IMO The Tapas 9 could see the 5A patio windows.
IMO They were a little over 50 metres away. Where we sat we could see the whole of them, except for the lower part which was somewhat masked.
This only worked because
IMO on May 3rd, as it was when we were there, the bushes had just been cut back.
Please note: The first three blue IMO's that Slarti has added are definitely incorrect because all things mentioned are FACT1) Reverse image from 5A showing the Tapas restaurant immediately behind the pool (blue bit)
i) Bushes at ANOTHER time NOT cut back and SLIGHTLY OBSCURING the view.
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Nigel/sitebuilderpictures/apartment5afrompatio.jpg
ii) Reverse image, ....
IMO as the bushes were when freshly cut back on May 3rd 2007.
http://gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/CaroleTranmer-gate.jpg
This photo is taken from a higher flat directly above the Mccanns.
I am showing it to compare how the two bushes would have been considerably smaller at that time Madeleine vanished, rather than in the image at the top. IMO, from how it was on the day, the bush on the right has grown about an extra 9" (all the way around) when compared to the top image, . This must be taken into account when images are shown of 5A from the Tapas
The photo also gives an idea of the position of 5A relative to the Tapas reception, which is the roofed building on the LH side of the photo
Believe it, or belive it not, the distance between the Tapas restaurant and 5A is only a little over 50 metres. This can be checked by using the measure on G.Earth and shows just how deceptive distances can look on photos.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Russell and Jane had the best view of 5A. Unfortunately they were not in their seats for some of the evening because of their daughters' sickness.
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Nigel/sitebuilderpictures/tapastableseatingplan.jpg
Rachels view of 5A would be partially blocked by Gerry, Fiona and Kate and she would not be naturally looking directly in that direction, whilst Russell and Jane would have been. So I am not sure how much weight should be put on her observations in of the view.
I am not spending unnecessary time looking for a cite for Amarals statement, most readers will have seen it.. It was when he was trying to justify his claim that Madeleine died in Apt. 5A, because no-one could get in. Then he stated something along the lines of 'no intruder would go into 5A because the Tapas group / parents were so close'. {just over 50 metres)
He said that:
i) The front door was locked so no-one could get in ...
IMO Amaral never wanted to consider the possibility of keys being obtained and used, despite other entries into flats in block 5 in the few weeks before.
IMO Entries that were thought to have been via the front door
Please Note : Slartis IMO is incorrect here too. Entries were thought to have been via the front door in two casesii) Madeleines window was shuttered and no forensics within it so no-one went in that way
iii) The patio window overlooked by the tapas group, so
IMO no abductor would dare to go in that way
Please Note: The blue IMO that Slarti has added above should have been "In Amarals Opinion". Had he read the post he would have seen that I was repeating what Amaral saidHe was trying to justify his claim that Madeleine died within 5A.
Claim i)
IMO has been widely proved incorrect.
I tend to agree with him on claims
ii) [because it would have been extra-ordinarily difficult to go through that way and also leave no forensic traces]
.... and iii)
~~~~~~~~~~
Anyone looking at the images I have posted on forum within this thread will see that the balcony/patio area was
IMO bathed/ flooded with light.
I agree that since realizing that we are unable to know what camera exposure was given, we are unable to ascertain just how bright the light was, but any light would show a man walking across. The balcony was
IMO bathed in light except when the privacy board was fitted as in the Cutting Edge video of the reconstruction.
