If what kate claims is true and she then wondered if someone had tried the night before or made a 'dry run', why then did they still allegedly leave their children home alone again?
All the children were being babysat by the missing adult from the table each night.
They had to claim they were neglectful and leaving their children home alone each night in order for there to be an opportunity for an abduction.
She also fails to explain why, if they allegedly left the children home alone each night, the alleged abductor would do a dry run.
An abductor is not going to go into the apartment, find the child they want to abduct, then leave without said child.
They are not going to do a dry run and think yep, we can do it in the time they leave between checks, we will do the real abduction tomorrow night.
They will not know if the parents are going to be responsible for once and either take their children with them on the last night of their vacation to the tapas bar, hire one of the creche workers to babysit the children, leave the children in the evening creche or have dinner in the apartment.
Any of those options would remove the chance to abduct Maddie.
If they made all the effort to get into the apartment the night before and see their target in bed sleeping and no adults around, and they know the next check is not likely for X amount of minutes, they are going to take the opportunity and abduct Maddie there and then.
They come up with an explanation for something, be it to explain away the alleged crying, the stain on the t shirt, the checks etc and because it is deceptive, it leads to other questions being asked which they then need to explain away.
They came up with an explanation as to why Maddie asked why they didn't come when she and Sean were crying the previous night. They wondered if it was when they were being bathed etc failing to realize that if it were the mccanns bathing them and putting them to bed then the question would not have arisen as they would have heard them crying whilst they were bathing them and putting them to bed.
This then points to the children being either in another apartment whilst kate and gerry were in 5a getting ready or, ALL the tapas children being in 5a whilst kate and gerry were elsewhere.
Interview broadcast: 01 May 2008
Gerry McCann: Anybody with young children will understand that children cry; they wake up at night. During that week there was one night, errr… and we can't give too much detail because it's part of the investigation file but there was one night where Madeleine came through and one of the other, errr… twins were crying, so, you know, and when she did mention to it… it to us and we asked her about it and she just dropped… she was completely fine and we thought, 'Was it when they were bathing, getting them, you know, first putting them down in that period when they're really tired. Of course, with hindsight, in the… in the context of what had happened; of Madeleine being abducted, it's put in a very different light and it's put in a very different light to us and, of course, we emphasized that to the police.
Note the self editing here, was gerry going to say "OTHER CHILDREN, realized he was going to drop them right in by revealing all the children were in one apartment and thus changed it to OTHER TWINS.
The problem here though is there were no other twins, only Sean and Amelie.
However we do have leakage of a marble.
'Was it when they were bathing, getting them, you know, first putting them down in that period when they're really tired.'
Had it been kate and gerry doing it then the question would never have arisen since they would have heard it.
Since the question did arise then we know kate and gerry were not bathing them and putting them to bed.
Since they heard nothing we then have the following questions:
Who was bathing them and putting them to bed?
Where were the mccann children and where were kate and gerry?
If the children were in 5a where were kate and gerry?
If the mccanns were in 5a where were the children?
Then we have a change in what they claimed in 'Madeleine: One Year On' documentary, 30 April 2008
Kate McCann: Well, I... I can't remember if we'd just had breakfast, it was rou... it was, sort of, fairly early in the morning and she just very casually, really, said: (mimics Madeleine's voice) 'Where were you last night, when me and Sean cried?' and we immediately looked and said, you know: 'When was this, Madeleine? Was this when you were going to sleep?' and she didn't answer and then she just carried on playing, totally undistressed..
Gerry McCann: Madeleine's very articulate and, errr... for her age, and, errm... you know, it's unlike her, if she's got something to say, to drop it. She just did... literally, dropped it, errm... and we both, kind of, looked at each other and said: 'Was it when we had just put them down?'
Since they told us they made sure the children were asleep before they went to the tapas bar, this version doesn't make sense.
Gerry tells us 'Was it when we had just put them down?'
Had that been the case, the mccanns would have heard them and the question would not have arisen since the would have heard them cry and, I would hope, gone into their bedroom to see why they were crying and to reassure them.
The only other option was put them to bed and then run like heck out the apartment to the tapas bar.
Kate asks if it was when you (Maddie) was going to sleep?
Had this been true, then kate and gerry would have heard her crying since it would have been kate and gerry putting her to bed and then waiting until the children were asleep before going to the tapas bar.
Since kate asks Maddie if it was when she was going to sleep then we have a problem.
Kate and gerry never heard the crying and asked when it was, this means that kate and gerry, unlike their story did not bathe the children nor put them to bed.
Since the mccanns heard no crying we have two options.
1) The children were bathed by someone other than kate and gerry and put to bed by someone other than kate and gerry in an apartment that was not 5a, IE one of the apartments occupied by one of the tapas friends.
Kate and gerry stayed in their own apartment getting ready to go to the tapas bar meaning they would not have heard any of the children crying.
2) Madeleine and her siblings as well as the other children were all in apartment 5a being babysat by whichever parent was missing from the table, allegedly due to illness.
Where then were kate and gerry that they never bathed the children nor put them to bed?
In whose apartment were they and why?
The mccanns never say anything without a good reason, either to explain away something they did or did not do or to preempt something seen or heard by another.
Was the 'crying incident' created to explain away the crying heard by Mrs Fenn (if what she said she heard was true)
Was it said to set the scene for the alleged abduction?
Was it said to indicate Maddie was alive the night before the alleged abduction, especially if she was not seen by independent witnesses during the Thursday or there was no definite, verified reliable sighting of her such as at the creche etc, the alleged sighting by payne can be discounted as he is not independent.
It would also indicate she was alive during the week even if the creche workers did not remember seeing her, especially when the image they released of her was an old photo and she looked nothing like that during the vacation.
Remember Thursday night was the only night where others from the tapas group checked on the mccann children, the only night where the routine changed.
Apart from the Sunday morning, there are no definite independent sightings of Maddie, even at the creche, the staff would not have known Maddie long enough to say for sure she had been present, especially with the old photograph of Maddie that was released to the media and public so people knew who and what to look for in their searching.
They would only know someone had been presented to them as Maddie.
Why would the mccanns tell us about the alleged crying incident, knowing that by doing so would make them appear even more neglectful?
Why did they tell us about the alleged crying incident that happened the night before Maddie was allegedly abducted knowing that by doing so, and then saying they decided to keep more regular checks on the children (if half hourly was more regular checking, what were the time gaps before the Thursday night?) it would make them appear heartless and negligent?
Why, knowing the children had allegedly cried the night before and they hadn't checked on them did they still decide to leave the children home alone rather than make use of the free evening creche, use of the babysitting facility, taking the children to the tapas bar with them or, staying home and either having a take away or cooking their own dinner, again making them look heartless, uncaring and negligent.
Knowing that the public would consider them to be heartless and negligent, the damage to their reputations and that they could face charges of negligence and the risk of losing their children (perhaps even the other tapas members since they too were leaving their children home alone) why did they consider that to be the least damaging option?
What was so bad that they were willing to risk losing their children, possibly their jobs as well as their social standing, their family and friends, everything they had worked for, to be forever remembered as negligent parents rather than tell the truth?
Had it been an accident why lie?
Accidents happen all the time, even with the parents right next to the child.
Accidental overdose could have been explained away as them not knowing Maddie had eaten some pills thinking they were candy and they only found out the next day when they found her dead in bed.
Had Maddie fallen and died behind the sofa they could have said they were drunk enough that they never heard a thing once asleep, and only when they went to wake her in the morning and she wasn't in bed and on searching, they found her dead behind the sofa again either having eaten pills or not.
They had a reason to be deceptive.
They had a reason to claim they were neglectful parents.
They had a reason to hide a corpse and file a false police report.
They had a reason to make sure an autopsy could not be performed any time soon.
What would an autopsy have revealed that could not be explained away as accidental?
What would an autopsy have revealed that could not have been blamed on an abductor's actions within a couple of days or so?
Was it something the mccanns had done to their daughter?
Was it something the mccanns had allowed to be done to their daughter?
Was it something they could not have denied knowing about, something done that was so blatant that they could not have pleaded ignorance?
The mccanns had a reason to introduce the crying incident.
Learning the reason may well reveal who Maddie's killer is and their accomplices.