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: Alfred R Jones on February 23, 2016, 09:38:39 AM
-
"Person A is around the OC, sees the McCanns leaving the apartment by the patio, knows it is unlocked. Waits until they gone into the tapas. Drive up to back entrance of 5a, nips into apartment, picks up Madeleine (if she wakes just tell her taking to Daddy), out to the car, drive off. Job done".
Discuss.
-
Now if someone can explain why we need carriers, signals, forced Windows etc?
-
I agree - no need for a convoluted international conspiracy, interpretation of forensics, endless discussions of last photos etc etc.
So - something like that is perfectly credible.
(Cue 'there is no evidence of abduction')
-
I agree - no need for a convoluted international conspiracy, interpretation of forensics, endless discussions of last photos etc etc.
So - something like that is perfectly credible.
(Cue 'there is no evidence of abduction')
How about the dogs jp, used by SY in Portugal ?
What were they being used for ? &%+((£
-
I've always thought it's very likely that Madeleine was immediately driven away by car. Whether that was to a place in PdL or it speeded off to get as far away from PdL as possible - I don't know.
-
How about the dogs jp, used by SY in Portugal ?
What were they being used for ? &%+((£
What about the dogs? They were brought in to help narrow the search for any forensic evidence which may cast light on the case.
-
What about the dogs? They were brought in to help narrow the search for any forensic evidence which may cast light on the case.
and perhaps to look for a body
-
Now if someone can explain why we need carriers, signals, forced Windows etc?
If as we are led to believe the apartment was under observation for a few days it must have dawned on the observers(s) that the way in was through the patio door in a suitable time gap in the "listening train". One snatcher and one look out max. both with burner phones. In and out like Flynn.
-
"Person A is around the OC, sees the McCanns leaving the apartment by the patio, knows it is unlocked. Waits until they gone into the tapas. Drive up to back entrance of 5a, nips into apartment, picks up Madeleine (if she wakes just tell her taking to Daddy), out to the car, drive off. Job done".
Discuss.
I haven't excluded a lone perp.
I have a few problems with your (ETA: Sorry, Slarti's) scenario above, though. Perhaps because I'm examining it as an opportunistic abduction.
- "Person A is around the OC, sees the McCanns leaving the apartment by the patio, knows it is unlocked."
Yes, easy enough.
- "Waits until they gone into the tapas."
Assuming Gerry did see her in bed a bit after 9 pm, it couldn't have been as soon as they'd left for dinner. Someone hiding behind the children's door seems highly improbable, IMO. If someone had been hiding in the flat, then the parents' bedroom would seem feasible, though risky. Hiding in the garden and keeping an eye on the T7 at the Tapas might be a possibility.
At 9.30 pm ish Matt noticed a bit of light coming in, but no slamming doors or whooshing curtains. If she had already gone, then there would presumably have had to be a lull in the wind and he simply didn't pay much attention to the windows.
An alternative leaves being taken between Matt's visit and Kate finding her missing at 10pm.
- "Drive up to back entrance of 5a, nips into apartment"
A couple of statements indicate that there were parked cars nearby, but a bit vague.
If a perp went in and out via the patio and the car was nearby, why open the shutters and window? Doing so would make more sense to me to disguise having a key to the front door. Or having an accomplice in an intended burglary situation at the front, or had raised them in the assumption that the door was locked prior to checking it and finding it could open (this would mean exiting via the front, whichever door was used for entering).
- "picks up Madeleine (if she wakes just tell her taking to Daddy).
For a long time, I couldn't imagine M not screaming her head off if she'd woken up. However, a little girl was taken from her bed in France this past summer and no one in her family sleeping nearby heard a thing. Threatening to harm the twins might have have made her keep quiet if the perp spoke English.
One possibility is that she wasn't in bed at the time, e.g., had got up to go to the loo and was grabbed at that point, with a hand over her mouth to keep her quiet.
That raises the question of why not just flee at that point and leave her behind? A run-of-the-mill burglar might have done, but one who'd changed "plans" might not.
If she'd been left unconscious , there could be a fear of evidence (being able to describe him/her, or forensic evidence). If dead, same fear of forensics, plus a far longer sentence than an intended burglary.
-
"Person A is around the OC, sees the McCanns leaving the apartment by the patio, knows it is unlocked. Waits until they gone into the tapas. Drive up to back entrance of 5a, nips into apartment, picks up Madeleine (if she wakes just tell her taking to Daddy), out to the car, drive off. Job done".
Discuss.
How does one connect knowledge of patio unlocked to knowledge of children inside? That requires observation at high tea time and at Tapas time.
Otherwise one is into burglary gone wrong, and the issue of why not simply flee.
-
How does one connect knowledge of patio unlocked to knowledge of children inside? That requires observation at high tea time and at Tapas time.
Otherwise one is into burglary gone wrong, and the issue of why not simply flee.
Witnesses saw a person or persons taking an interest in the apartment which must have been quite marked to attract their attention at the time and for them to recall when they heard about Madeleine's disappearance..
-
Another issue I'd wondered about for quite a while (still from the perspective of a "burglary-gone-wrong" scenario) is why - in view of the massive reward - a possible accomplice wouldn't have turned on the primary perp to claim the massive reward.
I can now think of several reasons (some of which I haven't checked).
- The reward was for the safe return. If the accomplice knew that that child was dead - there was no reward.
- Perp A and accomplice could have close connections (complicity in previous crimes, fear of mafia-type revenge on family members, a "folie à deux"... )
- I haven't checked out the concept of "joint enterprise" in PT law yet. Nor potential amnesty / witness protection.
- Said accomplice (or even Perp A) may no longer be alive. Or could have moved elsewhere and as long as the focus was on the parents / T7 had nothing in particular to worry about.
-
I haven't excluded a lone perp.
I have a few problems with your (ETA: Sorry, Slarti's) scenario above, though. Perhaps because I'm examining it as an opportunistic abduction.
- "Person A is around the OC, sees the McCanns leaving the apartment by the patio, knows it is unlocked."
Yes, easy enough.
- "Waits until they gone into the tapas."
Assuming Gerry did see her in bed a bit after 9 pm, it couldn't have been as soon as they'd left for dinner. Someone hiding behind the children's door seems highly improbable, IMO. If someone had been hiding in the flat, then the parents' bedroom would seem feasible, though risky. Hiding in the garden and keeping an eye on the T7 at the Tapas might be a possibility.
At 9.30 pm ish Matt noticed a bit of light coming in, but no slamming doors or whooshing curtains. If she had already gone, then there would presumably have had to be a lull in the wind and he simply didn't pay much attention to the windows.
An alternative leaves being taken between Matt's visit and Kate finding her missing at 10pm.
- "Drive up to back entrance of 5a, nips into apartment"
A couple of statements indicate that there were parked cars nearby, but a bit vague.
If a perp went in and out via the patio and the car was nearby, why open the shutters and window? Doing so would make more sense to me to disguise having a key to the front door. Or having an accomplice in an intended burglary situation at the front, or had raised them in the assumption that the door was locked prior to checking it and finding it could open (this would mean exiting via the front, whichever door was used for entering).
- "picks up Madeleine (if she wakes just tell her taking to Daddy).
For a long time, I couldn't imagine M not screaming her head off if she'd woken up. However, a little girl was taken from her bed in France this past summer and no one in her family sleeping nearby heard a thing. Threatening to harm the twins might have have made her keep quiet if the perp spoke English.
One possibility is that she wasn't in bed at the time, e.g., had got up to go to the loo and was grabbed at that point, with a hand over her mouth to keep her quiet.
That raises the question of why not just flee at that point and leave her behind? A run-of-the-mill burglar might have done, but one who'd changed "plans" might not.
If she'd been left unconscious , there could be a fear of evidence (being able to describe him/her, or forensic evidence). If dead, same fear of forensics, plus a far longer sentence than an intended burglary.
Were it an opportunistic abduction then the legions of odd bods allegedly casing the joint for a few days were merely Messrs Innocent Bystanders.
-
Witnesses saw a person or persons taking an interest in the apartment which must have been quite marked to attract their attention at the time and for them to recall when they heard about Madeleine's disappearance..
Witnesses did.
You need someone taking interest in the apartment at end of high tea time, 5:30pm, AND at Tapas time 8:30pm. That's a lot of watching.
Is there a lot of witnesses to both?
-
Were it an opportunistic abduction then the legions of odd bods allegedly casing the joint for a few days were merely Messrs Innocent Bystanders.
Not necessarily if the original intention was a burglary.
-
Not necessarily if the original intention was a burglary.
Had they simply been 'casing the joint' for a burglary which was carried out, there would have been no witnesses for the simple reason a burglary would not have been reported in the media.
Perhaps having done the groundwork it was realised there was a very valuable commodity in the apartment. If phone calls were made in the run up to the 3rd the significance would have been missed as the only phone traffic forensically examined (there's that word again) was the traffic between the prime suspects.
The initial intention of burglary (two adjacent apartments had been broken into) could easily have changed to targeted abduction.
-
Had they simply been 'casing the joint' for a burglary which was carried out, there would have been no witnesses for the simple reason a burglary would not have been reported in the media.
Perhaps having done the groundwork it was realised there was a very valuable commodity in the apartment. If phone calls were made in the run up to the 3rd the significance would have been missed as the only phone traffic forensically examined (there's that word again) was the traffic between the prime suspects.
The initial intention of burglary (two adjacent apartments had been broken into) could easily have changed to targeted abduction.
I can't exclude a targeted abduction, either. So far, I haven't found anything to substantiate the "abducted-to-order" scenario involving several people.
Could an individual have seen M and "flashed" on her. Yes, why not?
Could a burglary have been an excuse to involve an accomplice? Possibly.
Could someone have decided that she resembled a descendant (or relative) of some historical figure and needed to be "rescued"? Possibly. Were all sects checked out?
ETA: Were any "communities" ever checked out?
-
Not necessarily if the original intention was a burglary.
don't forget ...according to gmcc ...no valuables were stolen
-
Not necessarily if the original intention was a burglary.
Check the burglars "Manual of Tactics" to find out how a real burglar works not how an imaginary one on here is perceived to work.
-
don't forget ...according to gmcc ...no valuables were stolen
To emphasise that the purpose of the intrusion was not burglary ....
-
Check the burglars "Manual of Tactics" to find out how a real burglar works not how an imaginary one on here is perceived to work.
You would know? Good heavens.
-
Check the burglars "Manual of Tactics" to find out how a real burglar works not how an imaginary one on here is perceived to work.
Could you provide me with a link to it?
-
don't forget ...according to gmcc ...no valuables were stolen
Do explain your source and the context.
-
You would know? Good heavens.
In my line of business I meet all sorts. Particularly traveling by air and train it only takes a little bit of bad weather and delays or a close shave to have people making all sorts of indiscreet comments to total strangers. If one subscribes to the train of thought that God supplied us with one mouth, two ears and two eyes for a very good reason one can learn a lot.
-
In my line of business I meet all sorts. Particularly traveling by air and train it only takes a little bit of bad weather and delays or a close shave to have people making all sorts of indiscreet comments to total strangers. If one subscribes to the train of thought that God supplied us with one mouth, two ears and two eyes for a very good reason one can learn a lot.
So, when your train or plane has been delayed you have made the acquaintance of master burglars who have let you in on their trade secrets, is that what you're saying? How extremely fascinating.
-
In my line of business I meet all sorts. Particularly traveling by air and train it only takes a little bit of bad weather and delays or a close shave to have people making all sorts of indiscreet comments to total strangers. If one subscribes to the train of thought that God supplied us with one mouth, two ears and two eyes for a very good reason one can learn a lot.
LOL. I have encountered people telling me about all sorts of things over time, whether what they said was true or not. Much of which went in one ear and out the other in the absence of any particular reason to recall anythng in particular.
At the moment, the discussion is about Madeleiene McCann.
I presume that if you had heard anything potentially worthy of passing on that you would have done.
-
Could you provide me with a link to it?
Obviously there is nothing entitled "The Burglary Manual of Tactics" but try looking in here to get a feel of what they do and don't do.
http://simplisafe.com/blog/burglar-reveals-15-trade-secrets-look-mind-burglar
http://www.rd.com/home/improvement/burglar-secrets/
http://www.bbc.co.uk/crimewatchroadshow/safety/burglars_favourites.shtml
http://www.ncssalarm.com/ten-things-clever-burglars-dont-want-you-to-know-they-do/
http://robertsiciliano.com/blog/2014/01/30/10-more-things-burglars-dont-want-you-to-know/
"A person casing your neighborhood for break-ins looks like the guy who would never do such a thing: clean-cut, maybe dressed in a workman’s uniform with a fake logo, carrying inspection equipment to make himself look legit".
There is plenty more where that came from.
-
Obviously there is nothing entitled "The Burglary Manual of Tactics" but try looking in here to get a feel of what they do and don't do.
http://simplisafe.com/blog/burglar-reveals-15-trade-secrets-look-mind-burglar
http://www.rd.com/home/improvement/burglar-secrets/
http://www.bbc.co.uk/crimewatchroadshow/safety/burglars_favourites.shtml
http://www.ncssalarm.com/ten-things-clever-burglars-dont-want-you-to-know-they-do/
http://robertsiciliano.com/blog/2014/01/30/10-more-things-burglars-dont-want-you-to-know/
"A person casing your neighborhood for break-ins looks like the guy who would never do such a thing: clean-cut, maybe dressed in a workman’s uniform with a fake logo, carrying inspection equipment to make himself look legit".
There is plenty more where that came from.
Is that a fact? So, never have there been incidents of shady looking types casing a neighbourhood intent on criminal activity? Well I never!
-
So, when your train or plane has been delayed you have made the acquaintance of master burglars who have let you in on their trade secrets, is that what you're saying? How extremely fascinating.
Sure is.
I cannot find where I said master burglar though.
-
Sure is.
I cannot find where I said master burglar though.
You mean you were conversing with common-or-garden burglars? Surely that was beneath a man of your calibre!
-
You mean you were conversing with common-or-garden type burglars? Surely that was beneath a man of your calibre!
Or mibeez Alice is a embracing diversity and has no class distinction issues AKA 'snobbery'. let's check this out. Alice do you have a preference as to what class your burglars hail from, would you be more upset if they were council tenant burglars or top class diamond thieves from Kensington DAHLNG?
Thinking along the lines of an opportune abduction there would be no need to case a joint-just jump in and grab the chance or child as the case is being presented here.
IF some one was casing the joint for reasons other than checking the leaky drainpipe or gutter overflow on the property, then one would assume he/she/they are not in the big league of abductors because any real live reconesons for such an activity would be done incognito ie not looking suspicious at all! blending in meh.
I still am not convinced the window of opportunity was as narrow as is being claimed by the Tapas 9.
-
Free publicity for their handler.
Precious little else.
What handler? Do you know his name? For all the free publicity, never heard of him....hmmmm lol
-
Obviously there is nothing entitled "The Burglary Manual of Tactics" but try looking in here to get a feel of what they do and don't do.
http://simplisafe.com/blog/burglar-reveals-15-trade-secrets-look-mind-burglar
http://www.rd.com/home/improvement/burglar-secrets/
http://www.bbc.co.uk/crimewatchroadshow/safety/burglars_favourites.shtml
http://www.ncssalarm.com/ten-things-clever-burglars-dont-want-you-to-know-they-do/
http://robertsiciliano.com/blog/2014/01/30/10-more-things-burglars-dont-want-you-to-know/
"A person casing your neighborhood for break-ins looks like the guy who would never do such a thing: clean-cut, maybe dressed in a workman’s uniform with a fake logo, carrying inspection equipment to make himself look legit".
There is plenty more where that came from.
Thanks.
Burglars can come in all shapes and sizes, though.
-
Thanks.
Burglars can come in all shapes and sizes, though.
I think that is self evident but if you feel you are more competent to comment than the links I have posted so be it.
The interesting parts for me were:
87% get away with it which means either they are good at it or the cops are crap at solving burglaries.
Most make themselves unobtrusive, melt into the background and don't draw attention to themselves when casing a job.
They rarely enter kids rooms.
Blow out "burglary gone wrong" on balance.
-
Or mibeez Alice is a embracing diversity and has no class distinction issues AKA 'snobbery'. let's check this out. Alice do you have a preference as to what class your burglars hail from, would you be more upset if they were council tenant burglars or top class diamond thieves from Kensington DAHLNG?
Thinking along the lines of an opportune abduction there would be no need to case a joint-just jump in and grab the chance or child as the case is being presented here.
IF some one was casing the joint for reasons other than checking the leaky drainpipe or gutter overflow on the property, then one would assume he/she/they are not in the big league of abductors because any real live reconesons for such an activity would be done incognito ie not looking suspicious at all! blending in meh.
I still am not convinced the window of opportunity was as narrow as is being claimed by the Tapas 9.
Good post
As for burglary "gone wrong" aka "I've gone in to steal money and goods" but suddenly had an idea I would abduct a toddler sleeping in there....positively BARMY at best
I'm sure some clever sod might come up with a link where this has happened...I want a big plasma telly but a kid might do.......free to do so
-
I think that is self evident but if you feel you are more competent to comment than the links I have posted so be it.
The interesting parts for me were:
87% get away with it which means either they are good at it or the cops are crap at solving burglaries.
Most make themselves unobtrusive, melt into the background and don't draw attention to themselves when casing a job.
They rarely enter kids rooms.
Blow out "burglary gone wrong" on balance.
or that police are so overwhelmed by the number of burglaries reported on a daily basis that there are simply not the resources in place to investigate each one thoroughly, leading to arrests and charges being brought.
-
Can someone tell me: are these two videos supposed to show the same shutter ?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fzpniKAWvUI
https://madeleinemccannthetruth.wordpress.com/2012/02/19/the-shutters/
-
Good post
As for burglary "gone wrong" aka "I've gone in to steal money and goods" but suddenly had an idea I would abduct a toddler sleeping in there....positively BARMY at best
What about the little girl taken from her bath? He was known for burglary or other crimes, but just went in and grabbed her from her bath.
I haven't heard any more about the little girl apparently taken from her (first floor) bedroom by some nutter who decided to climb up, wrap her in her bedsheet and chuck her out of the first-floor balcony door (left open due to the summer heatwave). She was carried off, but managed to scream and was found in a neighbour's garden. Unless the story has entirely changed since then.
-
Can someone tell me: are these two videos supposed to show the same shutter ?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fzpniKAWvUI
https://madeleinemccannthetruth.wordpress.com/2012/02/19/the-shutters/
As far as I know, the first one was a different apartment, but you'd have to check with Heri.
The second one with PeterMac is 5A.
-
What about the little girl taken from her bath? He was known for burglary or other crimes, but just went in and grabbed her from her bath.
I haven't heard any more about the little girl apparently taken from her (first floor) bedroom by some nutter who decided to climb up, wrap her in her bedsheet and chuck her out of the first-floor balcony door (left open due to the summer heatwave). She was carried off, but managed to scream and was found in a neighbour's garden. Unless the story has entirely changed since then.
a one off in the annals of thousands...for reasons unknown.....burglars don't abduct kids instead of goods....as a rule.....keep trying to find a reason why mm was "abducted" and with such precision planning akin to a diamond heist......nonsense...oh sorry, forgot you thought it was an opportunistic abductor who just happened to want a telly but thought oh we'll she will do instead, now what do I do with her, I had no plans for this
Night night
-
a one off in the annals of thousands...for reasons unknown.....burglars don't abduct kids instead of goods....as a rule.....keep trying to find a reason why mm was "abducted" and with such precision planning akin to a diamond heist......nonsense...oh sorry, forgot you thought it was an opportunistic abductor who just happened to want a telly but thought oh we'll she will do instead, now what do I do with her, I had no plans for this
Did Rudi Guedes enter that flat in Perugia with the intention of raping and killing poor Meredith? Or was his original intention to nick the rent money?
-
a one off in the annals of thousands...for reasons unknown.....burglars don't abduct kids instead of goods....as a rule.....keep trying to find a reason why mm was "abducted" and with such precision planning akin to a diamond heist......nonsense...oh sorry, forgot you thought it was an opportunistic abductor who just happened to want a telly but thought oh we'll she will do instead, now what do I do with her, I had no plans for this
what you are proving is why should the mccanns fear Maddie might be abducted...it just could not possibly happen. ...but as katy hopkins believes...it has
-
a one off in the annals of thousands...for reasons unknown.....burglars don't abduct kids instead of goods....as a rule.....keep trying to find a reason why mm was "abducted" and with such precision planning akin to a diamond heist......nonsense...oh sorry, forgot you thought it was an opportunistic abductor who just happened to want a telly but thought oh we'll she will do instead, now what do I do with her, I had no plans for this
Night night
I could understand an abductor pretending to be a burglar if caught but not a burglar deciding to abduct a child.
-
a one off in the annals of thousands...for reasons unknown.....burglars don't abduct kids instead of goods....as a rule.....keep trying to find a reason why mm was "abducted" and with such precision planning akin to a diamond heist......nonsense...oh sorry, forgot you thought it was an opportunistic abductor who just happened to want a telly but thought oh we'll she will do instead, now what do I do with her, I had no plans for this
Night night
Mob handed too. A driver, two "snatchers" and a couple of look out men!
-
Mob handed too. A driver, two "snatchers" and a couple of look out men!
I thought this thread was about Slarti's Simple Solution?
-
I thought this thread was about Slarti's Simple Solution?
I was being sarcastic about the well planned abduction to order or whatever.
If an abduction took place something simple would be easier see one of my earlier posts on this very thread.
-
I was being sarcastic about the well planned abduction to order or whatever.
If an abduction took place something simple would be easier see one of my earlier posts on this very thread.
Madeleine's disappearance will likely turn out to have a simple explanation. A simple explanation is not easy when you put the parents in the frame, it is if you put an abductor in the frame. This is patently obvious even to "sceptics" but most just can't admit it.
-
Madeleine's disappearance will likely turn out to have a simple explanation. A simple explanation is not easy when you put the parents in the frame, it is if you put an abductor in the frame. This is patently obvious even to "sceptics" but most just can't admit it.
No
Both are as plausible as each other but one theory has too many problems, dang!
-
No
Both are as plausible as each other but one theory has too many problems, dang!
Yup. Parental involvement. You just can't come up with a simple scenario for it. Never mind, keep trying!
-
Madeleine's disappearance will likely turn out to have a simple explanation. A simple explanation is not easy when you put the parents in the frame, it is if you put an abductor in the frame. This is patently obvious even to "sceptics" but most just can't admit it.
If a supporter can solve the basic conundrum of the mechanics of an abduction I might listen and have a rethink. No one has come up with anything which is much more than "the parents couldn't have done it QED", whatever "it" is, so it must have been an abductor. The supporters cannot even agree on how, when or by whom an abduction was executed, they only agree one did occur at sometime or another on 3rd May 2007. So not very convincing.
Until the basic conundrum is resolved I am left with a sort of "self selecting default position". Which I don't necessarily like as a principle. The principle you understand not the position. Any discussion eventually finishes up talking about foundation bolt sizes before you know the size of the structure, as it were, so we go around forever.
-
If a supporter can solve the basic conundrum of the mechanics of an abduction I might listen and have a rethink. No one has come up with anything which is much more than "the parents couldn't have done it QED", whatever "it" is, so it must have been an abductor. The supporters cannot even agree on how, when or by whom an abduction was executed, they only agree one did occur at sometime or another on 3rd May 2007. So not very convincing.
Until the basic conundrum is resolved I am left with a sort of "self selecting default position". Which I don't necessarily like as a principle. The principle you understand not the position. Any discussion eventually finishes up talking about foundation bolt sizes before you know the size of the structure, as it were, so we go around forever.
I can quite see why answering all those questions would vital for nailing a perpetrator (named).
But I can't, for the life of me, see how any of them are remotely relevant to establishing the innocence of the McCanns.
-
Madeleine's disappearance will likely turn out to have a simple explanation. A simple explanation is not easy when you put the parents in the frame, it is if you put an abductor in the frame. This is patently obvious even to "sceptics" but most just can't admit it.
Why do you think it's easier for an abductor to first control and remove a child from that apartment and not a parent?
-
"Person A is around the OC, sees the McCanns leaving the apartment by the patio, knows it is unlocked. Waits until they gone into the tapas. Drive up to back entrance of 5a, nips into apartment, picks up Madeleine (if she wakes just tell her taking to Daddy), out to the car, drive off. Job done".
Discuss.
In this theory does "back entrance" mean the wooden main door, or the lounge sliding door?
-
Why do you think it's easier for an abductor to first control and remove a child from that apartment and not a parent?
An excellent question PF
-
Why do you think it's easier for an abductor to first control and remove a child from that apartment and not a parent?
An abductor is unemotional.
-
An abductor is unemotional.
Both acts would be driven by fear of being caught.
-
Both acts would be driven by fear of being caught.
Ok, the abductor would have had no emotional connection with the victim.
-
If a supporter can solve the basic conundrum of the mechanics of an abduction I might listen and have a rethink. No one has come up with anything which is much more than "the parents couldn't have done it QED", whatever "it" is, so it must have been an abductor. The supporters cannot even agree on how, when or by whom an abduction was executed, they only agree one did occur at sometime or another on 3rd May 2007. So not very convincing.
Until the basic conundrum is resolved I am left with a sort of "self selecting default position". Which I don't necessarily like as a principle. The principle you understand not the position. Any discussion eventually finishes up talking about foundation bolt sizes before you know the size of the structure, as it were, so we go around forever.
does that mean you reject Slarti's Simple Solution? On what basis?
-
Why do you think it's easier for an abductor to first control and remove a child from that apartment and not a parent?
we know alot about the parents, in particular their movements and wherabouts that night, we know F all about the abductor. Based on all the info we have about the parents we can make an informed decision that it wasn't them wot dunnit. The same cannot be said for Person X who abducted Madeleine.
-
Both acts would be driven by fear of being caught.
Eh?
A cover up would be driven by fear of being caught doing something wrong (in your scenario presumably it would be giving your kids Super Strength Sedative). An abduction would be driven by something else entirely.
-
Eh?
A cover up would be driven by fear of being caught doing something wrong (in your scenario presumably it would be giving your kids Super Strength Sedative). An abduction would be driven by something else entirely.
I think the point is that if the abductor could have got away virtually unseen ( apart from Mr and Mrs Smith who thought the person they saw was probably Gerry ) then so could a parent.
-
I think the point is that if the abductor could have got away virtually unseen ( apart from Mr and Mrs Smith who thought the person they saw was probably Gerry ) then so could a parent.
Then it's a very silly point. A parent didn't get away, a parent was in the vicinity the whole time and had no window of opportunity to smuggle a corpse out of an apartment with no one else knowing to hide it somewhere where it has never been found to this day.
-
Then it's a very silly point. A parent didn't get away, a parent was in the vicinity the whole time and had no window of opportunity to smuggle a corpse out of an apartment with no one else knowing to hide it somewhere where it has never been found to this day.
Not proven though, is it?
In the confusion following the disappearance of Madeleine it would be possible that one of the men or Fiona Payne 'escaped' to join in the searches again later.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/BRIGADE-OF-INFORMATION.htm
Said that, yesterday, one individual, purportedly the father of the missing, left the dinner table where a group of friends (in number 8 or 9), for about 30 minutes.
The second to leave (about 40/45 years of age, having the physical characteristics of the first, but having less bulky hair) did so for about 30 minutes,
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TAPAS-EMPLOYEES.htm
-
Not proven though, is it?
In the confusion following the disappearance of Madeleine it would be possible that one of the men or Fiona Payne 'escaped' to join in the searches again later.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/BRIGADE-OF-INFORMATION.htm
Said that, yesterday, one individual, purportedly the father of the missing, left the dinner table where a group of friends (in number 8 or 9), for about 30 minutes.
The second to leave (about 40/45 years of age, having the physical characteristics of the first, but having less bulky hair) did so for about 30 minutes,
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TAPAS-EMPLOYEES.htm
Not sure what your point about one of the men or Fiona Payne "escaping" is - are you suggesting they may be "in on it?"
Your other two quotes require times attached. Was this around 9pm? Does it cover the time Gerry was talking to Jez Wilkins? Does it cover the time period when the Smiths were allegedly clocking Gerry?
-
Not proven though, is it?
In the confusion following the disappearance of Madeleine it would be possible that one of the men or Fiona Payne 'escaped' to join in the searches again later.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/BRIGADE-OF-INFORMATION.htm
Said that, yesterday, one individual, purportedly the father of the missing, left the dinner table where a group of friends (in number 8 or 9), for about 30 minutes.
The second to leave (about 40/45 years of age, having the physical characteristics of the first, but having less bulky hair) did so for about 30 minutes,
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TAPAS-EMPLOYEES.htm
Why have such a convoluted, complicated, dangerous plan when all they had to do was wait until the middle of the night and then take the body to this unfindable place which they apparently knew about and no-one else in PdL did?
All they had to do then was call the police in the morning and say someone had abducted her during the night.
No need to involve anyone else in it - so no chance of anyone slipping up or cracking under interrogation.
And who was going to tell the police that wasn't what happened? - the twins?
-
Why have such a convoluted, complicated, dangerous plan when all they had to do was wait until the middle of the night and then take the body to this unfindable place which they apparently knew about and no-one else in PdL did?
All they had to do then was call the police in the morning and say someone had abducted her during the night.
No need to involve anyone else in it - so no chance of anyone slipping up or cracking under interrogation.
And who was going to tell the police that wasn't what happened? - the twins?
Not a very convincing alibi though.
-
I can quite see why answering all those questions would vital for nailing a perpetrator (named).
But I can't, for the life of me, see how any of them are remotely relevant to establishing the innocence of the McCanns.
I am not worried about establishing the innocence of the McCanns I want to know how the alleged abduction was effected.
It's a simple enough proposition. A job requiring a manning level, a time span and a slot into which that time span fits.
Detail the activity, how many men, how do they get on site, how do they get off site how long does the job take and what is the time available?
If we get to the point where the job takes 3x minutes and there is only a 2x time slot there is a problem.
Convoluted plans eat up time and because of the "listening train" time was few. So it had to be a quick job. On spec looks like a non starter as how would the "on spec man" know there was a child in the apartment? Burglary gone wrong gerroff pull the other one. So how was it done?
-
I am not worried about establishing the innocence of the McCanns I want to know how the alleged abduction was effected.
It's a simple enough proposition. A job requiring a manning level, a time span and a slot into which that time span fits.
Detail the activity, how many men, how do they get on site, how do they get off site how long does the job take and what is the time available?
If we get to the point where the job takes 3x minutes and there is only a 2x time slot there is a problem.
Convoluted plans eat up time and because of the "listening train" time was few. So it had to be a quick job. On spec looks like a non starter as how would the "on spec man" know there was a child in the apartment? Burglary gone wrong gerroff pull the other one. So how was it done?
Maybe like this?
"Person A is around the OC, sees the McCanns leaving the apartment by the patio, knows it is unlocked. Waits until they gone into the tapas. Drive up to back entrance of 5a, nips into apartment, picks up Madeleine (if she wakes just tell her taking to Daddy), out to the car, drive off. Job done".
-
Not a very convincing alibi though.
You're not convinced by their current alibi anyway so what's the difference?
-
does that mean you reject Slarti's Simple Solution? On what basis?
No I am waiting for a supporter to come up with a credible abduction theory fully detailed with times, routes, durations and "manning" levels
-
No I am waiting for a supporter to come up with a credible abduction theory fully detailed with times, routes, durations and "manning" levels
8.40pm, in and out of the apartment like Flynn (three minutes max), into a car, at 30 mph off into the horizon. Will that do?
-
You're not convinced by their current alibi anyway so what's the difference?
It's not me they needed to convince.
-
It's not me they needed to convince.
So are you saying that their current alibi has convinced the people who needed convincing?
-
Maybe like this?
"Person A is around the OC, sees the McCanns leaving the apartment by the patio, knows it is unlocked. Waits until they gone into the tapas. Drive up to back entrance of 5a, nips into apartment, picks up Madeleine (if she wakes just tell her taking to Daddy), out to the car, drive off. Job done".
How does he know the door is unlocked without going through the faff of trying it ?
How does he know there is a child in there?
Where is he when observing the McCanns and where is his car?
At what time did he effect the abduction? according to testimony and timelines the earliest he could have done it was 21:20 then again about 21:45.
Give us a complete job and time analysis then we can see what's what.
So your belief is was an "on spec" job?
-
8.40pm, in and out of the apartment like Flynn (three minutes max), into a car, at 30 mph off into the horizon. Will that do?
So Gerry didn't see her at 21:00 ish?
-
Not sure what your point about one of the men or Fiona Payne "escaping" is - are you suggesting they may be "in on it?"
Your other two quotes require times attached. Was this around 9pm? Does it cover the time Gerry was talking to Jez Wilkins? Does it cover the time period when the Smiths were allegedly clocking Gerry?
You said no parent left the vicinity. Two Tapas employees said a man left the restaurant for 30 minutes. It could have been the child's father. If so he had lots of time to do whatever he wished. Russell had Gerry gone for around 20-25 minutes, which fits in;
He recalls that Matthew Oldfield left the restaurant at shortly after 9pm to check the children. He is no longer sure who went out first, but five minutes later, Gerry McCann and his own partner, Jane, went out, almost at the same time, to check the children. Jane could have come back first because she found Gerry chatting with a person who is also a guest in the same place, named Jez. He thinks that Jane only checked their apartment, being worried about ****. Then Gerry came back at around 9.25/9.30 and they started to eat the first course.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RUSSELL-OBRIEN.htm
The other statement is from an analysis of who was where after the alarm was raised (by a UK police officer), His conclusion was that Kate, Dianne, Rachael and Jane's whereabouts were accounted for. Any of the others could have disappeared for a period of time had they so wished.
-
You said no parent left the vicinity. Two Tapas employees said a man left the restaurant for 30 minutes. It could have been the child's father. If so he had lots of time to do whatever he wished. Russell had Gerry gone for around 20-25 minutes, which fits in;
He recalls that Matthew Oldfield left the restaurant at shortly after 9pm to check the children. He is no longer sure who went out first, but five minutes later, Gerry McCann and his own partner, Jane, went out, almost at the same time, to check the children. Jane could have come back first because she found Gerry chatting with a person who is also a guest in the same place, named Jez. He thinks that Jane only checked their apartment, being worried about ****. Then Gerry came back at around 9.25/9.30 and they started to eat the first course.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RUSSELL-OBRIEN.htm
The other statement is from an analysis of who was where after the alarm was raised (by a UK police officer), His conclusion was that Kate, Dianne, Rachael and Jane's whereabouts were accounted for. Any of the others could have disappeared for a period of time had they so wished.
So, to be clearer could you specify what time this 30 minute "window of opportunity" occurred?
-
So are you saying that their current alibi has convinced the people who needed convincing?
I'm saying it was better than not having an alibi.
-
I'm saying it was better than not having an alibi.
Which you're claiming they didn't have anyway.
-
Which you're claiming they didn't have anyway.
Not if they claimed she was abducted during the night.
A little tip Alfie. If you're going to post, make sure those posts have a point. It makes it so much more interesting for the reader
-
8.40pm, in and out of the apartment like Flynn (three minutes max), into a car, at 30 mph off into the horizon. Will that do?
Do you know how many of the group passed that apartment from 8:35 to 9 ? Jane said she arrived at 8:40. Matt and Rachel 8:45. Russell 8:50 so not having that at all.
-
Not if they claimed she was abducted during the night.
A little tip Alfie. If you're going to post, make sure those posts have a point. It makes it so much more interesting for the reader
Can you stop being rude? You obviously just don't understand the point, so let me try again.
Sceptics have claimed that the McCanns wouldn't have staged an abduction during the night because they would have had no alibis. The same sceptics however claim that Gerry took time out from the group to move the corpse of his child, an event which must have taken at least 10 minutes if not more, time for which HE HAS NO ALIBI.
Therefore, either way NO ALIBI - but the first option at least gives them the opportunity not to have to hurry, and to set the stage far more convincingly.
I trust you can see the point I am making now. I can draw pictures if it helps.
-
Do you know how many of the group passed that apartment from 8:35 to 9 ? Jane said she arrived at 8:40. Matt and Rachel 8:45. Russell 8:50 so not having that at all.
So there's not a 3 minute window of opportunity at any point between 8.30pm and 10pm? Really??
-
I think that is self evident but if you feel you are more competent to comment than the links I have posted so be it.
The interesting parts for me were:
87% get away with it which means either they are good at it or the cops are crap at solving burglaries.
Most make themselves unobtrusive, melt into the background and don't draw attention to themselves when casing a job.
They rarely enter kids rooms.
Blow out "burglary gone wrong" on balance.
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=QMF9bzaVVY8C&pg=PA159&lpg=PA159&dq=%22sex+offender+%22burglar%22&source=bl&ots=Tg8xN5_KbL&sig=N_Gs7pUrVm7iLIqjVzwL2nGGOZM&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjzuIDd4ZDLAhWBYw8KHdlHD2sQ6AEINzAE#v=onepage&q=%22sex%20offender%20%22burglar%22&f=false
-
Can you stop being rude? You obviously just don't understand the point, so let me try again.
Sceptics have claimed that the McCanns wouldn't have staged an abduction during the night because they would have had no alibis. The same sceptics however claim that Gerry took time out from the group to move the corpse of his child, an event which must have taken at least 10 minutes if not more, time for which HE HAS NO ALIBI.
Therefore, either way NO ALIBI - but the first option at least gives them the opportunity not to have to hurry, and to set the stage far more convincingly.
I trust you can see the point I am making now. I can draw pictures if it helps.
And you ask me to stop being rude !
It is much easier to manufacture an alibi in a busy restaurant with all the coming and goings than when it is only you and your children at home.
-
So there's not a 3 minute window of opportunity at any point between 8.30pm and 10pm? Really??
Matt did a listening check so it's not before 9. Gerry arrives and the bedroom door has moved and Maddy is still asleep in the same position. Gerry's statement leads to somebody else in the apartment. Jane comes and sees a man carrying a child away close to the crime scene. What do you think the police would initially think? It leads to him removing Madeleine unless somebody is not telling the truth.
-
You said no parent left the vicinity. Two Tapas employees said a man left the restaurant for 30 minutes. It could have been the child's father. If so he had lots of time to do whatever he wished. Russell had Gerry gone for around 20-25 minutes, which fits in;
He recalls that Matthew Oldfield left the restaurant at shortly after 9pm to check the children. He is no longer sure who went out first, but five minutes later, Gerry McCann and his own partner, Jane, went out, almost at the same time, to check the children. Jane could have come back first because she found Gerry chatting with a person who is also a guest in the same place, named Jez. He thinks that Jane only checked their apartment, being worried about ****. Then Gerry came back at around 9.25/9.30 and they started to eat the first course.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RUSSELL-OBRIEN.htm
The other statement is from an analysis of who was where after the alarm was raised (by a UK police officer), His conclusion was that Kate, Dianne, Rachael and Jane's whereabouts were accounted for. Any of the others could have disappeared for a period of time had they so wished.
I've always found this statement especially interesting :
------- STARIKOVA VITORINO (Russian citizen, with the telephone No "96635 ####) - kitchen assistant:
- Said that, yesterday, one individual, purportedly the father of the missing, left the dinner table where a group of friends (in number 8 or 9), for about 30 minutes. After having returned, a woman whom she believed to be his wife, also left the table, there having passed a few moments, all the guests left the table in question, except one elderly lady, who told her [Svetlana's] colleagues that that child had disappeared.
- During the time that she was working yesterday (between 14:30 and 23:00) she did not see any individual with blonde "rastas".
--
-
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=QMF9bzaVVY8C&pg=PA159&lpg=PA159&dq=%22sex+offender+%22burglar%22&source=bl&ots=Tg8xN5_KbL&sig=N_Gs7pUrVm7iLIqjVzwL2nGGOZM&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjzuIDd4ZDLAhWBYw8KHdlHD2sQ6AEINzAE#v=onepage&q=%22sex%20offender%20%22burglar%22&f=false
Interesting. It covers burglars who opportunistically rape vulnerable women while the burglars are plying their trade but make no reference to the incidence of that sort of crime if at all. It also says they should be searched for as burglars not rapists. There is certainly no reference, to paraphrase mercury, to "going in to nick a plasma TV and coming out with a three year old child instead".
-
And you ask me to stop being rude !
It is much easier to manufacture an alibi in a busy restaurant with all the coming and goings than when it is only you and your children at home.
Is it? Manufacturing an alibi requires cooperation from others - are you suggesting he had it?
-
Matt did a listening check so it's not before 9. Gerry arrives and the bedroom door has moved and Maddy is still asleep in the same position. Gerry's statement leads to somebody else in the apartment. Jane comes and sees a man carrying a child away close to the crime scene. What do you think the police would initially think? It leads to him removing Madeleine unless somebody is not telling the truth.
Your posts are as clear as mud. Answer yes or no: was there a 3-5 minute window of opportunity when there was no member of the Tapas Group in the immediate vicinity of Apt 5 a at any point between 8.30pm and 10pm?
-
I've always found this statement especially interesting :
------- STARIKOVA VITORINO (Russian citizen, with the telephone No "96635 ####) - kitchen assistant:
- Said that, yesterday, one individual, purportedly the father of the missing, left the dinner table where a group of friends (in number 8 or 9), for about 30 minutes. After having returned, a woman whom she believed to be his wife, also left the table, there having passed a few moments, all the guests left the table in question, except one elderly lady, who told her [Svetlana's] colleagues that that child had disappeared.
- During the time that she was working yesterday (between 14:30 and 23:00) she did not see any individual with blonde "rastas".
--
Left the table at what time?
-
Your posts are as clear as mud. Answer yes or no: was there a 3-5 minute window of opportunity when there was no member of the Tapas Group in the immediate vicinity of Apt 5 a at any point between 8.30pm and 10pm?
Xcuse me, Miss....Sir, Yes there was.
-
Is it? Manufacturing an alibi requires cooperation from others - are you suggesting he had it?
I'm suggesting it's not beyond the realms of possibility.
-
I'm suggesting it's not beyond the realms of possibility.
And yet despite the fact you think it possible Gerry colluded with others to manufacture an alibi (laughable premise that it is on its own!) you also claim witnesses (including members of the tapas group) say he was absent from the table for 30 minutes, so NO ALBI. So - what went wrong? How did he allow himself to be seen absenting himself for 30 whole minutes with no one to give him a (manufactured) alibi (unless you count Jez Wilkins alibi or was that manufactured too?)
-
And yet despite the fact you think it possible Gerry colluded with others to manufacture an alibi (laughable premise that it is on its own!) you also claim witnesses (including members of the tapas group) say he was absent from the table for 30 minutes, so NO ALBI. So - what went wrong? How did he allow himself to be seen absenting himself for 30 whole minutes with no one to give him a (manufactured) alibi (unless you count Jez Wilkins alibi or was that manufactured too?)
I did not claim witnesses said he was absent, I posted a statement from an eye witness who said in that statement that 'the father' was missing for 30 minutes so please do not put words into my mouth.
-
Your posts are as clear as mud. Answer yes or no: was there a 3-5 minute window of opportunity when there was no member of the Tapas Group in the immediate vicinity of Apt 5 a at any point between 8.30pm and 10pm?
It didn't happen that way. Matt saw shutters closed around 9. Who opened them if you believe the McCanns version? My theory will be proven right if this case is solved.
-
I did not claim witnesses said he was absent, I posted a statement from an eye witness who said in that statement that 'the father' was missing for 30 minutes so please do not put words into my mouth.
what is the difference, pray tell?
-
It didn't happen that way. Matt saw shutters closed around 9. Who opened them if you believe the McCanns version? My theory will be proven right if this case is solved.
why are you simply unable to give a straigh answer? Don't tell me how it happened, unless you were there?
-
And yet despite the fact you think it possible Gerry colluded with others to manufacture an alibi (laughable premise that it is on its own!) you also claim witnesses (including members of the tapas group) say he was absent from the table for 30 minutes, so NO ALBI. So - what went wrong? How did he allow himself to be seen absenting himself for 30 whole minutes with no one to give him a (manufactured) alibi (unless you count Jez Wilkins alibi or was that manufactured too?)
Perhaps you could have another go at answering this Faithlilly?
-
why are you simply unable to give a straigh answer? Don't tell me how it happened, unless you were there?
When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable..............
All other possibilities have been investigated. They have found nothing because there's nothing there to find.
-
When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable..............
All other possibilities have been investigated. They have found nothing because there's nothing there to find.
The fact that you repeatedly refuse to answer my question tells me that there WAS a 3-5 minute opportunity for an abductor to strike, thank you
-
The fact that you repeatedly refuse to answer my question tells me that there WAS a 3-5 minute opportunity for an abductor to strike, thank you
That couldn't happen with 3 door moves and a later open window. Two had to be involved at different times.
-
That couldn't happen with 3 door moves and a later open window. Two had to be involved at different times.
Do you have physical proof of all the different angles the door was supposedly at?
-
Do you have physical proof of all the different angles the door was supposedly at?
A door doesn't move from ajar to half-open then back to ajar then back to half-open then to fully open by itself.
-
A door doesn't move from ajar to half-open then back to ajar then back to half-open then to fully open by itself.
Who said it kept moving? The man with the selective memory? He forgot all about it at first, then remembered it. He never noticed Russell's meal being sent back, he never heard the jokes about Jane 'relieving' him, never noticed Russell returning. Not a very reliable witness imo.
Nothing was said in the first statement except;
as everything was calm, the shutters were closed and the door to the bedroom was ajar as usual. "After that Matt returned to the restaurant."
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN.htm
By the 10th May he has remembered a moving door which he found strange;
bedroom door was not ajar as he had left it but half-way open, which he thought strange,
After MATHEW arrived and before KATE left, he does not recall if anyone else was absent, although it was very probable that such had happened.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN-10MAY.htm
-
Who said it kept moving? The man with the selective memory? He forgot all about it at first, then remembered it. He never noticed Russell's meal being sent back, he never heard the jokes about Jane 'relieving' him, never noticed Russell returning. Not a very reliable witness imo.
Nothing was said in the first statement except;
as everything was calm, the shutters were closed and the door to the bedroom was ajar as usual. "After that Matt returned to the restaurant."
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN.htm
By the 10th May he has remembered a moving door which he found strange;
bedroom door was not ajar as he had left it but half-way open, which he thought strange,
After MATHEW arrived and before KATE left, he does not recall if anyone else was absent, although it was very probable that such had happened.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN-10MAY.htm
They said it kept moving if you believe them 8(0(*
-
A door doesn't move from ajar to half-open then back to ajar then back to half-open then to fully open by itself.
did it ever occur to you that one person's ajar is another person's half-open?
-
did it ever occur to you that one person's ajar is another person's half-open?
Impossible ajar is ajar half-open is half-open. Have you seen their reconstruction with Gerry, Matt and Jane?
-
Impossible ajar is ajar half-open is half-open. Have you seen their reconstruction with Gerry, Matt and Jane?
@)(++(* OK answer me this at what precise angle does a door go from being ajar to being half open and then to being fully open? You seem to believe these are precise terms that would certainly have been used precisely by the witnesses, who all agreed on the precise definitions of the words.
-
@)(++(* OK answer me this at what precise angle does a door go from being ajar to being half open and then to being fully open? You seem to believe these are precise terms that would certainly have been used precisely by the witnesses, who all agreed on the precise definitions of the words.
That is irrelevant if it never moved. Matt said it was half-open and Gerry said it moved to half-open. Go figure.
"The question asked, he clarifies not having told MBM's parents the facts of having found the door half-open." MO
8)--))
"He followed the normal route up to the rear door, which being open he only had to move [slide] it, that being the way in which he entered [was entering] the lounge, he noted that the children's bedroom door was not ajar as he had left it but half-way open, which he thought strange." GM
"She noticed that the door to her children's bedroom was completely open." KM
-
That is irrelevant if it never moved. Matt said it was half-open and Gerry said it moved to half-open. Go figure.
"The question asked, he clarifies not having told MBM's parents the facts of having found the door half-open." MO
8)--))
"He followed the normal route up to the rear door, which being open he only had to move [slide] it, that being the way in which he entered [was entering] the lounge, he noted that the children's bedroom door was not ajar as he had left it but half-way open, which he thought strange." GM
"She noticed that the door to her children's bedroom was completely open." KM
This door thing is a monumental obsession for you isn't it?
-
This door thing is a monumental obsession for you isn't it?
You start your investigation at the crime scene. No evidence of an abductor only strange door moves and an open window.
-
The fact that you repeatedly refuse to answer my question tells me that there WAS a 3-5 minute opportunity for an abductor to strike, thank you
I would have thought you could have worked out whether or not there was time slot and its duration.
To say it exists because another poster refuses to answer a question is rather stretching credulity wouldn't you say ?
-
Impossible ajar is ajar half-open is half-open. Have you seen their reconstruction with Gerry, Matt and Jane?
Which at the time meant absolutely nothing to the people involved. The positioning of the door was retrospective when each gave an account of the scene as it had been at the time of their visit.
That is the sort of information an investigation considers from collating various eye witness testimonies in which individuals give an account of what they have seen.
-
You start your investigation at the crime scene. No evidence of an abductor only strange door moves and an open window.
But doesn't your theory say there were no door moves pathfinder?
Back to Slarti theory does the supposed abductor go out through the lounge door or the hall door?
-
But doesn't your theory say there were no door moves pathfinder?
Back to Slarti theory does the supposed abductor go out through the lounge door or the hall door?
It has to be the hall door. The Abductor wouldn't risk being seen carry a child in that street, and so close to The Ocean Club, Tapas Restaurant.
Getting in by the patio door when he was alone would have been very much easier.
-
It has to be the hall door. The Abductor wouldn't risk being seen carry a child in that street, and so close to The Ocean Club, Tapas Restaurant.
Getting in by the patio door when he was alone would have been very much easier.
If he goes in the patio door and out the wooden door that means the window is still shut
The theory is wrong because there is a reliable witness statement stating the window was found open.
-
If he goes in the patio door and out the wooden door that means the window is still shut
The theory is wrong because there is a reliable witness statement stating the window was found open.
There are several reasons for why the abductor would have opened the window.
-
There are several reasons for why the abductor would have opened the window.
Ah, MANTRA time.
The invisible man reappears. %#&%%5
-
I would have thought you could have worked out whether or not there was time slot and its duration.
To say it exists because another poster refuses to answer a question is rather stretching credulity wouldn't you say ?
I think you and I both know that there was a window of opportunity, I just wanted Pathfinder to be grown up enough to admit it, but obviously I was expecting too much.
-
It has to be the hall door. The Abductor wouldn't risk being seen carry a child in that street, and so close to The Ocean Club, Tapas Restaurant.
Getting in by the patio door when he was alone would have been very much easier.
That relies on...
It was really close
Being in back garden
Full view and hearing
All things to back up "responsible" parenting.
As it wasn't in easy view or within hearing distance of a noisy restaurant. The patio doors are the easiest exit.
-
I think you and I both know that there was a window of opportunity, I just wanted Pathfinder to be grown up enough to admit it, but obviously I was expecting too much.
There is always a window of opportunity but it doesn't fit with the facts.
-
I think you and I both know that there was a window of opportunity, I just wanted Pathfinder to be grown up enough to admit it, but obviously I was expecting too much.
In terms of lapsed time only there are two identifiable time slots. Ignoring any minor details like how long the job takes, where the bloke started and finished etc which involves what dear Donald R. would call the "known unknowns" and the "unknown unknowns", assuming always that everyone was telling the truth.
Now were I doing a reconstitution of this with the original participants an essential part of my kit would be a note book, measuring tapes and a stop watch.
-
In terms of lapsed time only there are two identifiable time slots. Ignoring any minor details like how long the job takes, where the bloke started and finished etc which involves what dear Donald R. would call the "known unknowns" and the "unknown unknowns", assuming always that everyone was telling the truth.
Now were I doing a reconstitution of this with the original participants an essential part of my kit would be a note book, measuring tapes and a stop watch.
Wouldn't forensic timeline software have those capabilities? There is forensic software that can show where and from what distance someone was shot and therefore the position of the victim at the time, so I really don't see why the police wouldn't have access to software examining a wide variety of timeline scenarios.
-
In terms of lapsed time only there are two identifiable time slots. Ignoring any minor details like how long the job takes, where the bloke started and finished etc which involves what dear Donald R. would call the "known unknowns" and the "unknown unknowns", assuming always that everyone was telling the truth.
Now were I doing a reconstitution of this with the original participants an essential part of my kit would be a note book, measuring tapes and a stop watch.
you forgot the magnifying glass and the deerstalker hat.
-
Wouldn't forensic timeline software have those capabilities? There is forensic software that can show where and from what distance someone was shot and therefore the position of the victim at the time, so I really don't see why the police wouldn't have access to software examining a wide variety of timeline scenarios.
I doubt it!
The instruction to each participant is "I want you to leave here follow the same the route you followed on the night repeat what you did at the other end then return here by the route you took on the night walking at as near as you can recall the same speed" 5-4-3-2-1- go. I would not even allow them a mobile phone or watch. We will then have a time for each event as performed by the participants measured in time span by us.
Once we have that info we can bung it in a computer to do the dross quickly. The objective is to test the statements and timelines given not use them as benchmarks.
-
you forgot the magnifying glass and the deerstalker hat.
I am more a "black brogues black wool socks with dark blue clocks them" sort of a detective
For those on here who do literature. 8(>((
-
There are several reasons for why the abductor would have opened the window.
So he goes in the patio door, opens the window, and goes out the wooden door?
-
Impossible ajar is ajar half-open is half-open. (snip)
If you fully open that bedroom door what angle is it at Pathfinder?
-
I doubt it!
The instruction to each participant is "I want you to leave here follow the same the route you followed on the night repeat what you did at the other end then return here by the route you took on the night walking at as near as you can recall the same speed" 5-4-3-2-1- go. I would not even allow them a mobile phone or watch. We will then have a time for each event as performed by the participants measured in time span by us.
Once we have that info we can bung it in a computer to do the dross quickly. The objective is to test the statements and timelines given not use them as benchmarks.
I can see how that might be of use in proving that someone was lying if you were trying to work out where someone had said that they were standing during a shoot-out, but not in this type of case.
ETA: This will end up as another "reconstruction" thread, which would be a shame.
-
So he goes in the patio door, opens the window, and goes out the wooden door?
I find that to be a possibility, although it makes less sense to me than someone attempting to disguise having a key (i.e., entering and exiting via the wooden front door).
-
I can see how that might be of use in proving that someone was lying if you were trying to work out where someone had said that they were standing during a shoot-out, but not in this type of case.
ETA: This will end up as another "reconstruction" thread, which would be a shame.
My proposition is that if one wants to find out what happened, forget names, forget anecdotes and forget blame.
Test it all and why simulate with assumed gen in a computer programme when you can measure the parameter on site?
"In every human endeavor, a critical component to our success is our ability to solve
problems. Unfortunately, we often set ourselves up to fail with our various problem solving
strategies and our inherent prejudices. We’ve typically relied on what we believe
to be common sense, storytelling, and categorizing to resolve our problems"
-
My proposition is that if one wants to find out what happened, forget names, forget anecdotes and forget blame.
Test it all and why simulate with assumed gen in a computer programme when you can measure the parameter on site?
"In every human endeavor, a critical component to our success is our ability to solve
problems. Unfortunately, we often set ourselves up to fail with our various problem solving
strategies and our inherent prejudices. We’ve typically relied on what we believe
to be common sense, storytelling, and categorizing to resolve our problems"
I understand that, and I don't have a problem with that in principle.
However....
Setting aside the Twilight Zone reconstruction in the Cipriano case:
- How are the T9 supposed to remember at what pace they walked one year later?
- What if someone orders them: "you walk more slowly" and "you walk faster"? (I doubt that Rebelo would have done that, but they weren't to know, were they?)
- JT / Jez / Gerry can't agree on where they were, so how do you work that out?
- How do you ascertain whether two men in deep conversation actually heard JT flip-flopping up the road or not?
- How do you reconstruct the precise lighting and wind conditions?
- How do you reconstruct where all the independent (non-group) witnesses were at the time so long later (including people who were primarily in the restaurant kitchen or serving other guests)?
-
I understand that, and I don't have a problem with that in principle.
However....
Setting aside the Twilight Zone reconstruction in the Cipriano case:
- How are the T9 supposed to remember at what pace they walked one year later?
- What if someone orders them: "you walk more slowly" and "you walk faster"? (I doubt that Rebelo would have done that, but they weren't to know, were they?)
- JT / Jez / Gerry can't agree on where they were, so how do you work that out?
- How do you ascertain whether two men in deep conversation actually heard JT flip-flopping up the road or not?
- How do you reconstruct the precise lighting and wind conditions?
- How do you reconstruct where all the independent (non-group) witnesses were at the time so long later (including people who were primarily in the restaurant kitchen or serving other guests)?
I'm sure Alice and his tape measure would be able to figure it all out, don't you worry about it.
-
I find that to be a possibility, although it makes less sense to me than someone attempting to disguise having a key (i.e., entering and exiting via the wooden front door).
So use key to go in wooden door, then open window, and go out wooden door ?
-
(snip) ....burglary gone wrong, and the issue of why not simply flee.
yes a burglar would flee the moment he looked into that room
-
I understand that, and I don't have a problem with that in principle.
However....
Setting aside the Twilight Zone reconstruction in the Cipriano case:Not relevant here. Clear prejudices
- How are the T9 supposed to remember at what pace they walked one year later?Did I walk normally did I dawdle did I rush? then go with the best recollection. It may be necessary to vary the speed
- What if someone orders them: "you walk more slowly" and "you walk faster"? (I doubt that Rebelo would have done that, but they weren't to know, were they?)eventually I probably would; I doubt I'd settle for one reading
- JT / Jez / Gerry can't agree on where they were, so how do you work that out?it is not relevant to what we are trying to establish here which is time related
- How do you ascertain whether two men in deep conversation actually heard JT flip-flopping up the road or not? see above
- How do you reconstruct the precise lighting and wind conditions?see above; but in answer to your question unless someone had recorded the precise light and wind readings at the location at the time you don't even know what they were. It would be a case of best informed guess
- How do you reconstruct where all the independent (non-group) witnesses were at the time so long later (including people who were primarily in the restaurant kitchen or serving other guests)?some will be irrelevant some will be accurate some will have to be best guess but as in this instance they are only required to comment on times relating to people leaving from and returning to a specific table their precise location is unlikely to have a major impact on the result
-
Known traffic in and around Apartment 5A between 9pm and 10pm - please fill in the gaps
9.00-9.05 Gerry McCann in apartment
9.05-9.10 - Gerry McCann in apartment (?)
9.10-9.15 - Gerry & Jez Wilkins outside apartment
9.15-9.20 - JT walks past Apartment
9.20-9.25
9.25-9.30
9.30-9.35 MO enters apartment
9.35-9.40
9.40-9.45
9.45-9.50
9.50-9.55
9.55-10.00 Kate Enters Apartment.
-
So use key to go in wooden door, then open window, and go out wooden door ?
If you wanted to disguise the fact that you had a key to the wooden (front) door, raising the shutter seems to be a plausible red herring.
-
Hard to separate all the points for the moment....
-
"Slarti's Simple Solution. ... Sees the McCanns leaving the apartment by the patio, knows it is unlocked. Waits until they gone into the tapas...."
so just after the parents arrived at tapas - and before 7 others walked past the apartment?
-
Hard to separate all the points for the moment....
yes for a moment I thought someone had stolen my "Things I Admire About Clarence" list.
-
so just after the parents arrived at tapas - and before 7 others walked past the apartment?
No - must have happened after 9pm, Gerry saw Madeleine on his visit of that time.
-
Known traffic in and around Apartment 5A between 9pm and 10pm - please fill in the gaps
9.00-9.05 Gerry McCann in apartment
9.05-9.10 - Gerry McCann in apartment (?)
9.10-9.15 - Gerry & Jez Wilkins outside apartment
9.15-9.20 - JT walks past Apartment
9.20-9.25 Jane's time said written timeline
9.25-9.30 Said Matthew
9.30-9.35 MO enters apartment
9.35-9.40 Jane to apartment
9.40-9.45
9.45-9.50 Russell back to restaurant 9.45
9.50-9.55
9.55-10.00 Kate Enters Apartment.
My additions in bold. Then we have the Moyes at some point. It would be interesting to set Jez Wilkins off at 8.30pm (without any way to tell the time) to follow the same route he followed on the night, including his stop off at the Tapas and his wanderings around various roads. Just to see what time he arrives back near the Tapas again.
-
Seems strange that Jez, in all his wandering around, never saw anyone other than Gerry. Suggests that there wasn't anyone else around to see.
-
Seems strange that Jez, in all his wandering around, never saw anyone other than Gerry. Suggests that there wasn't anyone else around to see.
Exactly so my theory will work.
-
My additions in bold. Then we have the Moyes at some point. It would be interesting to set Jez Wilkins off at 8.30pm (without any way to tell the time) to follow the same route he followed on the night, including his stop off at the Tapas and his wanderings around various roads. Just to see what time he arrives back near the Tapas again.
How on earth could he have been expected to remember where he wandered around with a sleepless baby nearlly a year later aside from the encounter with Gerry?
-
My additions in bold. Then we have the Moyes at some point. It would be interesting to set Jez Wilkins off at 8.30pm (without any way to tell the time) to follow the same route he followed on the night, including his stop off at the Tapas and his wanderings around various roads. Just to see what time he arrives back near the Tapas again.
I'd put JT back to apartment in the 9.40-9.45 slot. What does "said Matthew" mean? Can we attempt to fill in the time line without any snarky insinuations please.
-
@ Alice
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7067.msg311073#msg311073
It seems a bit pointless a year later.
-
Seems strange that Jez, in all his wandering around, never saw anyone other than Gerry. Suggests that there wasn't anyone else around to see.
Jez said he saw a couple from Block 6 on their way down town, probably for dinner. so they may have passed Block 5 on their way out.
-
I'd put JT back to apartment in the 9.40-9.45 slot. What does "said Matthew" mean? Can we attempt to fill in the time line without any snarky insinuations please.
Matthew said he went at 9.25pm in his statements on 4th and the 10th. In his rog he said 9.20-25pm. Russell, who went with him, said 9.35-40pm on 4th, but agreed with Matthew's time of 9.25pm in his other two statements.
-
My additions in bold. Then we have the Moyes at some point. It would be interesting to set Jez Wilkins off at 8.30pm (without any way to tell the time) to follow the same route he followed on the night, including his stop off at the Tapas and his wanderings around various roads. Just to see what time he arrives back near the Tapas again.
Then there is this version
9.00-9.05 Gerry McCann in apartment
9.05-9.10 - Gerry McCann in apartment (?)
9.10-9.15 - Gerry & Jez Wilkins outside apartment
9.15-9.20 - JT walks past Apartment .
9.20-9.25-Gerry returns to table
9.25-9.30-Ditto depending on who you wish to believe. By inference from statements Jane returns.
9.30-9.35 MO enters apartment. He walked up the road with Russell O’Brien.
9.35-9.40-MO returns to table.
9.40-9.45-Jane goes to her apartment to allow Russell to come back to eat.
9.45-9.50
9.50-9.55 -Russell O’Brien returns to table.
9.55-10.00 Kate Enters Apartment.
I am content there was the opportunity 21:20 to 21:30 and 21:45 to 21:50* (jeez but that's cool). Now how did he do it? Especially through which orifices did he enter and exit? and why?.From which direction did he enter and in which direction did he leg it?
* Dan Matthews call sign in Highway Patrol.
Sorry if this repeats your stuff but I have been dining!
-
@ Alice
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7067.msg311073#msg311073
It seems a bit pointless a year later.
Only if you believe finding out what happened is a waste of time.
-
Only if you believe finding out what happened is a waste of time.
I don't think anyone on here is going to find out what hapenned
-
I don't think anyone on here is going to find out what hapenned
Where did I say that someone on here would crack the case?
-
Only if you believe finding out what happened is a waste of time.
Of course I don't believe that finding out what happened is a waste of time. However, I don't see how getting a limited number of people present that night to jog / amble / stroll around with a couple of PJ officers with a measuring tape and a stop watch (and the world's media) is going to solve the mystery.
-
Jez said he saw a couple from Block 6 on their way down town, probably for dinner. so they may have passed Block 5 on their way out.
JW saw at least 6 people during this walk
-
Of course I don't believe that finding out what happened is a waste of time. However, I don't see how getting a limited number of people present that night to jog / amble / stroll around with a couple of PJ officers with a measuring tape and a stop watch (and the world's media) is going to solve the mystery.
Well putting it bluntly all the dicking about running up and down the road by T9 would be rather fundamental to establishing when there was an opportunity for an abductor to strike. As a minimum it should be put to a practical test.
-
Well putting it bluntly all the dicking about running up and down the road by T9 would be rather fundamental to establishing when there was an opportunity for an abductor to strike. As a minimum it should be put to a practical test.
What can't be done via virtual reconstruction software with the variables entered in? Why just the T9?
-
Then there is this version
9.00-9.05 Gerry McCann in apartment
9.05-9.10 - Gerry McCann in apartment (?)
9.10-9.15 - Gerry & Jez Wilkins outside apartment
9.15-9.20 - JT walks past Apartment .
9.20-9.25-Gerry returns to table
9.25-9.30-Ditto depending on who you wish to believe. By inference from statements Jane returns.
9.30-9.35 MO enters apartment. He walked up the road with Russell O’Brien.
9.35-9.40-MO returns to table.
9.40-9.45-Jane goes to her apartment to allow Russell to come back to eat.
9.45-9.50
9.50-9.55 -Russell O’Brien returns to table.
9.55-10.00 Kate Enters Apartment.
I am content there was the opportunity 21:20 to 21:30 and 21:45 to 21:50* (jeez but that's cool). Now how did he do it? Especially through which orifices did he enter and exit? and why?.From which direction did he enter and in which direction did he leg it?
* Dan Matthews call sign in Highway Patrol.
Sorry if this repeats your stuff but I have been dining!
That's a total of 15 minutes - a HUGE window of opportunity!!
-
Well putting it bluntly all the dicking about running up and down the road by T9 would be rather fundamental to establishing when there was an opportunity for an abductor to strike. As a minimum it should be put to a practical test.
Indeed, however this is all based on T9 account of a night where no physical checking was done. Therefor, we cannot go just by what they said. There is a huge window of opportunity since Maddie being seen alive by an independent witness until she is reported to have disappeared. HUGE WINDOW
-
That's a total of 15 minutes - a HUGE window of opportunity!!
Errr yes and no. Total 15 minutes in two slots. Are you proposing that to use the HUGE slot of 15 minutes he abducts half the child in one slot and the other half in the second slot ? You seem to be avoiding my questions however.
I bet you believe if a job needs 1000 manhours a thousand blokes will do it in one @)(++(*
-
Errr yes and no. Total 15 minutes in two slots. Are you proposing that to use the HUGE slot of 15 minutes he abducts half the child in one slot and the other half in the second slot ? You seem to be avoiding my questions however.
I bet you believe if a job needs 1000 manhours a thousand blokes will do it in one @)(++(*
...counting on fingers to add up that sum...
aha but he may have had a practice abduction, then put Maddie back in time for her father to check on her then abducted her a second time... you peepel do never to think inside a boxy thing.
-
Errr yes and no. Total 15 minutes in two slots. Are you proposing that to use the HUGE slot of 15 minutes he abducts half the child in one slot and the other half in the second slot ? You seem to be avoiding my questions however.
I bet you believe if a job needs 1000 manhours a thousand blokes will do it in one @)(++(*
No I'm not proposing that Mr Facetious. As for your questions I haven't got a clue, sorry.
-
What can't be done via virtual reconstruction software with the variables entered in? Why just the T9?
Because they were the main protagonists in the "train" ?
"The best solutions are often the most difficult to find, not
because they are hiding but because we don’t bother to look for them".
-
Because they were the main protagonists in the "train" ?
"The best solutions are often the most difficult to find, not
because they are hiding but because we don’t bother to look for them".
Sorry, I still don't get it.
You can use a stopwatch to observe the T9 re-enacting arriving at the Tapas restaurant and going back and forth over the course of the evening.
How are the T9 suppoed to remember how fast they were walking at the time? Not just a year later, but even later for all those who insist that a "reconstruction" would have reopened the case years later?
And a "reconstruction" timeline without any of the other witnesses, e.g., Tapas staff or other holidaymakers? How does that work?
What makes sense to me (although possibly not to others) is to see if the sequence makes sense and to establish whether there were indeed windows of opportunity for an abductor to have nipped in and out without anyone noticing. There were, but the timeline would never be able to narrow it down to a specific short gap given that people on holiday weren't using a stopwatch at the time. I don't see how a physical or virtual reconstruction would resolve that to within a couple of minutes.
If there had been NO windows of opportunity, then there would be some serious questions to answer.
-
Sorry, I still don't get it.
You can use a stopwatch to observe the T9 re-enacting arriving at the Tapas restaurant and going back and forth over the course of the evening.
How are the T9 suppoed to remember how fast they were walking at the time? Not just a year later, but even later for all those who insist that a "reconstruction" would have reopened the case years later?
And a "reconstruction" timeline without any of the other witnesses, e.g., Tapas staff or other holidaymakers? How does that work?
What makes sense to me (although possibly not to others) is to see if the sequence makes sense and to establish whether there were indeed windows of opportunity for an abductor to have nipped in and out without anyone noticing. There were, but the timeline would never be able to narrow it down to a specific short gap given that people on holiday weren't using a stopwatch at the time. I don't see how a physical or virtual reconstruction would resolve that to within a couple of minutes.
If there had been NO windows of opportunity, then there would be some serious questions to answer.
So you think your final paragraph is the reason they didn't do it?
-
Sorry, I still don't get it.
You can use a stopwatch to observe the T9 re-enacting arriving at the Tapas restaurant and going back and forth over the course of the evening.
How are the T9 suppoed to remember how fast they were walking at the time? Not just a year later, but even later for all those who insist that a "reconstruction" would have reopened the case years later?
And a "reconstruction" timeline without any of the other witnesses, e.g., Tapas staff or other holidaymakers? How does that work?
What makes sense to me (although possibly not to others) is to see if the sequence makes sense and to establish whether there were indeed windows of opportunity for an abductor to have nipped in and out without anyone noticing. There were, but the timeline would never be able to narrow it down to a specific short gap given that people on holiday weren't using a stopwatch at the time. I don't see how a physical or virtual reconstruction would resolve that to within a couple of minutes.
If there had been NO windows of opportunity, then there would be some serious questions to answer.
You say you don't get it then go right ahead and prove you do.
I don't think it's a case of just nip in though. He will be exposed ('scuse the expression) from the time he is within sight of OC reception until out of sight of it having done the job in between. I envisage him going in for neither split arse timing nor faffing about with windows and shutters.
Red bit:
Taking Jane Tanner as an example (note! not picking on her):
From given statements using earliest time and latest time, potentially she was away from the table for 20 minutes, left 21:10 returned 21:30, jumping a number for walking time there and back of about 2 1/2 to 3 minutes what was happening in the other 17 minutes and indeed was it 17 minutes because using latest time and earliest time it was only 5 minutes absence with the same walking time. The latter looks a bit thin because her daughter was ill but was it 5 or 17 who knows?
But a proper reconstitution might shed light on it.
-
You say you don't get it then go right ahead and prove you do.
I don't think it's a case of just nip in though. He will be exposed ('scuse the expression) from the time he is within sight of OC reception until out of sight of it having done the job in between. I envisage him going in for neither split arse timing nor faffing about with windows and shutters.
Red bit:
Taking Jane Tanner as an example (note! not picking on her):
From given statements using earliest time and latest time, potentially she was away from the table for 20 minutes, left 21:10 returned 21:30, jumping a number for walking time there and back of about 2 1/2 to 3 minutes what was happening in the other 17 minutes and indeed was it 17 minutes because using latest time and earliest time it was only 5 minutes absence with the same walking time. The latter looks a bit thin because her daughter was ill but was it 5 or 17 who knows?
But a proper reconstitution might shed light on it.
There was no mention of Jane not getting her food, so those times are maybe not right.
-
"Person A is around the OC, sees the McCanns leaving the apartment by the patio, knows it is unlocked. Waits until they gone into the tapas. Drive up to back entrance of 5a, nips into apartment, picks up Madeleine (if she wakes just tell her taking to Daddy), out to the car, drive off. Job done".
Discuss.
I cant see anything wrong with this except it ignores Jane Tanner and The Smiths.
It also ignores the fag ends found the morning after, on the balcony immediately opposite
And the multiple reports of someone watching the apartment.
It is a bit lean on detail, times, method of entry, why Madeleine etc.
But, no-one in his right mind would drive his car into the car park in front of the apartment then go in and steal a child with it standing outside. IMO.
-
That relies on...
It was really close
Being in back garden
Full view and hearing
All things to back up "responsible" parenting.
As it wasn't in easy view or within hearing distance of a noisy restaurant. The patio doors are the easiest exit.
It was an easy view . Slarti Have you been there and sat in that restaurant Slarti at a time that the bushes had just been cut back?
Cos I have.
It is like a back garden, which effectively it is, and it is amazingly cosy to have managed to fit everything in.
-
It was an easy view . Slarti Have you been there and sat in that restaurant Slarti at a time that the bushes had just been cut back?
Cos I have.
It is like a back garden, which effectively it is, and it is amazingly cosy to have managed to fit everything in.
No it isn't.
It was also dark.
-
No it isn't.
It was also dark.
Who was sitting facing the apartments? Not the McCanns.
1578 'And from where you were sat, what was your view like of the apartments''
Reply 'Erm well yeah I could see, I mean I could see the patio doors of ours and Gerry and Kates'.
1578 'How much of the patio doors''
Reply 'Erm well kind of the top half really'.
1578 'Okay'.
Reply "Yeah you know, I didn't get a full you know, you couldn't get a full view sort of right in, cos there were bushes, there were bushes and stuff there, erm'.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RACHAEL-OLDFIELD-ROGATORY.htm
-
Makes sense..occams razor and all that..
A further theory I believe should be considered, despite Kate's objections to this, is the woke and wandered one.
I don't see how it can be discounted, given that the doors were open, the child was nearly 4 and it was not unknown for her to wander around given Gerry said he thought she may have woke and gone through to the parents room. Why is it considered not possible for Maddie to wander out of the unlocked door searching for her parents?
Woke and wandered scenario, to me anyway, seems much more likely than an abductor breaking in. This could also include a abductor picking her up off the street or something, but I really think she might have been wandering around in the dark, been knocked over and the person who knocked her over hid the body for fear of prosecution.
-
Makes sense..occams razor and all that..
A further theory I believe should be considered, despite Kate's objections to this, is the woke and wandered one.
I don't see how it can be discounted, given that the doors were open, the child was nearly 4 and it was not unknown for her to wander around given Gerry said he thought she may have woke and gone through to the parents room. Why is it considered not possible for Maddie to wander out of the unlocked door searching for her parents?
Woke and wandered scenario, to me anyway, seems much more likely than an abductor breaking in. This could also include a abductor picking her up off the street or something, but I really think she might have been wandering around in the dark, been knocked over and the person who knocked her over hid the body for fear of prosecution.
who opened the window then?
-
who opened the window then?
Has it ever been confirmed that the window was actually open? From what I have read window/shutter has been broken, not broken, open, closed..and so on.
I just think woke and wandered, leading to kidnap/death in some way makes a lot of sense, especially given the lack of evidence of an intruder in the apartment.
The window thing has always confused me because if it was indeed open, why? The intruder would have came in via the patio doors so surekly out the same way (as it is expected they knew the McCanns left the kids and were watching, so would know the door was open...) and to get to the window would have been a struggle at night with the 2 cots in the room also.
-
I think we might have done this before, several times.
-
I think we might have done this before, several times.
Again sorry, but as I said a few posts back, I only started reading the forum again last night, and my first post was today. Are we not supposed to post anything until we have read every thread on the forum or something? As this is the second time on my first day of posting that something like this has been said :/
-
Again sorry, but as I said a few posts back, I only started reading the forum again last night, and my first post was today. Are we not supposed to post anything until we have read every thread on the forum or something? As this is the second time on my first day of posting that something like this has been said :/
Catching up might be a good idea, before we start expressing controversial opinions.
-
Catching up might be a good idea, before we start expressing controversial opinions.
Only 180,000 posts to read, should do it in zip time hey? Before expressing opinions,asking questions!
-
Only 180,000 posts to read, should do it in zip time hey? Before expressing opinions,asking questions!
Asking questions is fine. I'm all for that.
-
Asking questions is fine. I'm all for that.
Expressing opinions is also fine as long as they're within the rules of the forum controversial or not.
Btw welcome Vicky!
-
Not quite understanding why thats classed as a controversial opinion tbh, nor why its fine to ask questions but not to post before reading over the entire forum. Some odd rules you have here..it would take me months to read through everything that has been posted so far. even if I did read everything, my opinion would be the same I assume, so the same post would be made, just at a later date.
And thanks Mercury for the welcome 8(0(*
-
Not quite understanding why thats classed as a controversial opinion tbh, nor why its fine to ask questions but not to post before reading over the entire forum. Some odd rules you have here..it would take me months to read through everything that has been posted so far. even if I did read everything, my opinion would be the same I assume, so the same post would be made, just at a later date.
And thanks Mercury for the welcome 8(0(*
That's fine also. Express your opinions at a later date. Yes, we do have some odd rules. Best to learn those as well.
-
Not quite understanding why thats classed as a controversial opinion tbh, nor why its fine to ask questions but not to post before reading over the entire forum. Some odd rules you have here..it would take me months to read through everything that has been posted so far. even if I did read everything, my opinion would be the same I assume, so the same post would be made, just at a later date.
And thanks Mercury for the welcome 8(0(*
It's only controversial in the dictionary definition. We are all free to post according to the rules.
Welcome also.
-
Not quite understanding why thats classed as a controversial opinion tbh, nor why its fine to ask questions but not to post before reading over the entire forum. Some odd rules you have here..it would take me months to read through everything that has been posted so far. even if I did read everything, my opinion would be the same I assume, so the same post would be made, just at a later date.
And thanks Mercury for the welcome 8(0(*
You're welcome. It is not a forum rule that you have to read back posts before posting btw
Enjoy
-
Has it ever been confirmed that the window was actually open? From what I have read window/shutter has been broken, not broken, open, closed..and so on.
I just think woke and wandered, leading to kidnap/death in some way makes a lot of sense, especially given the lack of evidence of an intruder in the apartment.
The window thing has always confused me because if it was indeed open, why? The intruder would have came in via the patio doors so surekly out the same way (as it is expected they knew the McCanns left the kids and were watching, so would know the door was open...) and to get to the window would have been a struggle at night with the 2 cots in the room also.
either the window was opened by persons unknown or Kate lied. If Madeleine woke and wandered either ShE opened the window or Kate lied. So, which...?
-
Only 180,000 posts to read, should do it in zip time hey? Before expressing opinions,asking questions!
Assuming always one does not die of kin boredom reading all the repetitious stuff before reaching the end.
-
Makes sense..occams razor and all that..
A further theory I believe should be considered, despite Kate's objections to this, is the woke and wandered one.
I don't see how it can be discounted, given that the doors were open, the child was nearly 4 and it was not unknown for her to wander around given Gerry said he thought she may have woke and gone through to the parents room. Why is it considered not possible for Maddie to wander out of the unlocked door searching for her parents?
Woke and wandered scenario, to me anyway, seems much more likely than an abductor breaking in. This could also include a abductor picking her up off the street or something, but I really think she might have been wandering around in the dark, been knocked over and the person who knocked her over hid the body for fear of prosecution.
That is my own belief but the problem with it is this. If it is ever established that Maddie died because she was allowed to wander then her parents could well face renewed charges in the Portuguese equivalent of child neglect resulting in death.
-
Assuming always one does not die of kin boredom reading all the repetitious stuff before reaching the end.
Yes which makes it quite ironic attacking a newbie for repetitious stuff lol as if people who had already posted those 180k posts did much else than repetitious stuff
-
Again sorry, but as I said a few posts back, I only started reading the forum again last night, and my first post was today. Are we not supposed to post anything until we have read every thread on the forum or something? As this is the second time on my first day of posting that something like this has been said :/
you are free to post anything you like within the forum rules but as this case is 9 years old you should understand posters may not want to post at length on things that have been discussed many times
-
either the window was opened by persons unknown or Kate lied. If Madeleine woke and wandered either ShE opened the window or Kate lied. So, which...?
Kate lied, I suspect. I do not know why. Same as I don't know why the story of firstly using a key.. which transformed into no key but entering via unlocked door..came about. But thats a lie somewhere along the line, not just a mistake.
I see no reason why Madeleine would open the window. Don't even know if she could as some of those blind things are difficult even for an adult.
-
you are free to post anything you like within the forum rules but as this case is 9 years old you should understand posters may not want to post at length on things that have been discussed many times
They can always move away from the keyboard.
-
They can always move away from the keyboard.
you are making no sense as usual
-
you are making no sense as usual
Or else you have failed to understand the simplest of posts
-
Or else you have failed to understand the simplest of posts
then explain it to me in the context of my post...you will not be able to so perhaps you should step away from the keyboard
-
They can always move away from the keyboard.
same to you...can you explain what you mean in the context of my post or perhaps you should step away from the keyboard
-
same to you...can you explain what you mean in the context of my post or perhaps you should step away from the keyboard
You are a wit.
-
It would be super'helpful to new posters if all those 10000+ superfluous posts saying "no evidence of abduction"
could be removed before suggesting a complete catch-up.
-
then explain it to me in the context of my post...you will not be able to so perhaps you should step away from the keyboard
Jesus this so laborious but I'm a charitable person
You posted posters may not want to post on things already discussed ..Slartibartfast posted, they could move away from keyboard...that's it!!!
Total sense
-
Kate lied, I suspect. I do not know why. Same as I don't know why the story of firstly using a key.. which transformed into no key but entering via unlocked door..came about. But thats a lie somewhere along the line, not just a mistake.
I see no reason why Madeleine would open the window. Don't even know if she could as some of those blind things are difficult even for an adult.
Incredible. You seem to be moving further away from Occam's Razor with every post you make!
-
Not quite understanding why thats classed as a controversial opinion tbh, nor why its fine to ask questions but not to post before reading over the entire forum. Some odd rules you have here..it would take me months to read through everything that has been posted so far. even if I did read everything, my opinion would be the same I assume, so the same post would be made, just at a later date.
And thanks Mercury for the welcome 8(0(*
Welcome Vicky.
I guess by now you have figured out it don't take too long to run the tape over a lot of 'em here 8(>((
-
It would be super'helpful to new posters if all those 10000+ superfluous posts saying "no evidence of abduction"
could be removed before suggesting a complete catch-up.
Did you count them? Tut tut, I'm sure there are 10000 or more that canbe ignored with other themes!!!
-
Incredible. You seem to be moving further away from Occam's Razor with every post you make!
By suggesting that Kate lied about something? Is that really such a leap, given the key/unlocked door scenario which proves random lies did occur?
-
Jesus this so laborious but I'm a charitable person
You posted posters may not want to post on things already discussed ..Slartibartfast posted, they could move away from keyboard...that's it!!!
Total sense
nonsense
perhaps you should read the post again and comment on what I actually said rather than what you think I said
-
By suggesting that Kate lied about something? Is that really such a leap, given the key/unlocked door scenario which proves random lies did occur?
I dont believe kate lied to the police...but we have been through this a million times before
-
Great. We don't need to agree on everything :)
-
By suggesting that Kate lied about something? Is that really such a leap, given the key/unlocked door scenario which proves random lies did occur?
Random lies to what end, if the child woke and wandered?
-
You get back to your apartment and discover a child is missing from their bed. It's obvious to you that they probably woke up and wandered out to look for you, so you immediately decide to stage an abduction because...?
-
nonsense
perhaps you should read the post again and comment on what I actually said rather than what you think I said
I didnt have to think at all.....it was perfectly clear....perhaps you should retread what you said and what the reply was which makes total sense
YOU:
you are free to post anything you like within the forum rules but as this case is 9 years old you should understand posters may not want to post at length on things that have been discussed many times
SLARTIBARTFAST:
They can always move away from the keyboard.
To which you replied that as usual Slartibartfast made no sense
-
I ding have to think at all.....it was perfectly clear....perhaps you should retread what you said and what the reply was which makes total sense
YOU:
you are free to post anything you like within the forum rules but as this case is 9 years old you should understand posters may not want to post at length on things that have been discussed many times
SLARTIBARTFAST:
They can always move away from the keyboard.
To which you replied that as usual Slartibartfast made no sense
anyway soooo bored with this crap! It's plain to see you have comprehension problems
you posted.... posters may not want to post on things already discussed ..Slartibartfast posted, they could move away from keyboard...that's it!!!
it is a little subtle for someone such as you........I never said posters may not want to post.....I said posters may not want to post at length....perhaps you should not comment on my posts if you are unable to read them properly
-
You get back to your apartment and discover a child is missing from their bed. It's obvious to you that they probably woke up and wandered out to look for you, so you immediately decide to stage an abduction because...?
Absolutely no idea. A lot of things don't make sense no matter which angle you play it from. Intruder inside, woke and wandered, any other theory...why would Gerry lie about using a key to enter the apartment? There seems to be no reasoning for a fair few things which is why there is so much confusion in it all.
Woke and wandered seems to be the theory with the least 'wtf' parts, to me anyway..which is why I favour that one to others.
-
The beautiful thing about the english language is that it has precision....but once you start misquoting people by missing out words the meaning can change......I can't stand sloppiness
-
Absolutely no idea. A lot of things don't make sense no matter which angle you play it from. Intruder inside, woke and wandered, any other theory...why would Gerry lie about using a key to enter the apartment? There seems to be no reasoning for a fair few things which is why there is so much confusion in it all.
Woke and wandered seems to be the theory with the least 'wtf' parts, to me anyway..which is why I favour that one to others.
Gerry never lied
-
you posted.... posters may not want to post on things already discussed ..Slartibartfast posted, they could move away from keyboard...that's it!!!
it is a little subtle for someone such as you........I never said posters may not want to post.....I said posters may not want to post at length....perhaps you should not comment on my posts if you are unable to read them properly
Stop squirming and attacking me and my intelligence and continuing with ad homs instead of sticking with facts and man up...that simple enough for you to understand
-
Absolutely no idea. A lot of things don't make sense no matter which angle you play it from. Intruder inside, woke and wandered, any other theory...why would Gerry lie about using a key to enter the apartment? There seems to be no reasoning for a fair few things which is why there is so much confusion in it all.
Woke and wandered seems to be the theory with the least 'wtf' parts, to me anyway..which is why I favour that one to others.
You're over-complicating things. This is why neither parental involvement or woke and wandered theories work. The simple and overwhelmingly obvious solution is Slarti's, well done Slarti!
-
The beautiful thing about the english language is that it has precision....but once you start misquoting people by missing out words the meaning can change......I can't stand sloppiness
It is rarely sloppiness, and often quite deliberate.
-
Stop squirming and man up
I choose my words carefully and know exactly what I have said...your reading of my posts is extremely sloppy as is your attention to detail...
you have misquoted me...that is a fact for all to see
-
You're over-complicating things. This is why neither parental involvement or woke and wandered theories work. The simple and overwhelmingly obvious solution is Slarti's, well done Slarti!
Do remind the forum why woke and wondered doesn't work
-
It is rarely sloppiness, and often quite deliberate.
And used by all sorts
-
It is rarely sloppiness, and often quite deliberate.
I agree, some poster are very deliberate in the words they use versus the message they want to impart, then retreat behind the individual words when challenged.
-
the point I am making...on which we may all agree ...is that we have had thousands of posts on some topics and whilst we may be happy to state our beliefs some posters may not want to post AT LENGTH...and have another 10,000 posts on the dogs...
I have had to increase the size of the font so posters can understand exactly what I am saying
-
I agree, some poster are very deliberate in the words they use versus the message they want to impart, then retreat behind the individual words when challenged.
any inference by you on the message you IMAGINE I wish to impart is totally your opinion...don't state it as fact
-
any inference by you on the message you IMAGINE I wish to impart is totally your opinion...don't state it as fact
I don't recall mentioning you?
-
the point I am making...on which we may all agree ...is that we have had thousands of posts on some topics and whilst we may be happy to state our beliefs some posters may not want to post AT LENGTH...and have another 10,000 posts on the dogs
Which doesn't give you and others including a mod the right to bully a new poster head on...despicable
-
I don't recall mentioning you?
you don't have to it is obvious to whom you are directing your post
-
you don't have to it is obvious to whom you are directing your post
Why?
-
Gerry never lied
So he entered the front door using a key. And also entered the unlocked patio door without a key. One of these must be wrong and he has stated both. Unless we are assuming he entered with his key, left and locked the door, then came back in via the unlocked patio for some strange reason?
-
Which doesn't give you and others including a mod the right to bully a new poster head on...despicable
I am not bullying anyone...I have the right to post within forum rules as does anyone else
-
So he entered the front door using a key. And also entered the unlocked patio door without a key. One of these must be wrong and he has stated both. Unless we are assuming he entered with his key, left and locked the door, then came back in via the unlocked patio for some strange reason?
neither of these are direct quotes by Gerry but twice translated non verbatim records of what Gerry is supposed to have said
-
I don't recall mentioning you?
Nope. You certainly never did. Snort.
-
Do remind the forum why woke and wondered doesn't work
Read up. ^^^
-
Which doesn't give you and others including a mod the right to bully a new poster head on...despicable
Oh My. Has Slarti been bullying a new poster? I must have missed that.
-
I choose my words carefully and know exactly what I have said...your reading of my posts is extremely sloppy as is your attention to detail...
you have misquoted me...that is a fact for all to see
Which part of my post 209 was sloppy...you seriously are in A hiding to nowhere
-
Which doesn't give you and others including a mod the right to bully a new poster head on...despicable
does make a change of old posters being bullied by a mod...remember those days I was bannned for days on end
-
Oh My. Has Slarti been bullying a new poster? I must have missed that.
No dear that was you davel and Alfred, terrible behaviour at best
-
Which part of my post 209 was sloppy...you seriously are in A hiding to nowhere
I have pointed it out once...very clearly...
you think In said... post.... whereas I actually said...post at length...if you do not understand the difference you have comprehension problems and its best you leave it there
-
Which doesn't give you and others including a mod the right to bully a new poster head on...despicable
Indeed Mercury and welcome Vicky.
-
I have pointed it out once...very clearly...
you think In said... post.... whereas I actually said...post at length...if you do not understand the difference you have comprehension problems and its best you leave it there
Vicky didn't ask Anyone to post AT LENGTH lol
Get over it you tried to subdue her posting...dang!
She was a new poster and the usual suspects including you didn't like what she posted so you BULLIED HER and admin has been informed
-
Vicky didn't ask Anyone to post AT LENGTH lol
Get over it you tried to subdue her posting...dang!
She was a new poster and the usual suspects including you didn't like what she posted so you BULLIED HER and admin has been informed
now you are making no sense at all....
-
now you are making no sense at all....
pathetic
I Sam k my own wrists for breaking my own code...don't talk to the idiot davel....
-
pathetic
I Sam k my own wrists for breaking my own code...don't talk to the idiot davel....
and now you are making less sense...but you did talk to davel...and made an absolute fool of yourself
-
pathetic
I Sam k my own wrists for breaking my own code...don't talk to the idiot davel....
Que?
-
Que?
"smacked" is the best translation, I think.
-
and now you are making less sense...but you did talk to davel...and made an absolute fool of yourself
I talk to "davel" when he lies
the text was slap my own wrists for talking to you.....a worthless and
Point less exercise for anyone at all.....whose views and opinions you disagree with....
-
"smacked" is the best translation, I think.
yes..it can be difficult to type when you are totally pissed
-
I talk to "davel" when he lies
the text was slap my own wrists for talking to you.....a worthless and
Point less exercise for anyone at all.....whose views and opinions you disagree with....
you have made a total idiot of yourself...as usual
-
you have made a total idiot of yourself...as usual
I wonder why some people are so deluded
the only person whose made a long idiot of themselves here is you by denying you said something when you actually said it lol..what a joke you have become
-
neither of these are direct quotes by Gerry but twice translated non verbatim records of what Gerry is supposed to have said
Here is an early document which is completely free of translation errors, it is the original English typed by the T9.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P4/04_VOLUME_IVa_Page_887.jpg
"21:05: GM ... enters the flat via the patio door"
-
I wonder why some people are so deluded
the only person whose made a long idiot of themselves here is you by denying you said something when you actually said it lol..what a joke you have become
whatever
-
"smacked" is the best translation, I think.
Thanks. I do need help sometimes.
-
whatever
Thanks for the admission
-
Here is an early document which is completely free of translation errors, it is the original English typed by the T9.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P4/04_VOLUME_IVa_Page_887.jpg
"21:05: GM ... enters the flat via the patio door"
It may be error free but as it is a collaboration it is of no evidential value.
-
yes..it can be difficult to type when you are totally pissed
breaking forum rules again are we? Ad hom attacks like your disgusting one against g unit today
And forgetting attack the post not the poster? What a thoroughly poor disgraced poster you are?..I hope the forum can cement my options on ignore his poster....you are a total disgrace
-
Okay. Enough of the fun. Let's all go to bed before we fall over.
-
pathetic
I Sam k my own wrists for breaking my own code...don't talk to the idiot davel....
your post...but it was 30 mns ago so you have probably forgotten
-
Okay. Enough of the fun. Let's all go to bed before we fall over.
Do your job then
-
your post...but it was 30 mns ago so you have probably forgotten
Ever thought of getting a hobby
-
Here's another variation: Enter via wooden door using key, leave via wooden door, walk west
-
Do your job then
What job is that?
-
Here's another variation: Enter via wooden door using key, leave via wooden door, walk west
Turn into stairwell, go up to first floor, then into 5J.....
-
It may be error free but as it is a collaboration it is of no evidential value.
It' a strong indication that when it was typed (c May 7th/8th imo), all 9 of the T9 believed that at 21:05 GM entered via the patio door. http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P4/04_VOLUME_IVa_Page_887.jpg
-
Here's another variation: Enter via wooden door using key, leave via wooden door, walk west
Sorry. no one is being very sensible at the moment.
Do you mean walk to that rather large road to the left? I have considered that, but a bit too busy, I thought.
-
What job is that?
Well I'm not privy to your job description but I'm sure it doesn't involve not welcoming newbies or bullying them or sticking up for people who do or pretending to be the pope...ask admin, they hired you against a massiveNO..their problem
-
Turn into stairwell, go up to first floor, then into 5J.....
Hadn't thought of that Misty, I was thinking walk west up steps to 4 carpark, then out 4 carpark to street?
-
Sorry. no one is being very sensible at the moment.
Do you mean walk to that rather large road to the left? I have considered that, but a bit too busy, I thought.
I meant walk length of 3 carpark, up steps to 4 carpark, out main exit of 4 carpark to street, continue west, cross over Rua 1 Maio, onto Rua Escola.
-
Well I'm not privy to your job description but I'm sure it doesn't involve not welcoming newbies or bullying them or sticking up for people who do or pretending to be the pope...ask admin, they hired you against a massiveNO..their problem
I am not actually employed, believe it or not. I do this for laughs. Or at least I try to find it amusing most of the time. Especially when you kick off late at night. And what fun you can be, albeit probably not intentionally.
-
I meant walk length of 3 carpark, up steps to 4 carpark, out main exit of 4 carpark to street, continue west, cross over Rua 1 Maio, onto Rua Escola.
And then where? A car?
-
I am not actually employed, believe it or not. I do this for laughs. Or at least I try to find it amusing most of the time. Especially when you kick off late at night. And what fun you can be, albeit probably not intentionally.
Let John and admit know you moderate for laughs then
-
Turn into stairwell, go up to first floor, then into 5J.....
... wouldn't it be difficult later to leave there unseen?
-
Let John and admit know you moderate for laughs then
Did you mean John and Admin? They already know that one needs a sense of humour to cope with this.
-
Hadn't thought of that Misty, I was thinking walk west up steps to 4 carpark, then out 4 carpark to street?
Always a possibility - maybe even a car parked outside Block 4.
It would have needed a lot of luck not to be spotted by anyone. 9.58pm was the time the lady & her partner visiting Block 6 left in their car. Would they have seen anyone at that time as they travelled along the road? http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARIA-M-M-DE-SILVA.htm
-
Always a possibility - maybe even a car parked outside Block 4.
It would have needed a lot of luck not to be spotted by anyone. 9.58pm was the time the lady & her partner visiting Block 6 left in their car. Would they have seen anyone at that time as they travelled along the road? http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARIA-M-M-DE-SILVA.htm
From the carpark on south side of 6, they turned right, then turned left at T, so they drove past 5 carpark and 4 carpark.
-
... wouldn't it be difficult later to leave there unseen?
It would have provided an opportunity for proper concealment of a child. Possibly change her clothes.
There would be no more difficulty to leave unseen from there than there was in Madeleine disappearing in the first place. People were later looking for a child or a person with a child, not a man or woman leaving in a car/van carrying a case.
-
From the carpark on south side of 6, they turned right, then turned left at T, so they drove past 5 carpark and 4 carpark.
As an aside, here are some photos you may find interesting, if you haven't already seen them.
http://www.ocean-country.com/property-for-sale/apartment-lagos-praia-da-luz/51
-
It would have provided an opportunity for proper concealment of a child. Possibly change her clothes.
There would be no more difficulty to leave unseen from there than there was in Madeleine disappearing in the first place. People were later looking for a child or a person with a child, not a man or woman leaving in a car/van carrying a case.
Yes no-one was looking for someone carrying a case. But would look unusual in middle of night.
-
Yes no-one was looking for someone carrying a case. But would look unusual in middle of night.
Why did it have to be the middle of the night? If Madeleine was taken at 9.15pm there was a whole hour or more before the place got busy.
-
As an aside, here are some photos you may find interesting, if you haven't already seen them.
http://www.ocean-country.com/property-for-sale/apartment-lagos-praia-da-luz/51
Good photos, thanks misty.
But I think rather old because the Tapas restaurant was bigger than that when we first went in 2010 and photos from within the restaurant show that it was much bigger in 2007 as well.
Is that the interior of number 5F ? Nicer than 5A.
-
Good photos, thanks misty.
But I think rather old because the Tapas restaurant was bigger than that when we first went in 2010 and photos from within the restaurant show that it was much bigger in 2007 as well.
Is that the interior of number 5F ? Nicer than 5A.
I think it's 4F, Sadie.
The internal layout is interesting with the 2nd bathroom.
-
I remain convinced that the man Jane Tanner saw was the abductor. There is no way in which anyone would have been coming from the Night Creche from that direction. It just isn't possible.
I don't know why Andy Redwood even thought this, although just perhaps he was trying to confuse the real abductor. But I don't believe that either.
Maybe he didn't have the knowledge that we have, although God forbid that he was that ignorant.
I don't have a problem with the abductor walking around Luz for three quarters of an hour. That can be explained far more easily than some person carrying his own child across his arms and coming from the wrong direction.
-
That is my own belief but the problem with it is this. If it is ever established that Maddie died because she was allowed to wander then her parents could well face renewed charges in the Portuguese equivalent of child neglect resulting in death.
There is the issue of intent in PT law, though.
-
Kate lied, I suspect. I do not know why. Same as I don't know why the story of firstly using a key.. which transformed into no key but entering via unlocked door..came about. But thats a lie somewhere along the line, not just a mistake.
I see no reason why Madeleine would open the window. Don't even know if she could as some of those blind things are difficult even for an adult.
The witness statements are simply a summary of what the officer noted. Gerry was the first to be interviewed. There would have had to have been a general explanation of the layout of the apartment. The front door required a key, but the back (patio) door didn't. A simple mix-up over what constituted front and back could explain the confusion without anyone lying. It was clarified the next time he was interviewed.
-
Seems strange that Jez, in all his wandering around, never saw anyone other than Gerry. Suggests that there wasn't anyone else around to see.
Rasta man?
-
So he entered the front door using a key. And also entered the unlocked patio door without a key. One of these must be wrong and he has stated both. Unless we are assuming he entered with his key, left and locked the door, then came back in via the unlocked patio for some strange reason?
The simplest explanation is an initial confusion over which door was the front and which the back one. Only one required a key.
-
The simplest explanation is an initial confusion over which door was the front and which the back one. Only one required a key.
No confusion over which door he meant, though - the one that needed a key.
-
No confusion over which door he meant, though - the one that needed a key.
Gerry was the first witness that morning. There is no indication that the officer taking notes had a clue about the layout of the flat. There would (or should) have been some initial discussion in order to understand the situation. The person they got to interpret wouldn't have had a clue either. The interpreter and / or officer may well have scribbled notes on paper and all it takes is a mistake in confusing the front and rear entrances and hey presto you have Gerry entering via the long way around with a key.
If the officer had stopped to think about it, he could have asked why Gerry would have taken the longer route to go in, then gone out via the patio, and the matter could have been clarified straight away.
The initial statements were hardly in depth - at that stage, there was a rush to conduct as many interviews as fast as possible.
-
Gerry was the first witness that morning. There is no indication that the officer taking notes had a clue about the layout of the flat. There would (or should) have been some initial discussion in order to understand the situation. The person they got to interpret wouldn't have had a clue either. The interpreter and / or officer may well have scribbled notes on paper and all it takes is a mistake in confusing the front and rear entrances and hey presto you have Gerry entering via the long way around with a key.
If the officer had stopped to think about it, he could have asked why Gerry would have taken the longer route to go in, then gone out via the patio, and the matter could have been clarified straight away.
The initial statements were hardly in depth - at that stage, there was a rush to conduct as many interviews as fast as possible.
And equally may have made concise notes.
-
And equally may have made concise notes.
Why do you think Gerry would have lied?
-
Why do you think Gerry would have lied?
Who said he lied? Poor man must have been confused, what with all that was going on.
-
Who said he lied? Poor man must have been confused, what with all that was going on.
Very confused................... %&5%£
-
Who said he lied? Poor man must have been confused, what with all that was going on.
It's not impossible that Gerry himself was the source of confusion, but I find that less likely than the interpreter / officer getting muddled.
Some are convinced that he lied (possibly not you).
I see no reason for him to have lied. It's not as if he was trying to make the flat sound more secure than it was when in the same statement he said that he went out via the patio door.
-
If Gerry had gone in via the front door - he would have had to explain to the PJ why on earth he would decide to walk past the patio doors only a few yards away and take the much longer way round - especially if he needed the loo,
He'd already said the patio doors were unlocked - so why would he make such a ridiculous claim - for which IMO no sensible explanation exists. If the PJ officer interviewing him had picked up on that at the time - and asked Gerry why he went the long way round then IMO it would all have been cleared up there and then.
The previous confusion caused by some people describing the patio doors as the 'front door' and the door overlooking the car park as the 'back door' was mentioned by the police officer interviewing JT. Therefore it was decided to call the patio doors the 'poolside door' and the wooden door the 'roadside door' to avoid any further similar confusion.
It may be true that Gerry did say he came in by the 'front door' - but he was referring to the patio doors - but the PJ officer interviewing him didn't realise that during that first interview. (understandable IMO)
If there was anything suspicious or unusual in the reason Gerry gave for correcting his statement - then surely that reason would have been recorded in the second statement.
AIMO
-
If Gerry had gone in via the front door - he would have had to explain to the PJ why on earth he would decide to walk past the patio doors only a few yards away and take the much longer way round - especially if he needed the loo,
He'd already said the patio doors were unlocked - so why would he make such a ridiculous claim - for which IMO no sensible explanation exists. If the PJ officer interviewing him had picked up on that at the time - and asked Gerry why he went the long way round then IMO it would all have been cleared up there and then.
The previous confusion caused by some people describing the patio doors as the 'front door' and the door overlooking the car park as the 'back door' was mentioned by the police officer interviewing JT. Therefore it was decided to call the patio doors the 'poolside door' and the wooden door the 'roadside door' to avoid any further similar confusion.
It may be true that Gerry did say he came in by the 'front door' - but he was referring to the patio doors - but the PJ officer interviewing him didn't realise that during that first interview. (understandable IMO)
If there was anything suspicious or unusual in the reason Gerry gave for correcting his statement - then surely that reason would have been recorded in the second statement.
AIMO
I think it's perfectly clear. The key was mentioned twice on 4th; there was no key for the patio doors. The PJ questioned him on 10th about changing which door he had used and he accepted that he had changed it;
In this way, at about 21.05 the witness came to the Club, entered the room using his respective key, the door being locked,
At about 22.00 it was his wife Kate who went to check on the children. She entered the apartment by the door using the key
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN.htm
Despite what he said in his previous statements, he states now and with certainty, that he left with KATE by the rear door which he consequently closed but did not lock given that that is only possible from the inside. Referring to the front door, while he is certain that it was closed it is unlikely that it was locked as [because] they had left by the rear door.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN-10MAY.htm
-
I think it's perfectly clear. The key was mentioned twice on 4th; there was no key for the patio doors. The PJ questioned him on 10th about changing which door he had used and he accepted that he had changed it;
In this way, at about 21.05 the witness came to the Club, entered the room using his respective key, the door being locked,
At about 22.00 it was his wife Kate who went to check on the children. She entered the apartment by the door using the key
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN.htm
Despite what he said in his previous statements, he states now and with certainty, that he left with KATE by the rear door which he consequently closed but did not lock given that that is only possible from the inside. Referring to the front door, while he is certain that it was closed it is unlikely that it was locked as [because] they had left by the rear door.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN-10MAY.htm
Previous statements (plural?)
There was only one prior to that.
Is a PJ officer likely to state that there had been a misunderstanding by him/her self or another colleague in the initial one?
-
Previous statements (plural?)
There was only one prior to that.
Is a PJ officer likely to state that there had been a misunderstanding by him/her self or another colleague in the initial one?
Is Gerry likely to sign a statement which admits it was his mistake if it wasn't ?
-
Previous statements (plural?)
There was only one prior to that.
Is a PJ officer likely to state that there had been a misunderstanding by him/her self or another colleague in the initial one?
Official and unofficial statements perhaps. Blame the PJ? They sure have a lot to answer for according to some. @)(++(*
-
Is Gerry likely to sign a statement which admits it was his mistake if it wasn't ?
Have you found anything that would indicate that the non-Portuguese readers were able to read through a written statement in their native language?
I haven't.
-
As a trained medic, Gerry doesn't seem the sort who would put his signature to something he didn't understand.
-
As a trained medic, Gerry doesn't seem the sort who would put his signature to something he didn't understand.
He and the PJ wanted to get the ball rolling to help find his missing daughter.
This isn't about signing off a written cardiovascular report by a colleague in a hospital context in a language that he was able to review.
-
Previous statements (plural?)
There was only one prior to that.
Is a PJ officer likely to state that there had been a misunderstanding by him/her self or another colleague in the initial one?
How does someone who is bilingual misunderstand opening a locked door with a key when entered via an unlocked door was supposedly said? Where did they pluck the word key from ? Aren't you in danger of blaming the police /translators for every witness statement inconsistency? IMO there's two options...he lied or he was confused
-
I remain convinced that the man Jane Tanner saw was the abductor. There is no way in which anyone would have been coming from the Night Creche from that direction. It just isn't possible.
I don't know why Andy Redwood even thought this, although just perhaps he was trying to confuse the real abductor. But I don't believe that either.
Maybe he didn't have the knowledge that we have, although God forbid that he was that ignorant.
I don't have a problem with the abductor walking around Luz for three quarters of an hour. That can be explained far more easily than some person carrying his own child across his arms and coming from the wrong direction.
There is no doubt in my mind either that if the abductor was seen ... he was the man seen by Jane Tanner.
He was seen at the relevant time in the relevant place from where a child was abducted.
If a plasma screen had been stolen and a man had been seen carrying one just outside the place it had been stolen from ... what deduction would the police be expected to make if a witness told them about seeing him?
At the least he would have to be traced and interviewed to eliminate him as the thief.
-
I think it's perfectly clear. The key was mentioned twice on 4th; there was no key for the patio doors. The PJ questioned him on 10th about changing which door he had used and he accepted that he had changed it;
In this way, at about 21.05 the witness came to the Club, entered the room using his respective key, the door being locked,
At about 22.00 it was his wife Kate who went to check on the children. She entered the apartment by the door using the key
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN.htm
Despite what he said in his previous statements, he states now and with certainty, that he left with KATE by the rear door which he consequently closed but did not lock given that that is only possible from the inside. Referring to the front door, while he is certain that it was closed it is unlikely that it was locked as [because] they had left by the rear door.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN-10MAY.htm
Pure speculation on my part G but IMO as two doors were being discussed - the interviewing officer - purely for his own benefit -and for reasons of clarification - may have distinguished between the doors by making reference to a key himself - whenever he thought it was the wooden front door (that had a key) that was being mentioned.
Unless someone can come up with a believable reason why Gerry would say he went in by the roadside door - when that is soooooo inexplicable - then IMO it can only be confusion over which door was which that caused the statement to be incorrect.
We know from the UK officer interviewing JT that there was previous confusion over the doors.
IMO she may have been referring to the confusion which arose when Gerry gave his first statement.
The likelihood of misunderstandings occurring during that first interview was massive IMO and understandably so IMO. It was the first time for everyone involved, there was the language barrier, no familiarity with the scene - and Gerry's obvious distress,trauma and lack of sleep at that time which must have affected him.
As I said before he may well have said he went in by the front door (meaning the patio door) - and so it would not be wrong to state that that was what he originally said.
If we could have seen a verbatim statement then I'm sure we would have been able to identify the moment when the misunderstanding first occurred - but which then carried on throughout the statement. I presume that when Gerry was able to read his first statement in English - he then noticed the error.
AIMO
-
There is no doubt in my mind either that if the abductor was seen ... he was the man seen by Jane Tanner.
He was seen at the relevant time in the relevant place from where a child was abducted.
If a plasma screen had been stolen and a man had been seen carrying one just outside the place it had been stolen from ... what deduction would the police be expected to make if a witness told them about seeing him?
At the least he would have to be traced and interviewed to eliminate him as the thief.
It's a question of if it is in Curry's car park.
-
How does someone who is bilingual misunderstand opening a locked door with a key when entered via an unlocked door was supposedly said? Where did they pluck the word key from ? Aren't you in danger of blaming the police /translators for every witness statement inconsistency? IMO there's two options...he lied or he was confused
No. I'm not accusing anyone of lying.
Have you ever been in a similar situation? It's easy for one party or another to get confused, when in a rush.
-
No. I'm not accusing anyone of lying.
Have you ever been in a similar situation? It's easy for one party or another to get confused, when in a rush.
You didn't answer my post,but never mind
-
As a trained medic, Gerry doesn't seem the sort who would put his signature to something he didn't understand.
as a trained medic Gerry would understand that his signature on that document did not count for much....just as a patients signature on a consent form is not confirmation that the patient has had the treatment explained and has understood
-
It's a question of if it is in Curry's car park.
Now there is a very valid point.
In my younger day it used to be a regular occurrence for robbers to arrive at stores - schools - public buildings etc - dressed as delivery men and make off with a consignment of goods.
No-one checked at the time that anybody had authorised or knew what they were about ... it only became apparent later when the stock was missed.
All it took was a brass neck.
Similarly the thought never crossed Jane Tanner's mind that she was witnessing Madeleine's abduction until the alarm was raised that Madeleine was gone.
-
You didn't answer my post,but never mind
Sorry, Mercury.
Read up. I find it perfectly plausible that the officer / interpreter were taking notes to get the gist of the layout of the flat.
Enter back/front door confusion.
-
Sorry, Mercury.
Read up. I find it perfectly plausible that the officer / interpreter were taking notes to get the gist of the layout of the flat.
Enter back/front door confusion.
You can confuse 'front' and 'back' but not 'key' and 'slide'. A key is a key. Only one door had a key, no matter how the door is described.
Had Kate not had her conversation at the table about leaving the patio doors open we could have speculated that Gerry did indeed lock up then decided to leave the patio door open after his 9.05pm check for some reason.
-
You can confuse 'front' and 'back' but not 'key' and 'slide'. A key is a key. Only one door had a key, no matter how the door is described.
Had Kate not had her conversation at the table about leaving the patio doors open we could have speculated that Gerry did indeed lock up then decided to leave the patio door open after his 9.05pm check for some reason.
Try this.
A PJ officer and/ or the "interpreter" were trying to get the gist of the layout of the flat in order to understand.
One door = key needed.
Other door = no key needed.
Get back and front mixed up in the rush.
-
Sorry, Mercury.
Read up. I find it perfectly plausible that the officer / interpreter were taking notes to get the gist of the layout of the flat.
Enter back/front door confusion.
What you are saying is that the interpreter embellished the witness statement. There was no need to say a key was used as the door was locked if nothing of the sort was said IMO! Talk about doing somersaults to ensure it wasn't Gerry who got it "wrong"
-
You can confuse 'front' and 'back' but not 'key' and 'slide'. A key is a key. Only one door had a key, no matter how the door is described.
Had Kate not had her conversation at the table about leaving the patio doors open we could have speculated that Gerry did indeed lock up then decided to leave the patio door open after his 9.05pm check for some reason.
If that had been the case in a lying conspiratorial scenario, wouldn't they have all colluded to give the same version? If not, why not?
-
What you are saying is that the interpreter embellished the witness statement. There was no need to say a key was used as the door was locked if nothing of the sort was said IMO!
NOOOOO. That's not what I'm saying at all.
-
It is obvious that in the heavily summarised transcription of that 4th May interview, the translation and transcription processes have confused an earlier event, when he entered via the wooden door using a key, with the 21:05 check, when he entered via the balcony door.
-
Re. Doors and keys :
Jassi called it right about 5 hours ago.
-
There is no doubt in my mind either that if the abductor was seen ... he was the man seen by Jane Tanner.
He was seen at the relevant time in the relevant place from where a child was abducted.
If a plasma screen had been stolen and a man had been seen carrying one just outside the place it had been stolen from ... what deduction would the police be expected to make if a witness told them about seeing him?
At the least he would have to be traced and interviewed to eliminate him as the thief.
Isn't it strange how McCann supporters agree with them about who took Madeleine. It's like you've all been programmed to agree with your masters.
-
Isn't it strange how McCann supporters agree with them about who took Madeleine. It's like you've all been programmed to agree with your masters.
How insulting. What is it I'm supposed to be agreeing with?
-
On 4th May you can understand how GM statement was taken, by looking at how KM statement was taken:
Present in the room are KM, Joao Carlos of PJ, a young female interpreter, and GM.
The interview lasts 4 hours consisting of many exchanges like this-
JC asks question in portuguese
Interpreter repeats question in english
KM answers in english
Interpreter repeats answer in portuguese
JC types summary of answer on typewriter
No complete transcript, no audio recording.
Source: first hand account in book p91
-
On 4th May you can understand how GM statement was taken, by looking at how KM statement was taken:
Present in the room are KM, Joao Carlos of PJ, a young female interpreter, and GM.
The interview lasts 4 hours consisting of many exchanges like this-
JC asks question in portuguese
Interpreter repeats question in english
KM answers in english
Interpreter repeats answer in portuguese
JC types summary of answer on typewriter
No complete transcript, no audio recording.
Source: first hand account in book p91
Which book ?
-
How insulting. What is it I'm supposed to be agreeing with?
I don't know what you agree with but SY don't agree with Tannerman taking Madeleine. How LP missed his questionnaire when he revealed he carried his child passed there that night in 2007 is a serious question that needs addressing. SY on discovering it would have contacted him. And then we have posters asking, why did he only come forward 6 years later which doesn't make sense at all.
-
It is obvious that in the heavily summarised transcription of that 4th May interview, the translation and transcription processes have confused an earlier event, when he entered via the wooden door using a key, with the 21:05 check, when he entered via the balcony door.
I find that to be a possibility as well.
-
I find that to be a possibility as well.
Also IMO it is ridiculous to imagine that an intelligent person would make such a huge and pointless reversal of statement.
-
On 4th May you can understand how GM statement was taken, by looking at how KM statement was taken:
Present in the room are KM, Joao Carlos of PJ, a young female interpreter, and GM.
The interview lasts 4 hours consisting of many exchanges like this-
JC asks question in portuguese
Interpreter repeats question in english
KM answers in english
Interpreter repeats answer in portuguese
JC types summary of answer on typewriter
No complete transcript, no audio recording.
Source: first hand account in book p91
what a recipe for confusion
-
From book p91 you can see to get from each question to its answer are 4 possible errors.
1. Interpreter slightly misunderstands PJ officer.
2. GM slightly misunderstands interpreter.
3. Interpreter slightly misunderstands GM.
4. PJ officer slightly misunderstands interpreter.
What was native tongue of interpreter, GM 4 May?
-
what a recipe for confusion
As stated by KM (p91) no audio recordings made of the 4th May interviews
-
Who contributed to Hall's "research?
Perhaps Blonk could pop in to explain this further?
-
Why the fuss I wonder? Literal translation mentioning key. door and locked;
entered in the respective room key being the locked door
-
Why the fuss I wonder? Literal translation mentioning key. door and locked;
entered in the respective room key being the locked door
Indeed. The original PT version states:
".... entrou no cuarto, munido da chave respectiva...."
Line 74
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P1/01_VOLUME_Ia_Page_37.jpg
If that's an accurate statement, which "room" did he enter with a key?
ETA: Could the officer / interpreter in the morning of 4 May have assumed that they were living in a hotel room?
That might explain the confusion, if so.
-
Saying his entry was by wooden door with a key would have been completely stupid, and pointless, because in same statement it says MO enters through unlocked balcony door.
-
Saying his entry was by wooden door with a key would have been completely stupid, and pointless, because in same statement it says MO enters through unlocked balcony door.
It makes no sense to anyone beyond the cherry-pickers for reasons best known to themselves.
-
As stated by KM (p91) no audio recordings made of the 4th May interviews
He said a key because he did use a key. It is not a translation error. Statements are read back in English before they sign them.
-
He said a key because he did use a key. It is not a translation error. Statements are read back in English before they sign them.
So why say that and then in the same statement say the balcony door was unlocked Pathfinder?
-
So why say that and then in the same statement say the balcony door was unlocked Pathfinder?
Maybe he went elsewhere and came back in that way. He was gone long enough.
-
Maybe he went elsewhere and came back in that way. He was gone long enough.
Why would someone deliberately give conflicting statements?
Why not state the same door in both statements?
No-one would be that stupid.
-
Maybe he got confused over what he was supposed to say.
-
Why would someone deliberately give conflicting statements?
Why not state the same door in both statements?
No-one would be that stupid.
He has been stupid but for everything a reason. He changed his DP visit statement as well from 30 minutes to not long away.
"During the afternoon of that day the rest of the group members, including the children, were at the beach, [they] having returned at 18H30, the time at which he saw DP next to the tennis court. DAVID went to visit KATE and the children and returned close to 19H00." GM 10 May
"Regarding the episode where he spoke to David on the 3rd of May, he says that he was playing tennis at 18:30 when David appeared near the tennis court and asked him if he was going to continue playing. G. said he didn't know because Kate might be needing help to look after the three children, because they intended to bring them to the recreation area after their showers. He thinks that David offered to check if Kate needed help, which he did, and returned minutes later. Regarding his previous statement where he states that David returned half an hour later around 19:00, he says that he returned to the tennis court after half an hour, as this time frame refers to the second time he returned to the tennis court after getting ready for the game." GM 7 Sep
-
Isn't it strange how McCann supporters agree with them about who took Madeleine. It's like you've all been programmed to agree with your masters.
Please try not to make such rude and ridiculous assertions.
-
Please try not to make such rude and ridiculous assertions.
it does show a degree of stupidity
-
Please try not to make such rude and ridiculous assertions.
Cuts both ways if you are honest
-
Please try not to make such rude and ridiculous assertions.
You forget what kate mccann has already admitted herself.
Meanwhile who is Michael Wright ?
No ludicrous assertions there. £4%4% %£5&%
-
Why would someone deliberately give conflicting statements?
Why not state the same door in both statements?
No-one would be that stupid.
Well no translator and PJ officer could be that stupid as to write it down correctly when Gerry McCann said Matthew entered the apartment by means of a glass sliding door that was always unlocked, but not when he said he and Kate entered the apartment by a locked door using a key.
-
Well no translator and PJ officer could be that stupid as to write it down correctly when Gerry McCann said Matthew entered the apartment by means of a glass sliding door that was always unlocked, but not when he said he and Kate entered the apartment by a locked door using a key.
It's "obviously" according to Pegasus a mistake by them and Gerry was referring to some other time during the day/previous days...
&%+((£
-
Well no translator and PJ officer could be that stupid as to write it down correctly when Gerry McCann said Matthew entered the apartment by means of a glass sliding door that was always unlocked, but not when he said he and Kate entered the apartment by a locked door using a key.
we don't know how accurate the statements are
-
we don't know how accurate the statements are
You may not. It's perfectly obvious to most people that a translator knows the difference between 'locked' and 'unlocked' and 'glass sliding door' and 'door with key'. Gerry McCann also acknowledged his mistake later, or did the translator hear something which wasn't said? Each time one of the inconsistencies in the group's statements is highlighted the same tired old arguments are trotted out.
-
You may not. It's perfectly obvious to most people that a translator knows the difference between 'locked' and 'unlocked' and 'glass sliding door' and 'door with key'. Gerry McCann also acknowledged his mistake later, or did the translator hear something which wasn't said? Each time one of the inconsistencies in the group's statements is highlighted the same tired old arguments are trotted out.
But G - can you think of any reason why Gerry - having already said the patio door was unlocked and so knowing that to be the obvious way for him to enter 5A - he decided to tell the PJ interviewer that he took the much longer route round to the other door? That just doesn't make any sense to me - and one would have thought the interviewer would also have wondered why he would do that - and would have asked him to explain such a strange decision at that point in the interview. But apparently he didn't - which IMO is quite telling.
IMO the fact that the reason Gerry gave to the PJ as to why he 'changed' his statement has not been mentioned is quite strange. One would think that the reason for such a major change in his evidence would definitely have been recorded. After all - he must have explained to them why he wanted his first statement to be changed.
IMO the reason it wasn't recorded was because merely correcting a mistake caused by confusion over the doors was not that important.
We do know as a fact that there was confusion over which door witnesses were referring to - and so the only reason that works for me is that a misunderstanding happened very early on - and carried on throughout the interview. And I would not blame anyone for that - because it WAS the very first interview for all concerned.
-
But G - can you think of any reason why Gerry - having already said the patio door was unlocked and so knowing that to be the obvious way for him to enter 5A - he decided to tell the PJ interviewer that he took the much longer route round to the other door? That just doesn't make any sense to me - and one would have thought the interviewer would also have wondered why he would do that - and would have asked him to explain such a strange decision at that point in the interview. But apparently he didn't - which IMO is quite telling.
IMO the fact that the reason Gerry gave to the PJ as to why he 'changed' his statement has not been mentioned is quite strange. One would think that the reason for such a major change in his evidence would definitely have been recorded. After all - he must have explained to them why he wanted his first statement to be changed.
We do know as a fact that there was confusion over which door witnesses were referring to - and so the only reason that works for me is that a misunderstanding happened very early on - and carried on throughout the interview. And I would not blame anyone for that - because it WAS the very first interview for all concerned.
I can only assume that he thought he had used the front door and opened it with his key. There is no reason why the PJ officer would have asked him to explain unless he was familiar with the layout of the apartment. All they were doing on 4th was getting statements, not critically examining them. When he was interviewed on 10th they asked him why he said he used the locked door before and all he said was yes, he had said that but he was now changing it. Again, there was no reason for those taking the statements to dig deeper, I don't suppose that was their job. The only person who was confused about doors was one police officer working for Leicester Police, as I recall and that was the fault of the witnesses referring to front and back doors. In Gerry's case there was no confusion about 'front' or 'back' doors, he was quite clear. Locked and unlocked. Open with key and slide.
Why is it so worrying that Gerry McCann couldn't remember which door he used? After all, he locked the patio doors every time he went out in the daytime and then locked the front door with the key. It was only at night he says he left the patio doors open and didn't double lock the front door.
-
But G - can you think of any reason why Gerry - having already said the patio door was unlocked and so knowing that to be the obvious way for him to enter 5A - he decided to tell the PJ interviewer that he took the much longer route round to the other door? That just doesn't make any sense to me - and one would have thought the interviewer would also have wondered why he would do that - and would have asked him to explain such a strange decision at that point in the interview. But apparently he didn't - which IMO is quite telling.
IMO the fact that the reason Gerry gave to the PJ as to why he 'changed' his statement has not been mentioned is quite strange. One would think that the reason for such a major change in his evidence would definitely have been recorded. After all - he must have explained to them why he wanted his first statement to be changed.
IMO the reason it wasn't recorded was because merely correcting a mistake caused by confusion over the doors was not that important.
We do know as a fact that there was confusion over which door witnesses were referring to - and so the only reason that works for me is that a misunderstanding happened very early on - and carried on throughout the interview. And I would not blame anyone for that - because it WAS the very first interview for all concerned.
A police interviewer does not ask the interviewee why they made decisions. They let them gang themselves, or not, by their own words.
-
But G - can you think of any reason why Gerry - having already said the patio door was unlocked and so knowing that to be the obvious way for him to enter 5A - he decided to tell the PJ interviewer that he took the much longer route round to the other door? That just doesn't make any sense to me - and one would have thought the interviewer would also have wondered why he would do that - and would have asked him to explain such a strange decision at that point in the interview. But apparently he didn't - which IMO is quite telling.
IMO the fact that the reason Gerry gave to the PJ as to why he 'changed' his statement has not been mentioned is quite strange. One would think that the reason for such a major change in his evidence would definitely have been recorded. After all - he must have explained to them why he wanted his first statement to be changed.
IMO the reason it wasn't recorded was because merely correcting a mistake caused by confusion over the doors was not that important.
We do know as a fact that there was confusion over which door witnesses were referring to - and so the only reason that works for me is that a misunderstanding happened very early on - and carried on throughout the interview. And I would not blame anyone for that - because it WAS the very first interview for all concerned.
IF there was a deceased person in there as Eddie suggested the patio door would be locked at 8:30. That's an explanation for using a key to enter. That's a theory of course before the claws are out.
-
Can anyone identify source of this snippet? "I pulled the sofa away from the wall and searched behind it"
-
... must be in a statement somewhere?
-
I can only assume that he thought he had used the front door and opened it with his key. There is no reason why the PJ officer would have asked him to explain unless he was familiar with the layout of the apartment. All they were doing on 4th was getting statements, not critically examining them. When he was interviewed on 10th they asked him why he said he used the locked door before and all he said was yes, he had said that but he was now changing it. Again, there was no reason for those taking the statements to dig deeper, I don't suppose that was their job. The only person who was confused about doors was one police officer working for Leicester Police, as I recall and that was the fault of the witnesses referring to front and back doors. In Gerry's case there was no confusion about 'front' or 'back' doors, he was quite clear. Locked and unlocked. Open with key and slide.
Why is it so worrying that Gerry McCann couldn't remember which door he used? After all, he locked the patio doors every time he went out in the daytime and then locked the front door with the key. It was only at night he says he left the patio doors open and didn't double lock the front door.
Well I think we are going to have to agree to differ on this one G.
I can't believe that after 4 nights when the regular established routine for both of them was to check the children via the patio doors - Gerry would have any doubt whatsoever in his mind over which door he used..
I can believe he said he used the front door, but he was referring to the patio door.
I think the PJ officer added the words (with a key) to clarify in his summarised statement which door he genuinely believed was being referred to..
The fact that the PJ officer was not familiar with the layout and Gerry's state of fear and anxiety at the time of that interview time would explain how misunderstandings could have arisen imo.
Other people have referred to the patio door as the front door - including the 4 ex detectives (?) who went to PdL to do their own investigation. IIRC they had a chart on the wall showing the layout of 5a and had marked the patio doors as ''the front door'. (from memory)
Surely any policeman worth his salt would want to question Gerry in depth about such a massive change in his statement? Even if they didn't at that particular time - then there were other opportunities. Why wasn't it one of the 48 questions?
IMO the reason it wasn't seen as significant enough to be brought up again was because they were already satisfied that it was an innocent mistake which happened during the first interview - and which was corrected with a satisfactory explanation from Gerry at the second.
As we all know every word spoken is not recorded in summarised statements - only what the interviewing officer deems relevant.
AIMO
-
Can anyone identify source of this snippet? "I pulled the sofa away from the wall and searched behind it"
Not for the moment.
There are these two statements from Nelson (GNR).
Then, with his colleague, he searched the apartment. He opened all the cupboards of the bedrooms, living room and kitchen and he checked under the beds and in the fridge. He did not see the washing machine. He did not see anything strange during the search and there was no sign of a break in. As regards the bed clothes of the child’s bed, he found it to have a normal disposition.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/NELSON-DA-COSTA.htm
In this sentiment, the deponent states that they searched al the dependencies of the residence and all the pieces of furniture, in order to confirm the disappearance -- effectively confirming that that she was not in the interior;
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/NELSON-DA-COSTA-1.htm
-
Well I think we are going to have to agree to differ on this one G.
I can't believe that after 4 nights when the regular established routine for both of them was to check the children via the patio doors - Gerry would have any doubt whatsoever in his mind over which door he used..
I can believe he said he used the front door, but he was referring to the patio door.
I think the PJ officer added the words (with a key) to clarify in his summarised statement which door he genuinely believed was being referred to..
The fact that the PJ officer was not familiar with the layout and Gerry's state of fear and anxiety at the time of that interview time would explain how misunderstandings could have arisen imo.
Other people have referred to the patio door as the front door - including the 4 ex detectives (?) who went to PdL to do their own investigation. IIRC they had a chart on the wall showing the layout of 5a and had marked the patio doors as ''the front door'. (from memory)
Surely any policeman worth his salt would want to question Gerry in depth about such a massive change in his statement? Even if they didn't at that particular time - then there were other opportunities. Why wasn't it one of the 48 questions?
IMO the reason it wasn't seen as significant enough to be brought up again was because they were already satisfied that it was an innocent mistake which happened during the first interview - and which was corrected with a satisfactory explanation from Gerry at the second.
As we all know every word spoken is not recorded in summarised statements - only what the interviewing officer deems relevant.
AIMO
I have stated the recorded facts. You 'can't believe' Gerry McCann made a mistake. You 'can believe' the PJ officer added words which Gerry didn't say. I have written signed statements to support what I have said. You have your beliefs supported by...your beliefs. You can believe or disbelieve whatever you wish, the recorded facts remain.
-
I have stated the recorded facts. You 'can't believe' Gerry McCann made a mistake. You 'can believe' the PJ officer added words which Gerry didn't say. I have written signed statements to support what I have said. You have your beliefs supported by...your beliefs. You can believe or disbelieve whatever you wish, the recorded facts remain.
I am fairly certain that words were added that Gerry didn't say...these are not verbatim questions they are answers to questions...you can believe the statements are accurate...but thats all it is...a belief
-
I am fairly certain that words were added that Gerry didn't say...these are not verbatim questions they are answers to questions...you can believe the statements are accurate...but thats all it is...a belief
I prefer to base my arguments on a document which I and others can see and read for ourselves. The document is a signed statement and the purpose of the signature on a statement given to the police is to verify the truth of it. If the person signing sees or hears something incorrect it's his or her job to correct it at the time.
-
Well I think we are going to have to agree to differ on this one G.
I can't believe that after 4 nights when the regular established routine for both of them was to check the children via the patio doors - Gerry would have any doubt whatsoever in his mind over which door he used..
I can believe he said he used the front door, but he was referring to the patio door.
I think the PJ officer added the words (with a key) to clarify in his summarised statement which door he genuinely believed was being referred to..
The fact that the PJ officer was not familiar with the layout and Gerry's state of fear and anxiety at the time of that interview time would explain how misunderstandings could have arisen imo.
Other people have referred to the patio door as the front door - including the 4 ex detectives (?) who went to PdL to do their own investigation. IIRC they had a chart on the wall showing the layout of 5a and had marked the patio doors as ''the front door'. (from memory)
Surely any policeman worth his salt would want to question Gerry in depth about such a massive change in his statement? Even if they didn't at that particular time - then there were other opportunities. Why wasn't it one of the 48 questions?
IMO the reason it wasn't seen as significant enough to be brought up again was because they were already satisfied that it was an innocent mistake which happened during the first interview - and which was corrected with a satisfactory explanation from Gerry at the second.
As we all know every word spoken is not recorded in summarised statements - only what the interviewing officer deems relevant.
AIMO
But it wasn't the routine every night. Read Fiona's rog. She said she knew the McCanns had been using the front key door to check then found out the patio door was unlocked at the table from Kate just before Madeleine disappeared.
-
Well I think we are going to have to agree to differ on this one G.
I can't believe that after 4 nights when the regular established routine for both of them was to check the children via the patio doors - Gerry would have any doubt whatsoever in his mind over which door he used..
I can believe he said he used the front door, but he was referring to the patio door.
I think the PJ officer added the words (with a key) to clarify in his summarised statement which door he genuinely believed was being referred to..
The fact that the PJ officer was not familiar with the layout and Gerry's state of fear and anxiety at the time of that interview time would explain how misunderstandings could have arisen imo.
Other people have referred to the patio door as the front door - including the 4 ex detectives (?) who went to PdL to do their own investigation. IIRC they had a chart on the wall showing the layout of 5a and had marked the patio doors as ''the front door'. (from memory)
Surely any policeman worth his salt would want to question Gerry in depth about such a massive change in his statement? Even if they didn't at that particular time - then there were other opportunities. Why wasn't it one of the 48 questions?
IMO the reason it wasn't seen as significant enough to be brought up again was because they were already satisfied that it was an innocent mistake which happened during the first interview - and which was corrected with a satisfactory explanation from Gerry at the second.
As we all know every word spoken is not recorded in summarised statements - only what the interviewing officer deems relevant.
AIMO
99.9999% of the population would understand that a patio is unsually at the rear or side of a building depending on the shape and layout. The apartment 5A front door looked like the front door!
Are you seriously expecting us to beleive that Gerry McCann remembered he saw his beautiful daughter sleeping and he recalled spending a moment to think how lucky he was- he also thought someone was in the apartment with him, but he couldn't recall which door he used during that IMPORTANT last sighing of his daughter alive? he the recalled that Jane Tanner didn't pass by him, after she gave a sworn statement saying she did! We have a Cinderella situation here, trying to make the shoe fit...
-
99.9999% of the population would understand that a patio is unsually at the rear or side of a building depending on the shape and layout. The apartment 5A front door looked like the front door!
Are you seriously expecting us to beleive that Gerry McCann remembered he saw his beautiful daughter sleeping and he recalled spending a moment to think how lucky he was- he also thought someone was in the apartment with him, but he couldn't recall which door he used during that IMPORTANT last sighing of his daughter alive? he the recalled that Jane Tanner didn't pass by him, after she gave a sworn statement saying she did! We have a Cinderella situation here, trying to make the shoe fit...
That's one way of putting it ... pity it is biased and wrong. Nothing new under the sun though, is there.
-
99.9999% of the population would understand that a patio is unsually at the rear or side of a building depending on the shape and layout. The apartment 5A front door looked like the front door!
Are you seriously expecting us to beleive that Gerry McCann remembered he saw his beautiful daughter sleeping and he recalled spending a moment to think how lucky he was- he also thought someone was in the apartment with him, but he couldn't recall which door he used during that IMPORTANT last sighing of his daughter alive? he the recalled that Jane Tanner didn't pass by him, after she gave a sworn statement saying she did! We have a Cinderella situation here, trying to make the shoe fit...
No I am not claiming that Gerry couldn't remember which door he used. I'm claiming that he may well have said he used the FRONT door - but he was referring to the patio doors. If the PJ officer interviewing him assumed he meant the wooden door overlooking the car park - then that is how a misunderstanding could have occurred.
Personally it has never occurred to me to think of the patio door as the front door and the wooden door as the back door, but apparently some people did do that. The previous confusion caused by doing that is mentioned by the UK police officer interviewing JT.
-
No I am not claiming that Gerry couldn't remember which door he used. I'm claiming that he may well have said he used the FRONT door - but he was referring to the patio doors. If the PJ officer interviewing him assumed he meant the wooden door overlooking the car park - then that is how a misunderstanding could have occurred.
Personally it has never occurred to me to think of the patio door as the front door and the wooden door as the back door, but apparently some people did do that. The previous confusion caused by doing that is mentioned by the UK police officer interviewing JT.
I confused the two doors, mainly because I had not seen any photos of the actual front door. It was all about the front of the appartment overlooking the swimming pool. A very easy mistake to make.
-
I confused the two doors, mainly because I had not seen any photos of the actual front door. It was all about the front of the appartment overlooking the swimming pool. A very easy mistake to make.
They were staying there and knew which was the front key door. They refer to the back door as the veranda or sliding door.
-
As, I think, would most people.
-
As, I think, would most people.
There was an awful lot of discussion about it at the time. A lot of people were confused, probably not least The PJ who don't seem to have known much about anything at all.
-
Why the fuss? Gerry McCann demonstrated the memory of a goldfish. He didn't know which door he used, he forgot to mention that Kate went for a run during high tea, he couldn't remember which side of the road he was on, he thought David Payne checked his children on the Wednesday night, he thought there were only four people at the men's tennis at 6pm and he says David Payne went to see Kate at 1830 and returned at 19.00 but gives no reason why. He didn't notice that Russell missed his main course and had to have it redone, he said they and the Paynes frequently visited each other's apartments although Fiona said she entered his apartment for the first time after Madeleine's disappearance. He thought all the group members were at the table when the alarm was raised. A very unreliable witness.
-
Why the fuss? Gerry McCann demonstrated the memory of a goldfish. He didn't know which door he used, he forgot to mention that Kate went for a run during high tea, he couldn't remember which side of the road he was on, he thought David Payne checked his children on the Wednesday night, he thought there were only four people at the men's tennis at 6pm and he says David Payne went to see Kate at 1830 and returned at 19.00 but gives no reason why. He didn't notice that Russell missed his main course and had to have it redone, he said they and the Paynes frequently visited each other's apartments although Fiona said she entered his apartment for the first time after Madeleine's disappearance. He thought all the group members were at the table when the alarm was raised. A very unreliable witness.
Details, mere details - you need to see the bigger picture @)(++(*
-
Details, mere details - you need to see the bigger picture @)(++(*
It's like a jigsaw puzzle. Keep adding all the little things and the bigger picture begins to take shape. 8((()*/
-
Why the fuss? Gerry McCann demonstrated the memory of a goldfish. He didn't know which door he used, he forgot to mention that Kate went for a run during high tea, he couldn't remember which side of the road he was on, he thought David Payne checked his children on the Wednesday night, he thought there were only four people at the men's tennis at 6pm and he says David Payne went to see Kate at 1830 and returned at 19.00 but gives no reason why. He didn't notice that Russell missed his main course and had to have it redone, he said they and the Paynes frequently visited each other's apartments although Fiona said she entered his apartment for the first time after Madeleine's disappearance. He thought all the group members were at the table when the alarm was raised. A very unreliable witness.
Are any of these details significant? Which ones point to his guilt in covering up the death of a child?