Author Topic: The time-line according to the Attorney General's Report - 21 July 2008  (Read 1902 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline John

The time-line according to the Attorney General's Report - 21 July 2008


3.43. In summary, of the witness accounts gathered, it is important to highlight the statements made by Gerald, Jane Tanner and David Oldfield. On 3rd May, the daily routine went as usual, the McCanns having headed for the apartment at 17.30/18.00, accompanied by their children. After this period and until 19.00 they bathed the children, fed them again with light foods, played with them a bit and put them to bed, the parents stating that at about 19.30 the three children were asleep. Gerald remained at the tennis courts until 19.00. Afterwards the parents had some drinks, got ready for dinner, leaving at about 20.30 in the direction of the Tapas restaurant (a walk of just over one minute). Upon leaving, as usual, they left by the balcony door, which, not locked from the outside, remained pushed to, as this was the shortest route to the restaurant and consequent return, whether to check on the children or whether for their final return. The checking of the children by that route, was a daily practice, made, allegedly, in intervals of half an hour, which, as shown by the files and which will be taken up further on, was in truth extended to periods superior to one hour.

3.44. The McCann couple were the first to arrive at the restaurant, having entered into conversation with a couple who were not part of their group, but also British, their surname was Carpenter. As time passed, the others arrived.

3.45. At about 21.00 Matthew and Russel went to check on the children, having first listened at the window, from the outside, of Madeleine’s bedroom, located at the facade of the apartment block, on the ground floor. Upon his return, Matthew did not report anything unusual. Russel stayed in his apartment as his daughter was ill.

3.46. At 21.05, given that Matthew had not entered to check on the children, Gerald McCann went to the apartment. He left through the secondary reception, walked up the road for about twenty to thirty metres and entered via the metal gate, next to the apartment, leading to the garden/patio. He entered the apartment via the sliding doors, which, as mentioned previously, were not locked. He crossed the living room and went to the children’s bedroom, noticing that the bedroom door was wider open than usual, as ha had left it more pushed to. He presumed that Madeleine had got up due to some physiological need. He entered the bedroom and checked that all three children were sleeping calmly. He went to the WC and left via the same route. Upon coming out of the gate, he met Jeremy Wilkins, an acquaintance of his from tennis sessions, also British, who was taking his son for a walk in his push chair and who was also on holiday at the Ocean Club. He spoke to him for a few moments, before returning to the Tapas at about 21.15.

3.47. At 21.10, given her husband’s absence, Jane Tanner went to check on the state of her daughter. She left by the reception and walked up the road that passes the entrance to the apartment block. She was not seen by Gerald McCann, nor by Jeremy Wilkins, although she did see them. Gerald had his back to her, however Wilkins was facing the place where Tanner passed. At the precise moment when she passed the two of them, she noticed, at the top of the road, an individual walking, with a prostrate child across his arms, the child was barefoot and wearing pyjamas, walking in the opposite sense to the entrance to the apartments. She thought it was a father with his child. She only told of this situation after the disappearance had been discovered and she had associated the two, saying that it was Madeleine, as she was wearing identical pyjamas. A photofit was made, without including facial features, a description of the individual and his clothes was given to the media, in case anyone could clarify who the individual was (files 1592) – no response was obtained.

3.48. At about 21.35, half an hour later, Kate wanted to go and check on the children, Matthew volunteered to undertake this act, as he was also going to his apartment, with the same purpose. He took the usual route and entered the McCann’s via the sliding doors, which were open/pushed to. When he was in the middle of the living room, where there was some light, he saw the twins in their respective cots, as the door was open, however, he did not enter the children’s bedroom and therefore could not see if Madeleine was asleep in her bed. Upon his return, he said that all was well. When questioned, he said that he thought that the children’s bedroom was lighter than could be expected if the windows were closed and lights turned off. He could not clarify the state of the window nor why there was light.

3.49. Half an hour later (22.00), according to their reports, Kate Healy went to the apartment to check on the children. She entered via the sliding doors, which she closed upon entering, and saw that the children’s bedroom door was slightly wider open than they had left it when they went to dinner. Upon closing the bedroom door, she felt a current of air, which led her to inspect the bedroom more carefully, and she noticed that her daughter Madeleine, had disappeared. The bedroom window was wide open, the shutters were raised and the curtains were drawn open. The bed was practically untouched, her daughter’s soft toy at the head. In a state of alert and panic, she searched the whole apartment, not managing to find the girl, which led her to go, already quite upset, to the Tapas restaurant, saying that her daughter had been taken, a clear allusion to an abduction, justified by the fact that the window was open. During this interval, the twins remained alone in the bedroom, asleep. They did not wake during the night, in spite of the number of people present and inevitable associated noise.
A malicious prosecution for a crime which never existed. An exposé of egregious malfeasance by public officials.
Indeed, the truth never changes with the passage of time.

icabodcrane

  • Guest
I think we should acknowledge that the  Attorney General's reported  'time-line' is entirely dependent on the witness testimonies of the tapas group

He takes them at their word  ...  as he must without evidence to the contrary

It is not  his  'time-line'  though  ...  it is theirs

Offline Mrs. B

Of course the time line is based on witness statements, the AG was not personally present, HE doesn't have a time line.

Offline Carana

That doesn't seem quite right. Matt went on his own at around 9 pm - to hustle up the Paynes and did a quick check.

It was at 9:30 that Matt and Russ went off together.

Offline Angelo222

I think we should acknowledge that the  Attorney General's reported  'time-line' is entirely dependent on the witness testimonies of the tapas group

He takes them at their word  ...  as he must without evidence to the contrary

It is not  his  'time-line'  though  ...  it is theirs

No Ica.  It is dependent on all witnesses including other guests and hotel staff.
De troothe has the annoying habit of coming to the surface just when you least expect it!!

Je ne regrette rien!!

Offline Carana

Russ had only just arrived at the Tapas by 9pm. Russ remembers Matt going at around 9, and Matt doesn't mention Russ going with him at that time.

JT:
When she arrived at the restaurant several members of the group were already there, without their children. They were all presumably sleeping.

At about 21.00 her husband arrived at the restaurant, having got E**e to sleep.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JANE-TANNER.htm

Matt:
That around 9.05pm, the interviewee went to the area of the apartments. Notably to the area near the windows of all the children's bedrooms. That he did not hear any noise.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MATTHEW-OLDFIELD.htm

Russ:
He recalls that Matthew Oldfield left the restaurant at shortly after 9pm to check the children.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RUSSELL-OBRIEN.htm
« Last Edit: May 29, 2013, 10:13:18 AM by Angelo222 »

Offline Angelo222

You are correct Carana, the Attorney General's report is flawed.  Why am I not surprised and what else did the PJ get wrong?? 
De troothe has the annoying habit of coming to the surface just when you least expect it!!

Je ne regrette rien!!

Offline Carana

You are correct Carana, the Attorney General's report is flawed.  Why am I not surprised and what else did the PJ get wrong??

I don't think, in this instance, that the PJ were responsible. It would seem that the DA got a bit muddled over that.

Offline Carana

LOL Angelo, you deleted your post and edited mine.

I don't see the problem with making a mistake as long as it's admitted and corrected as soon as possible.

My post isn't really clear now as it was in response to yours.

Never mind, the DA does indeed seem to have got muddled...