In which case the entire world would not be big enough to hold the SOB insofar as I were concerned if I were the child's mother; I'd send him into outer space when he wasn't looking.
Estelle, old dear, I love your posts, but surely you don't believe that any mother on the planet would respond to such an ultimatum by saying, "Oh well, I suppose you should go ahead and kill her then"?[/quote]
Unfortunately Susan Smith in the USA did just that, blaming it on a strange black man and almost causing race riots I think you'll find it in CrimeLibrary or Websleuths[/quote]
Susan Smith confessed within two weeks I think. The jury did not believe that the letter from her lover, saying that he did not want children, was the primary motivation for the crime.
Estelle, how could we possibly forget your thread?????
[quote="OurLadyofFatima"]Oh, Observant, I disagree. I think she is very, very strong. Supernatural strenghth, even.[/quote]
I understand about massive bursts of physical anger. Kate would had to have been extremely angry to beable to pick up Madeleine, throw her hard enough to cause her severe injuries or kill her outright. To cause injuries capable of causing death, Kate would had to have held Madeleine above her head. I can't see Kate having that kind of strength.
IMO an incident such as that there would have been a considerable amount of noise, such as screaming, shouting which would have alerted Mrs Fenn. As far as we know, Mrs Fenn only heard crying for a couple of hours.
Posted: Wed Jan 09, 2008 4:41 am Post subject: Re: Did Mrs Fenn overhear the killing?
[quote="Jellen Apparently Mrs Fenn had complained on more than one occasion about the children crying so I don't believe the kids were sedated that week, and so I don't think that's why the body had to be hidden. I think the body had to be disposed of due to the violence of the death and of course, the probable consequences for Gerry's career. So, my theory in brief, Kate killed her but Gerry instigated the cover up.[/quote]
I understand the need for the cover up in this scenario, but why did they have to dispose of the body in such a definite way? Why not leave it in a place where it could be found after some searching and then blame this violent death on the "abductor"? That's what puzzles me. Almost any findings on post-mortem could be attributed to an abductor: sedation overdose, drugs ingestion or injection, broken neck, body injuries, sexual abuse. So why couldn't the body be found? I can't get this out of my head and have been struggling to find an answer. The only reason I can come up with is that somehow the cause of death would point directly to them. Maybe DNA evidence on the body?
Posted: Wed Jan 09, 2008 4:47 am Post subject: Re: Did Mrs Fenn overhear the killing?
[quote="AnaMaria"][quote="Jellen Apparently Mrs Fenn had complained on more than one occasion about the children crying so I don't believe the kids were sedated that week, and so I don't think that's why the body had to be hidden. I think the body had to be disposed of due to the violence of the death and of course, the probable consequences for Gerry's career. So, my theory in brief, Kate killed her but Gerry instigated the cover up.[/quote]
I understand the need for the cover up in this scenario, but why did they have to dispose of the body in such a definite way? Why not leave it in a place where it could be found after some searching and then blame this violent death on the "abductor"? That's what puzzles me. Almost any findings on post-mortem could be attributed to an abductor: sedation overdose, drugs ingestion or injection, broken neck, body injuries, sexual abuse. So why couldn't the body be found? I can't get this out of my head and have been struggling to find an answer. The only reason I can come up with is that somehow the cause of death would point directly to them. Maybe DNA evidence on the body?[/quote]
Old injuries or sedation would have been distinguishable from recent ones.
Posted: Wed Jan 09, 2008 4:49 am Post subject: Re: Did Mrs Fenn overhear the killing?
[quote="jellyfish"][quote="AnaMaria"][quote="Jellen Apparently Mrs Fenn had complained on more than one occasion about the children crying so I don't believe the kids were sedated that week, and so I don't think that's why the body had to be hidden. I think the body had to be disposed of due to the violence of the death and of course, the probable consequences for Gerry's career. So, my theory in brief, Kate killed her but Gerry instigated the cover up.[/quote]
I understand the need for the cover up in this scenario, but why did they have to dispose of the body in such a definite way? Why not leave it in a place where it could be found after some searching and then blame this violent death on the "abductor"? That's what puzzles me. Almost any findings on post-mortem could be attributed to an abductor: sedation overdose, drugs ingestion or injection, broken neck, body injuries, sexual abuse. So why couldn't the body be found? I can't get this out of my head and have been struggling to find an answer. The only reason I can come up with is that somehow the cause of death would point directly to them. Maybe DNA evidence on the body?[/quote]
Old injuries or sedation would have been distinguishable from recent ones.[/quote]
Old injuries yes, but you think sedation as well? If you're right, than it would make sense.
[quote="Jellen"]urcrazy - mrs fenn , as far as I can gather, is reported as saying she never gave any statements to the press. It seems she did give a statement to the PJ but NOT to the press so what's the problem with that ? The woman is apparently nearly 80 and doesn't want the international press on her doorstep harassing her. If I were that age and found myself a major witness in a case like this, I would be frightened too and would probably do what she's done and just deny everything. Who cares what the papers print as long as the police have the correct info ? That's what I'd do.[/quote]
Indeed. I don't imagine it is/was very good for her nerves to have the media camped on her doorstep day after day, even if she doesn't have any significant health problems. I would bet that more than one of those said journalists were "hostile," as well, thinking that Mrs. Fenn was attempting to villify the Dr./Saints McCann and perhaps tried to bully her or otherwise attempt to get the poor old lady to recant her alleged statement/s to the police.
In fact, I would go so far as to submit that is EXACTLY what the UK media's intent was in airing the video were Mrs. Fenn denies giving a statement to a journalist to make it appear to the still-sympathetic British public that the PJ had made up the allegations that there was a witness who could testify that the McCanns weren't checking on their kids nearly as often as they'd like the world to believe. (And, personally, I don't think they checked their kids AT ALL on those nightly outings.)
Let us just hope that Mrs. Fenn isn't called 'home' by the Lord until AFTER she is able to bear witness against the McCanns so that she is able to help attain justice for that poor little mite.
Lets hope the PJ had the good sense to record Mrs Fenn's testimony to what she may or may not have seen/heard whilst the McCs were on their holiday.
Chances are they would have noted Mrs Fenn's age, the possibility that this case could be quite drawn out and decided not to make any unnecessary errors.
[quote="urcrazy"][quote="newperson"]accroding to urcrazy or rhodes3 (cant remember who i get them mixed up lol) mrs fenn heard nothing [/quote] -----------------------------------------------------------------------
No, that's according to Mrs Fenn.
I'm only going by what I heard her say myself, on a clip i found on YouTube - think it might have been Sky.[/quote]
[quote="Marianna"]And if they are not religious, why call thepriest from Liverpool immediately, why visit the Pope? Was it malice aforethought, a shrewd sympathy-gaining reaction, or is it real?[/quote]
Malice aforethought is EXACTLY what it was! Even Kate's own mother expressed astonishment that Kate called that night wanting the priest's phone number because they'd "never been particularly religious before."
I believe they decided to play the "religion card" because they knew that Portugal was predominantly a Catholic country so by pretending to be devout themselves, they figured it would make them appear more sympathetic.
Don't think for a single moment that their sudden embrace of Catholicism was anything other than cold, calculated strategy because everybody knows that Catholics love kids and have big families, and there's no way a devout Catholic would ever neglect their children!
It was just another prop in their charade, like Cuddle Cat's strategic appearance every time Kate attended a public appearance -- my guess is that every time she apparently buried her face in Cuddle Cat's plusiness, she was actually trying to hide her laughter from the poor schmucks who believed her sudden show of grief was sincere.
This particular stunt is no different than a murderous, tattoo-covered gang-banger who accidentally shot a kindergartener in a drive-by who suddenly appears in court in a spiffy new suit and haircut, trying to look like the boy next door. Or the inmate on death row begging the governor for a last-minute pardon because he's suddenly "found Jesus."
The part that makes the charade so particularly unpalettable is the fact that it actually worked! Up until the past week or two, nearly every article regarding the McCanns didn't fail to mention the McCanns (alleged) faith -- I mean, don't forget about the touching story about attending a private Christmas mass.
This disgusting couple managed to keep the wool pulled over the eyes of the average Joe and Jane Citizen while they sneered and smirked behind the cameras with their blithe sense of entitlement, , content in the knowledge that their high-powered friends would keep them from having to set foot inside a court room, much less behind bars in prison.
The only time this grusome twosome has ever evinced any SINCERE display of emotion was in the days after they were named arguidos and they realized that they weren't nearly as clever as they thought they were and the PJ weren't the bumbling keystone cops that the UK would have wished. Up until September, both Kate and Gerry were positively GLOWING with laughter and good health. They didn't start appearing gaunt and distressed, with dark circles of worry under their eyes, until the realized that PJ had them firmly within their cross-hairs.
So don't believe for a single moment that their sudden display of devotion to the church was anything other than a prop to help them tug at the heartstrings of truly loving and devoted parents.
Just like CuddleCat, the bible and sudden interest in attending church and meeting the pope was anything other than a tool to help bolster their image in the eyes of the world.
[quote="NoHidingSuspects"]Unfortunately Susan Smith in the USA did just that, blaming it on a strange black man and almost causing race riots I think you'll find it in CrimeLibrary or Websleuths[/quote]
So did some woman back in the 80s, I think it was in the Pacific NW (Portland or Seattle?). Her boyfriend didn't want a "ready-made family" so the mother killed all four of her kids in order to be with him! I *think* she locked/barracaded the kids in the house and then set it on fire and barbequed them alive and then pretended it was an accident and she wasn't able to rescue her kids. There was a famous/acclaimed TV movie made of the case, I think it was called "Small Sacrifices" and starred Farrah Fawcett or one of those other chicks from (original) "Charlie's Angels"....
Unfortunately, there are quite a number of women that would put a man before her children. Just think of the cases where the daughter tells the mother that mommy's husband/boyfriend has been sneaking into the daughter's room every night to molest her and then when the daughter tells her mom what's going on, the mom doesn't believe the girl or else accuses the girl of leading the husband on, and then kicks the daughter out of the house for being a "****."
However, I tend to agree with one of the previous posters that said that Kate was jealous of Madeleine. I suspect that Maddie was probably "daddy's little girl" and Kate was jealous of the time and attention he paid to little girl so that in Kate's twisted mind, it was like Maddie was her "rival" for Gerry's affections. I believe when the full story is finally known, we will learn that Madeleine died at Kate's hand, whether it was an accident or deliberate.
[quote="JillyComeLately"]Why does this myth get constantly regurgitated here???
Mark Warner does NOT provide a Listening Service in PdL! As all the accommodation is in apartments OUTSIDE the gated complex they deem it not safe to offer that service.
.[/quote]
I respectfully disagree with that. A Portuguese poster named "Alsabella" on the Daily Express HYS forum researched the types of babysitting services offered at MW and they DID offer a listening service, which was intended to be used with older children (12+-years-old). They discontinued the listening service and removed all references to it on their website directly as a result of the McCann case.
"Alsabella" has archived electronic copies of the MW website for the PDL resort dated late May/early June which clearly indicates the listening service as a child-care option. She also conversed with a member of MW management regarding the issue, although I am not certain if this was done via phone or email.
[quote="TheObservantOne"][quote="OurLadyofFatima"]Oh, Observant, I disagree. I think she is very, very strong. Supernatural strenghth, even.[/quote]
I understand about massive bursts of physical anger. Kate would had to have been extremely angry to beable to pick up Madeleine, throw her hard enough to cause her severe injuries or kill her outright.[/quote]
Agreed. That is why I personally believe that Kate SHOOK Madeleine to death, a la "Shaken Baby Syndrome," as I have postulated in previous threads for a couple months now. I don't know if SBS is well-known in the UK, but unfortunately, it's ALL too common an occurance in the US. There was even a British nanny in Boston famously tried and convicted -- although the judge immediately threw out the jury verdict and released the girl -- of shaking to death the baby she was paid to care for back in the late 1990s. The nanny's name was Louise Somebody.
Anyhoo, here is my theory of what may have occured in PDL, cut+pasted from another thread:
----------------------------------- [quote="CKH"]...I have absolutely no difficulty imagining Kate losing her temper with Madeleine and shaking her to death, a la "Shaken Baby Syndrome." It doesn't take as much force as one would think to have the child's brain sloshing around inside his/her skull like a bowl Jello.
If I were to go with the accidental death scenario, if an autopsy had been possible immediately following Madeleine's death it wouldn't surprise me in the least if SBS had turned out to be the official cause of death.
The thing is, with SBS, the incident could have occurred many hours before the child actually died. What happens with SBS is, after the brain has been sloshed around, it begins to swell from "brusing" and because the brain is in an enclosed space, the only way to relieve that swelling is to either put the victim into a medically induced coma and wait for the swelling to go down 'naturally,' or they'll drill a hole in the skull to drain excess fluid so that there is more room for the swollen brain inside the skull.
Unfortunately, the victim doesn't necessarily begin exhibiting symptoms immediately after being shaken. It's possible that Maddie appeared to be fine -- maybe feeling sleepier than usual and maybe slurring her words -- so that Kate or Gerry didn't immediately realize anything was wrong and blithely trotted down to the tapas bar for their boozy meal.
ETA: I think I remember hearing about other, more extreme cases of SBS where the child had been shaken so violently that it actually severed the child's spinal cord, but obviously the paralysis would be immediate in those cases so the person shaking the child would know right away that something was seriously wrong. Typically in these particular instances, the suspect usually turns out to be a very remorseful young father, caring for the child alone, and has anger management issues and simply lashes out at the baby because he's frustrated by the baby's incessant crying and is at the end of his rope because he's unable to make the stop crying. Obviously these incidents are terrible, tragic accidents because the father wasn't deliberately trying to harm the child but it results in a dead or mortally injured baby nonetheless and typically ends in a prison sentence.
Of course, the SBS scenario is complete speculation on my part, but I don't believe it's as daft or outlandish as some of the theories or hypotheses that have been put forth during this entire sorry episode.
I believe that Maddie was mortally injured on the night when Mrs. Fenn overheard her crying out for "Daddy," but it was not immediately fatal. I believe that when K&G returned from their little jaunt that night, they were not best-pleased to discover Maddie had been crying/screaming all night because it brought unwanted attention to their "unorthodox" childcare arrangements.
I think either K or G rushed into the children's bedroom in a rage when they heard Madeleine's ruckus and grabbed her by the shoulders and gave her a vigorous shake, "What do you think you're doing? You should've been asleep hours ago..." I'm not sure if she did it on purpose; I don't think she realized exactly how heard s/he shook Maddie.
I think Maddie died slowly, over a period of hours as a result of the swelling in her brain. As self-absorbed as K&G apparently are/were, they probably didn't notice that Maddie was listless (or more listless than usual) and sleepy. Maybe K and/or G put Maddie's behavior down to having stayed up half the night prior (when she was alleged to have been crying for her daddy) so was simply tired and worn-out. Or maybe they didn't notice it at all because she was at the daycare center for most of the day.
Presuming that Maddie was mortally injured late on the night of the 2nd or early morning on the 3rd as a result of my SBS scenario, she wasn’t feeling well on the 3rd but nobody really noticed it because she was at the daycare center most of the day. Again, whichever parent had actually shaken her hadn’t realized how hard s/he had done so.
While I don't necessarily discount that sedatives may have used by the T9 members to keep their children in a stuporous sleep to ensure the tykes didn't disrupt the adult fun and games, I don't believe that is what killed Madeleine.
I believe she experienced some type of catastrophic head injury that may not have been immediately fatal. It's even possible that K and/or G may have lead the other T7 members to BELIEVE Maddie died from an overdose of sedatives (perhaps actually administered or "prescribed" by one of the other doctors) and that is how they all become entangled in their web of lies.
Lets hope the PJ had the good sense to record Mrs Fenn's testimony to what she may or may not have seen/heard whilst the McCs were on their holiday.[/quote]
I agree that they likely recorded Mrs. Fenn's testimony "just in case." But the problem with that, should Mrs. Fenn become unavailable to testify in person is that some slick defense attorney could argue against allowing Mrs. Fenn's recorded testimony to be played in court because the defense attorney would then not have the opportunity to cross-examine Mrs. Fenn -- they'd argue that it would be unduly prejudicial to the McCanns because their attorney/s wouldn't be able to question the person who is bearing witness against the accused.
Of course, the judge could always overule such an argument and allow the testimony in anyway, it just depends on how the Portuguese judicial system works. I've heard that there will not be a jury, just a panel of three judges who will hear the case, so the argument that playing Mrs. Fenn's testimony in court without the opportunity for a cross-examination would prejudice the jury could be moot.
Anyway, even if Mrs. Fenn is able to testify in person, I guarantee it was probably be the most traumatic experience of her life because the defense attorneys will try to tear her to shreds on the stand.
They'll say because she's old, that she's senile and half-deaf and therefore couldn't possibly have heard what she's alleged to have heard, or they'll try to trip her up on the dates to make it look like Mrs. Fenn heard what she heard sometime before the McCanns arrived in PDL so therefore she couldn't possibly have heard Madeleine crying. They'll try to make it seem like Mrs. Fenn has dementia or Alzheimers and imagined the whole thing, etc., etc., etc..
I guarantee that it will be ugly. In fact, it might almost be better if it WERE a jury trial rather than a bench trial, because then the defense attorneys would have to be careful about being perceived by the jury as trying to bully a helpless old lady....
|
[/quote] 