Mrs Fenn and that crying child incident revisited.

[Redblossom]

Read my post again.  I said she would not have thought of it again after the day that Madeleine was abducted.  She spoke of it during dinner before Madeleine was abducted.

Madeleine spoke to her on the morning of the 3rd. Kate mentioned it during dinner that evening.    If she had not been abducted later that night then they would just have continued with their holiday and KM would not have given it another thought - because she would have had no reason to.      It was Madeleine's abduction which gave her the reason to go back over everything that had happened on the 3rd which included what Madeleine had said on that morning.

Youre so totally wrong


IF what happened hadnt happened, kate says, ie the abduction, which she didnt now know about till ten that night, then that comment from madeleine would never had passed her mind again..ONLY IT DID BEFORE she found out Madeleine was missing as she SPOKE Bout if BEFORE "IT" happened to all her mates...stop spinning benice.......its getting boring


... moderated out irrelevant ...

[Benice]

"If what happened hadn't happened that comment would never have passed through my head again" - K McCann's comment in the video Red posted on the previous page.

But it did because she mentioned it during the meal (according to the rogatory interviews). Why?

She was explaining about what happened when Madeleine spoke to them on that morning - that's all.   Her comment was to explain why it didn't seem cause for serious concern at that time.     

She was summarising - she was not in the witness box being asked to go over ever aspect of it, including what she said at dinner about it.    Just because she didn't mention her later convo later that evening  - doesn't make her a liar.   It just means she didn't think it was necessary to bring that into that particular conversation.

[Redblossom]

Only it DID cross her mind and very seriously (apparently) as she chose to speak of her "concerns" to three  of her girl mates....that night BEFore it happened Benice, stop twisting, tara now......

and you can cry how rude how rude a millin times dont change facts!  Or your ridiculous  in denial posts

 

See ya

[Sherlock Holmes]

It would  'make perfect sense'  if  Kate remembered that conversation she claims to have had  with Madeleine because she was  'under scrutiny'  in police and other interviews,, and she was going through all events of the holiday in her mind and trying to make some kind of sense of them

That's not what happened though

She sat down at the table and almost immediately related that conversation with her friends

While she was doing so,  according to her version of events,  Madeleine was safely tucked up in bed

...  No duress  ...  no stress  ...  no scrutiny   ...  no reason to be going through the event in her mind

She brought up the subject voluntarily and without  prompting    ...  the subject she claims would never have  entered her head at all if Madeleine had not been  'abducted'

Yes I have just been re-reading things and I seem to have got this mixed up.

But even though she mentioned this conversation at the table, she has brought it up several times publicly as a hint that there could have been someone in the apartment prior to 3rd (as mentioned earlier in this thread).

I understand the importance of going over every detail and placing things correctly in the timeline. Our understanding of the situation can change profoundly according to the alteration of one tiny detail.

I think that it is worth remembering in general terms, however, that much of what Kate McCann has written and said is a result of her reviewing things in her mind. Her words written and spoken are highly discursive in style.

In my opinion this exercise - if not her comments at the table - can  be explained quite easily by saying that she was looking for things which may have helped her understand what happened to Madeleine. There is nothing odd about this at all, and nothing in this process to suggest lies.

[Lyall]

She was explaining about what happened when Madeleine spoke to them on that morning - that's all.   Her comment was to explain why it didn't seem cause for serious concern at that time.     

She was summarising - she was not in the witness box being asked to go over ever aspect of it, including what she said at dinner about it.    Just because she didn't mention her later convo later that evening  - doesn't make her a liar.   It just means she didn't think it was necessary to bring that into that particular conversation.

I'd never use the word liar, Benice. I won't use it because I can't know what has been motivating them over the years, but they have consistently spun - and this issue of Madeleine's comment is one such occasion. You'd so easily be able to avoid having to spin yourself if you just agreed that they have done. The reason why they have (and continue to do imo) is of course not known for certain. By anybody.

[Lyall]

Only it DID cross her mind and very seriously (apparently) as she chose to speak of her "concerns" to three  of her girl mates....that night BEFore it happened Benice, stop twisting, tara now......

and you can cry how rude how rude a millin times dont change facts!  Or your ridiculous  in denial posts

 

See ya

Still here.

[Angelo222]

Yes but did this incident actually happen on the 2nd and not the 3rd? To promote an abductor theory it sounds better by changing it to the 3rd. From Fenn's statement the crying episode happened on the 1st so Madeleine would have said this on the morning of the 2nd.

It's very simple, Madeleine was crying on both the Tuesday and the Wednesday nights while her parents were at the restaurant.  Mrs Fenn didn't hear her on the second night because she went out to her friends house.   

Of course the McCanns didn't realise this when they made their statements.  They weren't to know that a neighbour had overheard her crying and to such an extent that she contemplated reporting it to reception.  The simplest explanations are always the best!

[Benice]

Only it DID cross her mind and very seriously (apparently) as she chose to speak of her "concerns" to three  of her girl mates....that night BEFore it happened Benice, stop twisting, tara now......

If she was seriously concerned she would have taken the matter further with Madeleine at the time.  They were puzzled more than anything else imo and as Madeleine was playing happily - and showing no concern herself, they didn't take it any further.

Do you think if in that video she had been asked if she had mentioned it to anyone else that she would have said no.   I certainly don't because she would have no reason to lie.   

IMO  she was explaining how it only became important because Madeleine was abducted.    Her conversation with her friends had no relevance to that point she was making at that particular time.

[icabodcrane]

Yes I have just been re-reading things and I seem to have got this mixed up.

But even though she mentioned this conversation at the table, she has brought it up several times publicly as a hint that there could have been someone in the apartment prior to 3rd (as mentioned earlier in this thread).

I understand the importance of going over every detail and placing things correctly in the timeline. Our understanding of the situation can change profoundly according to the alteration of one tiny detail.

I think that it is worth remembering in general terms, however, that much of what Kate McCann has written and said is a result of her reviewing things in her mind. Her words written and spoken are highly discursive in style.

In my opinion this exercise - if not her comments at the table - can  be explained quite easily by saying that she was looking for things which may have helped her understand what happened to Madeleine. There is nothing odd about this at all, and nothing in this process to suggest lies.

I don't understand what you mean

Kate  did  think about Madeleine telling her she had been crying for them  ....  and she thought about it   (  and related it to her friends  )  before  Madeleine disappeared

Why would she say later  ....  over and over again in the relentless confused shoulder-shrugging,  "Was she talking about when they were in the bath ?"  bafflement filled interviews   ....   that she would never even have thought   about Madeleine's remark again, if she hadn't been  abducted  ?

Why the  need  for that kind of revisionism ? 

[Sherlock Holmes]

I don't understand what you mean

Kate  did  think about Madeleine telling her she had been crying for them  ....  and she thought about it   (  and related it to her friends  )  before  Madeleine disappeared

Why would she say later  ....  over and over again in the relentless confused shoulder-shrugging,  "Was she talking about when they were in the bath ?"  bafflement filled interviews   ....   that she would never even have thought   about Madeleine's remark again, if she hadn't been  abducted  ?

Why the  need  for that kind of revisionism ?

I don't know if it's revisionism. Kate had one reason for reporting the conversation shortly after the time it occurred, and another for recounting it afterward.

It is strange that she says she would never have considered the remark if she hadn't been abducted. Presumably she is trying to emphasise the connection she wants to make between the crying and the alleged abduction.

[Angelo222]

The bottom line is that Madeleine was overheard to cry on two consecutive nights.  Why was it that Sean and Amelie never roused for the entire night even when transferred to another apartment?  Had someone as Kate herself suggested, slipped something into the children's food or drink earlier that day?

[Lyall]

I don't know if it's revisionism. Kate had one reason for reporting the conversation shortly after the time it occurred, and another for recounting it afterward.

It is strange that she says she would never have considered the remark if she hadn't been abducted. Presumably she is trying to emphasise the connection she wants to make between the crying and the alleged abduction.

So she is spinning it then? For a good reason?

[Benice]

I'd never use the word liar, Benice. I won't use it because I can't know what has been motivating them over the years, but they have consistently spun - and this issue of Madeleine's comment is one such occasion. You'd so easily be able to avoid having to spin yourself if you just agreed that they have done. The reason why they have (and continue to do imo) is of course not known for certain. By anybody.

That's your opinion and you are entitled to it Lyall.   I don't agree.  I think Madeleine was abducted and the McCanns and their friends have told the truth throughout to the best of their knowledge.      There has been no conspiracy, no whitewash, no spinning, and they don't have 'power' over anyone.   They are just two ordinary loving parents who are desperate to find out what happened to their little girl and won't ever stop trying to find out.

I do not believe that SY are part of some huge conspiracy.    They know vastly more than we know about everything to do with this case and why that fact is always ignored by Sceptics is a mystery to me.

Picking over and dissecting every word the McCanns say looking to find fault is not a fair way of doing things IMO.
It seems that anything they say which suits the sceptics is set in stone and they are telling the truth and everything they say (or don't say) which doesn't suit - then suddenly they are liars.   There's no logic in that IMO.   

Night night all.

[Sherlock Holmes]

So she is spinning it then? For a good reason?

Don't know about spinning, just thinking aloud - 'processing' aloud, as the Americans say.

Liverpudlian tendency for outpouring.

Apologies to Liverpudlians for the stereotyped comment (if anyone cares what I say about Liverpudlians; I'm hardly the mayor of London).

[icabodcrane]

Don't know about spinning, just thinking aloud - 'processing' aloud, as the Americans say.

Liverpudlian tendency for outpouring.

Apologies to Liverpudlians for the stereotyped comment (if anyone cares what I say about Liverpudlians; I'm hardly the mayor of London).

I disagree

I don't think the McCanns have   ever  'thought aloud' 

You don't hire Carter Ruck if you are so inclined