they have done everything right and nothing wrong and think Amaral is the devil incarnate.

Nothing in life, certainly something as complex as this case, is ever so black and white.

Do i think Amaral is saint? No
Do i believe he made mistakes? Yes (as Amaral himself has admitted)
Do i believe he should be able to defend himself? Yes
Do i believe the McCann's version of events? No
Do i believe the McCann's have lied? Yes
Do i believe the Mccann's and the group killed the investigation? Yes
Do i believe this should raise suspicion which requires further investigation? Yes
Do i "hate" the McCann's? No
Do i think the parents should be thoroughly questioned and suspected, given their statements and other indications? Yes
Do i think they should be given a free ride just because they say there was an abduction? No
Do i think it was right for the PJ to treat them as suspects? Yes
Do i think the parents were guilty of neglect? Yes

You can adopt a stance without it being as clear cut as "Amaral good, McCann's bad" and vice versa.

This is the main problem with the other forums that discuss the case they are either all or nothing on the above staement one way or the other, and i don't believe it is as clear cut and simplistic as that.

I'll second that. Well said.

[sadie]

Ahh the usual last resort of a sceptic - i.e. - accuse the poster of being a relative of the McCanns. (sigh)

I do not know the McCanns and have never met them or spoken to them.   I support them because I do not believe they had anything to do with their daughter's disappearance.  That belief is based on the available evidence, common sense and logic.       After six years even the most dedicated sceptic has not been able to come up with an alternative theory to adbuction which doesn't crash and burn under scrutiny.  They should ask themselves why.

IMO The McCanns were an ordinary, normal  family who went on holiday and suffered the worst nightmare of any parent - in that their child was abducted and they do not know what happened to her after that - and until someone comes up with the evidence which proves that is NOT what happened then I shall continue to believe it. 

If you can't understand that Anne -  that is not my problem.   

 

I endorse that completely.  As far as i am aware, nobody on the pro side has any connection to the Mccann family, apart from fighting for Justice for them and hopefully contributing towards the finding of Madeleine, the other missing children ...  and the arrest of the perp and his assistants

[Redblossom]

But not impossible though?

Exif data on the mccanns camera will show when the last photo was taken, thats the ultimate proof

The only problem I have with that is why it took three weeks and a return by Gerry Mccann to the UK to produce it and why  it is missing from the PJ files


As for people saying they saw her on the 3rd there are at least two nannies, a cook and and a waiter, although he changed his statement to *not sure*

I dont think these people lied, why would they?

Even Mr Amaral was convinced of her prescence on 3rd May.

PS I dont think that bloggers theory /analysis can be discarded though outright,as theymake many many valid and true points within it, but other theories can be ie no proof she was seen after Sunday and all that rollocks

C u later

[Redblossom]

She wondered about it after Madeleine said it.  She discussed it with Gerry, but because Madeleine hadn't said any more and was away playing happily it wasn't pursued.   She mentioned it on the night - not as a big deal, but in conversation.      If Madeleine had not been abducted, she wouldn't have thought about it again.  I  can't find anything strange about any of that.

AIMHO

Thats your take...but it isnt the only one


here from 1.00 on Kate Mccaann  definitely says had she not been abducted, that comment of hers in the morning would never had passed her mind again! it obviously DID and YES it seemed it was a big deal, READ the rogatories

Thing is Benice, they had NO idea that the files would be released to the public, so they said many things which turned out to be untrue


Ps and why on earth did she say you would never think in a million years that   someone was trying to take her out of the bedroom, as if that was a fact! That at is why she woke and cried