UK Justice Forum 🇬🇧
Disappeared and Abducted Children and Young Adults => Madeleine McCann (3) disappeared from her parent's holiday apartment at Ocean Club, Praia da Luz, Portugal on 3 May 2007. No trace of her has ever been found. => Topic started by: Robittybob1 on November 02, 2017, 02:23:32 AM
-
Gerry states on the 10th "He does not know if the window next to the front door, and that gave access to the children's bedroom, was locked, given that he assumed that the outside blinds could not be opened from the outside." That seems to be the biggest mistake relying on the fact that the blinds (shutters) could not be opened from the outside. In that article it says "To my surprise I realised I could lift up the window shutters without effort and almost without making noise."
So what they thought was their level of security was not effective at all.
He also states "----- He is certain that, before leaving home the children's bedroom was totally dark, with the window closed, but he does not know it was locked, the external blinds closed but with some slats open, and the curtains also drawn closed." http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN-10MAY.htm
Some think "The shutters could be lifted but had to be held open as they do not stay up on their own that way but window has to be opened from inside by pushing down a latch".
Now from studying the transcript of the video and the video it seems that the source of the confussion has been found.
https://youtu.be/x_ZdDTsFC2g
and transcript. https://joana-morais.blogspot.co.nz/2009/04/maddie-truth-of-lie-documentary.html
I might have had the wrong idea about the window latch I originally thought it wasn't working right but the security expert (Alexandre Simas) did not point out any fault with it.
Gerry states the widow was closed but unsure about whether it was locked, so maybe the window can be opened from outside because it wasn't locked.
From the transcript the bit about the latch: "44.40 – These windows have a very good characteristic to check if they were forced or not. Being made of lacquered aluminium, any screwdriver, any instrument that is used to make the lock jump, immediately leaves a mark. What we can see here, there is no break-in, the mark that is there belongs to the lock itself as it rotates, sometimes one does this with the lock in place, and it hits there. So, to open this window, all we have to do is this. To close it, it’s impossible, because either one has a magnet on his fingers to pull the window…"
Now Kate never said anyone closed the window, no she found it open, so why the expert tries to confuse us by mentioning what has to be done to close it from the outside is anyone's guess.
I have studied the window latch and I can see it is possible to close the window but not lock it. In that unlocked position it would be easy to open the window from the outside. IMO.
Amaral says the window was closed but he failed to realise it was closed but not locked. It therefore didn't require forcing.
There seems to be a clear problem for Amaral thinks it was locked but Gerry says it was only closed.
It is a misunderstanding on Amaral's part over the word "not" - Locked or not locked?
"45.42 – These three indications mean that there was no abduction, and that is proved. No abductor entered apartment 5A, through the door or through the window." That proof by Amaral depends on the window being locked but Gerry never claimed it was locked just closed.
I think this is progress to understanding why the case isn't solved. A simple error that even I make too, over the word NOT.
It appears John is familiar with this argument, http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8115.msg399663#msg399663
"08.50 Reference to window being locked is false. One cannot open a locked window from the outside."
-
The cleaning lady assured that she had cleaned it (the window) on the previous day. We investigated all the persons who commit theft in the area. There were no unknown fingerprints in the apartment. (GA)
https://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2008/09/gonalo-amaral-in-el-mundo-gerry-mccann.html
-
The cleaning lady assured that she had cleaned it (the window) on the previous day. We investigated all the persons who commit theft in the area. There were no unknown fingerprints in the apartment. (GA)
https://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2008/09/gonalo-amaral-in-el-mundo-gerry-mccann.html
All I can say is that I have stayed at many many better places than OC and NEVER have I known the cleaning ladies clean the windows, except between lets. Never when guests are in situ.
They have far too much to do in too short a time
-
Gerry states on the 10th "He does not know if the window next to the front door, and that gave access to the children's bedroom, was locked, given that he assumed that the outside blinds could not be opened from the outside." That seems to be the biggest mistake relying on the fact that the blinds (shutters) could not be opened from the outside. In that article it says "To my surprise I realised I could lift up the window shutters without effort and almost without making noise."
So what they thought was their level of security was not effective at all.
He also states "----- He is certain that, before leaving home the children's bedroom was totally dark, with the window closed, but he does not know it was locked, the external blinds closed but with some slats open, and the curtains also drawn closed." http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN-10MAY.htm
Some think "The shutters could be lifted but had to be held open as they do not stay up on their own that way but window has to be opened from inside by pushing down a latch".
Now from studying the transcript of the video and the video it seems that the source of the confussion has been found.
https://youtu.be/x_ZdDTsFC2g
and transcript. https://joana-morais.blogspot.co.nz/2009/04/maddie-truth-of-lie-documentary.html
I might have had the wrong idea about the window latch I originally thought it wasn't working right but the security expert (Alexandre Simas) did not point out any fault with it.
Gerry states the widow was closed but unsure about whether it was locked, so maybe the window can be opened from outside because it wasn't locked.
From the transcript the bit about the latch: "44.40 – These windows have a very good characteristic to check if they were forced or not. Being made of lacquered aluminium, any screwdriver, any instrument that is used to make the lock jump, immediately leaves a mark. What we can see here, there is no break-in, the mark that is there belongs to the lock itself as it rotates, sometimes one does this with the lock in place, and it hits there. So, to open this window, all we have to do is this. To close it, it’s impossible, because either one has a magnet on his fingers to pull the window…"
Now Kate never said anyone closed the window, no she found it open, so why the expert tries to confuse us by mentioning what has to be done to close it from the outside is anyone's guess.
I have studied the window latch and I can see it is possible to close the window but not lock it. In that unlocked position it would be easy to open the window from the outside. IMO.
Amaral says the window was closed but he failed to realise it was closed but not locked. It therefore didn't require forcing.
There seems to be a clear problem for Amaral thinks it was locked but Gerry says it was only closed.
It is a misunderstanding on Amaral's part over the word "not" - Locked or not locked?
"45.42 – These three indications mean that there was no abduction, and that is proved. No abductor entered apartment 5A, through the door or through the window." That proof by Amaral depends on the window being locked but Gerry never claimed it was locked just closed.
I think this is progress to understanding why the case isn't solved. A simple error that even I make too, over the word NOT.
It appears John is familiar with this argument, http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8115.msg399663#msg399663
"08.50 Reference to window being locked is false. One cannot open a locked window from the outside."
From your own words Robb,
"It is stated by Luis Ferro (http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LUIS-FERRO.htm) that the shutter in the main bedroom was repaired on Tuesday.
". This happened on Tuesday, the first of May, in the sequence of a service that he had to carry out in the apartment where this family was staying, also known as Block G5, Letter A;
. This serviced was carried out between 10H00 and 11H00, together with his colleague who is named Mario, and consisted of the repair of a blind in the room of the parents of the minor;
. In this sequence, the deponent and his colleague also taught the mother of the child how to operate the washing machine;
. The woman in question was alone in the apartment;
. The only places of the apartment where the deponent and his colleague entered was the kitchen and the parent's bedroom;..."
Mario states:
"Mario Domingos Moreira
Date: 2007-05-08
Occupation: Handyman
Place of Work: OC
He has worked at the OC for about 20 years and currently works in the Maintenance Department, he carries out repairs inside the apartments.
He works from 09.00 to 18.00 with a break for lunch at 13.00. He has Sundays and Mondays off.
When asked about the events being investigated he says that he only saw the girl's mother once. This happened during the exercise of his functions, and after instruction from his superiors he went to apartment 5 A.
His services had been requested because the shutters in the bedroom at the back of the apartment, facing the Tapas restaurant were damaged and with the aim of providing the mother with instructions regarding the operation of the washing machine. When asked, he said that the damage to the blinds was centred on the pull-handle, limiting their opening. He says that this kind of damage is quite frequent, given the fact of the need for some initial force to raise the shutter, sometimes associated with a lack of knowledge of the mechanism on the part of some of the tourists, who keep applying force, contrary to what is required, and which results in the violent destruction of the respective handles.
When questioned, he says that he never works alone, he is always part of a team of two. The other individual is his colleague, Luis Ferro, who accompanied him in the execution of the repairs mentioned above.
When asked, he says that he did not notice anything strange in the previous days, either in the apartments he entered or in the surrounding areas that could be connected to the disappearance.
He was at home at the time of the events."
His workmate Mario is helpful.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARIO_MOREIRA.htm
Read what Mario says I'd say it is unlikely Madeleine operated the shutters. " When asked, he said that the damage to the blinds was centred on the pull-handle, limiting their opening. He says that this kind of damage is quite frequent, given the fact of the need for some initial force to raise the shutter, sometimes associated with a lack of knowledge of the mechanism on the part of some of the tourists, who keep applying force, contrary to what is required, and which results in the violent destruction of the respective handles." They were difficult to operate.
In fact when you think about it sounds possible that the pull chord could become a health and safety issue. Could the shutter pull handle cause strangulation in the process of "violent destruction of the respective handles"?"
Something to think about and wonder about...
So the shutters were damaged, then fixed and Kate was alone when the workmen called to fix them. Are you suggesting the workmen didn't lock them after fixing them. Did Gerry and Diane not check them as well? If so would he lock them or would he leave them unlocked and if left unlocked what reason would this be for?
sun is shining in my eyes lol
-
Is this repair work not taking place at the same time that Kate is supposed to be taking the tennis ball photo?
-
All I can say is that I have stayed at many many better places than OC and NEVER have I known the cleaning ladies clean the windows, except between lets. Never when guests are in situ.
They have far too much to do in too short a time
So they clean windows between guests and leave them unlocked?
Fiona checked her children's bedroom window after Madeleine disappeared and it was locked.
'The windows, erm, to be honest, in Lily's room, we didn't ever check the window. Erm, another thing that you think of. I mean, when we arrived, we assumed it was sort of locked and closed and the shutter was down......"
1485
'So, what about the windows, did you open the windows''
'Never opened the windows. We never touched the windows, so we never really opened the shutter all the way to open the windows or, or even, as I say, check them. I guess we assume, assumed they were locked'.
1485
'Okay'.
Reply
'Erm, I did after Madeleine went and they were locked.
"I mean, as I said at the beginning, you just assume everyone's locked their apartments and gone. And, as I say, I assume Kate and Gerry had even done that, it was only that night (3 May) I realised that they hadn't."
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/FIONA-PAYNE-ROGATORY.htm
-
Is this repair work not taking place at the same time that Kate is supposed to be taking the tennis ball photo?
The two men looked at the washing
machine first. Once they’d established that the
problem was something simple – not quite as simple
as me not having pressed the ‘on’ button, but not
much more complicated than that – I went to meet
Gerry, whose lesson had started at ten-fifteen,
leaving them to fix the shutter. [madeleine]
I wonder which door she left by? I wonder which door they left by? I wonder if they were still there when she came back for her camera?
-
Is this repair work not taking place at the same time that Kate is supposed to be taking the tennis ball photo?
Kate said it was happening on the Monday in her rogatory interview.
-
The two men looked at the washing
machine first. Once they’d established that the
problem was something simple – not quite as simple
as me not having pressed the ‘on’ button, but not
much more complicated than that – I went to meet
Gerry, whose lesson had started at ten-fifteen,
leaving them to fix the shutter. [madeleine]
I wonder which door she left by? I wonder which door they left by? I wonder if they were still there when she came back for her camera?
They would have keys to lock up after them. So she would leave by either door and they would lock up.
-
So they clean windows between guests and leave them unlocked?
Fiona checked her children's bedroom window after Madeleine disappeared and it was locked.
'The windows, erm, to be honest, in Lily's room, we didn't ever check the window. Erm, another thing that you think of. I mean, when we arrived, we assumed it was sort of locked and closed and the shutter was down......"
1485
'So, what about the windows, did you open the windows''
'Never opened the windows. We never touched the windows, so we never really opened the shutter all the way to open the windows or, or even, as I say, check them. I guess we assume, assumed they were locked'.
1485
'Okay'.
Reply
'Erm, I did after Madeleine went and they were locked.
"I mean, as I said at the beginning, you just assume everyone's locked their apartments and gone. And, as I say, I assume Kate and Gerry had even done that, it was only that night (3 May) I realised that they hadn't."
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/FIONA-PAYNE-ROGATORY.htm
They were locked in the Payne's room because Dianne had already found them unlocked and locked them.
-
...snip ...
Something to think about and wonder about...
So the shutters were damaged, then fixed and Kate was alone when the workmen called to fix them. Are you suggesting the workmen didn't lock them after fixing them. Did Gerry and Diane not check them as well? If so would he lock them or would he leave them unlocked and if left unlocked what reason would this be for?
sun is shining in my eyes lol
There is no such thing as locking the shutters. They were either up or partially up or down. They wouldn't need to go into the kids room. They say they didn't. There is no lock on the shutters.
-
https://youtu.be/fzpniKAWvUI
Opening the windows from the outside has been demonstrated by Heriberto Janosch. http://espacioexterior.blogspot.co.nz/2013/04/the-madeleine-mccann-abduction-janosch.html
-
The two men looked at the washing
machine first. Once they’d established that the
problem was something simple – not quite as simple
as me not having pressed the ‘on’ button, but not
much more complicated than that – I went to meet
Gerry, whose lesson had started at ten-fifteen,
leaving them to fix the shutter. [madeleine]
I wonder which door she left by? I wonder which door they left by? I wonder if they were still there when she came back for her camera?
Did she leave her camera or take it with her?
-
Did she leave her camera or take it with her?
I think she left it.
-
My summation "burglars could have attempted to enter the kids bedroom this way. But true to other cases when the children woke they abandoned the attempt to enter. In the McCann case that was: shutters raised , window open, curtains pushed back. No one had climbed through that window. No kidnapping occurred. It wasn't a botched burglary." IMO.
-
My summation "burglars could have attempted to enter the kids bedroom this way. But true to other cases when the children woke they abandoned the attempt to enter. In the McCann case that was: shutters raised , window open, curtains pushed back. No one had climbed through that window. No kidnapping occurred. It wasn't a botched burglary." IMO.
It's what they call "Hidden in Plain sight", Rob.
The people that I am looking at are experts at it.
Distract with something else
or ,
Be charming and give back little favours whilst stealing major things
or,
if in charge, promote the bad person out of dangers way
or,
Give mighty awards and titles to make suspicious people feel that they could not be right ... or to make the police nervous about prosecution.
or,
Spreading mind boggling rumours about someone, like swingers and much worse
or,
If hiding a getaway car, then park it around two corners away, so that people at the start place only see it going around one corner and not to its final pick up destination. They dont connect it with an abduction. Same as anyone who saw the pick up, could only have seen it come around one corner so would be unaware of where the vehicle started its journey
Clever, often very simple stuff, but it does the trick ... and it is called "Hidden in Plain Sight". Variations on it are called MagicK (with a K)
IMO, one of the main reasons for leaving the window open was to take the investigators eye off someone having an OC key ... so OC staff involved.
Also to lose the searchers Golden hour because the impression given was that Madeleine had gone out via the window on her own bat.
AIMO, but I read loads about distraction techniques, MagicK and "Hidden in Plain Sight" techniques several years ago. We see it on here at times.
-
They were locked in the Payne's room because Dianne had already found them unlocked and locked them.
That's a question for Dianne. If the shutter stayed down all week in that room like Fiona claims then it's doubtful it was unlocked and Fiona said that window was locked. I think her mother would have told her if it wasn't! They should interview the cleaner because they know there's no evidence of anyone going through the window.
4078 “Did you see that window at the time?”
Reply “No I, my recollection is that err I think the shutter had been let back down again or err I don’t, I don’t recall the window being open at the time I went so whether they’d closed it because obviously it was draughty for the twins but I, I can’t be a hundred percent sure about that.”
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/DIANE-WEBSTER-2.htm
-
It's what they call "Hidden in Plain sight", Rob.
The people that I am looking at are experts at it.
Distract with something else
or ,
Be charming and give back little favours whilst stealing major things
or,
if in charge, promote the bad person out of dangers way
or,
Give mighty awards and titles to make suspicious people feel that they could not be right ... or to make the police nervous about prosecution.
or,
Spreading mind boggling rumours about someone, like swingers and much worse
or,
If hiding a getaway car, then park it around two corners away, so that people at the start place only see it going around one corner and not to its final pick up destination. They dont connect it with an abduction. Same as anyone who saw the pick up, could only have seen it come around one corner so would be unaware of where the vehicle started its journey
Clever, often very simple stuff, but it does the trick ... and it is called "Hidden in Plain Sight". Variations on it are called MagicK (with a K)
IMO, one of the main reasons for leaving the window open was to take the investigators eye off someone having an OC key ... so OC staff involved.
Also to lose the searchers Golden hour because the impression given was that Madeleine had gone out via the window on her own bat.
AIMO, but I read loads about distraction techniques, MagicK and "Hidden in Plain Sight" techniques several years ago. We see it on here at times.
I don't really relate to any of that Sadie for up to this stage I'm just thinking it is a petty theft situation that was abandoned part way through. But you missed the point I raised and that was the important bit that in general the burglars always abandoned the job when someone woke up (there were other incidences of this).
Now I'll accept that the three people who were interviewed as arguidos maybe were involved (as Heriberto was allowed to claim on the Panorama documentary in May of this year). I don't agree with his timing but he was close IMO and I put the time as 9:40 PM.
He thinks they took Madeleine but I think they didn't even get in.
In previous threads I have proposed what Madeleine might do if she was woken, and I think we are of the general opinion Kate had told Madeleine that she could go to the tapas because "that is where mummy and daddy were having their meal". It wasn't far and she knows the way.
I have also extensively proven that she was capable of opening the front door. It was locked from the outside but could be opened from the inside. Whereas there were three items to open and close if she left via the patio door side. Three obstacles that Kate knew Madeleine could open but knowing Madeleine she was so unlikely to close them behind her.
The reason Kate can't accept that Madeleine left via a door (wandered) is that:
1. The front door needed a key to closed it behind you if you left via the front door. It appears that she found it closed for she doesn't mention she found it open.
2. One of the gates or doors would have been left open had she left by the patio door side. It appears that she found all them closed for she doesn't mention she found any open.
So how does this happen? How can I propose that she wanders and seemingly achieves the impossible?
Remember the sniffer dogs track her from the front door along the path between block 4 and 5 turn left and left again into the alleyway at the poolside of the complex and over to the car park opposite the secondary entrance. OK I'm a bit rusty on the exact terminal location.
But the evidence so far suggests she was on foot walking or running to get to the Tapas but for some reason crosses the road! She wasn't suppose to cross the road.
So from that I must abandon all attempts at saying she left via the patio door, for the evidence points to leaving by the front door, but the door should have been open but it wasn't!
There is a simple solution to this as well that has evidence (not a lot because I believe GA didn't want us to click onto this) but there is the report that Carolyn Carpenter hears someone calling out Madeleine before 10:00 PM.
Now that only makes sense if that person knows Madeleine (OK 96% of cases involve someone who knows the family but you have to be close to call out the right name of the girl that goes missing).
If they know she is missing they could be the ones who closed the front door from the inside leaving via the patio side closing the gates behind them.
Problem with that is the person, now looking for Madeleine, doesn't know which way around the building she would have gone. A two way choice once he is at the roadside gate - do I go this way or that way?
I can only imagine the person thought Madeleine would take the well lit footpath way, but the tracker dogs tell us otherwise. The person even asks the lady who is going to pick up her child from the creche (so he is not hiding the fact). The nannies hear about "Maddie or Gabbie" going missing and arrive soon after Kate does her check. (Charlotte Pennington on the Dispatches documentary).
Early enough for Amy Tierney to see the shutters raised and the window still open (that fact is in her statement).
Just remember 96% of cases involve someone who knows the family but you have to real close to call out the right name of the girl that goes missing and to have the presence of mind to make sure the other two don't escape.
-
That's a question for Dianne. If the shutter stayed down all week in that room like Fiona claims then it's doubtful it was unlocked and Fiona said that window was locked. I think her mother would have told her if it wasn't! They should interview the cleaner because they know there's no evidence of anyone going through the window.
4078 “Did you see that window at the time?”
Reply “No I, my recollection is that err I think the shutter had been let back down again or err I don’t, I don’t recall the window being open at the time I went so whether they’d closed it because obviously it was draughty for the twins but I, I can’t be a hundred percent sure about that.”
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/DIANE-WEBSTER-2.htm
You have quoted Dianne Webster talking about the McCanns window not their own.
-
PF the quote I'm thinking of is important
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/DIANE-WEBSTER-2.htm (but her name was Dianne)
"4078 “Therefore you didn’t have any cause to pass by Madeleine’s bedroom window and you didn’t therefore notice the shutters. During your stay in your apartment where you, Fiona and Dave were, did you ever leave the doors or windows open?”
Reply “Err no but err after Madeleine disappeared I, I checked the err some of the windows in our apartment and they weren’t locked, we hadn’t, we hadn’t thought of checking them you know, when we arrived in the resort to check the windows and the cleaners must have left them unlocked.”
4078 “So it would have been possible to, were they slide…”
Reply “They were sliding.”
4078 “Yeah.”
Reply “But I mean they were quite err, the aperture to get through was quite narrow, you know, if you imagine a, a window cut in half, one half slides, you’re left with the small err quite a small opening so I don’t think a large person would get through.”
4078 “Would that have been the same for the apartment where Madeleine was sleeping as well?”
Reply “Mm. They weren’t large windows.”
-
I don't really relate to any of that Sadie for up to this stage I'm just thinking it is a petty theft situation that was abandoned part way through. But you missed the point I raised and that was the important bit that in general the burglars always abandoned the job when someone woke up (there were other incidences of this).
Now I'll accept that the three people who were interviewed as arguidos maybe were involved (as Heriberto was allowed to claim on the Panorama documentary in May of this year). I don't agree with his timing but he was close IMO and I put the time as 9:40 PM.
He thinks they took Madeleine but I think they didn't even get in.
In previous threads I have proposed what Madeleine might do if she was woken, and I think we are of the general opinion Kate had told Madeleine that she could go to the tapas because "that is where mummy and daddy were having their meal". It wasn't far and she knows the way.
I have also extensively proven that she was capable of opening the front door. It was locked from the outside but could be opened from the inside. Whereas there were three items to open and close if she left via the patio door side. Three obstacles that Kate knew Madeleine could open but knowing Madeleine she was so unlikely to close them behind her.
The reason Kate can't accept that Madeleine left via a door (wandered) is that:
1. The front door needed a key to closed it behind you if you left via the front door. It appears that she found it closed for she doesn't mention she found it open.
2. One of the gates or doors would have been left open had she left by the patio door side. It appears that she found all them closed for she doesn't mention she found any open.
So how does this happen? How can I propose that she wanders and seemingly achieves the impossible?
Remember the sniffer dogs track her from the front door along the path between block 4 and 5 turn left and left again into the alleyway at the poolside of the complex and over to the car park opposite the secondary entrance. OK I'm a bit rusty on the exact terminal location.
But the evidence so far suggests she was on foot walking or running to get to the Tapas but for some reason crosses the road! She wasn't suppose to cross the road.
So from that I must abandon all attempts at saying she left via the patio door, for the evidence points to leaving by the front door, but the door should have been open but it wasn't!
There is a simple solution to this as well that has evidence (not a lot because I believe GA didn't want us to click onto this) but there is the report that Carolyn Carpenter hears someone calling out Madeleine before 10:00 PM.
Now that only makes sense if that person knows Madeleine (OK 96% of cases involve someone who knows the family but you have to be close to call out the right name of the girl that goes missing).
If they know she is missing they could be the ones who closed the front door from the inside leaving via the patio side closing the gates behind them.
Problem with that is the person, now looking for Madeleine, doesn't know which way around the building she would have gone. A two way choice once he is at the roadside gate - do I go this way or that way?
I can only imagine the person thought Madeleine would take the well lit footpath way, but the tracker dogs tell us otherwise. The person even asks the lady who is going to pick up her child from the creche (so he is not hiding the fact). The nannies hear about "Maddie or Gabbie" going missing and arrive soon after Kate does her check. (Charlotte Pennington on the Dispatches documentary).
Early enough for Amy Tierney to see the shutters raised and the window still open (that fact is in her statement).
Just remember 96% of cases involve someone who knows the family but you have to real close to call out the right name of the girl that goes missing and to have the presence of mind to make sure the other two don't escape.
yep, and 4% involve someone who doesn't know the family. How about one of those being involved? Are they on ignore? 8)-)))
You do realse that Madeleine may have taken that self same track several times during the week ? In any case, imo the scent tracked by the dogs was the sweaty scent of the lifter, who had moved the blanket/ towel before lifting Madeleine, but like you, I dont know.
Has it escaped your thoughts that the track the dogs took could have started in the car park going to 5A, rather than starting at 5A and going to that car park?
Have you stopped to wonder why, *if * the scent were indeed Madeleines, it stopped in a car park?
I am sorry Rob, I know that you have your heart and soul in this but your theory doesn't have enough impact on me to gel
Aw, jeepers, if SY prosecute someone, then it would be just my luck to find that the theory that I cant accept is the right one !
-
yep, and 4% involve someone who doesn't know the family. How about one of those being involved? Are they on ignore? 8)-)))
You do realse that Madeleine may have taken that self same track several times during the week ? In any case, imo the scent tracked by the dogs was the sweaty scent of the lifter, who had moved the blanket/ towel before lifting Madeleine, but like you, I dont know.
Has it escaped your thoughts that the track the dogs took could have started in the car park going to 5A, rather than starting at 5A and going to that car park?
Have you stopped to wonder why, *if * the scent were indeed Madeleines, it stopped in a car park?
I am sorry Rob, I know that you have your heart and soul in this but your theory doesn't have enough impact on me to gel
Aw, jeepers, if SY prosecute someone, then it would be just my luck to find that the theory that I cant accept is the right one !
In my scenario I have not described anyone committing any serious crime so far.
Burglars who are concerned there were kids that woke up.
Intruders who shut doors so that the other kids don't escape.
Intruders who go looking for a kid who escapes on her own.
Intruders who have no problem being identified and asking others for help.
I don't see anything really criminal here as yet.
They aren't going to prosecute anyone I've mentioned so far.
-
In my scenario I have not described anyone committing any serious crime so far.
Burglars who are concerned there were kids that woke up.
Intruders who shut doors so that the other kids don't escape.
Intruders who go looking for a kid who escapes on her own.
Intruders who have no problem being identified and asking others for help.
I don't see anything really criminal here as yet.
They aren't going to prosecute anyone I've mentioned so far.
If the "they" to whom you refer is The Metropolitan Police Service a.k.a "The Yard" they ain't gonna prosecute anyone as they do not have the powers to do so.
-
If the "they" to whom you refer is The Metropolitan Police Service a.k.a "The Yard" they ain't gonna prosecute anyone as they do not have the powers to do so.
Either the PJ or the yard wouldn't bother with these non criminal events would they?
[That was the most serious post from you for a while.]
-
If the "they" to whom you refer is The Metropolitan Police Service a.k.a "The Yard" they ain't gonna prosecute anyone as they do not have the powers to do so.
And what if the alleged abductor were British, or dual nationality ? would they have the powers then?
-
If the "they" to whom you refer is The Metropolitan Police Service a.k.a "The Yard" they ain't gonna prosecute anyone as they do not have the powers to do so.
Of course for some serious crimes the UK courts do have the power to prosecute
-
And what if the alleged abductor were British, or dual nationality ? would they have the powers then?
They would need a crime first wouldn't they.
-
yep, and 4% involve someone who doesn't know the family. How about one of those being involved? Are they on ignore? 8)-)))
You do realse that Madeleine may have taken that self same track several times during the week ? In any case, imo the scent tracked by the dogs was the sweaty scent of the lifter, who had moved the blanket/ towel before lifting Madeleine, but like you, I dont know.
Has it escaped your thoughts that the track the dogs took could have started in the car park going to 5A, rather than starting at 5A and going to that car park?
Have you stopped to wonder why, *if * the scent were indeed Madeleines, it stopped in a car park?
I am sorry Rob, I know that you have your heart and soul in this but your theory doesn't have enough impact on me to gel
Aw, jeepers, if SY prosecute someone, then it would be just my luck to find that the theory that I cant accept is the right one !
That is why I'm wondering if your scenario doesn't cut in till the next day or so. Look, Heriberto and SY have identified 3 potential burglars. Now that must fit in with your concepts of a getaway car driver, a look out person and the burglar. The three of them working together would be quite a formidable team. They could know the parents were at the Tapas restaurant and in this case checking every half hour or so but especially between services (so when the mains came out that would be the best time to strike as everyone would be tucking in. Maybe they didn't see Russell going in and out with Jane and miscalculated. Matt had been in the McCanns apartment and there should be a half hour to do the job but these others kept appearing on the scene. They had chosen a bad night but the rich tourists were going home after tomorrow, it was now or never. But the friggin kid wakes, and the job is abandoned.
OK in my scenario we end up with Smithman taking Madeleine, but where she finally ends up we don't know. Could child traffickers take over after Smithman?
Child trafficking is the principal part of your theory isn't it? OK adopting this scenario means that Madeleine's pedigree isn't part of the planning but there was plenty of time to work that out later.
-
You have quoted Dianne Webster talking about the McCanns window not their own.
Yes did you read it. She couldn't even answer that simple question before tampering with the crime scene.
-
Yes did you read it. She couldn't even answer that simple question before tampering with the crime scene.
Did she think it was a crime scene?
-
And what if the alleged abductor were British, or dual nationality ? would they have the powers then?
Can't see anything in this pertaining to abduction per se.
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmquad/419/41920.htm
-
Did she think it was a crime scene?
Of course she knew. I could rip her statements apart. Gerry wasn't there when she first arrived at the apartment. Only Kate and the twins were present.
4078 ”What did you see when you got there?”
Reply ”What did I see? Well Kate and Gerry, Gerry was absolutely, absolutely distraught, absolute, you know, I mean I’ve never heard a man make the noises he made, err and Kate, Kate was just err you can’t, you just can’t put into words how they were I mean they were just, I remember I went through into the room where err where Madeleine was sleeping and err and she said you know, somebody, you know, she’s been taken because she said that the shutters and that had been open, the window open. Err the twins were still asleep in the cot and I, with all the noise going on I don’t know how they slept through it which makes me think there was, they must have been err drugged with something.”
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/DIANE-WEBSTER-2.htm
-
Of course she knew. I could rip her statements apart. Gerry wasn't there when she first arrived at the apartment. Only Kate and the twins were present.
4078 ”What did you see when you got there?”
Reply ”What did I see? Well Kate and Gerry, Gerry was absolutely, absolutely distraught, absolute, you know, I mean I’ve never heard a man make the noises he made, err and Kate, Kate was just err you can’t, you just can’t put into words how they were I mean they were just, I remember I went through into the room where err where Madeleine was sleeping and err and she said you know, somebody, you know, she’s been taken because she said that the shutters and that had been open, the window open. Err the twins were still asleep in the cot and I, with all the noise going on I don’t know how they slept through it which makes me think there was, they must have been err drugged with something.”
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/DIANE-WEBSTER-2.htm
Which parts of her statement could you rip apart? Her description of the terrible state Kate and Gerry were in has been verified in other peoples' statements. I don't think she would have made the comment she made about Gerry if she had not witnessed it for herself- it obviously had a huge impact on her. She then goes on to repeat what Kate said at that time about finding the shutter and window open.
Her comments during this interview re the twins being drugged were obviously made in hindsight. She could not see into the future and so would not know immediately after Madeleine disappeared that they would sleep through the next few hours.
Also - In that first hour or so hopes were still high that Madeleine would be found - so it would not be regarded as an indisputable crime scene at that time.
So what is it about her statement that you could rip apart? I can't see anything untoward.
AIMHO
-
Of course for some serious crimes the UK courts do have the power to prosecute
Precisely my point. The cops do not prosecute The Crown prosecutes.
-
Either the PJ or the yard wouldn't bother with these non criminal events would they?
[That was the most serious post from you for a while.]
That kind of bothers me.
I had better lay in a dark room for a while.
Quote from "The View From Daniel Pike" :
Do you ever have a nice thought?
Yes but when I have one I walk up and down the corridor until it goes away.
-
Which parts of her statement could you rip apart? Her description of the terrible state Kate and Gerry were in has been verified in other peoples' statements. I don't think she would have made the comment she made about Gerry if she had not witnessed it for herself- it obviously had a huge impact on her. She then goes on to repeat what Kate said at that time about finding the shutter and window open.
Her comments during this interview re the twins being drugged were obviously made in hindsight. She could not see into the future and so would not know immediately after Madeleine disappeared that they would sleep through the next few hours.
Also - In that first hour or so hopes were still high that Madeleine would be found - so it would not be regarded as an indisputable crime scene at that time.
So what is it about her statement that you could rip apart? I can't see anything untoward.
AIMHO
The question she was asked was, "”What did you see when you got there?”
Dianne did not see Gerry when she got there so that is a false statement.
-
The question she was asked was, "”What did you see when you got there?”
Dianne did not see Gerry when she got there so that is a false statement.
A person could claim she misunderstood the question, or what I think is that we don't know enough about her movements to be sure. Initially I thought she remained at the table , but I see she left the table and later returned and that is when the waiter thought she had been left behind.
-
A person could claim she misunderstood the question, or what I think is that we don't know enough about her movements to be sure. Initially I thought she remained at the table , but I see she left the table and later returned and that is when the waiter thought she had been left behind.
The barman saw her alone and she told him why. He thinks he saw Gerry at the same time searching the Tapas area;
At that time, at about 22.20 - 22.30 he noticed that there was only one person sitting at the group's table, the oldest of them and he asked her jokingly whether they had left her alone.
The person in question said that the others had gone to the apartment to look for a girl who had disappeared. Seconds later Madeleine's father appeared, greatly agitated, looking for his daughter everywhere, obviously and immediately heading towards the pool and surrounding areas.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/J-T-R-Salcedas.htm
In September the waiter was able to name the people around him;
He refers to the movements of two men from said group? David Payne and Matthew, who appeared to be searching the gardens the areas near the bar. The witness went to the esplanade zone and saw that the table that had previously been occupied by nine adults was now occupied only by the older woman, called Dianne Webster.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RICARDO-A-D-L-OLIVEIRA.htm
-
The barman saw her alone and she told him why. He thinks he saw Gerry at the same time searching the Tapas area;
At that time, at about 22.20 - 22.30 he noticed that there was only one person sitting at the group's table, the oldest of them and he asked her jokingly whether they had left her alone.
The person in question said that the others had gone to the apartment to look for a girl who had disappeared. Seconds later Madeleine's father appeared, greatly agitated, looking for his daughter everywhere, obviously and immediately heading towards the pool and surrounding areas.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/J-T-R-Salcedas.htm
In September the waiter was able to name the people around him;
He refers to the movements of two men from said group? David Payne and Matthew, who appeared to be searching the gardens the areas near the bar. The witness went to the esplanade zone and saw that the table that had previously been occupied by nine adults was now occupied only by the older woman, called Dianne Webster.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RICARDO-A-D-L-OLIVEIRA.htm
But you will find that when this incident with Ricardo occurs according to Dianne's rogatory statement she has been to the apartment and then she came back to pick up their belongings. She hadn't just sat there all the time doing nothing.
-
That kind of bothers me.
I had better lay in a dark room for a while.
Quote from "The View From Daniel Pike" :
Do you ever have a nice thought?
Yes but when I have one I walk up and down the corridor until it goes away.
LOL
Here, have a wet hankie for your forehead.
-
That is why I'm wondering if your scenario doesn't cut in till the next day or so. Look, Heriberto and SY have identified 3 potential burglars. Now that must fit in with your concepts of a getaway car driver, a look out person and the burglar. The three of them working together would be quite a formidable team. They could know the parents were at the Tapas restaurant and in this case checking every half hour or so but especially between services (so when the mains came out that would be the best time to strike as everyone would be tucking in. Maybe they didn't see Russell going in and out with Jane and miscalculated. Matt had been in the McCanns apartment and there should be a half hour to do the job but these others kept appearing on the scene. They had chosen a bad night but the rich tourists were going home after tomorrow, it was now or never. But the friggin kid wakes, and the job is abandoned.
OK in my scenario we end up with Smithman taking Madeleine, but where she finally ends up we don't know. Could child traffickers take over after Smithman?
Child trafficking is the principal part of your theory isn't it? OK adopting this scenario means that Madeleine's pedigree isn't part of the planning but there was plenty of time to work that out later.
I think this massive trafficking organisation is so many centuries old and developed that it probably has different catagories of trafficking. Some by private yachts even.
IMO if I am correct about Madeleine, her trafficking would be in the special catagories range, because she was taken to order ... and to someone a VERY special girl
-
That is why I'm wondering if your scenario doesn't cut in till the next day or so. Look, Heriberto and SY have identified 3 potential burglars. Now that must fit in with your concepts of a getaway car driver, a look out person and the burglar. The three of them working together would be quite a formidable team. They could know the parents were at the Tapas restaurant and in this case checking every half hour or so but especially between services (so when the mains came out that would be the best time to strike as everyone would be tucking in. Maybe they didn't see Russell going in and out with Jane and miscalculated. Matt had been in the McCanns apartment and there should be a half hour to do the job but these others kept appearing on the scene. They had chosen a bad night but the rich tourists were going home after tomorrow, it was now or never. But the friggin kid wakes, and the job is abandoned.
OK in my scenario we end up with Smithman taking Madeleine, but where she finally ends up we don't know. Could child traffickers take over after Smithman?
Child trafficking is the principal part of your theory isn't it? OK adopting this scenario means that Madeleine's pedigree isn't part of the planning but there was plenty of time to work that out later.
I believe it was all planned in advance down to almost the last detail. I also think that with such a precious (and dangerous to have because of the publicity) "commodity" that the stages of the abduction were probably all isolated from each other, with the abductors passing her over to someone that they didn't know and going somewhere that they also didn't know.
The next stage ditto ... and so on. No-one knew beyond their stage or perhaps the next stage
So hidden in plain sight effectively.
However I could be completely wrong
AIMHO
-
A person could claim she misunderstood the question, or what I think is that we don't know enough about her movements to be sure. Initially I thought she remained at the table , but I see she left the table and later returned and that is when the waiter thought she had been left behind.
I didn't know that she had left the table, then returned. Thanks for that.
-
Can't see anything in this pertaining to abduction per se.
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmquad/419/41920.htm
Thanks barrier
I am happy to go along with Trafficking
-
I didn't know that she had left the table, then returned. Thanks for that.
Did you find the section Sadie?
"4078 ”How did she look?”
Reply ”Well I don’t know, frightened or absolutely, well, it’s very difficult to take in when something like that, you know, you’re just sitting at a table having what was a nice meal and err everybody just, you know, stopped what they were doing and just got up and Fiona said to me you know, I said what do you want me to do and she said you stay there in case err you know if Madeleine, because at that time we didn’t know what had happened because I think Gerry had sort of said to Kate oh she can’t be, you know. Err so I, I stayed at the table in case Madeleine had wandered off and she might come looking round the restaurant. Err this is when it gets all a bit confusing because I’ve no idea how long I, I stayed there. I don’t, I don’t think it was that long and I know that at one point, again, this wasn’t in my original statement, Dave did come back to the table and say can, can you just go back to the apartment, but all this is very, very, very vague and I know when I left the table I went, I did go into err Kate and Gerry’s err apartment, which was just absolute err just terrible.”
4078 ”What did you see when you got there?”
Reply ”What did I see? Well Kate and Gerry, Gerry was absolutely, absolutely distraught, absolute, you know, I mean I’ve never heard a man make the noises he made, err and Kate, Kate was just err you can’t, you just can’t put into words how they were I mean they were just, I remember I went through into the room where err where Madeleine was sleeping and err and she said you know, somebody, you know, she’s been taken because she said that the shutters and that had been open, the window open. Err the twins were still asleep in the cot and I, with all the noise going on I don’t know how they slept through it which makes me think there was, they must have been err drugged with something.”
4078 ”What could you see of Madeleine’s bed?”
Reply ”Well the, it was neatly turn, what I remember the cover was neatly turned back. I mean her bed was right in the err corner, you went in the door and it was, you’d have to look round the door to err see it, and err it was just neatly turned back and she just wasn’t there.”
4078 ”Do you remember who else was around when you back to the apartment?”
Reply ”I think, well Fiona was there I think and err Rachael, I remember seeing Rachael and Gerry, I just remember Gerry sitting in the chair just absolutely, well roaring is the only word I can describe it as, just absolutely beside himself. The men, the other men I think were, had gone out looking, running around shouting Madeleine, and Fiona, Fiona wanted me to go back and err keep, I mean obviously everybody’s concerned for their own children as well and I think also there’d been things left at the table, like err cameras and Rachael’s jacket and things so I, I err, I think I went back to the table then to pick up err what had been left behind, I’m not sure, I think the monitor was there as well and one of the staff at the restaurant asked me what had happened and I just said one of the children has gone missing.”
4078 ”Do you have any idea what time it was by that point?”
Reply ”No err you see I can’t remember how long I sat at the table before I went up to see what was going on.”
4078 ”But when you went back the Tapas was still open? The staff were still around?”
Reply ”Yeah, yeah.”
-
Did you find the section Sadie?
"4078 ”How did she look?”
Reply ”Well I don’t know, frightened or absolutely, well, it’s very difficult to take in when something like that, you know, you’re just sitting at a table having what was a nice meal and err everybody just, you know, stopped what they were doing and just got up and Fiona said to me you know, I said what do you want me to do and she said you stay there in case err you know if Madeleine, because at that time we didn’t know what had happened because I think Gerry had sort of said to Kate oh she can’t be, you know. Err so I, I stayed at the table in case Madeleine had wandered off and she might come looking round the restaurant. Err this is when it gets all a bit confusing because I’ve no idea how long I, I stayed there. I don’t, I don’t think it was that long and I know that at one point, again, this wasn’t in my original statement, Dave did come back to the table and say can, can you just go back to the apartment, but all this is very, very, very vague and I know when I left the table I went, I did go into err Kate and Gerry’s err apartment, which was just absolute err just terrible.”
4078 ”What did you see when you got there?”
Reply ”What did I see? Well Kate and Gerry, Gerry was absolutely, absolutely distraught, absolute, you know, I mean I’ve never heard a man make the noises he made, err and Kate, Kate was just err you can’t, you just can’t put into words how they were I mean they were just, I remember I went through into the room where err where Madeleine was sleeping and err and she said you know, somebody, you know, she’s been taken because she said that the shutters and that had been open, the window open. Err the twins were still asleep in the cot and I, with all the noise going on I don’t know how they slept through it which makes me think there was, they must have been err drugged with something.”
4078 ”What could you see of Madeleine’s bed?”
Reply ”Well the, it was neatly turn, what I remember the cover was neatly turned back. I mean her bed was right in the err corner, you went in the door and it was, you’d have to look round the door to err see it, and err it was just neatly turned back and she just wasn’t there.”
4078 ”Do you remember who else was around when you back to the apartment?”
Reply ”I think, well Fiona was there I think and err Rachael, I remember seeing Rachael and Gerry, I just remember Gerry sitting in the chair just absolutely, well roaring is the only word I can describe it as, just absolutely beside himself. The men, the other men I think were, had gone out looking, running around shouting Madeleine, and Fiona, Fiona wanted me to go back and err keep, I mean obviously everybody’s concerned for their own children as well and I think also there’d been things left at the table, like err cameras and Rachael’s jacket and things so I, I err, I think I went back to the table then to pick up err what had been left behind, I’m not sure, I think the monitor was there as well and one of the staff at the restaurant asked me what had happened and I just said one of the children has gone missing.”
4078 ”Do you have any idea what time it was by that point?”
Reply ”No err you see I can’t remember how long I sat at the table before I went up to see what was going on.”
4078 ”But when you went back the Tapas was still open? The staff were still around?”
Reply ”Yeah, yeah.”
She seems to have forgotten that in her 11th May statement she said she went to 5A twice, the first time finding just Kate and the twins there. Still. it was a year later when she had her rog interview. I notice she says Madeleine's bed was behind the door. I wonder why she thought that?
-
I believe it was all planned in advance down to almost the last detail. I also think that with such a precious (and dangerous to have because of the publicity) "commodity" that the stages of the abduction were probably all isolated from each other, with the abductors passing her over to someone that they didn't know and going somewhere that they also didn't know.
The next stage ditto ... and so on. No-one knew beyond their stage or perhaps the next stage
So hidden in plain sight effectively.
However I could be completely wrong
AIMHO
How do you plan in advance to almost the last detail when you don’t know who will be staying where, what child care arrangements will be in place, what time you have to do the deed. Etc?
-
The question she was asked was, "”What did you see when you got there?”
Dianne did not see Gerry when she got there so that is a false statement.
IMO it is obvious that DW did see Gerry whilst she was there as I do not believe she would have fabricated this following comment.
Quote
Well Kate and Gerry, Gerry was absolutely, absolutely distraught, absolute, you know, I mean I’ve never heard a man make the noises he made,
unquote
She may not have been totally 'chronologically' accurate'in her recollections - which due to the fallibility of memory could be flawed - but that is not the same as making 'a false statement' as you claim.
Any suggestion that DW would deliberately make any false statements to the police is preposterous IMO.
AIMHO
-
n my opinion DW's mind works in mysterious ways. Despite the PJ's best efforts they failed to trigger her memory if events just eight days after they occurred;
Asked if there was the possibility of having crossed paths with someone during the journey between her apartment and restaurant, the witness said no........ asked specifically whether, on the journey to the restaurant, if they had passed either of the two individuals described in the preceding paragraph, she answered categorically not.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/DIANNE_WEBSTER_11-MAY07.htm
To paraphrase, that's an emphatic no, then. However;
the thing that I didn’t mention at the original err interview in Portugal was that I do vaguely remember seeing Matt...............Well Matt obviously wasn’t [at the table] because we we’d just passed him but of course I don’t remember this at the time,
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/DIANE-WEBSTER-2.htm
So a year down the line she remembers, even though she acknowledges elsewhere;
my memory would have been fresher then
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/DIANE-WEBSTER-2.htm
-
n my opinion DW's mind works in mysterious ways. Despite the PJ's best efforts they failed to trigger her memory if events just eight days after they occurred;
Asked if there was the possibility of having crossed paths with someone during the journey between her apartment and restaurant, the witness said no........ asked specifically whether, on the journey to the restaurant, if they had passed either of the two individuals described in the preceding paragraph, she answered categorically not.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/DIANNE_WEBSTER_11-MAY07.htm
To paraphrase, that's an emphatic no, then. However;
the thing that I didn’t mention at the original err interview in Portugal was that I do vaguely remember seeing Matt...............Well Matt obviously wasn’t [at the table] because we we’d just passed him but of course I don’t remember this at the time,
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/DIANE-WEBSTER-2.htm
So a year down the line she remembers, even though she acknowledges elsewhere;
my memory would have been fresher then
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/DIANE-WEBSTER-2.htm
She could have had her memory jogged by Fiona/David recounting the episode to her. IIRC she was in her mid sixties so who knows how sharp - or otherwise - her memory was at that age. Also - it's easy to forget something that wasn't remotely important at the time it happened IMO.
People later remembering stuff which they had previously forgotten about by having their memory jogged in some way is a normal human occurrence IMO - which is why policemen have been known to ask folk to get in touch with them again if they remember anything else at some later stage.
I see nothing sinister in any of her statements, and can think of no reason whatsoever for her to deliberately make false statements to the police about anything.
AIMHO
-
She seems to have forgotten that in her 11th May statement she said she went to 5A twice, the first time finding just Kate and the twins there. Still. it was a year later when she had her rog interview. I notice she says Madeleine's bed was behind the door. I wonder why she thought that?
What was the context that she says Madeleine's bed was behind the door?
-
She could have had her memory jogged by Fiona/David recounting the episode to her. IIRC she was in her mid sixties so who knows how sharp - or otherwise - her memory was at that age. Also - it's easy to forget something that wasn't remotely important at the time it happened IMO.
People later remembering stuff which they had previously forgotten about by having their memory jogged in some way is a normal human occurrence IMO - which is why policemen have been known to ask folk to get in touch with them again if they remember anything else at some later stage.
I see nothing sinister in any of her statements, and can think of no reason whatsoever for her to deliberately make false statements to the police about anything.
AIMHO
We wouldn't be allowed to say sinister things even if we thought of them.
-
She could have had her memory jogged by Fiona/David recounting the episode to her. IIRC she was in her mid sixties so who knows how sharp - or otherwise - her memory was at that age. Also - it's easy to forget something that wasn't remotely important at the time it happened IMO.
People later remembering stuff which they had previously forgotten about by having their memory jogged in some way is a normal human occurrence IMO - which is why policemen have been known to ask folk to get in touch with them again if they remember anything else at some later stage.
I see nothing sinister in any of her statements, and can think of no reason whatsoever for her to deliberately make false statements to the police about anything.
AIMHO
I think a lawyer in court would have a field day with that reasoning.
-
We wouldn't be allowed to say sinister things even if we thought of them.
Accusing DW of making a false statement to the police has 'sinister' implications IMO.
Claim made by Pathfinder
The question she was asked was, "”What did you see when you got there?”
Dianne did not see Gerry when she got there so that is a false statement.
End quote
-
She seems to have forgotten that in her 11th May statement she said she went to 5A twice, the first time finding just Kate and the twins there. Still. it was a year later when she had her rog interview. I notice she says Madeleine's bed was behind the door. I wonder why she thought that?
Dianne's rogatory
"
TAPAS7 FRIDAY 11 APRIL 2008 11:04.08
RECORD OF TAPE RECORDED INTERVIEW Police Exhibit No SVF124A
TRANSCRIPT BY DUARTE LEVY
Dianne Webster – Record Of Tape Recorded Interview
....
Reply “But we’d finished, we’d had our starters and we’d err we’d finished our main course err Russell was the only one that hadn’t had his main course because he, he’d been absolute looking after his daughter while Jane had her dinner and err Russell sat down to start eating his and it was only shortly after that that Kate came running up.”
4078 “And I know I asked you before but what did she look like when she came back in?”
Reply “Well she didn’t even come right in, I don’t think she came right in to the restaurant she was just err so distressed that everybody just got up from the table and, and went, apart from myself, well I stayed behind in case err Fiona said you know stay there in case she’s wandered off.”
4078 “Then it says, what was Kate’s behaviour like? But you’ve said she was distraught. And were you shocked by what she said?”
Reply “Well yes, I mean sometimes I still can’t believe what happened.”
4078 “I get that sense from you that you’re still really…”
Reply “It’s like something you read about you know, err you never suspect a child being abducted from its bed.”
4078 “Then the next question is what we’ve recently talked about, did you get into the MCCANN’S apartment? Yes you did, and you’re not a hundred percent certain of the time.”
Reply “Mm.”
4078 “Did you get into the bedroom when the children were asleep? And again, yes you did.”
Reply “Yeah.”
4078 “Can you describe what you saw in that bedroom?”
Reply “Well the two, the twins were both sleeping in their cots, which were sort of in the middle of the floor kind of like they were side by side, err I think there was a bed underneath the err window and Madeleine’s bed was (sighs) to the left as you went through the door against the wall.”
4078 “Mm.”
Reply “And err the covers were just neatly folded back like, and she’d been, just been lifted. The bed was not err disturbed or crumpled in any way.”
4078 “When you saw the twins did you see which way they were lying?”
Reply “No.”
4078 “Did you notice anything unusual about them?”
Reply “Err no, not at the time but I, in, in retrospect you see I’m, when I think of all the noise that was going on in the apartment and the way they were when they, err were brought up to us I would say they were a bit dopey.”"
I can't read that and think she had anything but suspicion of the McCanns. The description of the bed and the dopey twins. Who's hairs were found beside Madeleine's bed?
-
Accusing DW of making a false statement to the police has 'sinister' implications IMO.
Claim made by Pathfinder
The question she was asked was, "”What did you see when you got there?”
Dianne did not see Gerry when she got there so that is a false statement.
End quote
Does PF realise she went there twice?
-
Accusing DW of making a false statement to the police has 'sinister' implications IMO.
Claim made by Pathfinder
The question she was asked was, "”What did you see when you got there?”
Dianne did not see Gerry when she got there so that is a false statement.
End quote
- In that apartment she found that KATE was completely in panic, in "state of shock ".
- Because she was asked, she states that she entered the apartment by the sliding glass door of the patio at the back, which gives access to the lounge. Then she went to the children's bedroom, noting that there she found KATE and the twin siblings of MADELEINE
No mention of GM.
10 minutes later she went back to the tapas to collect her handbag and McCann camera upon her return she had this to say.
- The question being asked about the people that were inside the apartment of McCANN at that time, the witness said that the McCANN couple were present (although on the first occasion she had no recollection of having seen GERRY), and FIONA, not remembering any other people that were there. However, she admits the possibility of their being [others] inside the apartment, including David, in that, as mentioned above, all of them had gone to the apartment following the news that KATE had given.
So on the first instance she did not see GM.
-
No mention of GM.
10 minutes later she went back to the tapas to collect her handbag and McCann camera upon her return she had this to say.
So on the first instance she did not see GM.
Well there are other rooms besides the kids room. "So on the first instance she did not see GM" in the children's bedroom but he could have been in the lounge.
-
How do you plan in advance to almost the last detail when you don’t know who will be staying where, what child care arrangements will be in place, what time you have to do the deed. Etc?
Sadie?
-
Well there are other rooms besides the kids room. "So on the first instance she did not see GM" in the children's bedroom but he could have been in the lounge.
He could have been any where,DW did not see him simples,everbody's gotta be somewhere(Eccles)
-
Does PF realise she went there twice?
Of course I know - I've analysed the timeline completely that night as it's crucial to solving the case. Dianne left after raising the shutters and twisting them and getting them stuck as seen in crime scene photos (meaning the shutter was down and closed when Dianne arrived so that wasn't any different than normal &%%6) and went back to the table to retrieve items which included the McCanns camera. She brought them back to the apartment i.e. the second time she visited. You can see the camera Dianne retrieved on the table.
(http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/Processopdf10page66-KateArguidointe.jpg)
-
Did you find the section Sadie?
"4078 ”How did she look?”
Reply ”Well I don’t know, frightened or absolutely, well, it’s very difficult to take in when something like that, you know, you’re just sitting at a table having what was a nice meal and err everybody just, you know, stopped what they were doing and just got up and Fiona said to me you know, I said what do you want me to do and she said you stay there in case err you know if Madeleine, because at that time we didn’t know what had happened because I think Gerry had sort of said to Kate oh she can’t be, you know. Err so I, I stayed at the table in case Madeleine had wandered off and she might come looking round the restaurant. Err this is when it gets all a bit confusing because I’ve no idea how long I, I stayed there. I don’t, I don’t think it was that long and I know that at one point, again, this wasn’t in my original statement, Dave did come back to the table and say can, can you just go back to the apartment, but all this is very, very, very vague and I know when I left the table I went, I did go into err Kate and Gerry’s err apartment, which was just absolute err just terrible.”
4078 ”What did you see when you got there?”
Reply ”What did I see? Well Kate and Gerry, Gerry was absolutely, absolutely distraught, absolute, you know, I mean I’ve never heard a man make the noises he made, err and Kate, Kate was just err you can’t, you just can’t put into words how they were I mean they were just, I remember I went through into the room where err where Madeleine was sleeping and err and she said you know, somebody, you know, she’s been taken because she said that the shutters and that had been open, the window open. Err the twins were still asleep in the cot and I, with all the noise going on I don’t know how they slept through it which makes me think there was, they must have been err drugged with something.”
4078 ”What could you see of Madeleine’s bed?”
Reply ”Well the, it was neatly turn, what I remember the cover was neatly turned back. I mean her bed was right in the err corner, you went in the door and it was, you’d have to look round the door to err see it, and err it was just neatly turned back and she just wasn’t there.”
4078 ”Do you remember who else was around when you back to the apartment?”
Reply ”I think, well Fiona was there I think and err Rachael, I remember seeing Rachael and Gerry, I just remember Gerry sitting in the chair just absolutely, well roaring is the only word I can describe it as, just absolutely beside himself. The men, the other men I think were, had gone out looking, running around shouting Madeleine, and Fiona, Fiona wanted me to go back and err keep, I mean obviously everybody’s concerned for their own children as well and I think also there’d been things left at the table, like err cameras and Rachael’s jacket and things so I, I err, I think I went back to the table then to pick up err what had been left behind, I’m not sure, I think the monitor was there as well and one of the staff at the restaurant asked me what had happened and I just said one of the children has gone missing.”
4078 ”Do you have any idea what time it was by that point?”
Reply ”No err you see I can’t remember how long I sat at the table before I went up to see what was going on.”
4078 ”But when you went back the Tapas was still open? The staff were still around?”
Reply ”Yeah, yeah.”
Thank you Rob
Actually I think that I must have misunderstood what you said becos I thought that you meant that Dianne returned to the tapas table to sit there some more. My mistake
I have caused you a lot of trouble, sorry. I had read this before, but it is good to be reminded.
-
She could have had her memory jogged by Fiona/David recounting the episode to her. IIRC she was in her mid sixties so who knows how sharp - or otherwise - her memory was at that age. Also - it's easy to forget something that wasn't remotely important at the time it happened IMO.
People later remembering stuff which they had previously forgotten about by having their memory jogged in some way is a normal human occurrence IMO - which is why policemen have been known to ask folk to get in touch with them again if they remember anything else at some later stage.
I see nothing sinister in any of her statements, and can think of no reason whatsoever for her to deliberately make false statements to the police about anything.
AIMHO
In my opinion there's a difference between forgetting to tell the police about something which you later remember and categorically denying that something happened and then a year later saying that you now remember it. The second is not the same as the first, it's a change of story, not a recovery of memory.
-
How do you plan in advance to almost the last detail when you don’t know who will be staying where, what child care arrangements will be in place, what time you have to do the deed. Etc?
Perhaps it was pre-decided which apartment The Mccann family would take ? THe rest could have been decided after surveillance .... and there is planty of evidence that that took place.
ETA. This also responds to Slartis post ... Reply #58 on: Today at 11:16:30 AM » which I have just come across
-
IMO it is obvious that DW did see Gerry whilst she was there as I do not believe she would have fabricated this following comment.
Quote
Well Kate and Gerry, Gerry was absolutely, absolutely distraught, absolute, you know, I mean I’ve never heard a man make the noises he made,
unquote
She may not have been totally 'chronologically' accurate'in her recollections - which due to the fallibility of memory could be flawed - but that is not the same as making 'a false statement' as you claim.
Any suggestion that DW would deliberately make any false statements to the police is preposterous IMO.
AIMHO
It is also libellous indicating collusion imo
-
He could have been any where,DW did not see him simples,everbody's gotta be somewhere(Eccles)
... and he could have been in their bedroom sobbing his heart out.
Dianne clearly states in one of her statements that when she got there Gerry was dreadfully distressed making the most awful noises. It is recorded somewhere, I think on this thread
-
How do you plan in advance to almost the last detail when you don’t know who will be staying where, what child care arrangements will be in place, what time you have to do the deed. Etc?
Well the only people who had that information was the Tapas crew. They did agree in advance, and before leaving the UK to leave their children unattended in the evening while they all dined. That was prearranged, and they also acknowledged that babysitting services were available, So where does that leave them... Is there a theory not yet discussed? or investigated?
-
It is also libellous indicating collusion imo
Do you have a good word to use when witnesses get together to discuss what they witnessed and remember differently afterwards?
-
Thank you Rob
Actually I think that I must have misunderstood what you said becos I thought that you meant that Dianne returned to the tapas table to sit there some more. My mistake
I have caused you a lot of trouble, sorry. I had read this before, but it is good to be reminded.
I think she did sit down again and thought things over.
-
Do you have a good word to use when witnesses get together to discuss what they witnessed and remember differently afterwards?
Oh.... er.... wait..... No that is what it is called 'collusion'. The police in this country take a very poor view of this behaviour, I think there might be a wee law about it somewhere, erm um let me think now.. ah yes something about 'interfering'.
I recall this from uni...
some friends all went to a party- John kissed ella, no one saw this and told her parents it never happened, then after meeting with ella, they all changed their minds and said they remembered they did see that. They colluded. ella interfered with witnesses.
-
Well the only people who had that information was the Tapas crew. They did agree in advance, and before leaving the UK to leave their children unattended in the evening while they all dined. That was prearranged, and they also acknowledged that babysitting services were available, So where does that leave them... Is there a theory not yet discussed? or investigated?
Warners knew and OC knew apart from possible booking agents.
If you would be happy too leave your toddlers alone with a stranger, that's OK,
BUT I wouldn't be happy to do that
-
Warners knew and OC knew apart from possible booking agents.
If you would be happy too leave your toddlers alone with a stranger, that's OK,
BUT I wouldn't be happy to do that
Warners and QC and booking agents saw what Maddie looked like and knew she was going to be left alone every night and the parents were not going to be physically checking their children before the family left the UK? seriously lol
My childcare arrangements were fail-safe. I never left them alone with anyone other than gran,papas and younger sister! On holiday we all dined together the children would fall asleep on chairs made as make shift beds and carried home. when they were babies, we all stayed in one place cooked and dined at our villa.
-
Warners knew and OC knew apart from possible booking agents.
If you would be happy too leave your toddlers alone with a stranger, that's OK,
BUT I wouldn't be happy to do that
Yet before they got to know the day care staff they were strangers.
-
Warners and QC and booking agents saw what Maddie looked like and knew she was going to be left alone every night and the parents were not going to be physically checking their children before the family left the UK? seriously lol
I think that I misunderstood your post, which folowerd on fron Slartis post saying "How do you plan in advance to almost the last detail when you don’t know who will be staying where"
and thought that you were saying that only the Tapas group knew the Mccanns were going to Portugal and OC. Hence my response
My childcare arrangements were fail-safe. I never left them alone with anyone other than gran,papas and younger sister! On holiday we all dined together the children would fall asleep on chairs made as make shift beds and carried home. when they were babies, we all stayed in one place cooked and dined at our villa.
Good for you.
Me too, but then our kids didn't go to bed as early as the Mccann children were used to. We mainly cooked becos we couldn't afford meals out and took Mum and Dad on holiday with us. Then we bought a caravan, but we did sit outside later at night chatting to fellow caravanners. In the pitch black, anyone could have gone in and stolen one of our children, but it never occurred to us, it seemed so safe
-
Yet before they got to know the day care staff they were strangers.
The day care staff were multiple, the door was ever unlocked for parents and other staff to come in and there would be windows for people to look in
A bit different to leaving you little one with a stranger in a locked place that no-one would be able to oversee. Dontcha see?
-
... and he could have been in their bedroom sobbing his heart out.
Dianne clearly states in one of her statements that when she got there Gerry was dreadfully distressed making the most awful noises. It is recorded somewhere, I think on this thread
She wasn't asked how was Gerry? She was asked what happened when she got to the apartment? Gerry wasn't there so her talking about his distress is not what was asked by the police and that's the truth.
-
The day care staff were multiple, the door was ever unlocked for parents and other staff to come in and there would be windows for people to look in
A bit different to leaving you little one with a stranger in a locked place that no-one would be able to oversee. Dontcha see?
A darn sight safer than leaving them alone in a dark room in a strange bed in a foreign country with out supervision and it seems to some easily abducted,dontcha see.
-
She wasn't asked how was Gerry? She was asked what happened when she got to the apartment? Gerry wasn't there so her talking about his distress is not what was asked by the police and that's the truth.
Indeed that is the truth. Not answering a simple question does not look good. A darn sight safer than leaving them alone in a dark room in a strange bed in a foreign country with out supervision and it seems to some easily abducted,dontcha see.
Some will never see the forrest as the vision blocked by the trees!
-
She wasn't asked how was Gerry? She was asked what happened when she got to the apartment? Gerry wasn't there so her talking about his distress is not what was asked by the police and that's the truth.
pathfinder this has been on forum in the past 3 or 4 days, and you must have seen it.
My eyesight is no longer good enough to go searching thru thousands of words, but Dianne in one of her statements said that when she first went into the apartment Kate and Gerry were there and Gerry was terribly distraught , that she had never heard a noise like he was making come from a man before.
That was when she first went into the apartment. You must have seen this before. It was in more than one post.
-
pathfinder this has been on forum in the past 3 or 4 days, and you must have seen it.
My eyesight is no longer good enough to go searching thru thousands of words, but Dianne in one of her statements said that when she first went into the apartment Kate and Gerry were there and Gerry was terribly distraught , that she had never heard a noise like he was making come from a man before.
That was when she first went into the apartment. You must have seen this before. It was in more than one post.
Dianne's first visit to 5A;
on the first occasion she had no recollection of having seen GERRY
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/DIANNE_WEBSTER_11-MAY07.htm
-
Dianne's first visit to 5A;
on the first occasion she had no recollection of having seen GERRY
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/DIANNE_WEBSTER_11-MAY07.htm
That is really interesting for me as it shows Dianne seemed to be of the opinion that they would all return soon after Kate's alert!
"- Therefore, she can only say with precision that, at 22.00 Kate McCann returned to the restaurant, seemingly in panic, communicating to others the fact that of Madeleine's disappearance. Asked about the reaction of other members of the group when they heard the above from KATE, the witness says that everyone, except the witness, left the restaurant and went to the apartment of the couple McCANN in order to find out what was going on.
In turn, as relates to her, the witness says she stayed at the restaurant for about five minutes, then, noting that the remaining members of the group had not returned, she followed in the direction of the apartment McCANN.
-
... and he could have been in their bedroom sobbing his heart out.
Why,his daughter could have been just yards away,he hadn't a clue what had happened, allegedly.
-
Dianne clearly states in one of her statements that when she got there Gerry was dreadfully distressed making the most awful noises. It is recorded somewhere, I think on this thread
The first statement with the clearest memory has no mention.
-
The first statement with the clearest memory has no mention.
I don't trust the Portuguese statements as they are being recorded by the PJ.
-
I don't trust the Portuguese statements as they are being recorded by the PJ.
Scotland Yard do,they are the ones that count.
-
Scotland Yard do,they are the ones that count.
I would not go that far.
-
Why,his daughter could have been just yards away,he hadn't a clue what had happened, allegedly.
Are you for real?
-
Are you for real?
I read that as hiding somewhere.
-
I read that as hiding somewhere.
With the window and shutters open ?
And after the initial search ?
Nah I think that barrier is acting naive. Any parent thinking thoughts that their child might have been stolen would be totally destraught
-
Please keep it Civil.
-
With the window and shutters open ?
And after the initial search ?
Nah I think that barrier is acting naive. Any parent thinking thoughts that their child might have been stolen would be totally destraught
Far from naïve,its not been tested in a court of law.
-
Far from naïve,its not been tested in a court of law.
The poor parents were distraught as any normal parent would be at finding Madeleine gone and the shutters up and window open.
Do you have children? Wouldn't you be destraught had you found your little one gone and her shutters and bedroom window open ... especially if you knew that he/she was incapable of doing the opening ... and thoughts of paedophiles were filling your head
Would you sit there smiling, or, after your intial search, would you release your emotions?
-
In my opinion there's a difference between forgetting to tell the police about something which you later remember and categorically denying that something happened and then a year later saying that you now remember it. The second is not the same as the first, it's a change of story, not a recovery of memory.
I honestly don't see what the big deal is G. If DW forgot about Matt and then later on had her memory jogged, or whether to this day she still doesn't remember seeing him - what difference does it make? She will know that it happened because both Fiona and David remembered it - and Matt himself could confirm it. She would have no reason to disbelieve them - especially over something so unimportant that there would be no reason for anyone to lie about it.
Unless you believe this 'meeting' didn't happen I really don't know what your point is. If you do believe it didn't happen - then what would be the purpose of making up this 'meeting'. I don't get it.
AIMHO
-
Can you all please refrain from sniping, insulting and goading.
-
I honestly don't see what the big deal is G. If DW forgot about Matt and then later on had her memory jogged, or whether to this day she still doesn't remember seeing him - what difference does it make? She will know that it happened because both Fiona and David remembered it - and Matt himself could confirm it. She would have no reason to disbelieve them - especially over something so unimportant that there would be no reason for anyone to lie about it.
Unless you believe this 'meeting' didn't happen I really don't know what your point is. If you do believe it didn't happen - then what would be the purpose of making up this 'meeting'. I don't get it.
AIMHO
She did not know it happened, that is how evidence works. Other people may attest to it, but she couldn’t.
-
Can you all please refrain from sniping, insulting and goading.
fighting 2 million years of evolution there!
-
I honestly don't see what the big deal is G. If DW forgot about Matt and then later on had her memory jogged, or whether to this day she still doesn't remember seeing him - what difference does it make? She will know that it happened because both Fiona and David remembered it - and Matt himself could confirm it. She would have no reason to disbelieve them - especially over something so unimportant that there would be no reason for anyone to lie about it.
Unless you believe this 'meeting' didn't happen I really don't know what your point is. If you do believe it didn't happen - then what would be the purpose of making up this 'meeting'. I don't get it.
AIMHO
The correct reply if you don't remember is 'I don't remember'. None of the four people involved remembered meeting on that corner the night before. In fact they all place the Payne's arrival before Matthew's departure. As to whether it matters, that's not for me to judge, but my opinion is that the group's decision to discuss the events and to synchronise their recollections is what led to their timeline being doubted.
This was DP's first statement, ;
Concerning yesterday evening, he states that he, his wife and his mother-in-law arrived at the restaurant at around 8.55pm. According to what he remembers, all the members of the group were present, apart from the children, who were in bed. when they arrived,
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/DAVID-PAYNE.htm
FP's first statement;
She left around 20H45, accompanied by David and her mother, in order to meet the rest of the group in the Tapas restaurant.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/FIONA-PAYNE.htm
MO's first statement;
That the last to arrive at the restaurant was the couple David and Fiona. That the latter arrived at the restaurant at around 9pm.
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.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MATTHEW-OLDFIELD.htm
-
The correct reply if you don't remember is 'I don't remember'. None of the four people involved remembered meeting on that corner the night before. In fact they all place the Payne's arrival before Matthew's departure. As to whether it matters, that's not for me to judge, but my opinion is that the group's decision to discuss the events and to synchronise their recollections is what led to their timeline being doubted.
This was DP's first statement, ;
Concerning yesterday evening, he states that he, his wife and his mother-in-law arrived at the restaurant at around 8.55pm. According to what he remembers, all the members of the group were present, apart from the children, who were in bed. when they arrived,
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/DAVID-PAYNE.htm
FP's first statement;
She left around 20H45, accompanied by David and her mother, in order to meet the rest of the group in the Tapas restaurant.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/FIONA-PAYNE.htm
MO's first statement;
That the last to arrive at the restaurant was the couple David and Fiona. That the latter arrived at the restaurant at around 9pm.
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.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MATTHEW-OLDFIELD.htm
Matt can't have been that accurate either for later on they agree that Matt passes the Paynes up near the apartments. You can be out with times but to pass a family of three on the way is not something that should be forgotten.
Even the 2 written timelines from that night had them all gathered by 8:45 PM. Written by Russell who barely made it himself by that time and he knows he wasn't the last to arrive.
There is nothing accurate about what anyone says on this matter to the point I feel there is something significant happening but I have no clue as to what.
-
The poor parents were distraught as any normal parent would be at finding Madeleine gone and the shutters up and window open.
Do you have children? Wouldn't you be destraught had you found your little one gone and her shutters and bedroom window open ... especially if you knew that he/she was incapable of doing the opening ... and thoughts of paedophiles were filling your head
Would you sit there smiling, or, after your intial search, would you release your emotions?
There is NO INDEPENDENT PROOF that any shutter was up and any window was open. There is also a total absence of any forensic evidence that any intruder entered the apartment via the children's bedroom window.
The police are stuck with those two investigative elements I'm afraid. You can't just invent an abductor because the alternative is so ugly.
-
There is NO INDEPENDENT PROOF that any shutter was up and any window was open. There is also a total absence of any forensic evidence that any intruder entered the apartment via the children's bedroom window.
The police are stuck with those two investigative elements I'm afraid. You can't just invent an abductor because the alternative is so ugly.
Are you discounting what Amy Tierney said in her statement?
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/AMY-ELLEN-TIERNEY.htm
"She confirms that, on the night of the disappearance she was on duty and immediately went to the bedroom to see if the girl was hiding. She saw that the shutter was raised and that the window was partially open. It was then that she began to look in the wardrobes to see if the girl was hiding.
-
Are you discounting what Amy Tierney said in her statement?
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/AMY-ELLEN-TIERNEY.htm
"She confirms that, on the night of the disappearance she was on duty and immediately went to the bedroom to see if the girl was hiding. She saw that the shutter was raised and that the window was partially open. It was then that she began to look in the wardrobes to see if the girl was hiding.
John will obviously answer for himself, but one of the problems with Amy's statement is covers the period after 10pm. Ideally you are looking for independent confirmation the shutters/windows/curtains were open before the alarm was raised.
I didn't think such a statement existed, but there is an anomaly in the following statement: http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARIA-M-M-DE-SILVA.htm
She states:
"States that she looked at the exit of the apartment and that from the flat above the McCanns, she saw light, and also in from [sic] of the apartment, but she could not define, concretely, where she saw the light when she passed the McCann apartment; "
I believe Google Translate translates 'from' to 'front'.
MO states:
4078 'And you have walked through the apartment and you said there was a light on''
Reply 'Yeah'.
4078 'A lamp, sorry, a table lamp''
Reply 'Yeah, I think sort of, there was like a little sort of round sort of table like this and then, erm, sort of a small lamp'.
If the door to the bedroom and the shutters were open this light could leak out of the apartment at the front. KMcC also reported the curtains open (although I think the evidence shows that one half of the curtains was trapped by the bed).
It is not much to go on, but it could have been the subject of a mini-reconstruction to show whether this could have been the light seen by Maria Manuela Martins da Silva.
Her statement is that she passed the apartment very shortly after 10pm (given she left block 6 just before 10pm).
Her statement does, however, suggest that the front door was not open.
-
There is NO INDEPENDENT PROOF that any shutter was up and any window was open. There is also a total absence of any forensic evidence that any intruder entered the apartment via the children's bedroom window.
The police are stuck with those two investigative elements I'm afraid. You can't just invent an abductor because the alternative is so ugly.
The abductor has not been invented by SY...it is aprocess of elimination. The fact that the PJ found no evidence of an abductor does not mean there was not one. We have a witness statement of an open window...that is evidence.
The police have to make a decision who they believe and it appears they believe the McCanns
-
Are you discounting what Amy Tierney said in her statement?
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/AMY-ELLEN-TIERNEY.htm
"She confirms that, on the night of the disappearance she was on duty and immediately went to the bedroom to see if the girl was hiding. She saw that the shutter was raised and that the window was partially open. It was then that she began to look in the wardrobes to see if the girl was hiding.
She saw that after Kate Mccanns return to the apartment. NOT BEFORE.
-
She saw that after Kate Mccanns return to the apartment. NOT BEFORE.
But do you think that is what John wanted? Did John want someone to confirm the window was raised before Kate's return? I'm not saying that is impossible but extremely unlikely.
Going back to look at what John asked he didn't say before or after just that the shutter was up and the window open. "There is NO INDEPENDENT PROOF that any shutter was up and any window was open."
-
John will obviously answer for himself, but one of the problems with Amy's statement is covers the period after 10pm. Ideally you are looking for independent confirmation the shutters/windows/curtains were open before the alarm was raised.
I didn't think such a statement existed, but there is an anomoly in the following statement: http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARIA-M-M-DE-SILVA.htm
She states:
"States that she looked at the exit of the apartment and that from the flat above the McCanns, she saw light, and also in from [sic] of the apartment, but she could not define, concretely, where she saw the light when she passed the McCann apartment; "
I believe Google Translate translates 'from' to 'front'.
MO states:
4078 'And you have walked through the apartment and you said there was a light on''
Reply 'Yeah'.
4078 'A lamp, sorry, a table lamp''
Reply 'Yeah, I think sort of, there was like a little sort of round sort of table like this and then, erm, sort of a small lamp'.
If the door to the bedroom and the shutters were open this light could leak out of the apartment at the front. KMcC also reported the curtains open (although I think the evidence shows that one half of the curtains was trapped by the bed).
It is not much to go on, but it could have been the subject of a mini-reconstruction to show whether this could have been the light seen by Maria Manuela Martins da Silva.
Her statement is that she passed the apartment very shortly after 10pm (given she left block 6 just before 10pm).
Her statement does, however, suggest that the front door was not open.
I wonder if we could get a second and better translation of her statement. I had a professional translator in my FB group Laura Rachana
-
But do you think that is what John wanted? Did John want someone to confirm the window was raised before Kate's return? I'm not saying that is impossible but extremely unlikely.
Going back to look at what John asked he didn't say before or after just that the shutter was up and the window open. "There is NO INDEPENDENT PROOF that any shutter was up and any window was open."
it does not confirm whether the window or shutters were moved before 10 pm.
-
it does not confirm whether the window or shutters were moved before 10 pm.
but she states they were open when she got there.
-
but she states they were open when she got there.
After Kate McCann arrived.
NOT BEFORE Rob.
-
After Kate
I am sure there was someone who saw the shutters up before Kate did and that would be the currently unknown person who opened them.
-
I am sure there was someone who saw the shutters up before Kate did and that would be the currently unknown person who opened them.
That is an opinion, and of no consequence, unless someone is arrested and charged.
-
John will obviously answer for himself, but one of the problems with Amy's statement is covers the period after 10pm. Ideally you are looking for independent confirmation the shutters/windows/curtains were open before the alarm was raised.
I didn't think such a statement existed, but there is an anomaly in the following statement: http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARIA-M-M-DE-SILVA.htm
She states:
"States that she looked at the exit of the apartment and that from the flat above the McCanns, she saw light, and also in from [sic] of the apartment, but she could not define, concretely, where she saw the light when she passed the McCann apartment; "
I believe Google Translate translates 'from' to 'front'.
MO states:
4078 'And you have walked through the apartment and you said there was a light on''
Reply 'Yeah'.
4078 'A lamp, sorry, a table lamp''
Reply 'Yeah, I think sort of, there was like a little sort of round sort of table like this and then, erm, sort of a small lamp'.
If the door to the bedroom and the shutters were open this light could leak out of the apartment at the front. KMcC also reported the curtains open (although I think the evidence shows that one half of the curtains was trapped by the bed).
It is not much to go on, but it could have been the subject of a mini-reconstruction to show whether this could have been the light seen by Maria Manuela Martins da Silva.
Her statement is that she passed the apartment very shortly after 10pm (given she left block 6 just before 10pm).
Her statement does, however, suggest that the front door was not open.
There isn't many statements that put up red flags for me but that is definitely one. There seems to be excessive amount of attention being paid to the McCann residence IMO.
-
The correct reply if you don't remember is 'I don't remember'. None of the four people involved remembered meeting on that corner the night before. In fact they all place the Payne's arrival before Matthew's departure. As to whether it matters, that's not for me to judge, but my opinion is that the group's decision to discuss the events and to synchronise their recollections is what led to their timeline being doubted.
This was DP's first statement, ;
Concerning yesterday evening, he states that he, his wife and his mother-in-law arrived at the restaurant at around 8.55pm. According to what he remembers, all the members of the group were present, apart from the children, who were in bed. when they arrived,
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/DAVID-PAYNE.htm
FP's first statement;
She left around 20H45, accompanied by David and her mother, in order to meet the rest of the group in the Tapas restaurant.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/FIONA-PAYNE.htm
MO's first statement;
That the last to arrive at the restaurant was the couple David and Fiona. That the latter arrived at the restaurant at around 9pm.
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.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MATTHEW-OLDFIELD.htm
There is no 'correct' reply. They are replying according to what they remember in their own words. The fact that their replies are not how you think they should reply is irrelevant.
You will notice that not one of them can give a precise time. All times given are preceded by the word 'AROUND'. Therefore all times given are only their best guesses and so cannot be 'used' as if they are accurate in any argument about times imo. However, this is exactly what some people are doing IMO.
I still have no idea why Matt, would make up a story about meeting the Paynes - or why the Paynes would agree to collude with him over it. What would be their reason for deciding to perjure themselves to the police about something which in the scheme of things makes no difference to anything? That makes no sense to me.
AIMHO
-
Nobody can give a precise time but I can for Smithman ?>)()<
-
Nobody can give a precise time but I can for Smithman ?>)()<
Then please will you proceed to prove it. Otherwise I will be deleting any further comments in this vein.
-
Nobody can give a precise time but I can for Smithman ?>)()<
How?
-
Then please will you proceed to prove it. Otherwise I will be deleting any further comments in this vein.
Look at my avatar and read my theory thread.
-
How?
By proving the timeline change.
-
Look at my avatar and read my theory thread.
Then restrict this statement to your Theory Thread, if you please. This is not a request.
-
There is no 'correct' reply. They are replying according to what they remember in their own words. The fact that their replies are not how you think they should reply is irrelevant.
You will notice that not one of them can give a precise time. All times given are preceded by the word 'AROUND'. Therefore all times given are only their best guesses and so cannot be 'used' as if they are accurate in any argument about times imo. However, this is exactly what some people are doing IMO.
I still have no idea why Matt, would make up a story about meeting the Paynes - or why the Paynes would agree to collude with him over it. What would be their reason for deciding to perjure themselves to the police about something which in the scheme of things makes no difference to anything? That makes no sense to me.
AIMHO
It's not the times, it's the order in which events are described as occurring. DP and MO are quite clear; MO left after the Payne's arrived. Unless Fiona was 20 minutes out in her approximation of the time, her statement supports what they are saying. The first timelines support the idea that all the group were there at 8,45pm also.
So initially, with fresh memories, they all remembered roughly the same sequence of events. That's what the police work with all the time. Individual statements supporting a certain sequence of events. When witnesses confer the police get something different. Either the witness now remembers something he or she had forgotten, or they think they do.
In this case it explains why MO decided to go to the apartments to listen when he had been at the restaurant for only 10-15 minutes. Also, without this spur of the moment check, he and his wife would not have checked their child for 40 minutes.
-
The abductor has not been invented by SY...it is aprocess of elimination. The fact that the PJ found no evidence of an abductor does not mean there was not one. We have a witness statement of an open window...that is evidence.
The police have to make a decision who they believe and it appears they believe the McCanns
You can't just invent someone without evidence to support it. There was no evidence of any breakin at 5a, no evidence of an intruder, no valuables missing, nothing disturbed. No independent witnesses saw either the shutter up or the window open even though one witness claimed to have been at the shutter and been in the child's bedroom. Gerry McCann admitted to interfering with the shutter and window so its anyone's guess how they found it.
As for the police, they have can propensity to keep important information secret so anything they make public must always be taken with a big pinch of salt. In any normal investigation suspicion would most naturally fall on the child's parents if nothing was found to support an abduction scenario.
-
You can't just invent someone without evidence to support it. There was no evidence of any breakin at 5a, no evidence of an intruder, no valuables missing, nothing disturbed. No independent witnesses saw either the shutter up or the window open even though one witness claimed to have been at the shutter and been in the child's bedroom. Gerry McCann admitted to interfering with the shutter and window so its anyone's guess how they found it.
As for the police, they have can propensity to keep important information secret so anything they make public must always be taken with a big pinch of salt. In any normal investigation suspicion would most naturally fall on the child's parents if nothing was found to support an abduction scenario.
I agree you can't just invent an abductor...which supports the view that SY have evidence to support their view
-
You can't just invent someone without evidence to support it. There was no evidence of any breakin at 5a, no evidence of an intruder, no valuables missing, nothing disturbed. No independent witnesses saw either the shutter up or the window open even though one witness claimed to have been at the shutter and been in the child's bedroom. Gerry McCann admitted to interfering with the shutter and window so its anyone's guess how they found it.
As for the police, they have can propensity to keep important information secret so anything they make public must always be taken with a big pinch of salt. In any normal investigation suspicion would most naturally fall on the child's parents if nothing was found to support an abduction scenario.
1. There was no evidence of any break in at 5a,
2. no evidence of an intruder,
3. no valuables missing,
4. nothing disturbed.
5. No independent witnesses saw either the shutter up or the window open even though one witness claimed to have been at the shutter and been in the child's bedroom.
6. Gerry McCann admitted to interfering with the shutter and window so its anyone's guess how they found it.
6 points to cover.
1. Shutter up window open as Kate's claim is evidence for it is in her sworn statement. Amy Tierney confirmed that she saw it up and open too, others mention it in their statements.
Now Amaral and the PJ make the point that no one passed through the open window. They never say the window was never opened or that the shutter had never been lifted up. So that to me describes an attempted entry but no actual intrusion via the window.
2. If the intruder had already been in the apartment on another occasion it gets difficult to find new evidence for this.
3. no valuables missing means "items of monetary value and not persons". I understand you but had Gerry said a statement like that is turned against him.
4. Who could assess the "nothing disturbed" notion? Kate says the door was open was that a sign of disturbance? Any sign Kate claimed as disturbance may just be dismissed as "she did that herself" like the open window, they even insinuate she opened it, but if it wasn't open the opened door would not have slammed when she brought it closer to the fully closed position. Just the true physics of the situation shows me the shutter and the window and the heavy curtains being open are signs of disturbance.
5. Matt had been at the window at 9:30 and it was down then.
Gerry had been in the room at 9:05 - 9:10 thereabouts and things weren't disturbed then. I can only interpret that as the attempted break in occurred after these two checks.
6. Both Gerry and Dianne Webster admit touching, the shutters. Why would they do this unless Kate was claiming it was up when she arrived there.
-
She says the shutter was up but it was down when Dianne Webster arrived and tried to raise it.
This was the crime scene after Dianne failed raising the shutter and got it twisted and STUCK. No evidence of a raised shutter!
(https://circaa-production.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/image/file/55108956232b9b4e38000041/large_McCann_Crime_Scene_1.jpg)
Her fingerprints were found on the alleged open window after claiming she had never touched it. Dianne didn't see an open window, David Payne was in the apartment straight after the alarm and didn't see an open window but he was told it was open by the McCanns. If it was open it was only seen by them.
(http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P4/04_VOLUME_IVa_Page_885.jpg)
-
She says the shutter was up but it was down when Dianne Webster arrived and tried to raise it.
This was the crime scene after Dianne failed raising the shutter and got it twisted and STUCK. No evidence of a raised shutter!
(https://circaa-production.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/image/file/55108956232b9b4e38000041/large_McCann_Crime_Scene_1.jpg)
Her fingerprints were found on the alleged open window after claiming she had never touched it. Dianne didn't see an open window, David Payne was in the apartment straight after the alarm and didn't see an open window but he was told it was open by the McCanns. If it was open it was only seen by them.
(http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P4/04_VOLUME_IVa_Page_885.jpg)
Where does it say in the file, "Her fingerprints were found on the alleged open window after claiming she had never touched it." Where does it say in the file "she had never touched it".
-
Where does it say in the file, "Her fingerprints were found on the alleged open window after claiming she had never touched it." Where does it say in the file "she had never touched it".
In Kate's first statement she could be said to have touched the window, because of the use of the word 'always', suggesting some sort of routine action;
She noticed that the door to her children's bedroom was completely open, the window was also open, the shutters raised and the curtains open, while she was certain of having closed them all as she always did.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/KATE-MCCANN.htm
In her next interview she gives the impression that she didn't touch the window, blinds or curtains all week;
The window in Madeleine's room remained closed, but she doesn't know if it was locked, blinds and curtains drawn. The window remained like this since the first day, night and day. She never opened it. If somebody saw the window blinds in Madeleine's room open, it was not Kate who opened them, she never saw them open.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/KATE-MCCANN_ARGUIDO.htm
-
In Kate's first statement she could be said to have touched the window, because of the use of the word 'always', suggesting some sort of routine action;
She noticed that the door to her children's bedroom was completely open, the window was also open, the shutters raised and the curtains open, while she was certain of having closed them all as she always did.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/KATE-MCCANN.htm
In her next interview she gives the impression that she didn't touch the window, blinds or curtains all week;
The window in Madeleine's room remained closed, but she doesn't know if it was locked, blinds and curtains drawn. The window remained like this since the first day, night and day. She never opened it. If somebody saw the window blinds in Madeleine's room open, it was not Kate who opened them, she never saw them open.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/KATE-MCCANN_ARGUIDO.htm
Checking that it is closed and opening it are different actions.
-
It's not the times, it's the order in which events are described as occurring. DP and MO are quite clear; MO left after the Payne's arrived. Unless Fiona was 20 minutes out in her approximation of the time, her statement supports what they are saying. The first timelines support the idea that all the group were there at 8,45pm also.
So initially, with fresh memories, they all remembered roughly the same sequence of events. That's what the police work with all the time. Individual statements supporting a certain sequence of events. When witnesses confer the police get something different. Either the witness now remembers something he or she had forgotten, or they think they do.
In this case it explains why MO decided to go to the apartments to listen when he had been at the restaurant for only 10-15 minutes. Also, without this spur of the moment check, he and his wife would not have checked their child for 40 minutes.
Sorry G but I am still unsure how any of the above can be construed as 'sinister'. If that is what you are saying?
The group gave their statements to the PJ - to the best of their own individual recollections.
If - on realising it was important for the info they gave to the police to be as accurate as possible, they decided to pool their knowledge - then that was not only the obvious thing to do it was also the most sensible IMO - as memories could be jogged during that convo. Also misapprehensions could be corrected. IIRC Russell originally thought that Jane had left the table at the same time as Gerry. Once he was reminded that Jane was still at the table when comments were being made about where Gerry had got to - he would realise he'd got that wrong.
What is there to criticise in any of that?
If Matt had not decided to make a check on his own child at that time then no-one knows when he or his wife would have decided to make their first check after their arrival at the Tapas.
The attitude of the police to discrepancies in witness statements is summed up by the UK police officer who interviewed JT as follows:
QUOTE
4078 “You know, we can take a statement from people, if an incident happened outside and there was a group of people watching it, everybody would have a different take on what they had seen”.
Unquote.
Fortunately the fact that some folk don't want that to apply that to the McCanns and their friends is irrelevant to those who matter - i.e. the UK police - who unlike us - are the experts on the affects of the fallibility of memory when it comes to taking witness statements.
AIMHO
-
On the other hand when four witnesses tell the same story about the events of the previous evening it creates the impression that they are telling the truth about what happened.
Six days later one of the four changes the story.
One of the other four is asked about this the day after, but she stays with the original version. Her memory of the sequence of events doesn't change.
That would, in my opinion, be a red flag.
-
On the other hand when four witnesses tell the same story about the events of the previous evening it creates the impression that they are telling the truth about what happened.
Six days later one of the four changes the story.
One of the other four is asked about this the day after, but she stays with the original version. Her memory of the sequence of events doesn't change.
That would, in my opinion, be a red flag.
But a Red Flag for what G? If Matt or anyone else decided to lie to the police about the events leading up to the Paynes arrival at the table - then they must have had a good reason for taking the very dangerous decision to perjure themselves IMO . So what could that be?. What were they hoping to achieve? What were they trying to hide?
We know that around 9.00 pm the McCanns and their friends were all finally present and sitting at the table - being attended by waiters. No-one had failed to turn up. Surely 'who was present' at that time would be the pertinent fact that the police would want to establish - and I can see absolutely no need for anyone to lie in order to convince the PJ that they were all there when dinner commenced.
So......... what Red Flag?
-
But a Red Flag for what G? If Matt or anyone else decided to lie to the police about the events leading up to the Paynes arrival at the table - then they must have had a good reason for taking the very dangerous decision to perjure themselves IMO . So what could that be?. What were they hoping to achieve? What were they trying to hide?
We know that around 9.00 pm the McCanns and their friends were all finally present and sitting at the table - being attended by waiters. No-one had failed to turn up. Surely 'who was present' at that time would be the pertinent fact that the police would want to establish - and I can see absolutely no need for anyone to lie in order to convince the PJ that they were all there when dinner commenced.
So......... what Red Flag?
I see a window of opportunity between 8:30 and 9:00 that is not considered for someone to have entered the McCanns apartment.
Madeleine is tucked in when Kate puts her to bed and the door is nearly closed yet at 9:05 Madeleine is lying on top of the bed clothes and Gerry finds the door had been moved - someone had moved within the room to move the door I think that is an undeniable fact if the testimony is to be accepted.
-
I see a window of opportunity between 8:30 and 9:00 that is not considered for someone to have entered the McCanns apartment.
Madeleine is tucked in when Kate puts her to bed and the door is nearly closed yet at 9:05 Madeleine is lying on top of the bed clothes and Gerry finds the door had been moved - someone had moved within the room to move the door I think that is an undeniable fact if the testimony is to be accepted.
If it had been an empty apartment, moving doors would have been significant IMO.
-
I see a window of opportunity between 8:30 and 9:00 that is not considered for someone to have entered the McCanns apartment.
Madeleine is tucked in when Kate puts her to bed and the door is nearly closed yet at 9:05 Madeleine is lying on top of the bed clothes and Gerry finds the door had been moved - someone had moved within the room to move the door I think that is an undeniable fact if the testimony is to be accepted.
And that would lead to the man that Jane saw minutes later and who has been ruled out by SY and me many moons ago. Next.
-
If it had been an empty apartment, moving doors would have been significant IMO.
Well it could be an intruder (includes visitors) or one of the kids. What else could it be? The sun has recently set so you could just about rule out burglars or serious kidnappers bit early for that surely and the Paynes had been on the footpath at that time so they would be taking quite a risk. and Matt had been around the building doing a listening check prior to Gerry's visit.
Later on Gerry proclaimed the kidnapper might have been in the room while he was there. It is hardly likely they got in through the window, or the front door (for they'd need a key), and the sliding door seems unlikely since Russell had gone past, the Payne family had passed and Matt had done a recheck at 9:00 thereabouts just prior to Gerry's check. I think we can rule out other people but hang on what about the lady in purple? How come none of the Tapas 9 saw her?
-
And that would lead to the man that Jane saw minutes later and who has been ruled out by SY and me many moons ago. Next.
What you've said doesn't make sense to me. How can something happening in the McCann's apartment "lead to the man that Jane saw minutes later and who has been ruled out by SY".
-
But a Red Flag for what G? If Matt or anyone else decided to lie to the police about the events leading up to the Paynes arrival at the table - then they must have had a good reason for taking the very dangerous decision to perjure themselves IMO . So what could that be?. What were they hoping to achieve? What were they trying to hide?
We know that around 9.00 pm the McCanns and their friends were all finally present and sitting at the table - being attended by waiters. No-one had failed to turn up. Surely 'who was present' at that time would be the pertinent fact that the police would want to establish - and I can see absolutely no need for anyone to lie in order to convince the PJ that they were all there when dinner commenced.
So......... what Red Flag?
It is a fact that Matthew changed his story. Instead of leaving after the Paynes arrived he says he left before. When a witness does that a good detective would wonder why. It may or may not be significant, but it should be noticed. i.e. it raises a red flag. The changing stories did indeed attract the attention of the PJ. I wonder why they allegedly gave Matthew a hard time during his second interview? I very much doubt it went as Kate describes it;
Apparently, it had been put to Matt that he’d handed Madeleine out through the window to a third party [madeleine]
In order to make such an accusation I think the PJ would have had to make Matthew arguido, because his answer could have incriminated him.
-
It is a fact that Matthew changed his story. Instead of leaving after the Paynes arrived he says he left before. When a witness does that a good detective would wonder why. It may or may not be significant, but it should be noticed. i.e. it raises a red flag. The changing stories did indeed attract the attention of the PJ. I wonder why they allegedly gave Matthew a hard time during his second interview? I very much doubt it went as Kate describes it;
Apparently, it had been put to Matt that he’d handed Madeleine out through the window to a third party [madeleine]
In order to make such an accusation I think the PJ would have had to make Matthew arguido, because his answer could have incriminated him.
Not if they were thinking the act of passing the child through the window was a playful act.
-
Not if they were thinking the act of passing the child through the window was a playful act.
Why on earth would they think that? Your mind works in mysterious ways, Rob. @)(++(*
-
What you've said doesn't make sense to me. How can something happening in the McCann's apartment "lead to the man that Jane saw minutes later and who has been ruled out by SY".
You answered the question yourself. You thinking an abductor was in the apartment before Gerry's check (like Gerry thought) leads to Tannerman leaving with the child after Gerry leaves. He is ruled out by SY.
I see a window of opportunity between 8:30 and 9:00 that is not considered for someone to have entered the McCanns apartment.
Madeleine is tucked in when Kate puts her to bed and the door is nearly closed yet at 9:05 Madeleine is lying on top of the bed clothes and Gerry finds the door had been moved - someone had moved within the room to move the door I think that is an undeniable fact if the testimony is to be accepted.
-
You answered the question yourself. You thinking an abductor was in the apartment before Gerry's check (like Gerry thought) leads to Tannerman leaving with the child after Gerry leaves. He is ruled out by SY.
What a pity Redwood didn't give us an explanation for the bedroom door having moved when Gerry entered the apartment. Who did that I wonder? Perhaps Gerry was just mistaken like he was about which door he used.
-
You answered the question yourself. You thinking an abductor was in the apartment before Gerry's check (like Gerry thought) leads to Tannerman leaving with the child after Gerry leaves. He is ruled out by SY.
In and out before Gerry's check. I'm not talking about abduction but a type of unannounced check on the McCann kids.
-
In Kate's first statement she could be said to have touched the window, because of the use of the word 'always', suggesting some sort of routine action;
She noticed that the door to her children's bedroom was completely open, the window was also open, the shutters raised and the curtains open, while she was certain of having closed them all as she always did.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/KATE-MCCANN.htm
In her next interview she gives the impression that she didn't touch the window, blinds or curtains all week;
The window in Madeleine's room remained closed, but she doesn't know if it was locked, blinds and curtains drawn. The window remained like this since the first day, night and day. She never opened it. If somebody saw the window blinds in Madeleine's room open, it was not Kate who opened them, she never saw them open.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/KATE-MCCANN_ARGUIDO.htm
In the first statement, the PT doesn't actually say "them", but it does say that she was sure of having shut everything as she always did.
That could simply be a misunderstanding in the report using the active instead of the passive: i.e. she checked that everything was shut.
In any case, most people checking a window was shut, or even opening or closing it, would use the handle, wouldn't they?
-
In and out before Gerry's check. I'm not talking about abduction but a type of unannounced check on the McCann kids.
Risk going in without taking her and move a door to play games with Gerry. Too daft for words.
-
Risk going in without taking her and move a door to play games with Gerry. Too daft for words.
You are still thinking in terms of kidnapping, what about care and attention.
-
You are still thinking in terms of kidnapping, what about care and attention.
In my opinion if it had been a case of 'care and attention' Madeleine wouldn't be missing, she would be safe at home with her family.
-
In my opinion if it had been a case of 'care and attention' Madeleine wouldn't be missing, she would be safe at home with her family.
Someone checked the kids every 30 minutes or so. Could there have been an extra visit between 8:30 and 9:00?
-
I see a window of opportunity between 8:30 and 9:00 that is not considered for someone to have entered the McCanns apartment.
Madeleine is tucked in when Kate puts her to bed and the door is nearly closed yet at 9:05 Madeleine is lying on top of the bed clothes and Gerry finds the door had been moved - someone had moved within the room to move the door I think that is an undeniable fact if the testimony is to be accepted.
I think it's possible that someone may have entered 5a during that time, especially if the perpetrator(s) - were hiding in 5C and were only seconds away and had previously been checking out the groups evening movements.
Pure speculation on my part but it could be that the original plan was to be in 5A ready to remove Madeleine immediately they knew the group were all safely seated at the Tapas - and no checks were imminent, but the Paynes were so late that night the normal pattern completely changed - and the perpetrators had to change their plans because of that.
However I'm not totally convinced that the door movements were all necessarily made by a person, as they could simply be down to the change in air pressure caused by the opening and closing of the patio door - especially on a breezy night.
AIMHO
-
Smithman made his move when they were all safely seated at the table. He knew the right time to go. No lookouts required.
-
It is a fact that Matthew changed his story. Instead of leaving after the Paynes arrived he says he left before. When a witness does that a good detective would wonder why. It may or may not be significant, but it should be noticed. i.e. it raises a red flag. The changing stories did indeed attract the attention of the PJ. I wonder why they allegedly gave Matthew a hard time during his second interview? I very much doubt it went as Kate describes it;
Apparently, it had been put to Matt that he’d handed Madeleine out through the window to a third party [madeleine]
In order to make such an accusation I think the PJ would have had to make Matthew arguido, because his answer could have incriminated him.
IMO Once a good detective had established that no-one had anything to gain by lying about when the Paynes arrived - he would put it down to the normal discrepancies which are common in statements given by a group of people all giving their recollections of the same event.
In view of what we know about the 'vigorous' interrogation techniques of some members of the PJ and the abuse of the secrecy laws - I'm afraid I don't share your faith in the idea that they would scrupulously stick to the rules during interviews. Apart from that - why on earth would Gerry decide to make up this incident?
AIMHO
-
What a pity Redwood didn't give us an explanation for the bedroom door having moved when Gerry entered the apartment. Who did that I wonder? Perhaps Gerry was just mistaken like he was about which door he used.
I don't think Gerry was mistaken about which door he used.....I think he was looking to correct a mistake by the translator.....that's my opinion and your post is your opinion...not fact
-
IMO Once a good detective had established that no-one had anything to gain by lying about when the Paynes arrived - he would put it down to the normal discrepancies which are common in statements given by a group of people all giving their recollections of the same event.
In view of what we know about the 'vigorous' interrogation techniques of some members of the PJ and the abuse of the secrecy laws - I'm afraid I don't share your faith in the idea that they would scrupulously stick to the rules during interviews. Apart from that - why on earth would Gerry decide to make up this incident?
AIMHO
You say 'no-one had anything to gain by lying about when the Paynes arrived' as if you know that for a fact. How do you know they didn't? There were no discrepancies in the four people's first statements, by the way, they all agreed on the sequence of events. Then one of them changed the story in his second interview.
It seems, according to Kate McCann, that Encarnacao and Neves flouted the rules when they interviewed her and her husband on August 8th. She also says, however;
Outside the police station we were surrounded by the press. There was no need to ask how they knew we were there. [madeleine]
Whoever these members of the press were, they missed an absolute scoop of a photo;
In a slightly threatening manner, Luís asked why I wasn’t looking him straight in the eyeThere was no reason, other than that I was incapable of looking at anyone properly: my own eyes were so swollen and sore that I was struggling to keep them from closing completely.......My eyes were narrow slits in fat, purple lids. My blotchy face seemed to be ageing by the day [madeleine]
I can find no reports of the couple emerging from Portimao Police station on 8th August, let alone reports of Kate being in such a state.
I have seen no reports of the lower ranks of the PJ treating any of the UK witnesses badly, and it was Kate McCann who suggested that they broke the rules during Matthew's interview.
-
You say 'no-one had anything to gain by lying about when the Paynes arrived' as if you know that for a fact. How do you know they didn't? There were no discrepancies in the four people's first statements, by the way, they all agreed on the sequence of events. Then one of them changed the story in his second interview.
It seems, according to Kate McCann, that Encarnacao and Neves flouted the rules when they interviewed her and her husband on August 8th. She also says, however;
Outside the police station we were surrounded by the press. There was no need to ask how they knew we were there. [madeleine]
Whoever these members of the press were, they missed an absolute scoop of a photo;
In a slightly threatening manner, Luís asked why I wasn’t looking him straight in the eyeThere was no reason, other than that I was incapable of looking at anyone properly: my own eyes were so swollen and sore that I was struggling to keep them from closing completely.......My eyes were narrow slits in fat, purple lids. My blotchy face seemed to be ageing by the day [madeleine]
I can find no reports of the couple emerging from Portimao Police station on 8th August, let alone reports of Kate being in such a state.
I have seen no reports of the lower ranks of the PJ treating any of the UK witnesses badly, and it was Kate McCann who suggested that they broke the rules during Matthew's interview.
I'm absolutely certain Kate would be in the state she described...and I cannot see why anyone would doubt that
-
I'm absolutely certain Kate would be in the state she described...and I cannot see why anyone would doubt that
That's just your opinion. As I said, the press pack which surrounded them failed to take a photograph which would have gone viral.
-
That's just your opinion. As I said, the press pack which surrounded them failed to take a photograph which would have gone viral.
Just as it's your opinion about Gerry changing his story..
The fact is whether Maddie was abducted or died in an accident..Kate would have been devastated...that's my opinion and I don't see how anyone could disagreed
-
Just as it's your opinion about Gerry changing his story..
The fact is whether Maddie was abducted or died in an accident..Kate would have been devastated...that's my opinion and I don't see how anyone could disagreed
According to his signed statements to the PJ Gerry McCann changed his story. That's nothing to do with my opinion, it can be seen by anyone who cares to read the statements.
As to your other assertion I was discussing events on 8th August, for which there is no independent evidence of Kate's reported distress.
-
According to his signed statements to the PJ Gerry McCann changed his story. That's nothing to do with my opinion, it can be seen by anyone who cares to read the statements.
As to your other assertion I was discussing events on 8th August, for which there is no independent evidence of Kate's reported distress.
Gerry said he wished to correct his statement
You are making an assumption the mistake was his
It may well have been the intepreters
-
Gerry said he wished to correct his statement
You are making an assumption the mistake was his
It may well have been the intepreters
Is it in the files that he wished to correct it?
That he confirms the truth of the statements made previously on 4 May 2007 he being available here to provide any further clarifications.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN-10MAY.htm
-
Is it in the files that he wished to correct it?
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN-10MAY.htm
I believe it is as does gunit
-
Gerry said he wished to correct his statement
You are making an assumption the mistake was his
It may well have been the intepreters
I can't see how as it would have been shown to him or read back to him in English before signing it. How anyone could forget which door they used is beyond me but then he couldn't even remember which side of the street he was on when Jez met him. Could this be a case of brain freeze following trauma?
-
I can't see how as it would have been shown to him or read back to him in English before signing it. How anyone could forget which door they used is beyond me but then he couldn't even remember which side of the street he was on when Jez met him. Could this be a case of brain freeze following trauma?
I think it's much more likely poor translation......which was an issue raised by Rebelo I believe
-
I believe it is as does gunit
@)(++(* Where did you get that idea? @)(++(*
-
I can't see how as it would have been shown to him or read back to him in English before signing it. How anyone could forget which door they used is beyond me but then he couldn't even remember which side of the street he was on when Jez met him. Could this be a case of brain freeze following trauma?
Whatever the reason was he changed his story.
-
I don't think Gerry was mistaken about which door he used.....I think he was looking to correct a mistake by the translator.....that's my opinion and your post is your opinion...not fact
Taking into consideration the conditions that obtained at the time how does that stack up?
-
I don't think Gerry was mistaken about which door he used.....I think he was looking to correct a mistake by the translator.....that's my opinion and your post is your opinion...not fact
I agree. If the PJ had found the explanation Gerry gave for changing/correcting his statement to be in any way suspicious - then his words would definitely have been summarised and recorded imo. The fact the PJ chose not to do that is very pertinent imo.
However, imo this is one aspect which could easily be cleared up by SY simply asking Gerry to give them his reason for changing his statement - which they could then check on with their PT counterparts if necessary. I would bet my house on his reason being 'It was an innocent misunderstanding about which door was being referred to'.
IIRC - It is a fact that the UK police were already aware that 'confusion' had been previously caused by some witnesses calling the patio door the 'front door' and others calling it the 'back door' as early as the Rog. interviews - and so precautionary measures were taken to ensure that didn't happen during their interviews.
(JT's rog statement refers)
AIMHO
-
I agree. If the PJ had found the explanation Gerry gave for changing/correcting his statement to be in any way suspicious - then his words would definitely have been summarised and recorded imo. The fact the PJ chose not to do that is very pertinent imo.
However, imo this is one aspect which could easily be cleared up by SY simply asking Gerry to give them his reason for changing his statement - which they could then check on with their PT counterparts if necessary. I would bet my house on his reason being 'It was an innocent misunderstanding about which door was being referred to'.
IIRC - It is a fact that the UK police were already aware that 'confusion' had been previously caused by some witnesses calling the patio door the 'front door' and others calling it the 'back door' as early as the Rog. interviews - and so precautionary measures were taken to ensure that didn't happen during their interviews.
(JT's rog statement refers)
AIMHO
There was no misunderstanding because the word 'chave' was used. Chave means key and only one door was opened with a key.
-
There was no misunderstanding because the word 'chave' was used. Chave means key and only one door was opened with a key.
The statements are not verbatim and therefore we cannot be sure what was said as you are claiming
-
You say 'no-one had anything to gain by lying about when the Paynes arrived' as if you know that for a fact. How do you know they didn't? There were no discrepancies in the four people's first statements, by the way, they all agreed on the sequence of events. Then one of them changed the story in his second interview.
SNIP .....
Discrepancies in witness statements can mean:-.
(1). Someone has deliberately lied.
(2). They are the normal accepted discrepancies that the police would expect from different witnesses giving their recollections of the same event -and which are definitely not lies - but may not necessarily be accurate.
In order to establish that it was (1) the PJ would need to identify a reason WHY anyone would lie - by establishing what it was they had to gain by lying.
If after due investigation/deliberation it was clear that there was NO advantage to be gained by anyone by lying - then common sense dictates that the discrepancies were as a result of (2).
However, claiming that discrepancies in witness statements are a cause for suspicion is one thing, - but for anyone to infer they are actually proof that someone lied - without being able to give a credible reason WHY they would lie -or to be able to identify the DIFFERENCE it would make to the case if someone had lied - are several bridges too far IMO.
If you can come up with a reason for anyone to deliberately lie about how the Paynes came to arrive at the table, and what it was they were trying to keep from the PJ by lying - then I'm happy to hear it. If not then AFAIAC the discrepancies were not proof that anyone lied - they were the normal differences in memory recall which occur in those circumstances.
I recently watched a TV prog about the murder of Becky Watts - by her stepbrother and his girlfriend. The police initially became suspicious because of the noticeable lack of discrepancies in their statements - which they regarded as an indication of collusion.
AIMHO
-
Discrepancies in witness statements can mean:-.
(1). Someone has deliberately lied.
(2). They are the normal accepted discrepancies that the police would expect from different witnesses giving their recollections of the same event -and which are definitely not lies - but may not necessarily be accurate.
In order to establish that it was (1) the PJ would need to identify a reason WHY anyone would lie - by establishing what it was they had to gain by lying.
If after due investigation/deliberation it was clear that there was NO advantage to be gained by anyone by lying - then common sense dictates that the discrepancies were as a result of (2).
However, claiming that discrepancies in witness statements are a cause for suspicion is one thing, - but for anyone to infer they are actually proof that someone lied - without being able to give a credible reason WHY they would lie -or to be able to identify the DIFFERENCE it would make to the case if someone had lied - are several bridges too far IMO.
If you can come up with a reason for anyone to deliberately lie about how the Paynes came to arrive at the table, and what it was they were trying to keep from the PJ by lying - then I'm happy to hear it. If not then AFAIAC the discrepancies were not proof that anyone lied - they were the normal differences in memory recall which occur in those circumstances.
I recently watched a TV prog about the murder of Becky Watts - by her stepbrother and his girlfriend. The police initially became suspicious because of the noticeable lack of discrepancies in their statements - which they regarded as an indication of collusion.
AIMHO
Did the PJ notice that Matthew's story changed? If not, then they wouldn't have investigated/deliberated on it.
-
Did the PJ notice that Matthew's story changed? If not, then they wouldn't have investigated/deliberated on it.
I have no idea. Although AFAIK - there is no evidence that apart from noting discrepancies in the group's statements - they followed up on any of them.
IMO Amaral promotes the discrepancies almost as if 'discrepancies' are automatically proof of deception per se. They are not. IIRC what he never does explain is WHY the PJ consider any of the individual discrepancies to be suspicious or how they proved deception.
Neither does he concede that discrepancies are common and to be expected in statements taken from a number of people recalling the same event.
Simply claiming that because there are discrepancies someone must be lying full stop - is not a view that properly trained policemen would have on this subject IMO.
AIMHO
(from memory -so happy to be corrected if necessary)
-
I have no idea. Although AFAIK - there is no evidence that apart from noting discrepancies in the group's statements - they followed up on any of them.
IMO Amaral promotes the discrepancies almost as if 'discrepancies' are automatically proof of deception per se. They are not. IIRC what he never does explain is WHY the PJ consider any of the individual discrepancies to be suspicious or how they proved deception.
Neither does he concede that discrepancies are common and to be expected in statements taken from a number of people recalling the same event.
Simply claiming that because there are discrepancies someone must be lying full stop - is not a view that properly trained policemen would have on this subject IMO.
AIMHO
(from memory -so happy to be corrected if necessary)
We seem to be discussing two different things. You are discussing differences, or discrepancies in people's recollections. I'm discussing a lack of discrepancy. Four people agreeing about the sequence of events. Had Matthew disagreed with the others in his first statement that would have been a discrepancy, but he didn't.
-
We seem to be discussing two different things. You are discussing differences, or discrepancies in people's recollections. I'm discussing a lack of discrepancy. Four people agreeing about the sequence of events. Had Matthew disagreed with the others in his first statement that would have been a discrepancy, but he didn't.
LOL - We appear to be in danger of going round in circles now G.
To summarise from my own POV : You seem to to think that MO's account of how he came to leave the table and his meeting with the Paynes raises a Red Flag, mainly because it changed IYO and no longer tallied with original group recollections of when the Paynes arrived at the table - and because DW does not recall meeting MO at the time she made her first statement.
I could accept that as a possible red flag - IF I could identify some credible reason WHY MO and the Paynes would decide to collude together to lie to the police about this meeting - which I see as a very insignificant event. Perjury is a really big deal IMO - and so there would have to be a really big reason for anyone to take such a risk. So what is that reason??
Unless someone can come up with a credible answer - then IMO there is nothing to signify that the accounts of how and when the Paynes arrived at the table - were anything other than peoples genuine best recollections based on memory recall - which as we know - cannot be guaranteed to be accurate, especially when it comes to timings.
AFAIAC there is nothing whatsoever to be gained by anyone - from deliberately lying about the circumstances of how and when the Paynes arrived at the Tapas on the evening of the 3rd May - and whilst that remains the case there can be no Red Flag for me G.
AIMHO
-
LOL - We appear to be in danger of going round in circles now G.
To summarise from my own POV : You seem to to think that MO's account of how he came to leave the table and his meeting with the Paynes raises a Red Flag, mainly because it changed IYO and no longer tallied with original group recollections of when the Paynes arrived at the table - and because DW does not recall meeting MO at the time she made her first statement.
I could accept that as a possible red flag - IF I could identify some credible reason WHY MO and the Paynes would decide to collude together to lie to the police about this meeting - which I see as a very insignificant event. Perjury is a really big deal IMO - and so there would have to be a really big reason for anyone to take such a risk. So what is that reason??
Unless someone can come up with a credible answer - then IMO there is nothing to signify that the accounts of how and when the Paynes arrived at the table - were anything other than peoples genuine best recollections based on memory recall - which as we know - cannot be guaranteed to be accurate, especially when it comes to timings.
AFAIAC there is nothing whatsoever to be gained by anyone - from deliberately lying about the circumstances of how and when the Paynes arrived at the Tapas on the evening of the 3rd May - and whilst that remains the case there can be no Red Flag for me G.
AIMHO
You seem to be saying that because you can't think of a reason why Matthew changed his story there isn't one. You may be confident that your opinion is enough, but it doesn't satisfy me, I'm afraid.
-
You seem to be saying that because you can't think of a reason why Matthew changed his story there isn't one. You may be confident that your opinion is enough, but it doesn't satisfy me, I'm afraid.
Your opinion only.
Benice has an open mind having looked at the circuimstances. I agree with her.
-
You seem to be saying that because you can't think of a reason why Matthew changed his story there isn't one. You may be confident that your opinion is enough, but it doesn't satisfy me, I'm afraid.
Fair enough G. You are entitled to your opinion - and if anyone can identify what advantage there was to be gained - that would cause several people to take the huge decision to perjure themselves over the circumstances in which the Paynes arrived at the Tapas on the 3rd - I will be happy to revise mine.
-
Fair enough G. You are entitled to your opinion - and if anyone can identify what advantage there was to be gained - that would cause several people to take the huge decision to perjure themselves over the circumstances in which the Paynes arrived at the Tapas on the 3rd - I will be happy to revise mine.
It could be said that Fiona, David and Dianne had just forgotten meeting Matthew. They all managed to regain their memories a year later. Yes, they did see him, but where?
10th May
The deponent added that DP, FP and DW were still not present - and as he could see their apartment lights burning - he resolved to go to them, clarifying that he did not reach that apartment as those people were already on their way to the restaurant. He clarifies [further] that he met them near the living quarters, at the corner next to the main door of the McCann apartment.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MATTHEW-OLDFIELD-10MAY.htm
2008 rog
we sort of passed on the way down and they were on their way to the restaurant, but it seemed a bit silly not to go ahead and just sort of check on Grace, even though we'd only been down there about fifteen minutes, but that was sort of a convenient time to go and do it.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MATTHEW-OLDFIELD-ROGATORY.htm
As I said previously, going to check after just 15 minutes seemed a bit quick, and Matthew thinks so too. He only checked because he was up by the apartments anyway, chivying the Paynes.
Was he up there anyway? Not according to DP
you said that you passed Matt on the way down.'
Reply "Mm.'
1485 "Whereabouts did you pass him''
Reply "Err''
1485 "Can you mark, just''
Reply "Yeah, the err where's, this is the entrance here into the Tapas area.'
1485 "Yeah.'
Reply "Err my recollection was that we were just got, you know we were round there, I thought we'd actually entered into the Tapas bar to just''
1485 "Actually into the complex''
Reply "Just, just into the complex, but certainly we hadn't made it yet to the swimming pool but it was just, just about there.'
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/DAVID-PAYNE-ROGATORY.htm
outside kind of the, Kate and Gerry's gate, that sort of area, erm, we bumped into Matt who was heading back to chase us up,
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/FIONA-PAYNE-ROGATORY.htm
-
LOL - We appear to be in danger of going round in circles now G.
To summarise from my own POV : You seem to to think that MO's account of how he came to leave the table and his meeting with the Paynes raises a Red Flag, mainly because it changed IYO and no longer tallied with original group recollections of when the Paynes arrived at the table - and because DW does not recall meeting MO at the time she made her first statement.
I could accept that as a possible red flag - IF I could identify some credible reason WHY MO and the Paynes would decide to collude together to lie to the police about this meeting - which I see as a very insignificant event. Perjury is a really big deal IMO - and so there would have to be a really big reason for anyone to take such a risk. So what is that reason??
Unless someone can come up with a credible answer - then IMO there is nothing to signify that the accounts of how and when the Paynes arrived at the table - were anything other than peoples genuine best recollections based on memory recall - which as we know - cannot be guaranteed to be accurate, especially when it comes to timings.
AFAIAC there is nothing whatsoever to be gained by anyone - from deliberately lying about the circumstances of how and when the Paynes arrived at the Tapas on the evening of the 3rd May - and whilst that remains the case there can be no Red Flag for me G.
AIMHO
I am tending to think you are making it too easy for them to not explain the discrepancy.
-
The statements are not verbatim and therefore we cannot be sure what was said as you are claiming
Are you suggesting that the interpreter told the PJ that a key was used but omitted that detail when reading the statement back to Gerry McCann? Twice? Why would Natalia de Almeida do that?
-
Are you suggesting that the interpreter told the PJ that a key was used but omitted that detail when reading the statement back to Gerry McCann? Twice? Why would Natalia de Almeida do that?
I have not seen anyone suggesting anything of the sort.
But as you suggested it, do you think it is possible that Natalie de Almeida did omit anything ?
-
I have not seen anyone suggesting anything of the sort.
But as you suggested it, do you think it is possible that Natalie de Almeida did omit anything ?
Mistakes are possible.
-
The statements are not verbatim and therefore we cannot be sure what was said as you are claiming
Statements and transcripts are two different things. The PJ produced statements while Leicestershire Police produced transcripts.
-
I have not seen anyone suggesting anything of the sort.
But as you suggested it, do you think it is possible that Natalie de Almeida did omit anything ?
The suggestion is that Gerry didn't say he and his wife entered the apartment by using the key. If so, he would have noticed the mistake when the statement was read back to him. I'm quite sure that Natalie de Almeida omitted nothing. Therefore he did say it and he signed to confirm that he said it.
-
The suggestion is that Gerry didn't say he and his wife entered the apartment by using the key. If so, he would have noticed the mistake when the statement was read back to him. I'm quite sure that Natalie de Almeida omitted nothing. Therefore he did say it and he signed to confirm that he said it.
Not necessarily so IMO There is a vast difference between having a statement read back to you at the reader's pace and in a foreign accent, than having the written statement in front of you, in your own language, to read through at your own pace. It would be far more likely in those circumstances for errors to jump out of the page at you. Also you don't have to try to remember what has already been read out to you whilst continuing to take in what is currently being read out to you. You can simply re-read if necessary.
Whilst Gerry would have signed original statements, neither he nor anyone else have signed those statements which were translated by amateurs - and which we use. Therefore no confirmation exists from anyone - by way of signatures - that the contents of any of their translated statements are totally accurate. For that to be the case, the translated statements would need to have been submitted to the witnesses for them to read and sign if they approved This didn't happen.
AIMHO
-
Not necessarily so IMO There is a vast difference between having a statement read back to you at the reader's pace and in a foreign accent, than having the written statement in front of you, in your own language, to read through at your own pace. It would be far more likely in those circumstances for errors to jump out of the page at you. Also you don't have to try to remember what has already been read out to you whilst continuing to take in what is currently being read out to you. You can simply re-read if necessary.
Whilst Gerry would have signed original statements, neither he nor anyone else have signed those statements which were translated by amateurs - and which we use. Therefore no confirmation exists from anyone - by way of signatures - that the contents of any of their translated statements are totally accurate. For that to be the case, the translated statements would need to have been submitted to the witnesses for them to read and sign if they approved This didn't happen.
AIMHO
Maybe he wasn't even listening. but he should have been. You now need to explain why the interpreter twice used the word 'key' if it wasn't used by the witness?
-
Maybe he wasn't even listening. but he should have been. You now need to explain why the interpreter twice used the word 'key' if it wasn't used by the witness?
And maybe he was traumatised and his head was all over the place.
We've done all this before G. We know there was confusion during interviews over which door was being referred to. IMO it could have been the PJ officer who decided to insert a ''with a key'' note in his notes - to remind himself which door was being referred to when he typed up his summary. If he had the doors the wrong way round - then when Gerry said the front door (the one the PJ officer understood to have a key) he wouldn't realise that Gerry was actually talking about the patio door - and so wrote ''with a key'' next to it.
I'm sure if we could have seen the verbatim conversation - it would be clear how and when the misunderstanding first occurred.
IIRC Gerry had already confirmed that the patio door was open. Therefore there is not a single credible reason IMO for Gerry to claim that either he or Kate went all the way round to the front door when they knew the patio door was unlocked - and which was their regular and normal point of entry anyway. Why would he make up such an unbelievable claim which IMO he would have no way whatsoever of explaining? For him to do that makes no sense to me.
AIMHO
-
And maybe he was traumatised and his head was all over the place.
We've done all this before G. We know there was confusion during interviews over which door was being referred to. IMO it could have been the PJ officer who decided to insert a ''with a key'' note in his notes - to remind himself which door was being referred to when he typed up his summary. If he had the doors the wrong way round - then when Gerry said the front door (the one the PJ officer understood to have a key) he wouldn't realise that Gerry was actually talking about the patio door - and so wrote ''with a key'' next to it.
I'm sure if we could have seen the verbatim conversation - it would be clear how and when the misunderstanding first occurred.
IIRC Gerry had already confirmed that the patio door was open. Therefore there is not a single credible reason IMO for Gerry to claim that either he or Kate went all the way round to the front door when they knew the patio door was unlocked - and which was their regular and normal point of entry anyway. Why would he make up such an unbelievable claim which IMO he would have no way whatsoever of explaining? For him to do that makes no sense to me.
AIMHO
entrou no quarto munido da chave respectiva estando a porta trancada
entered the room with the respective key, the door being locked
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P1/01_VOLUME_Ia_Page_37.jpg
-
entrou no quarto munido da chave respectiva estando a porta trancada
entered the room with the respective key, the door being locked
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P1/01_VOLUME_Ia_Page_37.jpg
The PJ officer is summarising his understanding of Gerry's account. IMO ''the door being locked'' could be his own interpretation inserted to identify which door (i.e. the locked front door -which needed a key) which he may have genuinely but mistakenly believed Gerry was referring to - if Gerry had been referring to the patio door as the 'front' door.
IMO it is very noticeable that the PJ never revealed the reasons Gerry gave for making changes to his statement - which imo were made after he saw his statement in English and realised there had been a misunderstanding about the doors - and which he then pointed out to the PJ at his next interview.
I do not believe that Gerry would have asked for his statement to be changed without giving the PJ his reasons for making that request. Similarly, I do not believe the PJ would NOT have asked him to explain his reasons for making such a major change. If the reasons he gave were considered by the PJ to be 'suspicious' in any way - then IMO they would most definitely have been recorded in his statement as potentially crucial evidence. So why didn't they record them?
Could it be that if the PJ thought their own interviewing officer and/or the interpreter had made 'mistakes' during the interview - they preferred not to mention it? - although IMO it is very easy to see how misunderstandings could have happened. Taking into account all of the circumstances surrounding that first interview - I wouldn't blame anyone for any errors which may have occurred.
However, if anyone believes that Gerry claimed to have ignored the unlocked Patio door a few feet away from him and took the long route round to the front door - then they need to come up with a reason why he would decide to make such a strange claim - for which he could provide no credible explanation whatsoever - as far as I can see - (especially if he needed the Loo).
What would he have to gain by claiming that he did not enter 5a via the patio door? AFAIAC - the answer is 'zilch'.
All in my opinion.
-
The answer is not zilch e.g. the apartment may have been locked at 20:30 so Gerry had to use the key to enter. It was unlocked on Gerry's check for Kate who was due to check next and maybe raise the alarm earlier (afterall, the door was half-open again *%87) as Matt did not see Madeleine. You cannot change Gerry's signed statements.
-
The answer is not zilch e.g. the apartment may have been locked at 20:30 so Gerry had to use the key to enter. It was unlocked on Gerry's check for Kate who was due to check next and maybe raise the alarm earlier (afterall, the door was half-open again *%87) as Matt did not see Madeleine. You cannot change Gerry's signed statements.
Are we in this awful insulting sign of *%87 again? It was removed once because it was so demeaning.
I do not intend to lower myself to using it, no matter what i think of a poster
-
That's for the half-open door. The key was found long ago.
-
The answer is not zilch e.g. the apartment may have been locked at 20:30 so Gerry had to use the key to enter. It was unlocked on Gerry's check for Kate who was due to check next and maybe raise the alarm earlier (afterall, the door was half-open again *%87) as Matt did not see Madeleine. You cannot change Gerry's signed statements.
None of the translated versions of the original signed statements we use on here were submitted to witnesses for them to read and sign to confirm the accuracy of the translations. Therefore there can be no guarantee that the content of statements translated by amateurs and not signed by witnesses as being accurate translations - are accurate.
IMO
-
None of the translated versions of the original signed statements we use on here were submitted to witnesses for them to read and sign to confirm the accuracy of the translations. Therefore there can be no guarantee that the content of statements translated by amateurs and not signed by witnesses as being accurate translations - are accurate.
IMO
Vetry good point Benice. Well highlighted.
-
Reminder to all posters:
Far too many posts are still being removed having fallen foul of the off-topic rule. Please ensure that your comments are relevant when posting.
Please feel free to start a new topic if there is a subject you wish to discuss on another issue which does not yet have its own thread.
TY
-
None of the translated versions of the original signed statements we use on here were submitted to witnesses for them to read and sign to confirm the accuracy of the translations. Therefore there can be no guarantee that the content of statements translated by amateurs and not signed by witnesses as being accurate translations - are accurate.
IMO
Which is precisely why I took the trouble of translating the original signed statement in a previous post.
-
The suggestion is that Gerry didn't say he and his wife entered the apartment by using the key. If so, he would have noticed the mistake when the statement was read back to him. I'm quite sure that Natalie de Almeida omitted nothing. Therefore he did say it and he signed to confirm that he said it.
I still think it is really possible that on Gerry's first trip back to the apartment he went in through the front door as he said.
-
I still think it is really possible that on Gerry's first trip back to the apartment he went in through the front door as he said.
Of course it is, why not? I don't understand why it has to be the interpreter, the PJ or, the latest suggestion, the amateur translator who made a mistake and not him.
-
Of course it is, why not? I don't understand why it has to be the interpreter, the PJ or, the latest suggestion, the amateur translator who made a mistake and not him.
I don't think of it as a mistake.
-
I don't think of it as a mistake.
How do you think of it?
-
How do you think of it?
I think he went to the front door for some unexplained reason, but later realised he would have to explain that reason so he fell into align with everyone else at his second statement.
-
I think he went to the front door for some unexplained reason, but later realised he would have to explain that reason so he fell into align with everyone else at his second statement.
How about he entered by the front door then exited by the patio door? One of Mr Wilkins' statements;
As he approached the corner of the McCanns apartment, he saw Gerry appear from the area of the gate. He crossed the road and engaged in general conversation with Gerry. At this time they were stood with Gerry's back to the building near to the gate and Jeremy facing him. Rua Dr Agostino was about 10-15 meters to his right and the pathway leading to the front of the apartment blocks about 5 meters to his left.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JEREMY_BRIGET.htm
-
How about he entered by the front door then exited by the patio door? One of Mr Wilkins' statements;
As he approached the corner of the McCanns apartment, he saw Gerry appear from the area of the gate. He crossed the road and engaged in general conversation with Gerry. At this time they were stood with Gerry's back to the building near to the gate and Jeremy facing him. Rua Dr Agostino was about 10-15 meters to his right and the pathway leading to the front of the apartment blocks about 5 meters to his left.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JEREMY_BRIGET.htm
Yes that is possible "entered by the front door then exited by the patio door". I have no doubt he exited via the patio door for that is what he states in his own statement too.