What I find baffling about Kate McCann's accounts of what happened is that, it seems to me, that in an attempt to set up a theory, she succeeds in shooting herself and the theory in the foot.
The crying incident is a good example. Kate records in her book that the morning of Madeleine's alleged abduction, she asks her parents why they did not come when Sean and she cried last night.
This question somewhat inexplicably puzzles Kate. Why does it puzzle her? They have chosen to dine out of ear-shot of their children therefore it stands to reason that if they children cry they will not hear them and will not come to them. And there is no earthly reason to expect children of that age to never wake up at night.
She then muddies the already murky waters by asking whether the crying was at bath time.......but if the crying was at bath time we would hope that one or other of the parents were there (let's just hope it wasn't David Payne doing bath-duty). Leaving two year olds unattended in the bath is not what is known as reponsible parenting.
She goes on to ask whether the crying was around bedtime with a rather pointless little explanation of how children often get fractious around bedtime. Again, if it was around the time the children were put to bed, then one would hope that a parent would be there to ensure that they go to sleep.
We then get another rather pointless and irrelevant piece of information: 'it certainly wasn't during the early hours because I had been in the room with them, even closer than usual.'
No Kate - stop playing with smoke and mirrors and fudging the issue. Presumably the crying would have been when you were dining and when the parents were not in the apartment.
However, she glibly covers this base with the flippant remark: 'Could Madeleine and Sean have worken up while we were at dinner?'
Errr - yes.....top marks for forensics!!
'If so it was worrying but didn't seem probable'. Why would that be? Why would that be improbable - okay, explanation: ' they rarely stir at night and hardly ever (emphasized) before the early hours. Whether or not this is true, I do not know. However in a strange place you would not expect children to behave in the same way that they do at home. I remember holidays with two year olds - they were often quite unsettled to be in a strange environment.
Having laid the ground work with this strangely illogical account, Kate then offers the reader her own version of events. We are invited to conclude that the reason for the crying was for an altogether more sinister reason than that of being left alone at night without their parents (and that is already a bit sinister). Namely that someone had entered the apartment with a view to abduction. A large brown stain on Madeleine's pajamas is also mentioned, to sow the seed that the abductor may have tried to drug them that night and on the subsequent night when Madeleine allegedly disappeared.
On the following page (64) another seed is sown - the subject of paedophilia is mentioned. There is an account of a somewhat inappropriate exchange between the McCanns and a man who is videoing his 3 year old daughter playing tennis. 'He looked embarrassed.......filming in this way made him feel like a dirty old man.'
I'm sorry but that is a very strange conversation - very strange indeed. Again, if true, this is faintly disturbing. Why would anyone find this subject funny?
Anyway, I digress. The point is that the padophile abduction theory has been developed. And the seed had been sown that the children may have been drugged by the abductor. I have my own views on why the McCanns chose to promote a drugging theory. But, once again, having promoted this idea, they then shoot themselves in the foot.
IF Kate and Gerry genuinely felt that the children had been drugged, why on earth did they not insist on toxicology tests? They are doctors for heaven's sake! This would have given crucial information. But no, everyone just traipses around the apartment while the twins lie as if in a coma. At least Kate checks their breathing from time to time I suppose.
To complete the abduction theory, Kate then writes about Jane Tanner's sighting of a man carrying a sleeping child at 9.15pm. It was convenient that Jane Tanner happened to be in the right place at the right time -spotting the 'abductor'. We are told that as soon as Tanner heard about the disappearance 'everything fell into place and she felt sick'.
How extraordinarily convenient! So there we have it. The story as told by the McCanns and their friends.
Quite frankly I can see why the Portuguese police was less than impressed with it. It's got more holes in it than a colander and is actually an insult to Madeleine.
