Rogatories relating to Maddie's care

caricature wrote:

candyfloss wrote:

 Can't imagine how they got in if that was the case?  

Front door as per first statements?

Well, certainly the better option albeit the longer way round, it was certainly the safest option, as the apartments would be locked.........

Hmmm,Mitchell was very careful in saying that Kate and Gerry were firmly of the view that some one got into the apartment (note not through which entry point).

i'd been looking for this topic  - the details of the Kate's calls on the 2nd were new to me. Tried to copy here but failed. But it all points to something happening rather early. The 30th of April possibly. Imo.

Certainly seems that Amanda was a sort of 'rock' for Kate. Which is not surprising as it's clear from the book that she could not cope with one child, leave alone three. Personally, I don't think she ever had to.

Just think of how she acted on that bus video, that was imo a woman already at the end of her tether.

I've been looking at the GPs' statements and I was very surprised by just how little they reveal. Madeleine was born in 2003 and at that time the McCanns' GP was Dr Hussey. In his statement he confirms he had consultations with both Kate and Gerry but is unable to confirm that Madeleine was even registered with him. He refers to Madeleine as "being included since birth" yet with the twins he clearly states they were registered with him. He states Madeleine was seen by a "duty doctor when born" and that nurses would have given vaccinations. He doesn't refer to this duty  doctor by name and he could be referring to anyone, even a hospital doctor who delivered her. As Madeleine went to Amsterdam when she was eight months old, we do not know if anyone from his surgery had contact with Madeleine. There is no specific reference to registration, consultation or health visitors assessments or even specific vaccinations. He has never seen Madeleine and is satisfied in his own mind that any concerns would have been brought to his attention. I hope he's right!

To make matters worse, doctor Hussey refers to socialising with the McCanns and specifically sitting next to KM at a dinner party - why would be include this in a report pertaining to the disappearance of a child, who he makes no reference to in any pertinent way at all? I feel like he's giving a character reference supporting the McCanns rather than a professional reference pertaining to a serious crime and serious safeguarding issue of the disappearance of a child who appears to have been completely invisible to him.

To be fair to him, his statement says that he is socially acquainted with the McCanns, which could be read as a "therefore please don't take this as a professional opinion".

He has not done anything wrong  by having as patients people who are in his social group, and he has made sure that he has declared that in his statement, therefore weakening his own statement by reducing it to a character reference

I think you are right mumof6, he is giving a heads up that this is nothing more than a character reference and a flimsy one at that. That's what these statements relating to Madeleine 's care appear to be, biased character references from people who cannot imagine that two 'respectable ' doctors could be involved in the disappearance of their own daughter.

There are so many anomalies, for example KM says she returned to work in November 2003 when Madeleine was just six months old and Madeleine attended a local, unnamed nursery (from her book). According to Amanda Coxon, when KM returned to work November 2003 she asked AC to look after Madeleine for these two days and Madeleine went to her house two days a week - so which one was it, child minder Amanda or the unnamed nursery? KM also tells us that Madeleine didn't start sleeping properly until September 2003 so it seems odd that she would have returned to work when Madeleine had only just started sleeping through the night as I would have thought, having just settled into a routine, she would worry this change would unsettle her again - unless the new routine was reliant on the use of a  sedative perhaps? It really doesn't stack up when you scratch below the surface and I cannot see how people who are supposed to be carers can be confused over such a fundamental issue as who looked after Madeleine when Kate returned to work.

She could have used the nursery for the fixed three days a week, and used AC for the other two days when needed. She was working as a locum, I think, so extra days would happen, I guess?

I am not sure about the sleeping, we know that Madeleine was still playing musical beds as there was her star chart in the kitchen. Maybe Madeleine only went through the night in Italy? I know that I have read somewhere that Kate said the Italy holiday was the first time that Madeleine slept through the night. Given a May birth date, September seems a perfect baby to me, much earlier than anything of mine ever managed.

I think like most of them, Amanda Coxon is an unreliable witness IMO. According to KM, she returned to work November 2003, only briefly because they moved to Amsterdam in January 2004. Kate writes that she returned to work and Madeleine began attending a nursery near home. She doesn't mention AC at all until after returning from Amsterdam. This is what AC says:

During the time I worked there, Kate had her first daughter, Madeleine. Kate asked me whether I would look after Madeleine twice a week when she returned to work part time. I agreed and she would leave Madeleine at my house and come and pick her up later in the day.




I'm reading this as either or, not both because they both omit the other's account. Amanda Coxon also makes other remarks that are unhelpful, she says the twins were born in February 2006 a year out. As AC was a friend - and a well-heeled friend at that, I'm sceptical about this arrangement. Why would a doctor's wife want to look after someone else's colicky baby two days a week? Why would she be cleaning other people's houses? I think this is a friend, putting a gloss on things and probably papering over the cracks IMO.

Because she was short of money? Because her husband is controlling and does not give her money of her own? Because she knew it was only for a few months, and wanted the money over Christmas? As a favour to Kate, to cement the friendship? As a favour to Kate because she knew the McCanns were broke? Because they were saving for a dream holiday? There can be 101 reasons why people do things, and doctors are not always well off, they have large mortgages, posh cars, and sometimes, very expensive "habits", like good wines, or less legal things.

I looked after two children for the summer holidays for £5 a day, as a favour. £5 a day for both (they were 8 and 10) did not even cover the cost of the food they ate. I did it as a favour, a temporary arrangement until the friend could afford proper childcare, and find suitable spaces for the two.

If we do have to assume that one account is untrue I would be inclined to say it would be Kate's. Maybe Kate feels that nursery sounds better? Maybe AC is not a registered childminder, and the arrangement was therefore not legal?

I agree with you mumof6 that AC's account that she looked after Madeleine sounds more plausible, I think  because Madeleine was so young and still a 'colicky' baby, having someone who knew the family and would be patient makes sense. AC was the person KM appears to turn to for emotional suport. I'm struggling with the idea that it was a formal, paid arrangement and I think it's deeper than that. All of these carers are either close friends or have a family connection, like Haley Plummer who was the girlfriend of Kate's cousin James. Kate says he was like a brother which begs the question would Haley Plummer be able to give an unbiased, professional opinion?

I think the truth for poor Madeleine seems very unsettled: colic and lack of sleep; a brief spell with either a child minder or nursery; a move to Amsterdam; a poorly, hospitalised mother confined to bed rest; another move and then twins. I wonder how she coped and whether she was as unaffected as Kate and Gerry would have us believe...
.