Mystery couples ?

One theory about it is that it was only to convey the impression that Madeleine was actually still alive at that point.

Not Born Yesterday wrote:One theory about it is that it was only to convey the impression that Madeleine was actually still alive at that point.

Hi NBY, if that had been an ordinary couple, they would certainly have been charged with neglect , we know from Amaral's report that Madeleine was seen at 5.30pm that day What happened after that is anybody's guess.

kitti wrote:Could off been  dianne Webster ..wintabells

No. It was a middle-aged couple - she had her hair in a blonde/grey ponytail (Dianne Webster's hair is brown) and the woman was with her husband (a grey-haired guy), whereas Dianne Webster was there on her own.

Thanks for the suggestion, but it definitely wasn't her.

Not Born Yesterday wrote:One theory about it is that it was only to convey the impression that Madeleine was actually still alive at that point.

That is what i was alluding to.

No names,no witnesses,no statements,nothing in crimewatch so maybe just made up.

jinvta wrote:This article is mixing up two different things. Mrs. Fenn heard the crying on May 1st and called a friend about what to do, whilst this couple was apparently seen by two witnesses who saw a middle aged couple enter the apartment on May 2nd.

The two incidents occurred on different nights and are not at all related. Who is to say that the couple was not one of the group of the Tapas 7 anyway? Again, the article is trying to transpose the crying that Mrs. Fenn heard on May 1st to May 2nd, which fits the McCann's fairty tale version of events.

The rogatory interviews like the ones in Portugal seemed to me not to focus a lot on the nights prior, just skimming what they "usually" did, without a drill down into details.

Am I right in that or did they only interview K&G about what happened on the 2nd and let everyone else sort of slide by? Theonly thing I recall was one of them, Rachel, saying that the 3rd was different because usually people checked their own kids so I would doubt TWo of them would go check McCann kids at the same time.

That was the night they left the bar in a huff with each other and were teased about it - May 2nd.

This guy working the tapas bar who was interviewed said he heard Kate make a terrible scream and then "the f*cking b*stards have taken her!" Sounds like Kate had an idea who she was talking about. Did they know of this couple who'd slipped in to console Madeleine on a prior night?

Maybe Mrs Fenn did not want to get her friends or herself into trouble, it was clear McCanns were going to lash around them at anyone they could. She might have thought "I know Sylvia and George (or whomever) would never have bothered the child and did not take her so I am not going to say anything about that"

other people have considered fudging the evidence in order to not look implicated, it's possible Mrs Fenn either did not know these folks or did know them and did not want to throw them into the frame?

To me 'taken her' sounds as if she was already dead.

Lioned wrote:

Not Born Yesterday wrote:One theory about it is that it was only to convey the impression that Madeleine was actually still alive at that point.

That is what i was alluding to.

No names,no witnesses,no statements,nothing in crimewatch so maybe just made up.

Why would they need to do that - when they had so many other witnesses that she was alive up until picked up from the crèche at 530 ish by her mother?

They didn't put the name of the tourist who was Bundleman in there either, nor the name of Smith if I recall.

widowan wrote:

Lioned wrote:

Not Born Yesterday wrote:One theory about it is that it was only to convey the impression that Madeleine was actually still alive at that point.

That is what i was alluding to.

No names,no witnesses,no statements,nothing in crimewatch so maybe just made up.

Why would they need to do that - when they had so many other witnesses that she was alive up until picked up from the crèche at 530 ish by her mother?

They didn't put the name of the tourist who was Bundleman in there either, nor the name of Smith if I recall.

Yes... exactly. The 'where were you when me and Sean cried?' story can't have been to prove she was alive. It seems to me it was more likely intended to demonstrate that they knew there'd been crying (like Mrs Fenn said) and it was Madeleine and Sean.

Why they needed to clarify who was crying, God knows...

edited to add... alternatively, it could have been to change the night the crying occurred, from May 1st (Mrs Fenn's version) to May 2nd... for some reason. Well, confusion is good isn't it?

Where was Amelie at the time? It's hardly likely that she would have slept through the other two crying for a long period.

It would make more sense (as much as that's possible for anything relating to the McCanns) if Madeleine was referring to Amelie and not herself. Amelie is a difficult name for a child to pronounce; perhaps "Me" was what Madeleine called her.

The question is thus why didn't you come when both twins were crying.

Wintabells wrote:

widowan wrote:

Lioned wrote:

Not Born Yesterday wrote:One theory about it is that it was only to convey the impression that Madeleine was actually still alive at that point.

That is what i was alluding to.

No names,no witnesses,no statements,nothing in crimewatch so maybe just made up.

Why would they need to do that - when they had so many other witnesses that she was alive up until picked up from the crèche at 530 ish by her mother?

They didn't put the name of the tourist who was Bundleman in there either, nor the name of Smith if I recall.

Yes... exactly. The 'where were you when me and Sean cried?' story can't have been to prove she was alive. It seems to me it was more likely intended to demonstrate that they knew there'd been crying (like Mrs Fenn said) and it was Madeleine and Sean.

Why they needed to clarify who was crying, God knows...

It shows responsible parenting.  This is what gave them renewed vigor to check more frequently, you know.

Although Kate still insists that she knows her kids don't wake until the wee hours.

Funny how they twist things, this story appeared in the Bewk like so much of what got into it to provide an innocent explanation - for everything - that did or did not occur - they used this as proof Amaral or the PJ were giving leaks to the papers. They only did this because they wanted to be absolutely truthful with the investigation no matter how irrelevant or small the information would be - and look, the meanies used it against them.

It annoyed me that they used this as an example of what the Pj would reveal if they wanted to harm them in the papers, but they think it's no big deal just a passing remark. Well, the fact your kids DID awaken when you were not there should remind you that it's possible and do you really want to have that happen again? they twisted this to make it seem like that is why they were determined to check even more often but 915 to 10 isn't more often than half an hour.

Gerry said in Panorama that like Matt, he didn't put his head in most nights, just when he noticed the door open more than he left it. So interesting. I don't think there were any checks worthy of the name from 830 onward

Is that insinuating that the mccanns KNOW who took Madeleine?

Not Born Yesterday wrote:Where was Amelie at the time? It's hardly likely that she would have slept through the other two crying for a long period.

It would make more sense (as much as that's possible for anything relating to the McCanns) if Madeleine was referring to Amelie and not herself. Amelie is a difficult name for a child to pronounce; perhaps "Me" was what Madeleine called her.

The question is thus why didn't you come when both twins were crying.  

I'm looking for something in relation to another thread, but found this from Gerrys statement to police on 4th may. It says it was the twins were crying, so you are correct:


Between April 28th, the day of arrival, and the time when MADELEINE disappeared, the deponent reports having noticed nothing unusual, except that on the morning of May 3rd, MADELEINE asked her father, GERALD, why he had not come into her bedroom when the twins were crying. The deponent had heard nothing and therefore had not gone into the room, yet he thought his daughter’s comment was strange, even because it was the first time that she made it.

Just to add to the last post, Gerrys 10th of may statement had changed to Sean and I, not the twins.

Kate's 4th may statement s exactly the same as Gerrys - the twins were crying. However Kate's next statement was not until 6th September, at which time she states only Madeleine was crying.

So the big change in statements seems to me to ensure that it was Madeleine who cried.

mossman wrote:Just to add to the last post, Gerrys 10th of may statement had changed to Sean and I, not the twins.

Kate's 4th may statement s exactly the same as Gerrys - the twins were crying.  However Kate's next statement was not until 6th September, at which time she states only Madeleine was crying.

So the big change in statements seems to me to ensure that it was Madeleine who cried.  

Personally I think it was Madeleine who always cried, the twins were probably out for the count. What's the betting Madeleine asked 'why didn't you come when I was crying?' Little children think only of themselves, their own little world, I doubt she would have added the 'Sean' bit even though the McCanns stressed what a little mother she was to them; in the next breath KM said Madeleine didn't really have much to do with them. Can't have it both ways.

I just cannot find any confirmation of this 'mystery couple'

"The tip-off was given by two key witnesses who were reinterviewed as part of the Yard’s two-year, £4.5million investigation."

So these two key witnesses being reinterviewed were originally interviewed by whom ? I guess by the pj as SY are/were just reviewing the existing case files.

But it appears that no such witnesses exist in the official files,no statements from anyone claiming to have seen a couple going in to 5a.

So who and why have this mystery couple been invented.They didnt appear in crimewatch which you would expect SY to include strangers going into the apartment in days prior to the 'abduction'.

No mystery couple then.

ann_chovey wrote:

mossman wrote:Just to add to the last post, Gerrys 10th of may statement had changed to Sean and I, not the twins.

Kate's 4th may statement s exactly the same as Gerrys - the twins were crying.  However Kate's next statement was not until 6th September, at which time she states only Madeleine was crying.

So the big change in statements seems to me to ensure that it was Madeleine who cried.  

Personally I think it was Madeleine who always cried, the twins were probably out for the count. What's the betting Madeleine asked 'why didn't you come when I was crying?'  Little children think only of themselves, their own little world, I doubt she would have added the 'Sean' bit even though the McCanns stressed what a little mother she was to them;  in the next breath KM said Madeleine didn't really have much to do with them. Can't have it both ways.

They don't need to use that to prove Madeleine was alive the morning of the 3rd. They have ample proof of that. What it does I suspect is make them look WORSE, they were furious when it came out because it means they knew she was awake and crying when they were not there and even that did not phase them. Kate's tendency to self edit things for the maximum convenience to herself & her reputation turned that into "when were they crying, in the bath?" etc. rather than the obvious time which is WHEN YOU WERE OUT.

I hardly think she was bawling so loudly Mrs Fenn heard her that one night, and she stopped when Mrs F heard her parents come in - and yet THEY did not hear her as they approached the door. They had to have known there were at least two nights she lay crying for them; if this statement of hers was the morning of the 3rd.

What evidence is there,outside of the immediate tapas group,that Maddie was alive on the morning of the 3rd May ?

Lioned wrote:What evidence is there,outside of the immediate tapas group,that Maddie was alive on the morning of the 3rd May ?

Creche records show Madeleine was at the creche for both the morning and afternoon sessions. However, the records also show Kate picking up Madeleine and the twins even though Gerry says that he did it because Kate was out for a jog.

Apart from the creche records which are 'suspect' !

Lioned wrote:Apart from the creche records which are 'suspect' !

Interestingly, I don't think there is any. Thursday was the "different" day, was it not, where the others in the tapas group went off to Cafe Paradiso and as luck would have it are seen on CCTV, fancy that.

Danne Webster in her statement says she did not see Madeleine on that day. So apart from the usual suspects, nobody.

The only doubt that niggles with me is that Amaral seems reasonably sure in his book she was there on Thursday up to 5.30 or so. The only reason I can think of for this not being true is perhaps the alternative was just a theory and as yet not proven by him so he did not put it to print ?