Sonntag, 8. Januar 2012

The family outing

From Kate's book regarding the family outing she claims happened on the Tuesday:

""In the afternoon Gerry and I decided to take the children down to the beach. To be honest, I think they’d have been just as happy to go back to their clubs, but we wanted to do something slightly different with them, just the five of us. We borrowed a double buggy from Mark Warner to make the walk easier for Sean and Amelie. The weather wasn’t great: in fact, on the beach it started to rain. A bit of rain is not something that bothers a Scotsman like Gerry, but Sean and Amelie didn’t like the feel of the wet sand and insisted, in the way two-year-olds do, on being carried. Our trip to the beach wasn’t exactly a roaring success and the kids certainly weren’t thanking us for it. Still, we made the best of it, and the suggestion of ice-creams soon brought smiles to three little faces. The children and I sat down on a bench and Gerry went off to fetch them. The shop was only about 25 feet away, yet when he called to me asking me to give him a hand with the five ice-creams he was paying for, I was momentarily torn. Would the children be OK on the bench while I nipped over? I hurried across, watching them all the time.....Having polished off her ice-cream, Madeleine asked if she could go back to Mini Club now, please. So much for extra family time!""
First of all we have the date that does not fit. Taking the children from the beach to the creche would mean dropping Madeleine off first and the twins later because her creche was closer to the beach. The only day this happened was on the Monday. Madeleine was dropped off at 15:15 and the twins at 15:25, later than usual. According to the creche records Madeleine was picked up again only 10 minutes later. Was she so delighted at seeing her parents leave the so much loved creche WITH her siblings for the first time after dropping her off that the staff had to call the number provided and called Kate to collect her? And is this in direct relation to the "sunburn" on her right forearm to be seen on the photo of the tennis lesson the next day, the Tuesday?

Second we have a slightly different account from Gerry's 10th May statement:

Concerning the routine, on Tuesday there was a slight change given that after lunch, at 13h30, the deponent and KATE decided to take the three children to Praia da Luz, having gone on foot, taking only the twins in baby buggies. They all left by the main door because of the buggies, went around to the right, down the street of the “BATISTA” supermarket and went to the beach along a road directly ahead.

They were at the beach for about 20 minutes, the deponent and MADELEINE having put their feet in the water. During this time the weather changed with a cloudy sky and cold, therefore they went to a terrace at a café near the beach, on the left, where they bought five ice-creams and two drinks. Asked, he said that at that place there was an individual playing latin music on a guitar, to whom he intended to give some coins, but having none at the time, he didn't. That the individual had a neglected and careless appearance, unshaven and somewhat raggedy. He was Caucasian, 175cm tall, thin, 70 to 75kg in weight, dark, short hair, almost shaven-headed with grey sides, and not wearing glasses. Wearing a light brown-coloured sports jacket, with a hood at the back, and dark denim trousers, not noticing the footwear. He said that he never behaved strangely, nor approached or looked at the children in an ostensive manner. On returning they left the children at their crèches, as usual, the deponent and his
wife having gone to play tennis or jogging.
Now what about the additional two drinks? It seems to be a totally different outing if you are just sitting on a bench at the promenade having an icecream each or if you are sitting in the cafe having icecreams and drinks. Why again the differing statements? To make room for the little tale about safety conscious Kate not wanting to leave the children at the bench while fetching the icecreams or were there two different stories in the parent's head and the whole outing had a different purpose and they never had any icecreams at that place, that contrary to the one on the beach, which would have been the logical choice when at the beach and heading back to the creche had no CCTV that could have given evidence of their being there?

Why the wrong day and why the conflicting statements about the bench and the drinks?


  1. Auch hier wieder eine ganz 'unauffällige' Manipulation der Öffentlichkeit, um zu zeigen, wie sehr sie doch eine umsichtige und fürsorgliche Mutter war und ist:

    "Would the children be OK on the bench while I nipped over? I hurried across, watching them all the time..."

  2. Möglich, aber zusammen mit dem Beharren auf dem Dienstag könnte auch noch was anderes dahinter stecken. Vielleicht trafen sie sich am Montag mit jemandem und dieser Ausflug war erfunden. Daher die Diskrepanz im Ablauf.


    According to the charts it did not rain on the Monday.