was madeleine EVER there?

[CaliKid]

Sorry, maybe I'm wrong. I could've sworn we discussed why they would be allowed back in the same apartment afterwards over the summer, but...

I did find this- Maddie flat sold on the cheap

http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2005320001-2007280253,00.html

Maddie’s parents Gerry, 39, and Kate, 38 — who had been renting the apartment for their holiday — moved out the day after she was taken from her bed as they dined nearby.

Maybe I got confused with this, from Gerry's blog:

Day 52 - 06/24/2007 (Sunday)
We attended the local church service this morning as usual. After mass we bumped into an old colleague of my brothers who aslo happens to be from Liverpool and had a good chat with her.

There are very little media left in Praia da Luz although there was still one cameraman and photgrapher outside the church. Our requsets to respect our privacy have been folowed, with one or two minor exceptions during the last 52 days. Most of the campaigning will be done behind closed doors from now on and it is essential that Amelie and Sean are allowed to grow up without continually being photographed.

We picked the twins up early from the kids club and had a really nice afternoon with them, playing with some new toys and then down at the pool.
If Madeleine is not found in the next couple of weks we need to move out of the appartment we have been staying in as the family is coming out for a holiday. I have to say the owners have been extremely understanding, as they came to Praia da Luz for a holiday and relocated to another apartment to save us moving again. This degree of flexibility does not exist in the resort in high season. We have managed to look at a few properties to rent in the last couple of days and I think we have found somewhere suitable to live until we return back to the UK with Madeleine.

 

[Tuba]

Wouldn't you like to view the bed from which Madeleine was "taken"? Tanner said bundleman carried a blanket. To me that implies the bedding was disturbed because I doubt an abductor would have brought his own (v. suspicious) blanket. When I mentally look at Madeleine's bed, I see a bedspread that is unmussed, in place. Consistently, I also see a pen light over the pillow and it is turned on. I've thought a lot about that scene. Did someone shine a light on the child to make sure of her identity? Did someone examine her eyes with that light to check the pupils for concussion or vital signs? The four square bedspread reminds me of the Cuddle Cat "placed on a high shelf". Such tidiness!

 

[CaliKid]

Just curious, but how do you "see" these things.

 

[Tuba]

In trying to figure what happened in the case, I picture or visualise PDL and The Ocean Club apartments, inside and out. I'm sure we all do if we spend time puzzling over this mystery. But sometimes an eidetic image presents itself to me. These cannot be forced or strained after. Admittedly, the image doesn't provide much help but I think, for my thought processes, it is probably key--important, that is. I am also quite sure that my psychological protections prevent me seeing the real horrors of May 3. I couldn't take it. The difference in the image I have of the bedroom and my picturing the resort and the restaurant and the building is startling.

 

[Tuba]

Over at NewsNow, the news just in that Kate McCann knew that someone had lifted Madeleine from her bed because it was unmussed & tidy in a way a child would not have left it, getting up. I did leave a comment and included the pen light feature of my vision. It may be meaningful to someone, as it is to me.

 

[Texana]

All I can say is, it's just about impossible to lift a sleeping child from a bed without disturbing the bed covers.

I have done this so many times with both my daughters, especially in recent years when the younger one can't sleep and she's fallen asleep in my bed. We don't mess up the covers in a huge way, but you cannot lift a child and not disturb the covers in some way.

Go borrow some kid and try it.

Seriously, this is just ridiculous. And to shine a light in her eyes? You've been stalking the child for days/weeks/months and you have to shine a light in her eyes to make sure it's her?

And the light is left on the pillow case, conveniently absent fingerprints or any DNA traces whatsoever?

Why didn't Kate mention the penlight immediately, that there was a strange flashlight left on her child's bed? Wouldn't that be more significant than that "wretched toy" (thanks to whoever named it that) left on a shelf?

Did the kidnapper wait until she was well sedated before shining the light, thus increasing the chances of being seen or caught in the room by the regular checks, which were somewhere, if the accounts are correct, between 20 and 30 minutes apart? Administering a sedative to the wrong child--seems like a waste of time, doesn't it?

I'd say "post a link" for that penlight but I think if I see those words one more time I'll fall out of my chair laughing.

 

[CaliKid]

Penlight on pillow = more spin.

 

[Texana]

Thanks, Cali, now I get it.

 

[daffodil]

Penlight on pillow = more spin.

I was under the impression that this was Tubas vision so how can it be "spin"???

 

[hcc2007]

I was under the impression that this was Tubas vision so how can it be "spin"???

Me too. I don't think the pen light has been reported in any article.

As for the tidy covers, it's another oh-so-strange statement from the McCanns. The image of her body impression left on the bed? Lordy that reminds me of the movie Psycho! Remember the impression of 'Ma Bates' in the bed upstairs? Creepy creepy creepy.

I halfway suspect the McCanns aren't really saying these things at all. Rather, well-meaning friends and relatives are spouting off. Like the granny who said "She'd have to be drugged or she'd have screamed like crazy!" I got a kick out of that one.

BTW that does cast light on our discussions about whether children stay asleep when picked up. Some do, maybe, but Granny here -- having observed Madeleine in action, no doubt -- doesn't think Maddy's one of them.

Plus my experience of sleeping children is that they thrash around and mess up the covers without being picked up. UNLESS, OF COURSE ...

they are drugged.

I think Kate (or whoever made that statement about the body impression) just gave us another reason to believe Maddy was drugged.

 

[Bob&Bob]

Why would she want us to think she was drugged?

 

[CaliKid]

I was under the impression that this was Tubas vision so how can it be "spin"???

Sorry, I misunderstood, my bad.

 

[hcc2007]

Why would she want us to think she was drugged?

S/he gave us another reason to believe the child was drugged UNINTENTIONALLY. That is, by saying a sleeping 4-year-old would leave a perfect impression in a bed like Norman Bates' taxidermized mother.

 

[hcc2007]

Just to be clear ...

She UNINTENTIONALLLY gave us another reason to believe ...

 

[Dr. Creepin]

This is a cover story to explain why Kate automatically assumed the child was adbucted and didn't just wander off. They are covering their , as usual.

 

[Texana]

How many more reasons will Kate come up with, months later, that bolster the "abducted and I knew it immediately" account?

 

[CaliKid]

Kate McCann will say anything she can think of, no matter how ridiculous it sounds, to get people to believe she had NOTHING to do with Madeleine's disappearance. She is the queen of lack of accountability.