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: John on November 24, 2018, 08:14:19 PM
Title: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: John on November 24, 2018, 08:14:19 PM
Madeleine McCann police investigate theory she disappeared after leaving holiday home to try to find her parents.
Portuguese police are probing whether toddler woke up and walked out of flat
Met Police's Operation Grange inquiry is separate to Portuguese detectives'
But both met up recently to discuss possibility she was taken after wandering off
Previous lines of investigation included a bungled burglary at the apartment
By GERARD COUZENS FOR MAILONLINE
PUBLISHED: 25 November 2018
Portuguese police are investigating the theory that Madeleine McCann disappeared after waking up and walking out of her parents' Algarve holiday apartment.
Sources close to the probe into the three-year-old's 2007 disappearance say investigators are revisiting the possibility something happened to her after she left the flat - and not inside.
The news comes after Scotland Yard's Operation Grange team told her parents Kate and Gerry McCann they are pursuing two vital new leads and not one 'final line of inquiry'.
The British and Portuguese efforts to find out what happened to the toddler are being carried out separately - but the two are believed to have met to discuss the theory.
A spokesman for Portugal's Attorney General's Office refused to comment, but a well-placed source said: 'The heads of the two police investigations are corresponding with each other directly and have combined their efforts without resorting to rogatory letters like before.
'A meeting took place recently at the HQ of the General Attorney's Office in Portugal, which was attended by the prosecutor from Portimao who is in charge of the Portuguese inquiry.
'One of the lines of investigation that continues to be pursued is that the child could have walked out of the holiday flat herself.'
Rogatory letters are ones sent to a foreign court to help in the pursuit of justice.
The last of the six sent to the Portuguese police by their British counterparts was answered on October 25 2016, but none have been sent since.
Another well-informed insider added: 'Despite the fact there are two investigations and two different teams, the relationship between both is very healthy and well-informed and benefits from shared intelligence.'
Hinting both forces may have gone cold on the idea the youngster had been the victim of a botched burglary or a paedophile who had forced entry to snatch her, the insider said: 'The theory that Madeleine left the flat of her own accord to go looking for her parents is not something that hasn't been discussed before.
'But the Portuguese process tends to value lines of investigation that are put forward.
'Until we know for sure what happened though, no scenario is likely to be ruled out.'
A third source, referring to the absence of new rogatory letters, said: 'The pattern of direct cooperation that now exists means formal requests for international cooperation are not necessary.
'The Portuguese inquiry is still open, meaning that any new work can be executed as part of that investigation without the needs for rogatory letters.
The theory Madeline may have lost her way in the dark and taken a wrong turn as she went looking for her parents in Praia da Luz was one of the early hypotheses put forward to explain her disappearance.
It has also been suggested a panicking drink-driver might have run her over and sped off with her body before hiding it in the countryside.
Portuguese police have made no secret of their rejection of the theory championed by a British detective about Madeleine being kidnapped by thieves during a bungled burglary.
In July 2014 four Portuguese men faced a barrage of more than 250 questions while being quizzed as arguidos or formal suspects in interviews on the Algarve conducted at Scotland Yard's request.
They were questioned as part of the theory Madeleine, three when she disappeared from Praia da Luz, may have been killed during a botched break-in and her body buried on waste ground nearby.
More recently it has been suggested officers are keen to identify a woman in purple seen hanging round the holiday flat around the time Madeleine went missing.
The Home Office announced last week it would grant an extra £150,000 to Operation Grange to keep the investigation going until spring next year.
It is understood police recently told her parents during a meeting at their Leicestershire home that they were 'hopeful' of a result and were focusing on 'two specific and active' lines of inquiry, not just one as was initially thought.
Scotland Yard has refused to go public with details on what they are looking at.
I think it’s been worded very carefully.’ A source in Portugal’ and not ‘a Portuguese police source’.
If they are following this lead then they can’t believe that the window and shutters were open at 10pm. Rather a conundrum for the parents.
I must say that there have been some interesting discussions of late. I am amazed at the amount of stuff still being found. Nothing to do with me. I am bone idle when it comes to research, as no doubt everyone knows.
Did anyone watch the first Season of The Missing? The missing child wandered, got run over, picked up, found to be still alive and was then shipped off to somewhere else.
It is possible that a burglar then tried to break in to the appartment later.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Robittybob1 on November 25, 2018, 06:59:09 AM
I must say that there have been some interesting discussions of late. I am amazed at the amount of stuff still being found. Nothing to do with me. I am bone idle when it comes to research, as no doubt everyone knows.
Did anyone watch the first Season of The Missing? The missing child wandered, got run over, picked up, found to be still alive and was then shipped off to somewhere else.
It is possible that a burglar then tried to break in to the appartment later.
My theory was the burglar woke Madeleine, who then left by the front door. But who shut the door behind her?
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: barrier on November 25, 2018, 07:01:09 AM
Which they might well be. But in itself it is only one lead leading to another.
But woke and wandered is not a lead any more than that she was abducted by aliens. It is simply a theory and one that they are allegedly "re-visiting" too.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on November 25, 2018, 08:09:22 AM
I think it’s been worded very carefully.’ A source in Portugal’ and not ‘a Portuguese police source’.
If they are following this lead then they can’t believe that the window and shutters were open at 10pm. Rather a conundrum for the parents.
Ultimately it would either be a leak from the Portuguese police or maybe someone in Portugal with a link to the police, say an ex-cop, simply mischief making...
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on November 25, 2018, 08:11:11 AM
Only if 'woke & wander' is true, which being reported in the Sun is unlikely - IMO
The Sun isn’t reporting that woke and wandered is what happened, only that the Met are considering it as a possibility, something that “someone” in Portugal divulged to them.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Eleanor on November 25, 2018, 08:40:15 AM
The Sun isn’t reporting that woke and wandered is what happened, only that the Met are considering it as a possibility, something that “someone” in Portugal divulged to them.
£12 million and its the best they can come up with,way to go.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on November 25, 2018, 09:16:23 AM
So you have every faith in this Sun article being accurate do you?
If the story of someone from"whitehall" visited is true then why does it not follow this is,unless of course that was shite in which case this story could well be held in the same category. Pays your money take your choice,whether the money is for a paper or internet provider.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: jassi on November 25, 2018, 10:00:27 AM
'Whitehall' as in a civil servant or government minister? Is Scotland Yard in the habit of reporting it's thoughts and movements to such people? I wonder why? Perhaps they will stop telling them too. Op Grange seem to be the only ones who can keep their mouths shut.
I suppose it will have to talk to Home Office officials whenever it needs to replenish its funding. Maybe one of those has spoken out of turn.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: barrier on November 25, 2018, 10:09:51 AM
'Whitehall' as in a civil servant or government minister? Is Scotland Yard in the habit of reporting it's thoughts and movements to such people? I wonder why? Perhaps they will stop telling them too. Op Grange seem to be the only ones who can keep their mouths shut.
Oh! I don't know about that,Redwood managed to drop a bomb in the works with his revelation moment.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: G-Unit on November 25, 2018, 10:12:12 AM
I suppose it will have to talk to Home Office officials whenever it needs to replenish its funding. Maybe one of those has spoken out of turn.
Why is the question in that case. To make it look like Op Grange are busy, following criticism? To reiterate that the McCanns are not suspects? To justify the awarding of more money? Why anonymous then?
Perhaps further funding was withheld until Op Grange had visited Portugal in order to get advice and clarity from their legal folks. Portugal are in charge, after all.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: jassi on November 25, 2018, 10:18:28 AM
Didn't Rowley say something to the effect that however she left, Madeleine didn't leave of her own accord ?
How does that fit with woke and wander ?
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: barrier on November 25, 2018, 10:20:47 AM
Ultimately it would either be a leak from the Portuguese police or maybe someone in Portugal with a link to the police, say an ex-cop, simply mischief making...
Or a case for the defence ?
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: jassi on November 25, 2018, 10:38:55 AM
I don't think this will ever end up in a criminal court, anywhere.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on November 25, 2018, 11:03:38 AM
The Sun isn’t reporting that woke and wandered is what happened, only that the Met are considering it as a possibility, something that “someone” in Portugal divulged to them.
Divulged..or made up? How could we ever know with anonymous sources, I suspect it's the latter.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: faithlilly on November 25, 2018, 11:11:10 AM
Well if the investigation are looking at woke and wandered they can’t possibly believe that the window and shutters were open, can they and how can that possibly be positive for the parents ?
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on November 25, 2018, 11:33:35 AM
Well if the investigation are looking at woke and wandered they can’t possibly believe that the window and shutters were open, can they and how can that possibly be positive for the parents ?
How can it possibly be negative for them either? Do you think they are going to be arrested for it?
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: G-Unit on November 25, 2018, 11:40:03 AM
Well if the investigation are looking at woke and wandered they can’t possibly believe that the window and shutters were open, can they and how can that possibly be positive for the parents ?
If a burglar opened the shutter and windows from outside, causing Madeleine to wake and flee she wouldn't have fled via the front door because that was heading towards the perpetrators. If she fled out of the patio doors then her mother was wrong; she did close the gates behind herself. Assuming that Kate was correct when she said both gates were closed when she arrived. So why did the children's bedroom door move between 8.30 and 9.05? Why did it move again between 9.05 and 9.30?
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on November 25, 2018, 11:44:19 AM
If a burglar opened the shutter and windows from outside, causing Madeleine to wake and flee she wouldn't have fled via the front door because that was heading towards the perpetrators. If she fled out of the patio doors then her mother was wrong; she did close the gates behind herself. Assuming that Kate was correct when she said both gates were closed when she arrived. So why did the children's bedroom door move between 8.30 and 9.05? Why did it move again between 9.05 and 9.30?
Who said she would have fled? What if the window was opened with the view to calling to the child, to come look at a puppy?
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: faithlilly on November 25, 2018, 11:44:35 AM
How can it possibly be negative for them either? Do you think they are going to be arrested for it?
The whole premise of the abduction theory is that Madeleine wouldn’t be able to open the shutters and window by herself so if SY/PJ investigation believe she woke and wandered how do the parents explain the open window and shutters ?
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: faithlilly on November 25, 2018, 11:45:42 AM
But that wouldn’t be woke and wandered, which we are told is one of the theories the investigation is looking at.
Why wouldn't it be? It would be Madeleine leaving the apartment of her own free will.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: faithlilly on November 25, 2018, 11:49:40 AM
The Sun report is, I’m sure, rather problematic for the average supporter.
It does provide information, via an unnamed source, that the parents aren’t being looked at as participants in their daughter’s disappearance but on the other hand if the report is true then the parents couldn’t have been telling the truth about the window/shutter being open.
Mmmm.....!
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on November 25, 2018, 11:54:03 AM
The Sun report is, I’m sure, rather problematic for the average supporter.
It does provide information, via an unnamed source, that the parents aren’t being looked at as participants in their daughter’s disappearance but on the other hand if the report is true then the parents couldn’t have been telling the truth about the window/shutter being open.
Mmmm.....!
Yeah, you know I'm really gonna lose sleep about this. On the other hand: The Sun report, is, I'm sure, rather problematic for the average "The parents threw the body in a bin" supporter, seeing as how it makes clear via an unnamed source that the parents aren't being looked at as participants in their daughter's disappearance and the dogs were clearing barking up the wrong cadaver.
Mmmm....!
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: faithlilly on November 25, 2018, 11:54:22 AM
Why wouldn't it be? It would be Madeleine leaving the apartment of her own free will.
This is what the Sun says.
‘The Sun on Sunday can reveal one of these revolves around three-year-old Madeleine waking up and wandering out of the villa in Praia da Luz, Portugal.
Detectives from Operation Grange — the Met Police’s probe into her 2007 disappearance — discussed the theory recently with Portuguese police.
Cops there had previously explored whether Madeleine was searching for her parents, who were at a nearby tapas bar.
She may have been knocked down by a drink driver, they speculated, who put her body in the car and later buried it.’
Where does it say that they are looking at the theory that she may have been tempted away from the apartment with promises of a puppy?
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: faithlilly on November 25, 2018, 11:56:03 AM
Yeah, you know I'm really gonna lose sleep about this. On the other hand: The Sun report, is, I'm sure, rather problematic for the average "The parents threw the body in a bin" supporter, seeing as how it makes clear via an unnamed source that the parents aren't being looked at as participants in their daughter's disappearance and the dogs were clearing barking up the wrong cadaver.
Mmmm....!
It’s a step closer to leaving the apartment to find her parents and having an accident though.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on November 25, 2018, 11:57:18 AM
‘The Sun on Sunday can reveal one of these revolves around three-year-old Madeleine waking up and wandering out of the villa in Praia da Luz, Portugal.
Detectives from Operation Grange — the Met Police’s probe into her 2007 disappearance — discussed the theory recently with Portuguese police.
Cops there had previously explored whether Madeleine was searching for her parents, who were at a nearby tapas bar.
She may have been knocked down by a drink driver, they speculated, who put her body in the car and later buried it.’
Where does it say that they are looking at the theory that she may have been tempted away from the apartment with promises of a puppy?
Interesting use of tense there:
Cops there had previously explored whether Madeleine was searching for her parents, who were at a nearby tapas bar.
She may have been knocked down by a drink driver, they speculated, who put her body in the car and later buried it.’
So what were they discussing more recently, if not that..?
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on November 25, 2018, 11:59:13 AM
It’s a step closer to leaving the apartment to find her parents and having an accident though.
And would prove conclusively that the parents had no hand in her disappearance and the dogs were completely and utterly wrong. Surely a devastating blow for your average McCann sceptic?
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: faithlilly on November 25, 2018, 12:00:15 PM
I have no idea. Perhaps you could point out the people here who believe it is true?
This post seems to suggest you believe that there is some veracity in the article.
‘If a burglar opened the shutter and windows from outside, causing Madeleine to wake and flee she wouldn't have fled via the front door because that was heading towards the perpetrators. If she fled out of the patio doors then her mother was wrong; she did close the gates behind herself. Assuming that Kate was correct when she said both gates were closed when she arrived. So why did the children's bedroom door move between 8.30 and 9.05? Why did it move again between 9.05 and 9.30?’
Am I wrong ?
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on November 25, 2018, 12:44:27 PM
This post seems to suggest you believe that there is some veracity in the article.
‘If a burglar opened the shutter and windows from outside, causing Madeleine to wake and flee she wouldn't have fled via the front door because that was heading towards the perpetrators. If she fled out of the patio doors then her mother was wrong; she did close the gates behind herself. Assuming that Kate was correct when she said both gates were closed when she arrived. So why did the children's bedroom door move between 8.30 and 9.05? Why did it move again between 9.05 and 9.30?’
Am I wrong ?
lol. yes. I didn't write it. @)(++(*
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: faithlilly on November 25, 2018, 12:52:39 PM
Yeah, you know I'm really gonna lose sleep about this. On the other hand: The Sun report, is, I'm sure, rather problematic for the average "The parents threw the body in a bin" supporter, seeing as how it makes clear via an unnamed source that the parents aren't being looked at as participants in their daughter's disappearance and the dogs were clearing barking up the wrong cadaver.
So do you believe the report has any veracity or not ?
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on November 25, 2018, 01:01:23 PM
Yeah, you know I'm really gonna lose sleep about this. On the other hand: The Sun report, is, I'm sure, rather problematic for the average "The parents threw the body in a bin" supporter, seeing as how it makes clear via an unnamed source that the parents aren't being looked at as participants in their daughter's disappearance and the dogs were clearing barking up the wrong cadaver.
So do you believe the report has any veracity or not ?
I've already answered haven't I? I have no idea. My post above was a piss-take of yours as you actually DO seem to want to believe in it, bizarrely.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: barrier on November 25, 2018, 01:04:50 PM
The mail says it the Portuguse reinvestigating the woke and wondered as opposed to the Sun saying its SY.
Quote
Portuguese police are investigating the theory that Madeleine McCann disappeared after waking up and walking out of her parents' Algarve holiday apartment. Sources close to the probe into the three-year-old's 2007 disappearance say investigators are revisiting the possibility something happened to her after she left the flat - and not inside.
Someone’s definitely leaking but to what purpose would the PJ leak ?
Before we were told it was to blacken the parents name and character but surely that can’t be the case now ? After all the parents aren’t suspects this time, are they ?
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on November 25, 2018, 01:20:39 PM
Someone’s definitely leaking but to what purpose would the PJ leak ?
Before we were told it was to blacken the parents name and character but surely that can’t be the case now ? After all the parents aren’t suspects this time, are they ?
Maybe the leaker gets a few Euros for his or her trouble. It's not ALWAYS about the parents you know... 8(0(*
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: faithlilly on November 25, 2018, 01:29:33 PM
You really do believe that there is some veracity in this story, don’t you ?
Are you telling me, or are you asking me again? For the avoidance of doubt let me repeat what I have already said twice before today - I have no idea if this story has any veracity or not, nor do I give two hoots one way or the other. I hope that is now crystal clear to you, and means you won't have to keep on at me about it.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: faithlilly on November 25, 2018, 02:29:25 PM
Are you telling me, or are you asking me again? For the avoidance of doubt let me repeat what I have already said twice before today - I have no idea if this story has any veracity or not, nor do I give two hoots one way or the other. I hope that is now crystal clear to you, and means you won't have to keep on at me about it.
But you think the Portuguese are leaking which rather begs the question if it is not true why couldn’t the article just have been made up ? I’m sure you’ll agree that that is a rather more believable scenario than the PJ leaking, for no obvious reason, almost 5 years after they reopened the investigation?
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on November 25, 2018, 02:49:37 PM
No, I was taking the piss out of this goading comment from Faithlilly
"The Sun report is, I’m sure, rather problematic for the average supporter.
It does provide information, via an unnamed source, that the parents aren’t being looked at as participants in their daughter’s disappearance but on the other hand if the report is true then the parents couldn’t have been telling the truth about the window/shutter being open.
Mmmm.....!"
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on November 25, 2018, 02:52:59 PM
But you think the Portuguese are leaking which rather begs the question if it is not true why couldn’t the article just have been made up ? I’m sure you’ll agree that that is a rather more believable scenario than the PJ leaking, for no obvious reason, almost 5 years after they reopened the investigation?
Do I think the Portuguese are leaking? Only if the article is true, which it may be, it may not be, who knows? If you ae telling me that logic dictates that the entire article is fabricated because the Portuguese would never leak then I'd have to question your reasoning however.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Lace on November 25, 2018, 03:10:27 PM
No, I was taking the piss out of this goading comment from Faithlilly
"The Sun report is, I’m sure, rather problematic for the average supporter.
It does provide information, via an unnamed source, that the parents aren’t being looked at as participants in their daughter’s disappearance but on the other hand if the report is true then the parents couldn’t have been telling the truth about the window/shutter being open.
Mmmm.....!"
Unless someone opened the window and lured Madeleine outside?
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: pathfinder73 on November 25, 2018, 03:12:25 PM
This case is a game of lies and regurgitating theories brings time to concentrate on the final lead IMO.
Oh I think that’s very much what is happening now.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: pathfinder73 on November 25, 2018, 04:40:23 PM
On an interesting side-note: When Fleet White was under enormous intense media pressure in the JonBenet case the police had to come out and say that he was not a suspect to calm things down which was a lie! Their reasoning in declaring him a non-suspect was that it can change at anytime. They definitely were not saying that he was cleared in the case. Big difference!
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on November 25, 2018, 04:55:27 PM
Sorry, but would you mind explaining why “regurgitating theories brings time to concentrate on the final lead”is even necessary?
I think you had better asked Pathfinder that as it was their post.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: faithlilly on November 25, 2018, 05:40:00 PM
Day 100 from Gerry’s blog ( when the parents certainly knew they were suspects )
‘There was a statement from the Portuguese police today regarding the recent activity in the investigation and media speculation. They confirmed that there are new leads and that we are not suspects in Madeleines disappearance. Other tests are outstanding and Kate and I do hope that these take us forward in finding out who took Madeleine and where she is. Unfortunately we have to add patience to our other characteristics.’
Compare and contrast.
From last weeks Daily Mail article.
‘Police have told the parents of Madeleine McCann that they are 'hopeful' for a result as they pursue two vital new leads.
The Operation Grange team, who had been thought to be focusing on just one, told Kate and Gerry during a meeting thought to be at their Leicestershire home, that they had 'two specific and active' lines of inquiry.
Kate and Gerry, both 50, are 'greatly encouraged' that Scotland Yard could finally be closing in on Maddie's kidnapper after eleven-and-a-half years.’
The years tick by but the tactics remain the same.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: pathfinder73 on November 25, 2018, 05:55:18 PM
Day 100 from Gerry’s blog ( when the parents certainly knew they were suspects )
‘There was a statement from the Portuguese police today regarding the recent activity in the investigation and media speculation. They confirmed that there are new leads and that we are not suspects in Madeleines disappearance. Other tests are outstanding and Kate and I do hope that these take us forward in finding out who took Madeleine and where she is. Unfortunately we have to add patience to our other characteristics.’
Compare and contrast.
From last weeks Daily Mail article.
‘Police have told the parents of Madeleine McCann that they are 'hopeful' for a result as they pursue two vital new leads.
The Operation Grange team, who had been thought to be focusing on just one, told Kate and Gerry during a meeting thought to be at their Leicestershire home, that they had 'two specific and active' lines of inquiry.
Kate and Gerry, both 50, are 'greatly encouraged' that Scotland Yard could finally be closing in on Maddie's kidnapper after eleven-and-a-half years.’
The years tick by but the tactics remain the same.
Hopefully they saw Madeleine's room and precious pink blanket when they visited. Amaral said it disappeared so surely that can't be true 8)--))
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Erngath on November 25, 2018, 05:57:35 PM
I think you had better asked Pathfinder that as it was their post.
Pathfinder speaks in riddles so I didn’t bother, you on the other hand don’t and seemed to wholeheartedly agree with his or her post, that’s why I asked you to explain.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on November 25, 2018, 06:12:24 PM
Day 100 from Gerry’s blog ( when the parents certainly knew they were suspects )
‘There was a statement from the Portuguese police today regarding the recent activity in the investigation and media speculation. They confirmed that there are new leads and that we are not suspects in Madeleines disappearance. Other tests are outstanding and Kate and I do hope that these take us forward in finding out who took Madeleine and where she is. Unfortunately we have to add patience to our other characteristics.’
Compare and contrast.
From last weeks Daily Mail article.
‘Police have told the parents of Madeleine McCann that they are 'hopeful' for a result as they pursue two vital new leads.
The Operation Grange team, who had been thought to be focusing on just one, told Kate and Gerry during a meeting thought to be at their Leicestershire home, that they had 'two specific and active' lines of inquiry.
Kate and Gerry, both 50, are 'greatly encouraged' that Scotland Yard could finally be closing in on Maddie's kidnapper after eleven-and-a-half years.’
The years tick by but the tactics remain the same.
The years surely do tick by, perhaps it’s time for a new tactic, or are they waiting for someone to die of old age before revealing them as the main suspects?
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Erngath on November 25, 2018, 06:26:28 PM
The years surely do tick by, perhaps it’s time for a new tactic, or are they waiting for someone to die of old age before revealing them as the main suspects?
Tick tock and yet no indication that Madeleine's parents are under suspicion by those who are investigating her disappearance.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: faithlilly on November 25, 2018, 06:28:36 PM
Pathfinder speaks in riddles so I didn’t bother, you on the other hand don’t and seemed to wholeheartedly agree with his or her post, that’s why I asked you to explain.
Then you’ll be disappointed.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on November 25, 2018, 06:31:01 PM
Tick tock and yet no indication that Madeleine's parents are under suspicion by those who are investigating her disappearance.
Of course not 8(0(*
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on November 25, 2018, 06:43:39 PM
All this tick-tocking and softly softly approach at a cost of £12m is all rather puzzling isn’t it. I mean, we all know there is no forensic evidence or cctv evidence pointing to the McCanns, so what exactly have the police been spending all that money trying to uncover? If I were in charge of the police operation and I thought they’d dunnit I would have made them official suspects again and piled on the pressure again in an attempt to get them to crack this time. Still, maybe the police enjoy their trips to Portugal and are happy to spin this one out until the money runs out and thenpay a visit to Rothley with two sets of handcuffs - LOL.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: jassi on November 25, 2018, 06:45:58 PM
Whatever they are doing, there's apparently no urgency.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Robittybob1 on November 25, 2018, 06:46:21 PM
If a burglar opened the shutter and windows from outside, causing Madeleine to wake and flee she wouldn't have fled via the front door because that was heading towards the perpetrators. If she fled out of the patio doors then her mother was wrong; she did close the gates behind herself. Assuming that Kate was correct when she said both gates were closed when she arrived. So why did the children's bedroom door move between 8.30 and 9.05? Why did it move again between 9.05 and 9.30?
Follow up
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Angelo222 on November 25, 2018, 08:49:59 PM
All this tick-tocking and softly softly approach at a cost of £12m is all rather puzzling isn’t it. I mean, we all know there is no forensic evidence or cctv evidence pointing to the McCanns, so what exactly have the police been spending all that money trying to uncover? If I were in charge of the police operation and I thought they’d dunnit I would have made them official suspects again and piled on the pressure again in an attempt to get them to crack this time. Still, maybe the police enjoy their trips to Portugal and are happy to spin this one out until the money runs out and thenpay a visit to Rothley with two sets of handcuffs - LOL.
I disagree about there being no forensic evidence. The forensics lifted from the window and shutter were extremely informative and point to a staged abduction imo. That was only the beginning however, refusing to cooperate fully with the police and attempting to discredit them all points one way imho. Such conduct was not conducive with parents whose child had been abducted so I have every sympathy with the Portuguese police.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Angelo222 on November 25, 2018, 09:01:38 PM
‘The Sun on Sunday can reveal one of these revolves around three-year-old Madeleine waking up and wandering out of the villa in Praia da Luz, Portugal.
Detectives from Operation Grange — the Met Police’s probe into her 2007 disappearance — discussed the theory recently with Portuguese police.
Cops there had previously explored whether Madeleine was searching for her parents, who were at a nearby tapas bar.
She may have been knocked down by a drink driver, they speculated, who put her body in the car and later buried it.’
Where does it say that they are looking at the theory that she may have been tempted away from the apartment with promises of a puppy?
Nice to see that they are following up on this at last. I told you all weeks ago that this was on the cards. Phase 2 soon hopefully!!
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Angelo222 on November 25, 2018, 09:07:31 PM
I disagree about there being no forensic evidence. The forensics lifted from the window and shutter were extremely informative and point to a staged abduction imo. That was only the beginning however, refusing to cooperate fully with the police and attempting to discredit them all points one way imho. Such conduct was not conducive with parents whose child had been abducted so I have every sympathy with the Portuguese police.
What forensics poyto a staged abduction, please tell us?
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Mr Gray on November 25, 2018, 09:12:43 PM
It’s funny Angelo I thought of you when I read this.
So do you think the parents lied about the open window and shutters ?
Umm...lied is maybe a bit strong. I like to think it was a memory lapse caused by trauma. Does anyone believe for a moment that any parent who has just lost a child due to their own stupidity would be sufficiently compos mentis to remember everything they did? The woke and wandered thread looks at this. The Portuguese tracker dogs also lend support to the woke and wandered theory.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: faithlilly on November 25, 2018, 09:25:35 PM
Umm...lied is maybe a bit strong. I like to think it was a memory lapse caused by trauma. The woke and wandered thread looks at this. The Portuguese tracker dogs also lend support to the woke and wandered theory.
A memory lapse ? So Kate ‘forgot’ that the window and shutters had actually been closed when she entered the apartment ? Or do you believe that the parents had actually left the window and shutters open when they left but both had forgotten?
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Montclair on November 25, 2018, 09:27:20 PM
Have either the MET or PJ confirmed this news? I think not. So why are some people taking it as true?
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: faithlilly on November 25, 2018, 09:27:58 PM
A memory lapse ? So Kate ‘forgot’ that the window and shutters had actually been closed when she entered the apartment ? Or do you believe that the parents had actually left the window and shutters open when they left but both had forgotten?
The forensics suggest Kate opened them and the only innocent reason for that would be to look outside for the missing child.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: faithlilly on November 25, 2018, 09:35:15 PM
The forensics suggest Kate opened them and the only innocent reason for that would be to look outside for the missing child.
So she ‘misremembered’ that she had opened it when she told her husband it was open minutes later ? That she also ‘misremembered’ the whooping of the curtains and slamming of the door ? Really ?
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Angelo222 on November 25, 2018, 09:36:42 PM
So she ‘misremembered’ that she had opened it when she told her husband it was open minutes later ? That she also ‘misremembered’ the whooping of the curtains and slamming of the door ? Really ?
Trauma can create many illusions.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: pathfinder73 on November 25, 2018, 09:37:58 PM
It is starting to get closer to the true events but Smithman did not hit her with his car and carry her away. Why carry on foot if he had a car? Doesn't add up.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: faithlilly on November 25, 2018, 09:41:53 PM
It is starting to get closer to the true events but Smithman did not hit her with his car and carry her away. Why carry on foot if he had a car? Doesn't add up.
Remember that Smithman went right past the medical centre.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Angelo222 on November 25, 2018, 09:52:33 PM
It can cause much confusion and especially so if drink is involved. One only has to look at the praying Arabs scene to find something very peculiar, even the two cops were gobsmacked. Gerry couldn't even remember which door he used or where he met Jez. To this day he still believes that he crossed the road to intercept Jez.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: faithlilly on November 25, 2018, 09:55:04 PM
It can cause much confusion and especially so if drink is involved. One only has to look at the praying Arabs scene to find something very peculiar, even the two cops were gobsmacked. Gerry couldn't even remember which door he used.
Confusion maybe, delusions no.
As to the door, Gerry remembered perfectly.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Robittybob1 on November 25, 2018, 10:11:17 PM
The forensics suggest Kate opened them and the only innocent reason for that would be to look outside for the missing child.
Finger prints tell that someone touched the window. I think Kate admits to touching the window when checking it was closed. Do they tell someone that Kate opened the window?
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on November 25, 2018, 10:14:09 PM
It can cause much confusion and especially so if drink is involved. One only has to look at the praying Arabs scene to find something very peculiar, even the two cops were gobsmacked. Gerry couldn't even remember which door he used or where he met Jez. To this day he still believes that he crossed the road to intercept Jez.
Why did you write this less than two hours ago?
“The forensics lifted from the window and shutter were extremely informative and point to a staged abduction imo.”
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: pathfinder73 on November 25, 2018, 10:20:06 PM
It can cause much confusion and especially so if drink is involved. One only has to look at the praying Arabs scene to find something very peculiar, even the two cops were gobsmacked. Gerry couldn't even remember which door he used or where he met Jez. To this day he still believes that he crossed the road to intercept Jez.
Or he crossed the road to explain how he had his back to Jane and therefore did not see her. Jez was adamant that he did not see anyone else at that time or maybe they did not want to admit to seeing the mysterious woman in purple @)(++(*
Good point on the medical centre but this was at 10pm.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Montclair on November 25, 2018, 10:52:09 PM
In this interview with Sandra Felgueiras, the McCanns state that Madeleine would not have been able to leave the apartment on her own and Kate says that the window and shutter were open.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_KdIKe_Zds
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: faithlilly on November 25, 2018, 11:47:43 PM
In this interview with Sandra Felgueiras, the McCanns state that Madeleine would not have been able to leave the apartment on her own and Kate says that the window and shutter were open.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_KdIKe_Zds
If the article about the woke and wandered theory is true it does put the parents in a bit of a pickle.
If not it does signify that the print media is no longer scared, no matter how tentatively, to say that there may not have been an abduction.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: John on November 26, 2018, 12:28:14 AM
In this interview with Sandra Felgueiras, the McCanns state that Madeleine would not have been able to leave the apartment on her own and Kate says that the window and shutter were open.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_KdIKe_Zds
Why did they leave the patio door unlocked then?
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Brietta on November 26, 2018, 02:54:24 AM
It's not rocket science, the police believe Kate opened the window.
The forum has looked extensively both at smudges on the shutters and at the positioning of Kate's fingerprints on the window which are commensurate not of her opening the window but of leaning against it for support as she leaned out.
The three quotes below are from a member who believed the 'woke and wandered' theory and who made an excellent case for it ... whether one agrees with it or not.
When the window is at maximum (50%) open position, looking from inside, the right pane is slid left so it covers the left pane. Have you not watched the video demonstration in Amaral's film? http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=1868.msg258650#msg258650 ________________________________________________________________________
The 5 KM prints were all located on the "Lado interior do vidro da janela" "Interior surface of the glass of the window" http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P4/04_VOLUME_IVa_Page_884a.jpg http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=1868.msg259170#msg259170 ________________________________________________________________________
Prints were due to placing left hand for support while leaning to look out the already open window. http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=1868.msg271937#msg271937
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: G-Unit on November 26, 2018, 06:28:04 AM
That new theory puts a nail in Goncalo Amaral's theory. She can't have died in the apartment and walked out.
But she could have walked out and died which puts the spotlight right back on the parents imo and that is why this theory has been avoided so much by supporters.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Brietta on November 26, 2018, 10:31:01 AM
Had Madeleine met with an accidental death either in or close to the apartment it would have been usual for a body to be somewhere close to the scene.
But whatever else the woke and wandered theory does ... it destroys Amaral's premise of Madeleine falling off the couch and or falling over the balcony into the flower bed and or falling down the stairs.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Montclair on November 26, 2018, 10:43:57 AM
There has been no confirmation from either PJ or OG that they are looking into the walk and wandered theory. Why do some people here take it as the gospel truth? We have already had the paedophile ring, the botched burglary, the woman in purple, and I don't know how many other theories. The only reason that this has been brought out in the press is that it debunks the abduction story and everything the parents said about what happened that night.
It seems that the police warned the parents not to tell anything to the press, so as to not prejudice the investigation. Now we have the walk and wandered theory in the papers after the police visit in Rothley, which in my mind would harm any possibility of finding the culprit, who has now been forewarned. Any parent who wants their child to be found would not endanger them in this way. So this makes me believe that this theory is not on the table.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Robittybob1 on November 26, 2018, 10:50:06 AM
We don't know that. As I said the other day if she left by the front door (and there was no one else involved) Kate or Matt would have found the door open. It had to be closed using a key from the outside, or the lever from the inside. In my theory there has to be someone who closed that door before Kate appears. The person would have to leave via the patio door. I now wonder if the PJ or SY will confirm this at some stage.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Eleanor on November 26, 2018, 10:50:35 AM
It is possible that the people who have Madeleine now don't know who she is.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: barrier on November 26, 2018, 10:51:18 AM
There has been no confirmation from either PJ or OG that they are looking into the walk and wandered theory. Why do some people here take it as the gospel truth? We have already had the paedophile ring, the botched burglary, the woman in purple, and I don't know how many other theories. The only reason that this has been brought out in the press is that it debunks the abduction story and everything the parents said about what happened that night.
It seems that the police warned the parents not to tell anything to the press, so as to not prejudice the investigation. Now we have the walk and wandered theory in the papers after the police visit in Rothley, which in my mind would harm any possibility of finding the culprit, who has now been forewarned. Any parent who wants their child to be found would not endanger them in this way. So this makes me believe that this theory is not on the table.
Like I said previously,if the story of a visit is true then why should this be any different, now if the visit to Rothley is made up then this can also fall into the same category.imo of course.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: barrier on November 26, 2018, 10:53:25 AM
We don't know that. As I said the other day if she left by the front door Kate or Matt would have found the door open. It had to be closed using a key from the outside, or the lever from the inside. In my theory there has to be someone who closed that door before Kate appears. The person would have to leave via the patio door. I now wonder if the PJ or SY will confirm this at some stage.
Woke and wandered and knocked down would be accidental would it not,which we are being led to believe is the angle now being explored,or not as the case maybe.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: barrier on November 26, 2018, 10:54:49 AM
Had Madeleine met with an accidental death either in or close to the apartment it would have been usual for a body to be somewhere close to the scene.
But whatever else the woke and wandered theory does ... it destroys Amaral's premise of Madeleine falling off the couch and or falling over the balcony into the flower bed and or falling down the stairs.
Did Amaral say that or is it some wanted to have him say it?
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: jassi on November 26, 2018, 10:56:33 AM
There has been no confirmation from either PJ or OG that they are looking into the walk and wandered theory. Why do some people here take it as the gospel truth? We have already had the paedophile ring, the botched burglary, the woman in purple, and I don't know how many other theories. The only reason that this has been brought out in the press is that it debunks the abduction story and everything the parents said about what happened that night.
It seems that the police warned the parents not to tell anything to the press, so as to not prejudice the investigation. Now we have the walk and wandered theory in the papers after the police visit in Rothley, which in my mind would harm any possibility of finding the culprit, who has now been forewarned. Any parent who wants their child to be found would not endanger them in this way. So this makes me believe that this theory is not on the table.
Since Kate found the window open and not the front door open she can only think that Madeleine was abducted via the window. Who would think that someone would raise the shutters for no reason? Once the PJ realise someone closed the door (after Madeleine left), it will put new pressure on someone to confess to closing the front door. Well that is my theory anyway.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Gertrude on November 26, 2018, 11:03:05 AM
That new theory puts a nail in Goncalo Amaral's theory. She can't have died in the apartment and walked out.
How is this at all a new theory? It's just a rehashed old theory, popping up in the papers through an anonymous source.
How can the UK media get away with lies like this? Just an anonymous rumour but stating it as fact?
From The Sun ...."BRIT cops are re-examining a theory that Madeleine McCann left her family’s holiday apartment to look for her parents.
“ A source in Portugal said: One of the lines of investigation that continues to be pursued is that Maddie could have walked out of the holiday flat herself.”
The Met Police refused to comment.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Brietta on November 26, 2018, 11:05:04 AM
But she could have walked out and died which puts the spotlight right back on the parents imo and that is why this theory has been avoided so much by supporters.
I think that can only work on the assumption that the only folk out and about in Luz at the time were those mentioned in the case files ... and that is patently absurd.
In my opinion there was a lot more going on than that.
For example, but for Neil Berry's replies in his rogatory statement we would never have known that he had been in the apartment five stairwell on 3rd May http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/NEIL_BERRY.htm in which he refers to previous statements one of which was 7th May.
The laundry man didn't mention the encounter in his statement at the time http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARIO_MARREIROS.htm
Nor would we have known that Stephen Carpenter too had made previous statements had it not been for his rogatory interview. Snip DCF: And I know that before we begin the questioning, that you showed some concern about the truthful recording of the facts and that they could have had some distortions by what you have read about the event.
SC: Yes.
DCF: Therefore what we have agreed to do is to read your statement and put the facts together. http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/STEPHEN-CARPENTER.htm
The files we have seen are not even a snapshot of events on May 3 2007 because there is too much missing from them and some missing statements could very well change perceptions of events had they been followed through at the time.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: barrier on November 26, 2018, 11:05:29 AM
How is this at all a new theory? It's just a rehashed old theory, popping up in the papers through an anonymous source.
How can the UK media get away with lies like this? Just an anonymous rumour but stating it as fact?
From The Sun ...."BRIT cops are re-examining a theory that Madeleine McCann left her family’s holiday apartment to look for her parents.
“ A source in Portugal said: One of the lines of investigation that continues to be pursued is that Maddie could have walked out of the holiday flat herself.”
The Met Police refused to comment.
The last sentence being the salient part. But there again its not their investigation.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: jassi on November 26, 2018, 11:05:47 AM
Had Madeleine met with an accidental death either in or close to the apartment it would have been usual for a body to be somewhere close to the scene.
But whatever else the woke and wandered theory does ... it destroys Amaral's premise of Madeleine falling off the couch and or falling over the balcony into the flower bed and or falling down the stairs.
It would if woke & wandered turns out to be true. Until then Amaral's theory has not been destroyed.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Robittybob1 on November 26, 2018, 11:06:43 AM
How is this at all a new theory? It's just a rehashed old theory, popping up in the papers through an anonymous source.
How can the UK media get away with lies like this? Just an anonymous rumour but stating it as fact?
From The Sun ...."BRIT cops are re-examining a theory that Madeleine McCann left her family’s holiday apartment to look for her parents.
“ A source in Portugal said: One of the lines of investigation that continues to be pursued is that Maddie could have walked out of the holiday flat herself.”
The Met Police refused to comment.
Didn't the archiving report dismiss the idea of Madeleine wandering? They didn't give their reasoning, but I'm sure it has to do with doors or gates being left open if wandering had occurred.
So in some ways it is new from the PJ's POV.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: G-Unit on November 26, 2018, 11:12:50 AM
How is this at all a new theory? It's just a rehashed old theory, popping up in the papers through an anonymous source.
How can the UK media get away with lies like this? Just an anonymous rumour but stating it as fact?
From The Sun ...."BRIT cops are re-examining a theory that Madeleine McCann left her family’s holiday apartment to look for her parents.
“ A source in Portugal said: One of the lines of investigation that continues to be pursued is that Maddie could have walked out of the holiday flat herself.”
The Met Police refused to comment.
Writing these articles is a nice little earner for a freelance journalist imo.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: barrier on November 26, 2018, 11:14:07 AM
Didn't the archiving report dismiss the idea of Madeleine wandering? They didn't give their reasoning, but I'm sure it has to do with doors or gates being left open if wandering had occurred.
So in some ways it is new from the PJ's POV.
But the article (which is quite possibly loads of rubbish) from the Sun says it's 'Brit cops' who are looking at this theory.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: G-Unit on November 26, 2018, 11:41:03 AM
But the article (which is quite possibly loads of rubbish) from the Sun says it's 'Brit cops' who are looking at this theory.
From the OP "Portuguese police are investigating the theory that Madeleine McCann disappeared after waking up and walking out of her parents' Algarve holiday apartment."
I have a feeling the UK cops were well aware of this already.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Gertrude on November 26, 2018, 11:58:40 AM
From the OP "Portuguese police are investigating the theory that Madeleine McCann disappeared after waking up and walking out of her parents' Algarve holiday apartment."
I have a feeling the UK cops were well aware of this already.
OK but it's an anonymous source Rob, it has no confirmation. Our gutter press routinely run stories fed to them by P.R. people, it has no validity apart from The Sun/ Mail claim it happened.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Brietta on November 26, 2018, 12:08:45 PM
There was the couple who had been called to a repair. They passed at 21.00 http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/HAYLEY-CRAWFORD.htm
There was the chef who drove from near the Millenium to the Tapas at 21.10 http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/ARLINDO-PELEGA.htm
Neither of them reports seeing Matthew, Gerry, Jane or Jeremy.
Interesting statement detailing the use of two vehicles by the couple on that evening ...
Snip When questioned, the witness states that when she travelled along the roads in question, which make up the resort, and principally those which she later learnt were adjacent to the apartment where Madeleine was staying and disappeared from, close to the Tapas restaurant, which she did at about 21H00, (03 May, 2007) the witness states that she saw no vehicle, person or other situation that she considered suspicious that could be directly or indirectly related to the facts being investigated.
When asked, the witness states that after her boyfriend had collected a service vehicle, from the Ocean Club reception, which took place at about 21H00, they both went to her home, but in separate vehicles, arriving at about 21H15.
The witness states that she was off work on last Wednesday and Thursday, as was her boyfriend.
Snip - Questioned, he states that, last Thursday, he was off duty but was called by the reception and went to the resort around 020H30 to open a door that had problems. After completing the work for which he was called, which took him about 15 minutes, he left for his residence
The forum has looked extensively both at smudges on the shutters and at the positioning of Kate's fingerprints on the window which are commensurate not of her opening the window but of leaning against it for support as she leaned out.
The three quotes below are from a member who believed the 'woke and wandered' theory and who made an excellent case for it ... whether one agrees with it or not.
When the window is at maximum (50%) open position, looking from inside, the right pane is slid left so it covers the left pane. Have you not watched the video demonstration in Amaral's film? http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=1868.msg258650#msg258650 ________________________________________________________________________
The 5 KM prints were all located on the "Lado interior do vidro da janela" "Interior surface of the glass of the window" http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P4/04_VOLUME_IVa_Page_884a.jpg http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=1868.msg259170#msg259170 ________________________________________________________________________
Prints were due to placing left hand for support while leaning to look out the already open window. http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=1868.msg271937#msg271937
She never admitted touching the window in 2007 in any of her statements so to change her mind years after to explain how her fingerprints got there wouldn't wash with investigators LOL. Kate should have answered all of their questions in 2007 not after the files were released when they had access to what the police know. Another fine mess!
"The window in Madeleine's room remained closed, but she doesn't know if it was locked, blinds and curtains drawn. The window remained like this since the first day, night and day. She never opened it." http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/KATE-MCCANN_ARGUIDO.htm
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Sunny on November 26, 2018, 01:29:35 PM
She never admitted touching the window in 2007 in any of her statements so to change her mind years after to explain how her fingerprints got there wouldn't wash with investigators LOL. Kate should have answered all of their questions in 2007 not after the files were released when they had access to what the police know. Another fine mess!
"The window in Madeleine's room remained closed, but she doesn't know if it was locked, blinds and curtains drawn. The window remained like this since the first day, night and day. She never opened it." http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/KATE-MCCANN_ARGUIDO.htm
Brietta's last cite concerning Kate McCann's fingers on the window was simply a quote from a poster on here called pegasus who was only giving their opinion.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Montclair on November 26, 2018, 01:29:56 PM
Scary for the McCanns because of those shutters, the window and the moving door. The woke and wandered theory calls all that into question. I see the dogs are there again. Are toes being dipped into murky waters to see if Carter-Ruck are still on the job?
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Alice Purjorick on November 26, 2018, 02:23:05 PM
Or comedic! What's with the "heavy shutters" routine then? The rollyupanddown curtain bit is unlikely to be more than 4 or 5 kilogrammes per m2 I suppose it depends on the definition of heavy that one relies. Then of course the CDA for raising will have somekind of built in mechanical advantage.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Sunny on November 26, 2018, 02:33:58 PM
Scary for the McCanns because of those shutters, the window and the moving door. The woke and wandered theory calls all that into question. I see the dogs are there again. Are toes being dipped into murky waters to see if Carter-Ruck are still on the job?
And now they appear to believe that Scotland Yard are insulting them ...
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: barrier on November 26, 2018, 03:14:44 PM
Still locked in a long legal battle with Amaral I see.
Brilliant article,still at least there is no denying the provenance of the woke and wandered theory being explored, abductor what abductor.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: faithlilly on November 26, 2018, 03:17:05 PM
And now they appear to believe that Scotland Yard are insulting them ...
And the circle is closed.
If OG is considering woke and wandered surely the McCanns would have been informed of it at the Rothley meeting we were informed of last week ? They are said to be furious that this theory is being considered yet last week we were informed they were ‘delighted’ that there was still leads to be pursued.
My take on it. Get a couple of compliant journalists. One is given the task of writing about the ‘Brits’ considering the woke and wandered theory ( they’re not ), the other to write the follow up article maligning the theory and undermining the work and competency of the British investigation. Do you see a pattern?
For me the Sun article today is the most significant as it is the first time in 7 years the parents have personally vocalised their displeasure in the investigation and not through any old journalist, liable to twist their words but by a journalist we know is particularly close to Kate.
That fat lady certainly can belt out a brilliant tune !
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: barrier on November 26, 2018, 03:19:46 PM
Still locked in a long legal battle with Amaral I see.
Brilliant article,still at least there is no denying the provenance of the woke and wandered theory being explored, abductor what abductor.
No mention of twice being duffed up in court over the nasty book. One day The Sun says [fill in as appropriate]. The next day The Sun says [fill in the opposite to yesterday's article.]
The scary bit is that someone writes this for good cash money and has the right to vote.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Brietta on November 26, 2018, 04:01:23 PM
She never admitted touching the window in 2007 in any of her statements so to change her mind years after to explain how her fingerprints got there wouldn't wash with investigators LOL. Kate should have answered all of their questions in 2007 not after the files were released when they had access to what the police know. Another fine mess!
"The window in Madeleine's room remained closed, but she doesn't know if it was locked, blinds and curtains drawn. The window remained like this since the first day, night and day. She never opened it." http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/KATE-MCCANN_ARGUIDO.htm
There was no requirement for anyone opening the window to touch the glass as has been noted on numerous occasions and as demonstrated on the Amaral video ...
If the window is closed and locked, here is how to open it from inside http://youtu.be/nTNXowdzksI?t=8m52s 8:54 hold handle with left hand and press the lower (unlock) button with left thumb. 8:57 slide that half of the window open. No fingers touch the glass. http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=1868.msg272005#msg272005
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Sunny on November 26, 2018, 04:17:56 PM
I have seen elsewhere that Goncalo Amaral says some of the fingerprints were on the handle of the window as well as the glass.
However, on the glass, on the handle and on the right-hand frame of Madeleine's bedroom window, we had lifted five fingerprints - three from a middle finger and two from an index finger - all from a left hand, identified as belonging to Kate McCann.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Sunny on November 26, 2018, 04:28:32 PM
I thought I'd add further from this quote The window in question is the one that Kate Healy states she found open to the left, with the curtains fluttering, when she discovered that her daughter was missing. On the window, there were no signs of a break-in or of gloves. It had been cleaned the day before, May 2nd, by an Ocean Club employee, and the only fingerprints found were Kate's. The position of the fingerprints indicate that the window had been opened to the left, as Kate Healy stated: "the window was fully open to the left." There is no doubt that somebody opened that window on the evening of May 3rd and the only fingerprints found on it were those of Kate Healy. The manager of the Ocean Club's crèche, who went to the apartment after the alarm was raised, remarked that, "the window was partially open to the left," confirming Kate's earlier statement.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Mr Gray on November 26, 2018, 04:35:49 PM
No mention of twice being duffed up in court over the nasty book. One day The Sun says [fill in as appropriate]. The next day The Sun says [fill in the opposite to yesterday's article.]
The scary bit is that someone writes this for good cash money and has the right to vote.
The real scary bit is the millions who read it and think it's true have the right to vote...
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Robittybob1 on November 26, 2018, 04:44:04 PM
OK but it's an anonymous source Rob, it has no confirmation. Our gutter press routinely run stories fed to them by P.R. people, it has no validity apart from The Sun/ Mail claim it happened.
After 2.5 years of study on this case IMO it is the right theory. Problem is that it only works if they are willing to bring in burglars to open the window who then abandon their attempt of entry, and someone else who closes the front door after Madeleine makes her journey out the front door. Closing a front door is not a crime. But if someone has kept that quiet all these years it makes me wonder. They would then have to explain what they were doing there to see the front door open in the first place.
I can see the case starting to unravel if they were to persist with this enquiry.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: faithlilly on November 26, 2018, 04:50:56 PM
From the article "A family source said: "Kate and Gerry have always maintained that their daughter was abducted and simply didn’t get up and wander off to her fate.
"To suggest this is almost ridiculous.
"There were heavy shutters which would have been impossible for a small child to open.""
OK what about if a burglar opened the window. Therefore Madeleine doesn't need to do this Kate?
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Robittybob1 on November 26, 2018, 04:55:28 PM
Another bit from the article ""To give any credence whatsoever to that idea that Madeleine could have walked out on her own you would have to accept that she had gone out the back way, pulling aside the sitting room curtains and drawing them again, then opening the patio doors, the child safety gate at the top of the stairs on the veranda and the little gate to the road - and carefully closing all three behind her."
There are two doors Kate. Why aren't you discussing the front door scenario Kate?
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Robittybob1 on November 26, 2018, 05:01:37 PM
I have seen elsewhere that Goncalo Amaral says some of the fingerprints were on the handle of the window as well as the glass.
However, on the glass, on the handle and on the right-hand frame of Madeleine's bedroom window, we had lifted five fingerprints - three from a middle finger and two from an index finger - all from a left hand, identified as belonging to Kate McCann.
That could be a bad memory of the actual situation.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Robittybob1 on November 26, 2018, 05:03:26 PM
I thought I'd add further from this quote The window in question is the one that Kate Healy states she found open to the left, with the curtains fluttering, when she discovered that her daughter was missing. On the window, there were no signs of a break-in or of gloves. It had been cleaned the day before, May 2nd, by an Ocean Club employee, and the only fingerprints found were Kate's. The position of the fingerprints indicate that the window had been opened to the left, as Kate Healy stated: "the window was fully open to the left." There is no doubt that somebody opened that window on the evening of May 3rd and the only fingerprints found on it were those of Kate Healy. The manager of the Ocean Club's crèche, who went to the apartment after the alarm was raised, remarked that, "the window was partially open to the left," confirming Kate's earlier statement.
Where are the prints of the person who closed it?
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Angelo222 on November 26, 2018, 05:51:16 PM
I can just hear the damage limitation cogs slowly turning.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on November 26, 2018, 06:02:03 PM
And now they appear to believe that Scotland Yard are insulting them ...
Have they made any comment to that effect regarding Scotland Yard? The article seems to be based on an except from Kate’s book written in 2011, nothing else of substance there...
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Brietta on November 26, 2018, 06:10:27 PM
I have seen elsewhere that Goncalo Amaral says some of the fingerprints were on the handle of the window as well as the glass.
However, on the glass, on the handle and on the right-hand frame of Madeleine's bedroom window, we had lifted five fingerprints - three from a middle finger and two from an index finger - all from a left hand, identified as belonging to Kate McCann.
If Amaral states that he is wrong.
The forensic report details that only five fingerprints were found on the inside of the window glass ... there is no record of prints being lifted from from the window handle.
Snip Observations: The fingerprint traces collected are identified as being the middle finger of the left hand (3x) and forefinger of the left hand (2x), of the missing girl’s mother, http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/FINGERPRINTS.htm
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: G-Unit on November 26, 2018, 06:36:10 PM
I can just hear the damage limitation cogs slowly turning.
If any 'truths' have emerged in these recent stories it's that something happened in Portugal and then in Rothley. That suggests that any visit to Rothley by Op Grange was to discuss what happened in Portugal. It would be interesting to know if Op Grange requested a meeting in Portugal or if they were summoned to it.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Robittybob1 on November 26, 2018, 07:16:51 PM
Or comedic! What's with the "heavy shutters" routine then? The rollyupanddown curtain bit is unlikely to be more than 4 or 5 kilogrammes per m2 I suppose it depends on the definition of heavy that one relies. Then of course the CDA for raising will have somekind of built in mechanical advantage.
"kilogrammes per m2" is a measurement of pressure. Are you using the right units? Shouldn't you be looking at units of work?
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Robittybob1 on November 26, 2018, 09:16:46 PM
Well if the investigation are looking at woke and wandered they can’t possibly believe that the window and shutters were open, can they and how can that possibly be positive for the parents ?
Both can occur if someone else opened the window and raised the shutters.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: jassi on November 26, 2018, 09:24:55 PM
If a burglar opened the shutter and windows from outside, causing Madeleine to wake and flee she wouldn't have fled via the front door because that was heading towards the perpetrators. If she fled out of the patio doors then her mother was wrong; she did close the gates behind herself. Assuming that Kate was correct when she said both gates were closed when she arrived. So why did the children's bedroom door move between 8.30 and 9.05? Why did it move again between 9.05 and 9.30?
What is slowly dawning on me is that there could be period between Madeleine being woken and when she leaves. I'm tending to think like this now: 1. The burglar opens the window and raised shutter prior to Matt's visit. 2. The noise woke Madeleine who then went and hid in the apartment. 3. She hears Matt coming in the apartment and later leaving via the patio door. (Since Madeleine doesn't really know Matt she treats him as an "intruder".) 4. Since the "intruder" left by the patio door, Madeleine plucks up courage to leave by the front door.
It is possible that Madeleine had a tendency to hide if she was frightened and it was the reason Kate did her search in the apartment once she noted Madeleine not in her bed. What I am saying above is closely related to what Kate felt initially.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Robittybob1 on November 26, 2018, 09:28:05 PM
Indeed, but no evidence is forthcoming to show that any burglars were out and about that night
The absence of any other prints or even smudged glove marks on the shutter/window would appear to preclude the existence of any burglar and the PJ knew that very early on. Little wonder therefore that taken with everything else they found that the parents came under intense scrutiny.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Alice Purjorick on November 26, 2018, 09:59:30 PM
"kilogrammes per m2" is a measurement of pressure. Are you using the right units? Shouldn't you be looking at units of work?
I beg to differ. kg/m2 = mass per unit area. kg is a unit of mass. pressure = force per unit area NOT mass per unit area. Newton is the unit of force (N). Pascal is the unit of pressure = N/m2 The unit of work is the Joule. But back to the plot I dispute the shutters were heavy.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on November 26, 2018, 10:06:53 PM
I beg to differ. kg/m2 = mass per unit area. kg is a unit of mass. pressure = force per unit area NOT mass per unit area. Newton is the unit of force (N). Pascal is the unit of pressure = N/m2 The unit of work is the Joule. But back to the plot I dispute the shutters were heavy.
And of course your opinion of their heaviness of the shutters (which you have never lifted) and whether or not somebody else’s little child could lift them is equally as valid as the parents of the child who actually experienced the weight of the shutters themselves, isn’t it?
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Alice Purjorick on November 26, 2018, 10:23:03 PM
And of course your opinion of their heaviness of the shutters (which you have never lifted) and whether or not somebody else’s little child could lift them is equally as valid as the parents of the child who actually experienced the weight of the shutters themselves, isn’t it?
Oh dear ! Do you actually ever read anything? I never said anything about a child lifting the shutters. Anyway from the inside the shutter had a CDA to raise it. I said I dispute they are "heavy" as stated by Tracy Wotzerface in Ye Olde Currant Bun.
I have never lifted a 6 metre length of 200 x 200 x 100# U.C either but I know how heavy it is. It was a fatuous comment on your part if you think about it.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on November 26, 2018, 10:36:28 PM
Oh dear ! Do you actually ever read anything? I never said anything about a child lifting the shutters. Anyway from the inside the shutter had a CDA to raise it. I said I dispute they are "heavy" as stated by Tracy Wotzerface in Ye Olde Currant Bun.
I have never lifted a 6 metre length of 200 x 200 x 100# U.C either but I know how heavy it is. It was a fatuous comment on your part if you think about it.
So they are not heavy according to you (even though you’ve never been near them) which means what then a propos the discussion about woke and wandered?
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Robittybob1 on November 27, 2018, 07:03:56 AM
The absence of any other prints or even smudged glove marks on the shutter/window would appear to preclude the existence of any burglar and the PJ knew that very early on. Little wonder therefore that taken with everything else they found that the parents came under intense scrutiny.
What I can't understand is the both Gerry and Dianne also lift the shutters and yet their prints aren't located on the shutters either. The fact that Dianne and Gerry are known to have handled the shutters from the outside could well be the reason there are no finger prints on the shutters.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: G-Unit on November 27, 2018, 08:52:01 AM
I found this bit interesting;
The McCann source said: “Whatever the Met Police are doing, which the public is not privy to, is as much as to rule scenarios and suspects out as to rule them in." https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/7828725/madeleine-mccann-parents-slam-claims-she-wasnt-kidnapped/
From the McCann's point of view they have provided the evidence which rules out woke and wandered. No wonder they find it insulting to suggest that Op Grange are re-examining that scenario. That suggests their evidence isn't convincing.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Robittybob1 on November 27, 2018, 10:13:13 AM
The McCann source said: “Whatever the Met Police are doing, which the public is not privy to, is as much as to rule scenarios and suspects out as to rule them in." https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/7828725/madeleine-mccann-parents-slam-claims-she-wasnt-kidnapped/
From the McCann's point of view they have provided the evidence which rules out woke and wandered. No wonder they find it insulting to suggest that Op Grange are re-examining that scenario. That suggests their evidence isn't convincing.
I find that insulting for if Madeleine left via the front door it would not be her who opened the shutters. Why do they say Madeleine would have had to open the shutters?
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Mr Gray on November 27, 2018, 10:15:18 AM
The McCann source said: “Whatever the Met Police are doing, which the public is not privy to, is as much as to rule scenarios and suspects out as to rule them in." https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/7828725/madeleine-mccann-parents-slam-claims-she-wasnt-kidnapped/
From the McCann's point of view they have provided the evidence which rules out woke and wandered. No wonder they find it insulting to suggest that Op Grange are re-examining that scenario. That suggests their evidence isn't convincing.
So are you assuming this whole story is true
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Robittybob1 on November 27, 2018, 10:18:19 AM
I'm assuming that a 'family source' made observations which I found interesting;
A family source said: "Kate and Gerry have always maintained that their daughter was abducted and simply didn’t get up and wander off to her fate.
"To suggest this is almost ridiculous.
"There were heavy shutters which would have been impossible for a small child to open."
It seems that the McCanns are making the assumption that if Madeleine walked out she would have to lift the shutters first. That to me is a ridiculous assumption. To me the two situations are committed by separate people. The person raising the shutter is a different person to Madeleine. Why make one activity dependent on the other?
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Gertrude on November 27, 2018, 11:20:42 AM
I'm assuming that a 'family source' made observations which I found interesting;
A family source said: "Kate and Gerry have always maintained that their daughter was abducted and simply didn’t get up and wander off to her fate.
"To suggest this is almost ridiculous.
"There were heavy shutters which would have been impossible for a small child to open."
Almost ridiculous? So not 'Ludicrous' or definitely ridiculous?
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: faithlilly on November 27, 2018, 11:39:24 AM
So we were told back in May that the parents weren’t doing any interviews in case they have away details of the investigation......yet here we are 6 months later and what are they doing ?
Somehow I don’t think the parents and OG are best friends anymore.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: John on November 27, 2018, 11:40:46 AM
It seems that the McCanns are making the assumption that if Madeleine walked out she would have to lift the shutters first. That to me is a ridiculous assumption. To me the two situations are committed by separate people. The person raising the shutter is a different person to Madeleine. Why make one activity dependent on the other?
At the end of the day we have to follow the evidence and ignore the fake science. Evidence is things like corroborated statements as to who was where and when, DNA, fingerprints, tracker dogs etc. When we put these together I personally believe the woke and wandered theory rises to the surface above all others.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: faithlilly on November 27, 2018, 11:44:58 AM
At the end of the day we have to follow the evidence and ignore the fake science. Evidence is things like corroborated statements as to who was where and when, DNA, fingerprints, tracker dogs etc. When we put these together I personally believe the woke and wandered theory rises to the surface above all others.
And the open window and shutters ?
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Brietta on November 27, 2018, 11:51:28 AM
What I can't understand is the both Gerry and Dianne also lift the shutters and yet their prints aren't located on the shutters either. The fact that Dianne and Gerry are known to have handled the shutters from the outside could well be the reason there are no finger prints on the shutters.
There are fingerprints and smudges on the exterior of the shutter which can be clearly seen in the dragon blood left behind after the forensic examination.
What there isn't is a record of whether or not the outside of the window was dusted.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Lace on November 27, 2018, 11:53:12 AM
To give any credence whatsoever to that idea that Madeleine could have walked out on her own you would have to accept that she had gone out the back way, pulling aside the sitting room curtains and drawing them again, then opening the patio doors, the child safety gate at the top of the stairs on the veranda and the little gate to the road - and carefully closing all three behind her.
“What three-year-old do you know who would do that? And we knew our Madeleine. She simply would not wander off like this. https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/7828725/madeleine-mccann-parents-slam-claims-she-wasnt-kidnapped/
The only evidence that the gates were closed at 10 pm is that Kate McCann said they were. The only evidence that Madeleine wouldn't wander is the opinion of her family.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: faithlilly on November 27, 2018, 01:13:44 PM
There are several but I can't be bothered to share then.. I've had enough of pointless debate
Then why are you here ?
Quite a conundrum isn’t it ?
We are told that the parents were visited at home by OG to update them about two new leads but seem surprised a week later what one of those leads is.
We are told that the parents are pleased that there are still leads to be explored yet a week later the are ‘insulted’ that those leads are being explored.
We are told in May that the parents were asked not to do any anniversary interviews in case it jeopardised the investigation yet this weekend they did just that.
It does make you wonder exactly what is going on, doesn’t it ?
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Mr Gray on November 27, 2018, 01:22:59 PM
We are told that the parents were visited at home by OG to update them about two new leads but seem surprised a week later what one of those leads is.
We are told that the parents are pleased that there are still leads to be explored yet a week later the are ‘insulted’ that those leads are being explored.
We are told in May that the parents were asked not to do any anniversary interviews in case it jeopardised the investigation yet this weekend they did just that.
It does make you wonder exactly what is going on, doesn’t it ?
You were told by the sun... Some of us don't believe the sun... The quote about being insulted seems to come from kates book in 2011...I have doubts SY are investigating woke and wandered...
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: faithlilly on November 27, 2018, 02:01:37 PM
You were told by the sun... Some of us don't believe the sun... The quote about being insulted seems to come from kates book in 2011...I have doubts SY are investigating woke and wandered...
‘Police are re-examining a theory that Maddie left her family’s holiday villa to look for her parents.
But Gerry and Kate McCann have branded the theory "ridiculous" as heavy shutters found open in the bedroom where their children were sleeping would have to have been opened by Maddie.
A family source said: "Kate and Gerry have always maintained that their daughter was abducted and simply didn’t get up and wander off to her fate.
"To suggest this is almost ridiculous.
"There were heavy shutters which would have been impossible for a small child to open."
They spoke out after a source told The Sun on Sunday cops are pursuing two vital new leads over the 2007 mystery.‘
This isn’t from Kate’s book.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Mr Gray on November 27, 2018, 02:17:17 PM
‘Police are re-examining a theory that Maddie left her family’s holiday villa to look for her parents.
But Gerry and Kate McCann have branded the theory "ridiculous" as heavy shutters found open in the bedroom where their children were sleeping would have to have been opened by Maddie.
A family source said: "Kate and Gerry have always maintained that their daughter was abducted and simply didn’t get up and wander off to her fate.
"To suggest this is almost ridiculous.
"There were heavy shutters which would have been impossible for a small child to open."
They spoke out after a source told The Sun on Sunday cops are pursuing two vital new leads over the 2007 mystery.‘
This isn’t from Kate’s book.
In her harrowing 2011 book about her daughter's disappearance, she stated: “I have always found the third suggestion insulting to our intelligence.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: faithlilly on November 27, 2018, 02:54:35 PM
In her harrowing 2011 book about her daughter's disappearance, she stated: “I have always found the third suggestion insulting to our intelligence.
I’m not disputing that part of the article came from Madeleine but not the part I quoted.
Of course it isn’t only the windows/shutters issue that is problematic for the parents but also the opening and closing doors, not to mention Smithman ! I mean who knocks over a child then runs about town with the body ?
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Erngath on November 27, 2018, 03:13:33 PM
You were told by the sun... Some of us don't believe the sun... The quote about being insulted seems to come from kates book in 2011...I have doubts SY are investigating woke and wandered...
I thought the general belief was that nothing in the Sun can be accepted as being truthful and honest. I share your doubts. I would hope that theory had been investigated before now.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Gertrude on November 27, 2018, 04:20:05 PM
We are told that the parents were visited at home by OG to update them about two new leads but seem surprised a week later what one of those leads is.
We are told that the parents are pleased that there are still leads to be explored yet a week later the are ‘insulted’ that those leads are being explored.
We are told in May that the parents were asked not to do any anniversary interviews in case it jeopardised the investigation yet this weekend they did just that.
It does make you wonder exactly what is going on, doesn’t it ?
Excellent points. If the parents have had a meeting and briefed why would they react with surprise at the latest 'woke and wandered' story as you say?
At least one of the accounts must not be true.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Sunny on November 27, 2018, 04:34:17 PM
Why do the McCanns object to people saying Madeleine may have wandered out? They claim to have left the doors open so should be entirely possible IMO.
The open window is the thing. You can’t have woke and wondered with the open window. It’s a bit like the cadaver dogs. Most innocent parents would be horrified if cadaver dogs alerted in their apartment because that would mean their child was dead. However there was no accepting the cadaver dogs because Madeleine would have to have been dead and in the apartment for at least 90 minutes.
In both cases something has to give.
Oh and if she had woke and wandered it would absolutely the parents fault for leaving the patio doors unlocked.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Robittybob1 on November 27, 2018, 04:50:10 PM
At the end of the day we have to follow the evidence and ignore the fake science. Evidence is things like corroborated statements as to who was where and when, DNA, fingerprints, tracker dogs etc. When we put these together I personally believe the woke and wandered theory rises to the surface above all others.
So how do you explain the raised shutters?
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Robittybob1 on November 27, 2018, 04:54:01 PM
There are fingerprints and smudges on the exterior of the shutter which can be clearly seen in the dragon blood left behind after the forensic examination.
What there isn't is a record of whether or not the outside of the window was dusted.
Gaps in the investigation. What we also don't see is GA and his security expert explaining how easy it would have been for Madeleine to open the front door from the inside.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Robittybob1 on November 27, 2018, 05:00:18 PM
You were told by the sun... Some of us don't believe the sun... The quote about being insulted seems to come from kates book in 2011...I have doubts SY are investigating woke and wandered...
Well they should be, since it is so easy for a nearly 4 year old to open the front door from the inside.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Robittybob1 on November 27, 2018, 05:11:06 PM
‘Police are re-examining a theory that Maddie left her family’s holiday villa to look for her parents.
But Gerry and Kate McCann have branded the theory "ridiculous" as heavy shutters found open in the bedroom where their children were sleeping would have to have been opened by Maddie.
A family source said: "Kate and Gerry have always maintained that their daughter was abducted and simply didn’t get up and wander off to her fate.
"To suggest this is almost ridiculous.
"There were heavy shutters which would have been impossible for a small child to open."
They spoke out after a source told The Sun on Sunday cops are pursuing two vital new leads over the 2007 mystery.‘
This isn’t from Kate’s book.
How do Kate and Gerry KNOW that their daughter was abducted and simply didn’t get up and wander off to her fate? Why do they determine the line of investigation?
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: jassi on November 27, 2018, 05:13:13 PM
How do Kate and Gerry KNOW that their daughter was abducted and simply didn’t get up and wander off to her fate? Why do they determine the line of investigation?
Because that way they had someone other than themselves to blame If she woke and wandered, they only have themselves to blame for leaving doors open.
IMO
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Robittybob1 on November 27, 2018, 05:18:07 PM
I thought the general belief was that nothing in the Sun can be accepted as being truthful and honest. I share your doubts. I would hope that theory had been investigated before now.
Hope and facts to prove it are different things. I have not seen any evidence that the woke and wandered has been investigated, for it would mean that someone came in after Madeleine departed and closed the doors and gates after Madeleine had left them open according to Kate's knowledge of how Madeleine would behave.
I think the concept of someone altering the scene prior to Kate's visit at 10:00 an essential line of investigation.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Robittybob1 on November 27, 2018, 05:29:04 PM
The open window is the thing. You can’t have woke and wondered with the open window. It’s a bit like the cadaver dogs. Most innocent parents would be horrified if cadaver dogs alerted in their apartment because that would mean their child was dead. However there was no accepting the cadaver dogs because Madeleine would have to have been dead and in the apartment for at least 90 minutes.
In both cases something has to give.
Oh and if she had woke and wandered it would absolutely the parents fault for leaving the patio doors unlocked.
It is only 80 paces from the side gate to the Tapas table. That should have been so easy for Madeleine to complete.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Robittybob1 on November 27, 2018, 05:34:46 PM
Because that way they had someone other than themselves to blame If she woke and wandered, they only have themselves to blame for leaving doors open.
IMO
I thought Fiona had confirmed Kate talked about leaving the door open so Madeleine could walk over to the Tapas. She was capable of getting out of bed, out of her room, out of her apartment, capable of walking 80 paces to the table where Mummy and Daddy were. Perfectly capable just like having dinner in your garden at home.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: barrier on November 27, 2018, 05:46:12 PM
Hope and facts to prove it are different things. I have not seen any evidence that the woke and wandered has been investigated, for it would mean that someone came in after Madeleine departed and closed the doors and gates after Madeleine had left them open according to Kate's knowledge of how Madeleine would behave.
I think the concept of someone altering the scene prior to Kate's visit at 10:00 an essential line of investigation.
Bolded bit,to paraphrase Churchill,perhaps its the end of the beginning,abduction fully investigated,nada,zilch,nothing,tie up all loose ends making sure all scenarios are covered.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Gertrude on November 27, 2018, 05:53:46 PM
Why do the McCanns object to people saying Madeleine may have wandered out? They claim to have left the doors open so should be entirely possible IMO.
If you wanted to distract the public or media focussing on certain theories.. Plant a story about an innocuous theory, then plant another story that looks like you are kicking up a fuss to the theory in story 1, so more fuss is generated.
It's deflection via employing faux outrage IMO...Look over here not over there.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on November 27, 2018, 05:57:45 PM
We are told that the parents were visited at home by OG to update them about two new leads but seem surprised a week later what one of those leads is.
We are told that the parents are pleased that there are still leads to be explored yet a week later the are ‘insulted’ that those leads are being explored.
We are told in May that the parents were asked not to do any anniversary interviews in case it jeopardised the investigation yet this weekend they did just that.
It does make you wonder exactly what is going on, doesn’t it ?
When did the McCanns give an interview this weekend? I must have missed it. Do you have a link?
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Robittybob1 on November 27, 2018, 05:58:54 PM
Bolded bit,to paraphrase Churchill,perhaps its the end of the beginning,abduction fully investigated,nada,zilch,nothing,tie up all loose ends making sure all scenarios are covered.
Well I hope history repeats itself. "We will fight ....."
But I have yet to get someone to consider the front door as the exit point even though two dog teams tracked Madeleine's scent from the front door then around the apartment block to the service lane and then onto the street. Twice tracked her scent to the secondary reception entrance.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: jassi on November 27, 2018, 06:01:00 PM
If you wanted to distract the public or media focussing on certain theories.. Plant a story about an innocuous theory, then plant another story that looks like you are kicking up a fuss to the theory in story 1, so more fuss is generated.
It's deflection via employing faux outrage IMO...Look over here not over there.
Don't think it will distract either SY or PJ, who are the only ones who really count.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on November 27, 2018, 06:05:53 PM
The open window is the thing. You can’t have woke and wondered with the open window. It’s a bit like the cadaver dogs. Most innocent parents would be horrified if cadaver dogs alerted in their apartment because that would mean their child was dead. However there was no accepting the cadaver dogs because Madeleine would have to have been dead and in the apartment for at least 90 minutes.
In both cases something has to give.
Oh and if she had woke and wandered it would absolutely the parents fault for leaving the patio doors unlocked.
What difference does it make fault wise if she was abducted from her room or taken (alive or dead) from outside the apartment? I don’t know why you’re so excited by this (non) development, it’s a bit unseemly IMO.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on November 27, 2018, 06:07:48 PM
If you wanted to distract the public or media focussing on certain theories.. Plant a story about an innocuous theory, then plant another story that looks like you are kicking up a fuss to the theory in story 1, so more fuss is generated.
It's deflection via employing faux outrage IMO...Look over here not over there.
Who is dong "the planting"? Do you believe this "planting" will achieve its desired outcome of "Look over here not over there"? Wil the media and public be distracted?
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on November 27, 2018, 06:16:54 PM
If you wanted to distract the public or media focussing on certain theories.. Plant a story about an innocuous theory, then plant another story that looks like you are kicking up a fuss to the theory in story 1, so more fuss is generated.
It's deflection via employing faux outrage IMO...Look over here not over there.
Oh it’s those canny McCanns controlling the media again... @)(++(*
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: jassi on November 27, 2018, 06:18:49 PM
Who is dong "the planting"? Do you believe this "planting" will achieve its desired outcome of "Look over here not over there"? Wil the media and public be distracted?
I believe Clarence Mitchell is doing the planting. Yes the media and public will be distracted, many are discussing the 'wandered' theory in depth, even here. Years ago the (planted?) media narrative was one of abductors, that has lost momentum over the years of Op. Grange and them announcing Jane Tanners 'mistake'. This current resurrected theory is also one of no parental responsibility - but not one Op. Grange have publicly put the kibosh on so far. So imo. is ripe for exploitation. It will distract for a while and to some degree shape the publics perceptions if police announce any other theories later on.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: jassi on November 27, 2018, 06:24:29 PM
Would depend on what subsequently happened, do you not think?
Unless she walked up the volcano and threw herself doen it then someone took off with her, alive or dead. Do they shoulder any responsibility for their actions, or is it still only the McCanns at fault, in your view?
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Gertrude on November 27, 2018, 06:26:45 PM
Oh it’s those canny McCanns controlling the media again... @)(++(*
You know Clarence Mitchell works for them do you not? He is somewhat of an expert.
P.R. companies try and control narratives, they do plant stories in the media and many of them have been caught lying and getting involved in all kinds of nasty political intrigue.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on November 27, 2018, 06:28:11 PM
I believe Clarence Mitchell is doing the planting. Yes the media and public will be distracted, many are discussing the 'wandered' theory in depth, even here. Years ago the (planted?) media narrative was one of abductors, that has lost momentum over the years of Op. Grange and them announcing Jane Tanners 'mistake'. This current resurrected theory is also one of no parental responsibility - but not one Op. Grange have publicly put the kibosh on so far. So imo. is ripe for exploitation. It will distract for a while and to some degree shape the publics perceptions if police announce any other theories later on.
Oh dear, this is somewhat at odds with other sceptics’ views on here. They think the police are playing mind games with the McCanns via the media and are about to pounce...
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Erngath on November 27, 2018, 06:28:17 PM
I believe Clarence Mitchell is doing the planting. Yes the media and public will be distracted, many are discussing the 'wandered' theory in depth, even here. Years ago the (planted?) media narrative was one of abductors, that has lost momentum over the years of Op. Grange and them announcing Jane Tanners 'mistake'. This current resurrected theory is also one of no parental responsibility - but not one Op. Grange have publicly put the kibosh on so far. So imo. is ripe for exploitation. It will distract for a while and to some degree shape the publics perceptions if police announce any other theories later on.
Why is there no parental responsibility if Madeleine woke and wandered?
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Erngath on November 27, 2018, 06:30:58 PM
Oh dear, this is somewhat at odds with other sceptics’ views on here. They think the police are playing mind games with the McCanns via the media and are about to pounce...
It's all very confusing! Must add to the"Look here not over there" theory.lol
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on November 27, 2018, 06:34:44 PM
You know Clarence Mitchell works for them do you not? He is somewhat of an expert.
P.R. companies try and control narratives, they do plant stories in the media and many of them have been caught lying and getting involved in all kinds of nasty political intrigue.
What do the McCanns gain from this story that simply saying nothing at all, and having nothing at all reported about it one way or the other doesn’t get them?
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on November 27, 2018, 06:35:34 PM
What do the McCanns gain from this story that simply saying nothing at all, and having nothing at all reported about it one way or the other doesn’t get them?
I explained what it would get them. If you were someone that didn't want 'damaging theories' discussed in the press, give the press a silly, innocuous story to become preoccupied with.
You are supremely naive if you don't think P.R. companies do this sort of thing imo. What do you think Clarence does all day? Are there any McCann related stories in the last few years that don't have the 'friend of the family' source? What a coincidence that the McCann's 'friends' keep flapping away to the press and they are not bothered about it, it's not as if they're litigious are they?
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on November 27, 2018, 06:50:46 PM
I explained what it would get them. If you were someone that didn't want 'damaging theories' discussed in the press, give the press a silly, innocuous story to become preoccupied with.
You are supremely naive if you don't think P.R. companies do this sort of thing imo. What do you think Clarence does all day? Are there any McCann related stories in the last few years that don't have the 'friend of the family' source? What a coincidence that the McCann's 'friends' keep flapping away to the press and they are not bothered about it, it's not as if they're litigious are they?
According to you the only reason “damaging theories” are being discussed in the press is because the McCanns using CM are feeding them these stories. So I’m sorry, your theory makes little sense, as if the McCanns weren’t behind these stories then according to you presumably there would be no stories at all!
BTW, are you under the impression that Clarence Mitchel spends all day, every day beavering away in his office on behalf of the McCanns, planting fake stories for them?
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: G-Unit on November 27, 2018, 06:56:02 PM
How do Kate and Gerry KNOW that their daughter was abducted and simply didn’t get up and wander off to her fate? Why do they determine the line of investigation?
They have put a tremendous effort into convincing the world that their theory is fact. On a certain level they've succeeded.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Gertrude on November 27, 2018, 06:58:57 PM
According to you the only reason “damaging theories” are being discussed in the press is because the McCanns using CM are feeding them these stories. So I’m sorry, your theory makes little sense, as if the McCanns weren’t behind these stories then according to you presumably there would be no stories at all!
I didn't say the damaging stories were fed by Clarence, that wouldn't make sense would it?
In the first few years there were quite a few damaging stories not fed by Mitchell and they tailed off quite sharply due to litigation and a climate of fear. In the last few years as I said, there does seem to be a tentative re-emergence of some stories that involve criminality of the parents. These are the ones that p.r. would want to distract from.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on November 27, 2018, 07:21:16 PM
I didn't say the damaging stories were fed by Clarence, that wouldn't make sense would it?
In the first few years there were quite a few damaging stories not fed by Mitchell and they tailed off quite sharply due to litigation and a climate of fear. In the last few years as I said, there does seem to be a tentative re-emergence of some stories that involve criminality of the parents. These are the ones that p.r. would want to distract from.
Really? When? Please cite them.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Gertrude on November 27, 2018, 07:42:28 PM
You want me to list all damaging ( to the parents) stories over a number of years? sorry I don't think that's reasonable?
Perhaps a quote from Clarence Mitchell ( friend of the McCanns) saying negative stories were planted would suffice?
Quote
He had to return to his government role, and others handled the McCanns’ PR. But even then, he says, the family still called him for advice in his own time. ‘We had become friends,’ he says. ‘But I couldn’t help them beyond the odd phone call, because officially the Government couldn’t be seen to be involved.’ In September, he quit his government role in order to work for the family, at a time when much of the media seemed to be turning against the McCanns.
Mitchell is clear about the reasons for this change of feeling: ‘I have to be careful what I say, but somebody who has good connections with the police decided early on, it appears, that they were somehow involved, and decided to plant stories.’
The Portuguese press ran these stories – ‘they have a very lurid end to the tabloid market, just as we do,’ he says Mitchell is obviously angry with the press, many of whom he believes were simply ‘recycling rubbish’: ‘As a former journalist myself, some of the behaviour of the British press has been shameful.’
Mitchell played a great part in quashing the most negative of these stories...
An interesting read actually. "In his current role, of course, Mitchell is far from neutral – indeed, he is vehemently convinced of the McCanns’ innocence, a fact that has not been lost on the press covering the story. One national newspaper journalist describes Mitchell’s work with the McCanns as a ‘crusade to right what he perceives as a real injustice’.'
As a P.R. representative he can't be neutral. The whole point of P.R. is to present your client in a favourable light. Apparently around 1 in 5 media stories ( or more) are P.R. generated according to some studies.
I have no doubt Clarence is feeding most of the McCann stories to the press, most certainly the ones with a 'friend' as source. Who else could it be logically when it's Clarences job and 'crusade' ?
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on November 27, 2018, 07:46:27 PM
An interesting read actually. "In his current role, of course, Mitchell is far from neutral – indeed, he is vehemently convinced of the McCanns’ innocence, a fact that has not been lost on the press covering the story. One national newspaper journalist describes Mitchell’s work with the McCanns as a ‘crusade to right what he perceives as a real injustice’.'
As a P.R. representative he can't be neutral. The whole point of P.R. is to present your client in a favourable light. Apparently around 1 in 5 media stories ( or more) are P.R. generated according to some studies.
I have no doubt Clarence is feeding most of the McCann stories to the press, most certainly the ones with a 'friend' as source. Who else could it be logically when it's Clarences job and 'crusade' ?
No, not over a number of years, just the very recent ones that you believe this latest Sun story was designed to deflect from.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: faithlilly on November 27, 2018, 07:48:44 PM
You know Clarence Mitchell works for them do you not? He is somewhat of an expert.
P.R. companies try and control narratives, they do plant stories in the media and many of them have been caught lying and getting involved in all kinds of nasty political intrigue.
I was watching a programme last night about an ex Eastenders actress who’s husband had physically abused and killed their daughter with her knowledge.
As a young baby the child had been given into the care of her grandparents but after a concentrated PR campaign coordinated by Max Clifford, Lord Justice Hogg ( the judge who had such sympathy for the McCanns ) gave custody back to the child’s parents, claiming that the child’s father was the victim of a concentrated campaign to malign him.
He killed his daughter within weeks.
The power of PR.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on November 27, 2018, 07:49:03 PM
An interesting read actually. "In his current role, of course, Mitchell is far from neutral – indeed, he is vehemently convinced of the McCanns’ innocence, a fact that has not been lost on the press covering the story. One national newspaper journalist describes Mitchell’s work with the McCanns as a ‘crusade to right what he perceives as a real injustice’.'
As a P.R. representative he can't be neutral. The whole point of P.R. is to present your client in a favourable light. Apparently around 1 in 5 media stories ( or more) are P.R. generated according to some studies.
I have no doubt Clarence is feeding most of the McCann stories to the press, most certainly the ones with a 'friend' as source. Who else could it be logically when it's Clarences job and 'crusade' ?
Interesting article - from 2007. Have you anything a bit more up to date about Clarence’s emploment by the McCanns?
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on November 27, 2018, 07:51:40 PM
I was watching a programme last night about an ex Eastenders actress who’s husband had physically abused and killed their daughter with her knowledge.
As a young baby the child had been given into the care of her grandparents but after a concentrated PR campaign coordinated by Max Clifford, Lord Justice Hogg ( the judge who had such sympathy for the McCanns ) gave custody back to the child’s parents, claiming that the child’s father was the victim of a concentrated campaign to malign him.
He killed his daughter within weeks.
The power of PR.
Do you agree with Gertrude that these latest articles in thr Sun are part of an orchestrated campaign by Team McCann to deflect from recent news stories painting the McCanns in a criminal light?
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Gertrude on November 27, 2018, 07:54:42 PM
No, not over a number of years, just the very recent ones that you believe this latest Sun story was designed to deflect from.
I said "In the last few years as I said, there does seem to be a tentative re-emergence of some stories that involve criminality of the parents. These are the ones that p.r. would want to distract from.""
A re-emergence of stories, they are the same negative stories as were discussed in the beginning and we all know what they are, Dogs, accidents, etc. So I don't see why I need to cite ALL that negative press.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Gertrude on November 27, 2018, 08:01:45 PM
Interesting article - from 2007. Have you anything a bit more up to date about Clarence’s emploment by the McCanns?
Why? P.R. spokesmen are not neutral. It is their job to paint clients in a favourable light.
You asked for a cite re. negative stories in the press and I gave you one straight from the mouth friend and P.R. spokesman of the McCanns. I think he should qualify as someone who knows whether the stories were negative.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on November 27, 2018, 08:02:48 PM
I said "In the last few years as I said, there does seem to be a tentative re-emergence of some stories that involve criminality of the parents. These are the ones that p.r. would want to distract from.""
A re-emergence of stories, they are the same negative stories as were discussed in the beginning and we all know what they are, Dogs, accidents, etc. So I don't see why I need to cite ALL that negative press.
You claim this latest article was to detract from negative news stories that involve criminality of the parents. If there have been none of those recently, then why the need to “plant” this story now? To distract from what? A news story a couple of years ago?
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Gertrude on November 27, 2018, 08:04:09 PM
I was watching a programme last night about an ex Eastenders actress who’s husband had physically abused and killed their daughter with her knowledge.
As a young baby the child had been given into the care of her grandparents but after a concentrated PR campaign coordinated by Max Clifford, Lord Justice Hogg ( the judge who had such sympathy for the McCanns ) gave custody back to the child’s parents, claiming that the child’s father was the victim of a concentrated campaign to malign him.
He killed his daughter within weeks.
The power of PR.
Yes, horrible shocking case. I remember the parents going on breakfast TV to appear 'normal', I didn't know they'd employed Clifford. He was quite open about lying on behalf of his clients and planting stories.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Gertrude on November 27, 2018, 08:11:53 PM
You claim this latest article was to detract from negative news stories that involve criminality of the parents. If there have been none of those recently, then why the need to “plant” this story now? To distract from what? A news story a couple of years ago?
There is such a thing in P.R. as pre-empting or controlling bad news. Get control of the story early on (For instance Police visiting McCanns) or spam the news with fairly innocuous stories that you know are rubbish and don't paint your client in a terrible light before something worse comes out.
It's a constant business of holding back unfavourable news not just one story.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: faithlilly on November 27, 2018, 08:19:36 PM
There is such a thing in P.R. as pre-empting or controlling bad news. Get control of the story early on (For instance Police visiting McCanns) or spam the news with fairly innocuous stories that you know are rubbish and don't paint your client in a terrible light before something worse comes out.
It's a constant business of holding back unfavourable news not just one story.
Or if unable to hold back unfavourable news malign the messenger.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on November 27, 2018, 08:30:00 PM
There is such a thing in P.R. as pre-empting or controlling bad news. Get control of the story early on (For instance Police visiting McCanns) or spam the news with fairly innocuous stories that you know are rubbish and don't paint your client in a terrible light before something worse comes out.
It's a constant business of holding back unfavourable news not just one story.
Oh well, we’ll see if you’re right shortly shan’t we? Meanwhile some of the other sceptics here think this article is bad news for the McCanns. Go figure.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Gertrude on November 27, 2018, 08:32:25 PM
Oh well, we’ll see if you’re right shortly shan’t we? Meanwhile some of the other sceptics here think this article is bad news for the McCanns. Go figure.
Why is that so surprising. Despite what some think of people on 'one side' all having exactly the same thought processes because we're somehow brainwashed by 'myths' and contempt...it aint true.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: G-Unit on November 27, 2018, 08:47:19 PM
Oh well, we’ll see if you’re right shortly shan’t we? Meanwhile some of the other sceptics here think this article is bad news for the McCanns. Go figure.
We told you we're not a homogeneous group, so why the surprise? The 'article' isn't bad news, but the reaction from various sources suggests that the woke and wandered theory isn't acceptable for some reason. It seems the only acceptable theory is stranger abduction. Are the PJ or Op Grange upsetting the McCanns by investigating other theories? That's rather brave, isn't it?
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: faithlilly on November 27, 2018, 08:51:03 PM
We told you we're not a homogeneous group, so why the surprise? The 'article' isn't bad news, but the reaction from various sources suggests that the woke and wandered theory isn't acceptable for some reason. It seems the only acceptable theory is stranger abduction. Are the PJ or Op Grange upsetting the McCanns by investigating other theories? That's rather brave, isn't it?
Of course we know why the woke and wandered theory isn’t acceptable......can you imagine the can of worms that would open ?
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on November 27, 2018, 08:56:14 PM
We told you we're not a homogeneous group, so why the surprise? The 'article' isn't bad news, but the reaction from various sources suggests that the woke and wandered theory isn't acceptable for some reason. It seems the only acceptable theory is stranger abduction. Are the PJ or Op Grange upsetting the McCanns by investigating other theories? That's rather brave, isn't it?
Rather brave of who?
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on November 27, 2018, 08:57:51 PM
Why is that so surprising. Despite what some think of people on 'one side' all having exactly the same thought processes because we're somehow brainwashed by 'myths' and contempt...it aint true.
Iwas neither surprised, nor accusing all sceptics of having the same thought processes, you can’t all be right however.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on November 27, 2018, 08:58:17 PM
If you like. We can start with the whooshing curtains, slamming door, open window and shutter and go from there ?
Can you be a bit more specific? Apparently the shutters aren’t heavy at all, so the McCanns must either have overestimated their heaviness on underestimated their daughter’s strength. There, you see? Can of worms emptied with no calamity caused for anyone. ?{)(**
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: G-Unit on November 27, 2018, 10:21:25 PM
Either the PJ or Op Grange if indeed they are investigating woke and wandered. It would be brave because the McCanns said it didn't happen and they don't like being contradicted.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on November 27, 2018, 10:34:55 PM
Either the PJ or Op Grange if indeed they are investigating woke and wandered. It would be brave because the McCanns said it didn't happen and they don't like being contradicted.
Oh, puh-lease. You think the Met and the PJ have reason to be afraid of the McCanns do you? Hilarious!
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Alice Purjorick on November 27, 2018, 10:37:28 PM
Can you be a bit more specific? Apparently the shutters aren’t heavy at all, so the McCanns must either have overestimated their heaviness on underestimated their daughter’s strength. There, you see? Can of worms emptied with no calamity caused for anyone. ?{)(**
Fair enough, you know Madeleine’s capabilities better than her parents but there’s more....
To give any credence whatsoever to the idea that Madeleine could have walked out on her own you would have to accept that she had gone out the back way, pulling aside the sitting-room curtains and drawing them again, then opening the patio door, the child-safety gate at the top of the stairs on the veranda and the little gate to the road – and carefully closing all three behind her. What three-year-old do you know who would do that? And we knew our Madeleine. She simply would not wander off like this.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on November 27, 2018, 11:29:24 PM
Fair enough, you know Madeleine’s capabilities better than her parents but there’s more....
To give any credence whatsoever to the idea that Madeleine could have walked out on her own you would have to accept that she had gone out the back way, pulling aside the sitting-room curtains and drawing them again, then opening the patio door, the child-safety gate at the top of the stairs on the veranda and the little gate to the road – and carefully closing all three behind her. What three-year-old do you know who would do that? And we knew our Madeleine. She simply would not wander off like this.
Do you believe that because in Kate McCann’s opinion Madeleine could not have woke and wandered that the police are going to charge her with staging an abduction? Dream on...
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: faithlilly on November 27, 2018, 11:35:38 PM
Do you believe that because in Kate McCann’s opinion Madeleine could not have woke and wandered that the police are going to charge her with staging an abduction? Dream on...
If the woke and wandered theory is on the cards ( which I don’t think it is ).
I think it’s obfuscation.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on November 27, 2018, 11:38:07 PM
Fair enough, you know Madeleine’s capabilities better than her parents but there’s more....
To give any credence whatsoever to the idea that Madeleine could have walked out on her own you would have to accept that she had gone out the back way, pulling aside the sitting-room curtains and drawing them again, then opening the patio door, the child-safety gate at the top of the stairs on the veranda and the little gate to the road – and carefully closing all three behind her. What three-year-old do you know who would do that? And we knew our Madeleine. She simply would not wander off like this.
What about the front door?
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Robittybob1 on November 28, 2018, 06:41:23 AM
Fair enough, you know Madeleine’s capabilities better than her parents but there’s more....
To give any credence whatsoever to the idea that Madeleine could have walked out on her own you would have to accept that she had gone out the back way, pulling aside the sitting-room curtains and drawing them again, then opening the patio door, the child-safety gate at the top of the stairs on the veranda and the little gate to the road – and carefully closing all three behind her. What three-year-old do you know who would do that? And we knew our Madeleine. She simply would not wander off like this.
I think Kate and myself are saying the same thing. If she wandered off through the front door or the patio door there would be parts left open. But Kate only found the window open not the doors open.
Solution IMO is that someone came along and closed them after Madeleine left.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on November 28, 2018, 07:22:15 AM
Seems pretty clear to me " How many more years are you prepared to wait before conceding defeat? "
Quite. It's a question. No statement of fact. Say another 5 years pass with no arrests of the McCanns, is that time to concede defeat? Or should Faithlilly wait another 10 or 20? Understand now?
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: faithlilly on November 28, 2018, 10:49:40 AM
And what will it take to convince you that the parents will not ever face charges over their daughter ‘s disappearance?
Why are you so bothered what I believe ?
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Brietta on November 28, 2018, 11:20:38 AM
Scottish toddler found wandering alone on Tunisian beach after holiday club escape 28 NOV 2018
Snip
The couple were on a Thomas Cook holiday with Ella and their other kids, Ruby, nine, and Billie, four. They dropped Ella off at a club run by the Sahara Beach AquaPark Resort, near the city of Monastir.
About 20 minutes later, a holidaymaker brought Ella back to Billy – having found her alone on a nearby beach.
The family have complained to Thomas Cook. In a post on social media, Claire slammed the company and threatened to take legal action.
A spokeswoman for the operators said: “Customer safety is our first priority, so we were very concerned to hear of this incident and we understand how distressing it must have been.
“We are urgently investigating with the hotel to get to the bottom of what happened and make any changes needed.”
It seems to me that some people think they know the truth. They refuse to acknowledge, however, how nuch belief is involved.
The ;evidence' offered for a stranger abduction has mostly been provided by the McCanns. Accepting that evidence requires a belief that they have told the truth.
The 'evidence' that the police are not investigating the McCanns requires a belief that the police are telling the truth.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on November 28, 2018, 11:39:09 AM
Bothered? Moi?? Just making conversation. And I ‘m curious to know if there’s anything at all that the police could say or do to convince you the parents are not their main suspects.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on November 28, 2018, 11:47:38 AM
It seems to me that some people think they know the truth. They refuse to acknowledge, however, how nuch belief is involved.
The ;evidence' offered for a stranger abduction has mostly been provided by the McCanns. Accepting that evidence requires a belief that they have told the truth.
The 'evidence' that the police are not investigating the McCanns requires a belief that the police are telling the truth.
Picking and choosing what to believe allows some people to maintain the belief that the McCanns are the main suspects in this case and the only suspects now under investigation, do you not agree?
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: faithlilly on November 28, 2018, 11:53:43 AM
Scottish toddler found wandering alone on Tunisian beach after holiday club escape 28 NOV 2018
Snip
The couple were on a Thomas Cook holiday with Ella and their other kids, Ruby, nine, and Billie, four. They dropped Ella off at a club run by the Sahara Beach AquaPark Resort, near the city of Monastir.
About 20 minutes later, a holidaymaker brought Ella back to Billy – having found her alone on a nearby beach.
The family have complained to Thomas Cook. In a post on social media, Claire slammed the company and threatened to take legal action.
A spokeswoman for the operators said: “Customer safety is our first priority, so we were very concerned to hear of this incident and we understand how distressing it must have been.
“We are urgently investigating with the hotel to get to the bottom of what happened and make any changes needed.”
Scottish toddler found wandering alone on Tunisian beach after holiday club escape 28 NOV 2018
Snip
The couple were on a Thomas Cook holiday with Ella and their other kids, Ruby, nine, and Billie, four. They dropped Ella off at a club run by the Sahara Beach AquaPark Resort, near the city of Monastir.
About 20 minutes later, a holidaymaker brought Ella back to Billy – having found her alone on a nearby beach.
The family have complained to Thomas Cook. In a post on social media, Claire slammed the company and threatened to take legal action.
A spokeswoman for the operators said: “Customer safety is our first priority, so we were very concerned to hear of this incident and we understand how distressing it must have been.
“We are urgently investigating with the hotel to get to the bottom of what happened and make any changes needed.”
It is possible for a child to wander even in broad daylight even when participating in supervised activities with parents close at hand.
Luck was on the child's side on this occasion but as her father says she could have vanished never to be seen again.
A failure by child club staff, who were in charge of this child.It doesn't say whether those staff were Thomas Cook employees or employees of the resort. Either way, parents should be aware that the standards in other countries will not necessarily be the standards which UK childcare facilities are required to meet.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on November 28, 2018, 12:48:42 PM
Picking and choosing what to believe allows some people to maintain the belief that the McCanns are the main suspects in this case and the only suspects now under investigation, do you not agree?
I can't answer for others, but I don't pick and choose. I don't categorically believe anyone or anything.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on November 28, 2018, 01:01:00 PM
I can't answer for others, but I don't pick and choose. I don't categorically believe anyone or anything.
What, never?
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Eleanor on November 28, 2018, 01:21:50 PM
I sometimes wonder how any of my children actually survived. Good heavens, three of them up to all sorts that I didn't even know about.
Rivers, Woods, Rope Swings and all sorts of apparently dangerous things. Come home at tea time and don't tell me that you are bored. Which they never did.
Where does this end? May they never learn? We cannot protect these little horrors for ever.
My sons have become very much more protective of their children than I ever was, probably because they know what they got up to. So where is the sense in that?
Thanks, Mummy for a good time, but not for mine.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: faithlilly on November 28, 2018, 02:11:36 PM
Surely ultimately the fault lies with the parents for leaving their kids in the care of strangers doesn't it?
Of course not. The children, as far as the parents were aware, were being cared for. If the McCanns had left their children in the night crèche or had hired a babysitter and Madeleine had gone missing no blame could have been attached to them. But they didn’t. They left their most precious possessions on their own, in an insecure apartment on a main raid. That’s the difference.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on November 28, 2018, 02:33:21 PM
Of course not. The children, as far as the parents were aware, were being cared for. If the McCanns had left their children in the night crèche or had hired a babysitter and Madeleine had gone missing no blame could have been attached to them. But they didn’t. They left their most precious possessions on their own, in an insecure apartment on a main raid. That’s the difference.
It's a matter of opinion isn't it? Leaving your kids with strangers who may or may not be up to the job, and who have numerous other children to worry about, or leaving them alone asleep, in more familiar surroundings, checking on them yourself every 30 minutes.
Children are not possessions by the way. IMO.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: faithlilly on November 28, 2018, 02:42:09 PM
It's a matter of opinion isn't it? Leaving your kids with strangers who may or may not be up to the job, and who have numerous other children to worry about, or leaving them alone asleep, in more familiar surroundings, checking on them yourself every 30 minutes.
Children are not possessions by the way. IMO.
No it’s not a matter of opinion, it’s good parenting.
If the staff weren’t up to the job why did the McCanns leave their children with the self same staff every second they could ? Why would they get less capable at night and there would quite likely be less children to care for at night and most of them , I would assume, would be sleeping.
As to familiar surroundings, the McCann children spent almost equal time in the crèche and in their apartment. Both would be equally familiar/unfamiliar surroundings.
As to checking every 30 minutes, not even the Portuguese AG believed that.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on November 28, 2018, 02:51:12 PM
No it’s not a matter of opinion, it’s good parenting.
If the staff weren’t up to the job why did the McCanns leave their children with the self same staff every second they could ? Why would they get less capable at night and there would quite likely be less children to care for at night and most of them , I would assume, would be sleeping.
As to familiar surroundings, the McCann children spent almost equal time in the crèche and in their apartment. Both would be equally familiar/unfamiliar surroundings.
As to checking every 30 minutes, not even the Portuguese AG believed that.
So the waiting staff at the Tapas restaurant imagined all the comings and goings of the parents that night did they? As for the rest of your post, it IS a matter of opinion, as I'm sure you'd be the first to criticise the McCanns for leaving their kids in the care of strangers "every second" they could as some form of neglect.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: faithlilly on November 28, 2018, 03:18:17 PM
So the waiting staff at the Tapas restaurant imagined all the comings and goings of the parents that night did they? As for the rest of your post, it IS a matter of opinion, as I'm sure you'd be the first to criticise the McCanns for leaving their kids in the care of strangers "every second" they could as some form of neglect.
I believe they checked the children, just not every 30 minutes.
As to the rest of your post you are simply trying to justify the unjustifiable by trying to make me out to be some kind of obsessive worrier. While I would wonder why the McCanns chose to spend so little time with their children, it was their choice and I would certainly not call it neglectful.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on November 28, 2018, 03:31:08 PM
I believe they checked the children, just not every 30 minutes.
As to the rest of your post you are simply trying to justify the unjustifiable by trying to make me out to be some kind of obsessive worrier. While I would wonder why the McCanns chose to spend so little time with their children, it was their choice and I would certainly not call it neglectful.
There was nothing about my post suggesting you are some kind of obsessive worrier. I had you down as more an obsessive warrior, of the keyboard variety. 8(0(*
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Sunny on November 28, 2018, 03:49:24 PM
It's a matter of opinion isn't it? Leaving your kids with strangers who may or may not be up to the job, and who have numerous other children to worry about, or leaving them alone asleep, in more familiar surroundings, checking on them yourself every 30 minutes.
Children are not possessions by the way. IMO.
They did leave the children with those same strangers during the day so they obviously thought they were "up to the job" in the daytime.
They could have put their hands in their pocket and paid for one of those same "strangers" who looked after their children during the day to babysit them in their own apartment and then they would also be in "more familiar surroundings" too.
They chose to do neither.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: faithlilly on November 28, 2018, 03:54:25 PM
They did leave the children with those same strangers during the day so they obviously thought they were "up to the job" in the daytime.
They could have put their hands in their pocket and paid for one of those same "strangers" who looked after their children during the day to babysit them in their own apartment and then they would also be in "more familiar surroundings" too.
They chose to do neither.
And still used the same crèche after Madeleine had gone missing.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on November 28, 2018, 03:59:55 PM
They did leave the children with those same strangers during the day so they obviously thought they were "up to the job" in the daytime.
They could have put their hands in their pocket and paid for one of those same "strangers" who looked after their children during the day to babysit them in their own apartment and then they would also be in "more familiar surroundings" too.
They chose to do neither.
They chose to keep their children within a minute's walk and check on them themselves regularly rather than several minutes walk away, relying on others to check on them regularly. I'm sure it's a decision they will regret until the end of their days, but until then, let's keep criticizing them for it, after all there's nothing more productive we could be doing with our time than constantly criticising the McCanns' choices is there?
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Sunny on November 28, 2018, 04:04:04 PM
They chose to keep their children within a minute's walk and check on them themselves regularly rather than several minutes walk away, relying on others to check on them regularly. I'm sure it's a decision they will regret until the end of their days, but until then, let's keep criticizing them for it, after all there's nothing more productive we could be doing with our time than constantly criticising the McCanns' choices is there?
I did give two ways the parents could have kept their children safe and one was in the apartment.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: faithlilly on November 28, 2018, 04:05:18 PM
They chose to keep their children within a minute's walk and check on them themselves regularly rather than several minutes walk away, relying on others to check on them regularly. I'm sure it's a decision they will regret until the end of their days, but until then, let's keep criticizing them for it, after all there's nothing more productive we could be doing with our time than constantly criticising the McCanns' choices is there?
Of course you are forgetting Mrs Fenn’s statement.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on November 28, 2018, 04:06:42 PM
Of course you are forgetting Mrs Fenn’s statement.
Oh, look at the date! It's Groundhog Day again. I'm forgetting nothing, and I'm certainly not interested in another waste of time debate about how often you believe the parents did or didn't check on the children. The parents were monstrous child neglectors. I can say no more than that. Happy now?
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Sunny on November 28, 2018, 04:16:02 PM
Oh, look at the date! It's Groundhog Day again. I'm forgetting nothing, and I'm certainly not interested in another waste of time debate about how often you believe the parents did or didn't check on the children. The parents were monstrous child neglectors. I can say no more than that. Happy now?
One thing is clear that the children were pushed into second place in their minds against going out for a meal with their friends.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: slartibartfast on November 28, 2018, 04:38:55 PM
I believe they checked the children, just not every 30 minutes.
As to the rest of your post you are simply trying to justify the unjustifiable by trying to make me out to be some kind of obsessive worrier. While I would wonder why the McCanns chose to spend so little time with their children, it was their choice and I would certainly not call it neglectful.
I would say staff observing the T9 leaving the table is evidence of them leaving the table.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Eleanor on November 28, 2018, 04:42:37 PM
I have had an epiphany. I can now see what all of you're talking about, even if I don't actually agree with you.
Phew. That was hard. It took me a long time. Since when I am not going to be a lot of use to any one in the moderating stakes. As if I ever was.
I believe that The NcCanns are entirely innocent. But I can see why others might wonder.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Eleanor on November 28, 2018, 04:45:50 PM
They did leave the children with those same strangers during the day so they obviously thought they were "up to the job" in the daytime.
They could have put their hands in their pocket and paid for one of those same "strangers" who looked after their children during the day to babysit them in their own apartment and then they would also be in "more familiar surroundings" too.
They chose to do neither.
I typed "Baby sitter caught on camera hitting baby" into my search engine and came up with numerous occasions when this had occurred.
Having watched the first one ... I'm sure I will be forgiven for being unable to watch any more ... nor to provide a link.
There is no guarantee of safety for children either if a child is watched on a one to one basis ... or has been entrusted to the care of nurseries. As proved by recent cases of abuse of children by nursery workers.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Sunny on November 28, 2018, 05:00:58 PM
I typed "Baby sitter caught on camera hitting baby" into my search engine and came up with numerous occasions when this had occurred.
Having watched the first one ... I'm sure I will be forgiven for being unable to watch any more ... nor to provide a link.
There is no guarantee of safety for children either if a child is watched on a one to one basis ... or has been entrusted to the care of nurseries. As proved by recent cases of abuse of children by nursery workers.
So are you now implying that the McCanns may have had reason to worry that someone might harm one of their children if on a one to one basis.
And do you also think that leaving the children alone in a dark apartment was preferable to leaving them with one of these nannies too?
Is this really what you think Brietta?
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: jassi on November 28, 2018, 05:01:28 PM
I typed "Baby sitter caught on camera hitting baby" into my search engine and came up with numerous occasions when this had occurred.
Having watched the first one ... I'm sure I will be forgiven for being unable to watch any more ... nor to provide a link.
There is no guarantee of safety for children either if a child is watched on a one to one basis ... or has been entrusted to the care of nurseries. As proved by recent cases of abuse of children by nursery workers.
So are you suggesting that children might as well be left on their own, or that the parents should actually take responsibility ?
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Erngath on November 28, 2018, 05:03:40 PM
It is indeed. Different parenting choices do not mean that children come second. I've seen parents taking very small children out on holiday and keeping those children in a noisy environment and the children become grumpy and overly tired. Would they be accused of putting their children second in their desire to continue.their night out?
Possibly there is no easy answer to how one can accommodate the desire to have an evening out on holiday without your usual baby sitting arrangements in force when you have very small children. I certainly wouldn't have allowed anyone whom I had only met in a children's holiday club to look after my children in the privacy of an apartment, nor would I have left them, not would I have taken them out after bedtime to a restaurant. Guess that's why we didn't go abroad til our youngest was nine.
Couldn't afford it either. (&^&
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Brietta on November 28, 2018, 05:12:16 PM
So are you suggesting that children might as well be left on their own, or that the parents should actually take responsibility ?
I am suggesting nothing. I was making a reply to a post. It is called debate ... or discussion which is what a discussion forum is all about. Not putting words into another poster's mouth because you are unable to cope with reality as recorded on numerous occasions and cases.
Some parents have placed their trust and the welfare of their children into the hands of strangers and had it savagely abused.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on November 28, 2018, 05:42:03 PM
A valid assumption. Why else did they leave the children?
I can fully understand the reasons why a parent in that situation might leave the children and it is not simply a matter of selfishness. We have had experience of being on holiday with a baby, arriving in a new town early evening, hungry and tired (us and the baby). Having fed the baby we took ourselves off to a restaurant with fed, but grouchy tired baby in tow, in car seat. Baby wanted to sleep but the environment was not conducive and baby screamed the restaurant down. Baby would have been happier in cot in B & B, so we left restaurant before ordering and returned there. We had no option but to sit in the dark with baby in cot, munching on a hastily grabbed sandwich en route. Had there been a restaurant in the B & B we almost certainly would have left baby happily sleeping upstairs while we dined downstairs, no child monitor but checking between courses. This would not have been entirely selfish but we would have been doing what we felt was best for baby, and the other diners as well. So now tell me what bloody awful and selfish parents we must be.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: faithlilly on November 28, 2018, 05:57:39 PM
I can fully understand the reasons why a parent in that situation might leave the children and it is not simply a matter of selfishness. We have had experience of being on holiday with a baby, arriving in a new town early evening, hungry and tired (us and the baby). Having fed the baby we took ourselves off to a restaurant with fed, but grouchy tired baby in tow, in car seat. Baby wanted to sleep but the environment was not conducive and baby screamed the restaurant down. Baby would have been happier in cot in B & B, so we left restaurant before ordering and returned there. We had no option but to sit in the dark with baby in cot, munching on a hastily grabbed sandwich en route. Had there been a restaurant in the B & B we almost certainly would have left baby happily sleeping upstairs while we dined downstairs, no child monitor but checking between courses. This would not have been entirely selfish but we would have been doing what we felt was best for baby, and the other diners as well. So now tell me what bloody awful and selfish parents we must be.
Maybe not awful, irresponsible certainly.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on November 28, 2018, 06:00:18 PM
Supporters seem to believe that just because they’ve left or would leave their young children alone that that makes it okay. It doesn’t.
Maybe not in you opinion, but nor does it make us bad people or bad parents, or selfish b........s whose primary goal in life is to get pissed with our mates. .
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Mr Gray on November 28, 2018, 06:27:38 PM
Maybe not in you opinion, but nor does it make us bad people or bad parents, or selfish b......s whose primary goal in life is to get pissed with our mates. .
But unfortunately you have that in common with people who do.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on November 28, 2018, 06:35:07 PM
So the waiting staff at the Tapas restaurant imagined all the comings and goings of the parents that night did they? As for the rest of your post, it IS a matter of opinion, as I'm sure you'd be the first to criticise the McCanns for leaving their kids in the care of strangers "every second" they could as some form of neglect.
Who do you mean by 'parents'? The staff saw very little.
Jeronimo; Noticed no-one leaving the table Svetlana; One man left for 30 minutes, then a woman, then all of them except an elderly lady. .Joaquim; Two men left. One for 15 minutes and one for 30 minutes. They were both tall and skinny. Ricardo; One tall man left for 15 minutes. http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TAPAS-EMPLOYEES.htm
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on November 28, 2018, 08:43:57 PM
Who do you mean by 'parents'? The staff saw very little.
Jeronimo; Noticed no-one leaving the table Svetlana; One man left for 30 minutes, then a woman, then all of them except an elderly lady. .Joaquim; Two men left. One for 15 minutes and one for 30 minutes. They were both tall and skinny. Ricardo; One tall man left for 15 minutes. http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TAPAS-EMPLOYEES.htm
That’s at least three people in the space of 90 minutes. 3s into 90 is... 30. If they weren’t checking on children whT were they doing for “15” and “30” minutes?
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: G-Unit on November 28, 2018, 09:05:01 PM
That’s at least three people in the space of 90 minutes. 3s into 90 is... 30. If they weren’t checking on children whT were they doing for “15” and “30” minutes?
The accounts of the staff don't come anywhere near matching the accounts of the group, however.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Sunny on November 28, 2018, 09:18:11 PM
I tend to think so. If you want to make a case. Maybe it was impossible to refute the Tapas 9 claims of regular checking of the kids. You would wonder why a burglar of a child kidnapper would chance it considering there was some one coming or going a lot of the time.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: G-Unit on November 28, 2018, 10:42:12 PM
Do we know who is right and who is wrong? Were all the staff watching the table continuously, making note of the times individuals left?
They clearly weren't, but it was you who suggested they saw all the comings and goings.
snip/
So the waiting staff at the Tapas restaurant imagined all the comings and goings of the parents that night did they? http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=10478.msg505497#msg505497
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on November 28, 2018, 10:48:19 PM
They clearly weren't, but it was you who suggested they saw all the comings and goings.
snip/
So the waiting staff at the Tapas restaurant imagined all the comings and goings of the parents that night did they? http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=10478.msg505497#msg505497
I think again you misunderstand. Did the staff at the Tapas restaurant imagine all the comings and goings they reported seeing that night is what I meant, not that they reported seeing ALL comings and goings.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: G-Unit on November 28, 2018, 10:59:50 PM
I think again you misunderstand. Did the staff at the Tapas restaurant imagine all the comings and goings they reported seeing that night is what I meant, not that they reported seeing ALL comings and goings.
Oh, sorry. I took your first post to be an assertion that the staff saw checks being done every 30 minutes. http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=10478.msg505441#msg505441
None of them mentioned all the checks or their frequency, just their duration.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Alice Purjorick on November 28, 2018, 11:02:07 PM
I tend to think so. If you want to make a case. Maybe it was impossible to refute the Tapas 9 claims of regular checking of the kids. You would wonder why a burglar of a child kidnapper would chance it considering there was some one coming or going a lot of the time.
That thought had occurred to me. Especially as in some quarters it is considered the place was under observation. Maybe it was a dare to see if it could be effected at the time when they were most likely to be caught?
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on November 28, 2018, 11:16:15 PM
Oh, sorry. I took your first post to be an assertion that the staff saw checks being done every 30 minutes. http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=10478.msg505441#msg505441
None of them mentioned all the checks or their frequency, just their duration.
The staff between reported seeing at least 3 individuals leaving the table over the course of the 90minutes. Given that the tapas group claimed to be chrcking on their children every 30 minutes, is it wholly unreasonable to assume that at least 3 longish absences from the table during a period of 90 minutes equals roughly 30 minute interval checks, and if doesn’t then what does it suggest was actually going on instead?
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Sunny on November 29, 2018, 06:52:37 AM
The staff between reported seeing at least 3 individuals leaving the table over the course of the 90minutes. Given that the tapas group claimed to be chrcking on their children every 30 minutes, is it wholly unreasonable to assume that at least 3 longish absences from the table during a period of 90 minutes equals roughly 30 minute interval checks, and if doesn’t then what does it suggest was actually going on instead?
Actually yes VS. Three people were seen leaving the table that is all you can infer from their statements, nothing more, unless you have the times that they left.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on November 29, 2018, 07:09:15 AM
Actually yes VS. Three people were seen leaving the table that is all you can infer from their statements, nothing more, unless you have the times that they left.
We have the statements of the Tapas group themselves that lend credence to the waiters testimony. Coincidence?
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: slartibartfast on November 29, 2018, 07:27:51 AM
Oh, sorry. I took your first post to be an assertion that the staff saw checks being done every 30 minutes. http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=10478.msg505441#msg505441
None of them mentioned all the checks or their frequency, just their duration.
Duration of absence from the table.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Sunny on November 29, 2018, 07:41:59 AM
Well we have statements from the tapas group saying that more than 3 left the table so make of that what you will.
Do you think they all left at thr same time, or at intervals during the 90 minutes?
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on November 29, 2018, 08:01:53 AM
Gerry left the tapas table at around 9pm, 30 minutes after arrival which would suggest an intention to check every 30 minutes. Kate’s check was at 10pm which again indicates an intention to check on the hour and half hour. Does anyone dispute whether or not these checks occurred? So that leaves the check at 9.30ish? Who said they did it and are they lying?
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: G-Unit on November 29, 2018, 09:02:28 AM
The staff between reported seeing at least 3 individuals leaving the table over the course of the 90minutes. Given that the tapas group claimed to be chrcking on their children every 30 minutes, is it wholly unreasonable to assume that at least 3 longish absences from the table during a period of 90 minutes equals roughly 30 minute interval checks, and if doesn’t then what does it suggest was actually going on instead?
The Tapas group didn't claim to be checking every 30 minutes, just the McCanns did. There were two absences; one of 30 and one of 15 minutes, carried out by tall men. No one says how long the woman was gone but on her return they all left except Dianne. So assuming the woman was Kate the staff saw two men going to check between 8.30 and ten and staying away for quite a while.
The Tapas group reported 6 checks between 9 and ten; Matthew, Gerry, Jane, Russell, Matthew and Kate.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: John on November 29, 2018, 03:55:25 PM
I'm a bit behind at the moment due to family issues but I found the parent's responses to the recent media articles rehearsing the woke and wandered theory extremely interesting. They appear desperate to rubbish this theory in favour of the abducted from the bedroom one. Problem being there is evidence to support woke and wandered but nothing whatsoever to support abducted from the bedroom.
Have the penny finally dropped as to what really happened?
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: John on November 29, 2018, 04:09:50 PM
So we were told back in May that the parents weren’t doing any interviews in case they have away details of the investigation......yet here we are 6 months later and what are they doing ?
Somehow I don’t think the parents and OG are best friends anymore.
A good point, it's almost as if they've hit a nerve?
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: John on November 29, 2018, 04:13:58 PM
I’m not disputing that part of the article came from Madeleine but not the part I quoted.
Of course it isn’t only the windows/shutters issue that is problematic for the parents but also the opening and closing doors, not to mention Smithman ! I mean who knocks over a child then runs about town with the body ?
It could very well be that if someone did run her over that they panicked, put her in their vehicle and drove down to the town centre carrying her past the Smiths and the medical centre which unfortunately was closed. Then doubling back to get to their vehicle and driving off.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: John on November 29, 2018, 04:25:58 PM
I thought Fiona had confirmed Kate talked about leaving the door open so Madeleine could walk over to the Tapas. She was capable of getting out of bed, out of her room, out of her apartment, capable of walking 80 paces to the table where Mummy and Daddy were. Perfectly capable just like having dinner in your garden at home.
That's correct Rob so opening the patio door and child gate mustn't have been the insurmountable problem she later claimed it was. Any thoughts on this?
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: jassi on November 29, 2018, 04:32:15 PM
She could have had she been mindful of her younger sibling twins within.
I have known a small child (aged 3) who at that age constantly closed doors as they passed through them. This included patio doors. Sometimes it was a nuisance when the doors were wanted to be left open or as I remember in one case, when someone else was following the child into the house.
I obviously do not have a cite for it, nevertheless it is true.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: John on November 29, 2018, 04:46:56 PM
I have known a small child (aged 3) who at that age constantly closed doors as they passed through them. This included patio doors. Sometimes it was a nuisance when the doors were wanted to be left open or as I remember in one case, when someone else was following the child into the house.
I obviously do not have a cite for it, nevertheless it is true.
I have seen toddlers doing this also, almost mimicking the parents.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: John on November 29, 2018, 04:50:02 PM
Oh well, we’ll see if you’re right shortly shan’t we? Meanwhile some of the other sceptics here think this article is bad news for the McCanns. Go figure.
It's good news I suppose if considering a tossup between accidental death/concealment or simply being negligent.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: John on November 29, 2018, 04:56:05 PM
I think Kate and myself are saying the same thing. If she wandered off through the front door or the patio door there would be parts left open. But Kate only found the window open not the doors open.
Solution IMO is that someone came along and closed them after Madeleine left.
Maybe she went out the front door and it slammed behind her leaving her with no option but to follow the path she was familiar with?
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: faithlilly on November 29, 2018, 05:04:35 PM
It could very well be that if someone did run her over that they panicked, put her in their vehicle and drove down to the town centre carrying her past the Smiths and the medical centre which unfortunately was closed. Then doubling back to get to their vehicle and driving off.
I’m sorry John but I could believe that having knocked down a child you would seek help but having put them in the car and finding the medical centre closed surely you’d then drive to the nearest hospital ?
For me you either summon help via your phone or knocking on the door of a nearby house or you drive away afraid of the consequences of your actions. What you don’t do is pick up the child, thus perhaps making the injuries worse, put them in your car then fail to get them help just because the local medical centre is closed. That’s just bonkers.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: John on November 29, 2018, 05:15:46 PM
I’m sorry John but I could believe that having knocked down a child you would seek help but having put them in the car and finding the medical centre closed surely you’d then drive to the nearest hospital ?
For me you either summon help via your phone or knocking on the door of a nearby house or you drive away afraid of the consequences of your actions. What you don’t do is pick up the child, thus perhaps making the injuries worse, put them in your car then fail to get them help just because the local medical centre is closed. That’s just bonkers.
In reality people all act differently to given situations. The first reaction is to care for the injured but when the initial adrenaline dissipates and the shock subsidies then self preservation takes over. Someone might have had the best of intentions initially but then changed their mind once the consequences impacted on them.
I have seen RTA situations constantly where the wrongdoer is so very apologetic and admits their mistake. Jump forward a short period and the response is usually very different, namely, "It wisnae my fault officer". And that is why police are trained to take notes or statements immediately after an incident.
If Madeleine was run over I would suspect the driver was drunk, uninsured or had no licence. There is usually something else going on when a driver leaves the scene of any accident.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Robittybob1 on November 29, 2018, 05:34:37 PM
Maybe she went out the front door and it slammed behind her leaving her with no option but to follow the path she was familiar with?
The front door is so easy to open with the lever from the inside, easier to open than the gates on the stairs. Problem I see is that the door had anti-slam features. You need a key to close it behind you, you can't just push those doors shut. David Payne confirmed this when he said he rushed over there to check if the front door was open but it wasn't. Could the door go into a half closed position (one that looks closed but not fully latched)? Kate hadn't noticed the door unlatched. Who would expect someone coming through and closing it to look like Madeleine had been abducted rather than run off? Why is Dianne so concerned about the shutters? What also concerns me is understanding how David Payne gets into a position to check the front door as he says he did? Did he go in through the patio door and up the hall way or did he go right around to the front door and then found it closed?
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: John on November 29, 2018, 05:37:04 PM
The front door is so easy to open with the lever from the inside, easier to open than the gates on the stairs. Problem I see is that the door had anti-slam features. You need a key to close it behind you, you can't just push those doors shut. David Payne confirmed this when he said he rushed over there to check if the front door was open but it wasn't. Could the door go into a half closed position (one that looks closed but not fully latched)? Kate hadn't noticed the door unlatched. Who would expect someone coming through and closing it to look like Madeleine had been abducted rather than run off? Why is Dianne so concerned about the shutters?
Once the front door is closed it cannot be opened from the outside without the key unless the latch is locked back. The only time it is ever locked back is when you are walking in and out and don't want the door to lock behind you. There was no reason for the door latch to be locked back that night.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: faithlilly on November 29, 2018, 05:44:35 PM
In reality people all act differently to given situations. The first reaction is to care for the injured but when the initial adrenaline dissipates and the shock subsidies then self preservation takes over. Someone might have had the best of intentions initially but then changed their mind once the consequences impacted on them.
I have seen RTA situations constantly where the wrongdoer is so very apologetic and admits their mistake. Jump forward a short period and the response is usually very different, namely, "It wisnae my fault officer". And that is why police are trained to take notes or statements immediately after an incident.
If Madeleine was run over I would suspect the driver was drunk, uninsured or had no licence. There is usually something else going on when a driver leaves the scene of any accident.
In that case wouldn’t he just have kept on driving ? And what did he do with the body ? Remember this is no master criminal.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Robittybob1 on November 29, 2018, 05:50:44 PM
Once the front door is closed it cannot be opened from the outside without the key unless the latch is locked back. The only time it is ever locked back is when you are walking in and out and don't want the door to lock behind you. There was no reason for the door latch to be locked back that night.
How were they "locked back"? What action on the lever did you have to do?
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on November 29, 2018, 06:12:27 PM
The Tapas group didn't claim to be checking every 30 minutes, just the McCanns did. There were two absences; one of 30 and one of 15 minutes, carried out by tall men. No one says how long the woman was gone but on her return they all left except Dianne. So assuming the woman was Kate the staff saw two men going to check between 8.30 and ten and staying away for quite a while.
The Tapas group reported 6 checks between 9 and ten; Matthew, Gerry, Jane, Russell, Matthew and Kate.
6 checks and how many sets of children. It all adds up to me, unless you prefer to believe that the entire groupe was lying. Let’s face it, if you were faking an abduction it would be preferable to allow for the maximum window of opportunity which these checks don’t.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: John on November 29, 2018, 06:37:21 PM
If people cannot work out how that lock works I am surprised they can ever gain access to/egress from thier own properties. Some should never be let out without their mothers.
I suppose the lock must have magical/atypical properties if one needs its attitude to fit a preconceived idea.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Erngath on November 29, 2018, 07:03:50 PM
If people cannot work out how that lock works I am surprised they can ever gain access to/egress from thier own properties. Some should never be let out without their mothers.
I suppose the lock must have magical/atypical properties if one needs its attitude to fit a preconceived idea.
That type of latch is not common in NZ. The photo shows some one pulling the lever back. I suppose it then had a part that would clip it in the pulled back position. Why would a person need the key to do this?
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on November 29, 2018, 07:17:34 PM
I’m sorry John but I could believe that having knocked down a child you would seek help but having put them in the car and finding the medical centre closed surely you’d then drive to the nearest hospital ?
For me you either summon help via your phone or knocking on the door of a nearby house or you drive away afraid of the consequences of your actions. What you don’t do is pick up the child, thus perhaps making the injuries worse, put them in your car then fail to get them help just because the local medical centre is closed. That’s just bonkers.
But what isn’t bonkers (according to your theory) is picking up a child’s corpse and despite having blankets and bags at your disposal, carrying it uncovered in your arms through the main part of town. No, that’s perfectly unbonkers I’m sure!
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: G-Unit on November 29, 2018, 07:34:31 PM
6 checks and how many sets of children. It all adds up to me, unless you prefer to believe that the entire groupe was lying. Let’s face it, if you were faking an abduction it would be preferable to allow for the maximum window of opportunity which these checks don’t.
You insinuated that the Tapas staff agreed with the group's version of events, They didn't. End of discussion.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: faithlilly on November 29, 2018, 08:00:47 PM
But what isn’t bonkers (according to your theory) is picking up a child’s corpse and despite having blankets and bags at your disposal, carrying it uncovered in your arms through the main part of town. No, that’s perfectly unbonkers I’m sure!
Indeed.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on November 29, 2018, 08:22:00 PM
But what isn’t bonkers (according to your theory) is picking up a child’s corpse and despite having blankets and bags at your disposal, carrying it uncovered in your arms through the main part of town. No, that’s perfectly unbonkers I’m sure!
But had they changed her pyjamas by that stage? Could the person have intended to keep her even before he took her to the medical centre for attention? If it was Madeleine taken there just for medical help would not her pyjamas perfectly match Madeleine's one's?
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: faithlilly on November 29, 2018, 09:03:31 PM
But what isn’t bonkers (according to your theory) is picking up a child’s corpse and despite having blankets and bags at your disposal, carrying it uncovered in your arms through the main part of town. No, that’s perfectly unbonkers I’m sure!
Using a bag that may have forensic evidence on it or blankets that belonged to the OC would certainly be bonkers.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on November 29, 2018, 09:05:24 PM
Just bring them back with you, whats bonkers about that? But actually, why would it be bonkers if they were disposed of with the body?
You check in a bag at the airport but it’s no longer with you. Don’t you think the police would check something like that if the spotlight fell on you ? What blankets did they have access to apart from the ones that came with the apartment ? Don’t you think that would be noticed if one went missing ?
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on November 29, 2018, 09:55:53 PM
You check in a bag at the airport but it’s no longer with you. Don’t you think the police would check something like that if the spotlight fell on you ? What blankets did they have access to apart from the ones that came with the apartment ? Don’t you think that would be noticed if one went missing ?
So, what’s to stop the would-be abductor (the one you planned to blame for takng your daughter in the first place) from helping themselves to a blanket or bag from your apartment?
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: John on November 30, 2018, 09:38:15 AM
That type of latch is not common in NZ. The photo shows some one pulling the lever back. I suppose it then had a part that would clip it in the pulled back position. Why would a person need the key to do this?
If you look closely at this lock you will see three distinct mechanisms. The snib and two bolts.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: John on November 30, 2018, 09:49:58 AM
It is clear that the police in Portugal have a last decided to again pursue the credible possibility that Madeleine followed her father out of the apartment and came to some harm. This theory doesn't sit well with the parents for obvious reasons but the evidence would seem to point in that direction.
If you look closely at this lock you will see three distinct mechanisms. The snib and two bolts.
We have seen Amaral with the assistance of a colleague demonstrating that the lock of the McCann apartment cannot be compromised using a credit card because of the impediment of a screw.
The image you have provided taken in conjunction with Amaral's documentary and the following statement, suggests to me that it would have been worthwhile to have had the lock forensically examined at the time to determine just exactly what it was capable of doing or not doing. In the D'Ambrosio instance it appears one thing it wasn't is safeguarding the privacy of the occupants from intrusion.
WITNESS TESTIMONY OF CARLO FRANCISO D'AMBROSIO
We noticed that the cleaning personnel entered the apartment after one knock and did not give us time to respond. This was a bit bothersome and for this reason we would lock the door, and would leave the key in the inside lock.
After this precaution, the next day, the same thing happened and the cleaning woman entered even though the door was locked with the key in the lock.
We never found out how it was possible for a cleaning woman to enter after we had tried to prevent it.
We have seen Amaral with the assistance of a colleague demonstrating that the lock of the McCann apartment cannot be compromised using a credit card because of the impediment of a screw.
The image you have provided taken in conjunction with Amaral's documentary and the following statement, suggests to me that it would have been worthwhile to have had the lock forensically examined at the time to determine just exactly what it was capable of doing or not doing. In the D'Ambrosio instance it appears one thing it wasn't is safeguarding the privacy of the occupants from intrusion.
WITNESS TESTIMONY OF CARLO FRANCISO D'AMBROSIO
We noticed that the cleaning personnel entered the apartment after one knock and did not give us time to respond. This was a bit bothersome and for this reason we would lock the door, and would leave the key in the inside lock.
After this precaution, the next day, the same thing happened and the cleaning woman entered even though the door was locked with the key in the lock.
We never found out how it was possible for a cleaning woman to enter after we had tried to prevent it.
That is what I needed to know last year. Do the snib and the bolt on the lower portion move independently?
I had a lock like that once and yes they move independently. The thicker bar at the top is an additional security feature which is engaged by turning the key.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Angelo222 on November 30, 2018, 10:47:46 AM
It is clear that the police in Portugal have a last decided to again pursue the credible possibility that Madeleine followed her father out of the apartment and came to some harm. This theory doesn't sit well with the parents for obvious reasons but the evidence would seem to point in that direction.
If it is eventually established that the child got out then it won't look good for her parents and that is why they are furious at this recent development.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Mr Gray on November 30, 2018, 11:23:57 AM
If it is eventually established that the child got out then it won't look good for her parents and that is why they are furious at this recent development.
It won't look good for amaral and his book.... For tha whole of the initial PJ investigation... For grime and his dogs... For all those saying the McCann's have lied but the dogs haven't.... For the SC...
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Angelo222 on November 30, 2018, 11:35:17 AM
It won't look good for amaral and his book.... For tha whole of the initial PJ investigation... For grime and his dogs... For all those saying the McCann's have lied but the dogs haven't.... For the SC...
Is that why it has taken so long to reinvestigate this theory?
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: jassi on November 30, 2018, 11:40:06 AM
It won't look good for amaral and his book.... For tha whole of the initial PJ investigation... For grime and his dogs... For all those saying the McCann's have lied but the dogs haven't.... For the SC...
Amaral's book described the investigation up to September 2007. The initial investigation dismissed woke and wandered as did the UK police.
Woke and wandered doesn't rule out the possibility of the presence of a body in 5A.
The SC??
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Mr Gray on November 30, 2018, 12:11:30 PM
Amaral's book described the investigation up to September 2007. The initial investigation dismissed woke and wandered as did the UK police.
Woke and wandered doesn't rule out the possibility of the presence of a body in 5A.
The SC??
Has amaral changed his mind now then... Doesn't say much for the alerts either ...it would, show the initial investigation had taken the, wring direction.... And amarals thesis was tosh
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Mr Gray on November 30, 2018, 12:15:04 PM
It is clear that the police in Portugal have a last decided to again pursue the credible possibility that Madeleine followed her father out of the apartment and came to some harm. This theory doesn't sit well with the parents for obvious reasons but the evidence would seem to point in that direction.
Is it clear ? Do we have a verifiable source for the article ?
What about the dog alerts ? Was he simply wrong when Eddie alerted to only places and items associated with the McCanns ? Or do you believe in more nefarious goings on by Grime ?
And what of Smithman ? Was he connected to the case or are we to believe that it was merely coincidence that the child he was carrying was, physically, almost identical to Madeleine ? Or are we to believe that the driver who, allegedly, knocked Madeleine down didn’t put her in his/her car and went to find help or conceal the body but instead ran around PDL with the child in his/her arms ?
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: G-Unit on November 30, 2018, 12:25:27 PM
Has amaral changed his mind now then... Doesn't say much for the alerts either ...it would, show the initial investigation had taken the, wring direction.... And amarals thesis was tosh
There was nothing to suggest woke and wandered, as both police forces acknowledged at the time. Perhaps new evidence has emerged.
Amaral's thesis was the investigation's thesis. He wasn't alone.
It doesn't say much for the McCann's thesis either. They said the evidence and their knowledge of their daughter ruled out woke and wandered. What about that moving door, broken raised shutters and open window?
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Brietta on November 30, 2018, 12:35:54 PM
Possibly. I should think it as difficult to prove woke and wandered as it is to prove an abduction from 5A
In my opinion woke and wandered cannot be proven. Pamela Fenn was upstairs and heard no sounds of a lost girl looking for her parents. She definitely heard her on Tuesday. Total contradiction to think Maddy would be quiet as a mouse on that night. There's only one way this was done and Smithman was the mastermind.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Mr Gray on November 30, 2018, 12:47:10 PM
There was nothing to suggest woke and wandered, as both police forces acknowledged at the time. Perhaps new evidence has emerged.
Amaral's thesis was the investigation's thesis. He wasn't alone.
It doesn't say much for the McCann's thesis either. They said the evidence and their knowledge of their daughter ruled out woke and wandered. What about that moving door, broken raised shutters and open window?
Do I have to say again that my post, should be read in the context of the post it replied to.... I think woke and, wandered is unlikely and there's no good evidence it is being investigated.... Just the sun
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Alice Purjorick on November 30, 2018, 01:00:06 PM
How do you know? For when I investigated it those two pieces are designed to move at times together and at other times independently. One can prove this by look at the latch of most modern doors and you will be able to move both together if one was to press the latch bolt but the other non bevelled bit can move independently without moving the latch The second bolt is there to prevent slipping a plastic card or whatever behind the latch bolt.
Now when Goncalo's security expert examines the front door he talks in Portuguese and we read the closed captions (from memory), but IMO Alexandre Simas has his words translated incorrectly. He talks of "screw" which I believe now to be "bolt", for there was no photograph showing a proud screw but we do have a latch with the latch bolt lock.
43.28 – With the help from one of the major experts from the Scientific Police, who worked for the Polícia Judiciária, Alexandre Simas, Gonçalo Amaral intends to prove, first, that it was impossible for the child to be abducted, starting by demonstrating that the indications prove that the apartment’s window and door were not forced.
43.47 - How does one open a door like this, without the key?
43.51 – This type of apartment door, normally there are only three possibilities: to extract the lock’s cannon, which didn’t happen, or it would have been reported; a false key, a copy or one that was used without permission; or using a malleable material, as long as it’s not locked, it’s introduced, and it makes the lock go back inside. But when it goes in, even if it did, it would hit this screw. If it hits the screw, no matter how much I force it, it doesn’t jump to open the lock for me."
I'm sure now where it says "screw" the right word should have been "bolt". When talking locks a bolt is not a threaded bolt with a head but a piece of metal that is movable.
But the interesting thing is the this proves beyond a doubt that the rim latch on 5A had been modified in such a way that "will NOT be able to move both together if one was to press the latch bolt".
In the latch on the front door of 5A the two pieces of metal moved independently at all times
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Robittybob1 on November 30, 2018, 05:55:55 PM
The locks on my doors can't be opened from outside if there is a key in the inside lock. I think Carlo Ambrosio expected that too.
There will be several variations. It might go to show that the lock on the front door of 5A had been modified in some way, which may support my thesis in the previous post.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Robittybob1 on November 30, 2018, 05:59:44 PM
Do I have to say again that my post, should be read in the context of the post it replied to.... I think woke and, wandered is unlikely and there's no good evidence it is being investigated.... Just the sun
You think that but what is the reason you think like that? What would have stopped Madeleine opening up the front door and walking out?
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Robittybob1 on November 30, 2018, 06:17:02 PM
How do you know? For when I investigated it those two pieces are designed to move at times together and at other times independently. One can prove this by look at the latch of most modern doors and you will be able to move both together if one was to press the latch bolt but the other non bevelled bit can move independently without moving the latch The second bolt is there to prevent slipping a plastic card or whatever behind the latch bolt.
Now when Goncalo's security expert examines the front door he talks in Portuguese and we read the closed captions (from memory), but IMO Alexandre Simas has his words translated incorrectly. He talks of "screw" which I believe now to be "bolt", for there was no photograph showing a proud screw but we do have a latch with the latch bolt lock.
43.28 – With the help from one of the major experts from the Scientific Police, who worked for the Polícia Judiciária, Alexandre Simas, Gonçalo Amaral intends to prove, first, that it was impossible for the child to be abducted, starting by demonstrating that the indications prove that the apartment’s window and door were not forced.
43.47 - How does one open a door like this, without the key?
43.51 – This type of apartment door, normally there are only three possibilities: to extract the lock’s cannon, which didn’t happen, or it would have been reported; a false key, a copy or one that was used without permission; or using a malleable material, as long as it’s not locked, it’s introduced, and it makes the lock go back inside. But when it goes in, even if it did, it would hit this screw. If it hits the screw, no matter how much I force it, it doesn’t jump to open the lock for me."
I'm sure now where it says "screw" the right word should have been "bolt". When talking locks a bolt is not a threaded bolt with a head but a piece of metal that is movable.
But the interesting thing is the this proves beyond a doubt that the rim latch on 5A had been modified in such a way that "will NOT be able to move both together if one was to press the latch bolt".
In the latch on the front door of 5A the two pieces of metal moved independently at all times
To get the terminology correct I found this article. https://www.gokeyless.com/blog/whats-the-difference-between-a-latch-and-deadbolt-and-which-is-better/
where it says:
"LATCHES Latch-based locking mechanisms are extremely common, with spring-loaded latches being the most prevalent type of device that is used within a typical lockset. Spring latches usually fall into one of two categories, as follows:
Latchbolts – These latches feature a spring-loaded bolt that is angled off at the top edge. As the door is closed, the angled side of the bolt will engage with the edge or lip of the strike plate (i.e., the hollowed-out plate fastened to the adjoining door frame), and the bolt itself will retract due to the pressure of contact with the strike plate. Once the bolt passes a certain point, it will fully extend and quickly lock into the strike plate due to the pressure being released from the spring, securing the door and holding it closed. Latches are designed to retract and disengage when someone turns the door handle to open the door.
Deadlatches – This device is a slight elaboration on the design of the basic latchbolt. Deadlatches feature what’s known as a guardbolt, which is a smaller cylindrical bolt positioned right beside the latchbolt. The guardbolt is designed to move in unison with the latchbolt up until the point where the latchbolt extends into the strike plate. At that point, the guardbolt remains in a depressed position against the strike plate, preventing the common burglary practice of “jimmying” or “shimming” the latchbolt. The way the guardbolt is positioned will not allow the latchbolt to be depressed by means of using a credit card or some other thin, flat tool."
So what was on the door at 5A was "deadlatch" with a deadbolt on top. The door could be left with just the deadlatch or for deadlatch and deadbolt to be in place.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Brietta on November 30, 2018, 07:16:55 PM
To get the terminology correct I found this article. https://www.gokeyless.com/blog/whats-the-difference-between-a-latch-and-deadbolt-and-which-is-better/
where it says:
"LATCHES Latch-based locking mechanisms are extremely common, with spring-loaded latches being the most prevalent type of device that is used within a typical lockset. Spring latches usually fall into one of two categories, as follows:
Latchbolts – These latches feature a spring-loaded bolt that is angled off at the top edge. As the door is closed, the angled side of the bolt will engage with the edge or lip of the strike plate (i.e., the hollowed-out plate fastened to the adjoining door frame), and the bolt itself will retract due to the pressure of contact with the strike plate. Once the bolt passes a certain point, it will fully extend and quickly lock into the strike plate due to the pressure being released from the spring, securing the door and holding it closed. Latches are designed to retract and disengage when someone turns the door handle to open the door.
Deadlatches – This device is a slight elaboration on the design of the basic latchbolt. Deadlatches feature what’s known as a guardbolt, which is a smaller cylindrical bolt positioned right beside the latchbolt. The guardbolt is designed to move in unison with the latchbolt up until the point where the latchbolt extends into the strike plate. At that point, the guardbolt remains in a depressed position against the strike plate, preventing the common burglary practice of “jimmying” or “shimming” the latchbolt. The way the guardbolt is positioned will not allow the latchbolt to be depressed by means of using a credit card or some other thin, flat tool."
So what was on the door at 5A was "deadlatch" with a deadbolt on top. The door could be left with just the deadlatch or for deadlatch and deadbolt to be in place.
At appx 45:19 in Amaral's documentary the former PJ expert clearly shows the card jamming in a screw in the lock ... by no stretch of the imagination could it be referred to as a 'bolt'.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Robittybob1 on November 30, 2018, 07:38:47 PM
At appx 45:19 in Amaral's documentary the former PJ expert clearly shows the card jamming in a screw in the lock ... by no stretch of the imagination could it be referred to as a 'bolt'.
The door is not closed when that is demonstrated. Was that footage part of the original PJ footage taken in May 2007? or after Amaral had written his book?
If the door had been closed and the card inserted and the card locked up against something and the door then opened to reveal what it had locked up against then I might accept what Alexandre Simas is saying.
Who is to say that with the door in place the card would be directed toward the screw head every time? If the OC management depended on the screw head to provide security from burglary with the use of a pliable plastic card they need to be held accountable IMO.
Can you see the same screw head being proud in the original photos of 5A?
https://youtu.be/x_ZdDTsFC2g?t=2718
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Miss Taken Identity on November 30, 2018, 07:46:08 PM
How do you know? For when I investigated it those two pieces are designed to move at times together and at other times independently. One can prove this by look at the latch of most modern doors and you will be able to move both together if one was to press the latch bolt but the other non bevelled bit can move independently without moving the latch The second bolt is there to prevent slipping a plastic card or whatever behind the latch bolt.
Now when Goncalo's security expert examines the front door he talks in Portuguese and we read the closed captions (from memory), but IMO Alexandre Simas has his words translated incorrectly. He talks of "screw" which I believe now to be "bolt", for there was no photograph showing a proud screw but we do have a latch with the latch bolt lock.
43.28 – With the help from one of the major experts from the Scientific Police, who worked for the Polícia Judiciária, Alexandre Simas, Gonçalo Amaral intends to prove, first, that it was impossible for the child to be abducted, starting by demonstrating that the indications prove that the apartment’s window and door were not forced.
43.47 - How does one open a door like this, without the key?
43.51 – This type of apartment door, normally there are only three possibilities: to extract the lock’s cannon, which didn’t happen, or it would have been reported; a false key, a copy or one that was used without permission; or using a malleable material, as long as it’s not locked, it’s introduced, and it makes the lock go back inside. But when it goes in, even if it did, it would hit this screw. If it hits the screw, no matter how much I force it, it doesn’t jump to open the lock for me."
I'm sure now where it says "screw" the right word should have been "bolt". When talking locks a bolt is not a threaded bolt with a head but a piece of metal that is movable.
But the interesting thing is the this proves beyond a doubt that the rim latch on 5A had been modified in such a way that "will NOT be able to move both together if one was to press the latch bolt".
In the latch on the front door of 5A the two pieces of metal moved independently at all times
How do I know? By knowing how latch bolts are fabricated/work and looking at the plethora of photos and "comics" on this very forum. How locks in my house work or those in the house of a bloke in the next village who knows my next door neighbour work, is irrelevant.
Hint: First work out how the lock works then take it from there. Do NOT start off with a prejudged condition then try to figure how the lock must work or be modified to fit the prejudgement.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on November 30, 2018, 11:38:46 PM
Is it clear ? Do we have a verifiable source for the article ?
What about the dog alerts ? Was he simply wrong when Eddie alerted to only places and items associated with the McCanns ? Or do you believe in more nefarious goings on by Grime ?
And what of Smithman ? Was he connected to the case or are we to believe that it was merely coincidence that the child he was carrying was, physically, almost identical to Madeleine ? Or are we to believe that the driver who, allegedly, knocked Madeleine down didn’t put her in his/her car and went to find help or conceal the body but instead ran around PDL with the child in his/her arms ?
Can you explain why you find this scenario so hard to stomach but have absolutely no problem at all in imagining the father of a dead child carrying hiis daughter’s uncovered body through the streets of the town in search of a suitable bin in which to toss it?
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Brietta on December 01, 2018, 01:02:08 AM
The door is not closed when that is demonstrated. Was that footage part of the original PJ footage taken in May 2007? or after Amaral had written his book?
If the door had been closed and the card inserted and the card locked up against something and the door then opened to reveal what it had locked up against then I might accept what Alexandre Simas is saying.
Who is to say that with the door in place the card would be directed toward the screw head every time? If the OC management depended on the screw head to provide security from burglary with the use of a pliable plastic card they need to be held accountable IMO.
Can you see the same screw head being proud in the original photos of 5A?
https://youtu.be/x_ZdDTsFC2g?t=2718
At appx 44:37 on the video of Amaral's documentary, Alexandre Simas started the sequence by demonstrating the impossibility of using a credit card to spring the lock because of the presence of the screw.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Robittybob1 on December 01, 2018, 03:23:49 AM
At appx 44:37 on the video of Amaral's documentary, Alexandre Simas started the sequence by demonstrating the impossibility of using a credit card to spring the lock because of the presence of the screw.
If the door is closed he has to be able to get the card around the corner of the door first I'd be very surprised if anyone could get a card near the screw.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on December 01, 2018, 07:09:35 AM
If the door is closed he has to be able to get the card around the corner of the door first I'd be very surprised if anyone could get a card near the screw.
The PJ are assessing how anyone could get in through the front door, as if there was an abduction. What they haven't eliminated was the possibility of Madeleine leaving via the front door. It is hard to get a key to the apartment. It is even harder to get a card to push the spring latch back.
But it was dead easy for Madeleine to open the door from the inside.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Robittybob1 on December 01, 2018, 07:39:59 AM
So what happened to Madeleine after she allegedly woke and wandered?
IMO Madeleine got to the Secondary Reception gate but found the door closed. Kate's concept of letting Madeleine to wander over to the Tapas Restaurant if she needed mummy or daddy depended on the door remaining open. Could that open door be guaranteed? I don't think so.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Robittybob1 on December 01, 2018, 07:52:14 AM
How do I know? By knowing how latch bolts are fabricated/work and looking at the plethora of photos and "comics" on this very forum. How locks in my house work or those in the house of a bloke in the next village who knows my next door neighbour work, is irrelevant.
Hint: First work out how the lock works then take it from there. Do NOT start off with a prejudged condition then try to figure how the lock must work or be modified to fit the prejudgement.
You infer that you know how the latch works but you don't say it so we have no idea as to whether your claim is true.
Explain what the cylindrical rod does in the following photo? (https://www.gjohns.co.uk/media/catalog/product/cache/1/image/480x/9df78eab33525d08d6e5fb8d27136e95/t/u/tubular-latch-supplied-with-extrenal-grade-code-lock.jpg?1457463747)
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on December 01, 2018, 07:59:24 AM
IMO Madeleine got to the Secondary Reception gate but found the door closed. Kate's concept of letting Madeleine to wander over to the Tapas Restaurant if she needed mummy or daddy depended on the door remaining open. Could that open door be guaranteed? I don't think so.
Is it factual to say that the police are not treating the case as one of abduction as Miss Taken has claimed?
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Robittybob1 on December 01, 2018, 08:11:46 AM
Is it factual to say that the police are not treating the case as one of abduction as Miss Taken has claimed?
I think in terms of an abduction but the act of abduction occurred after woke and wandered. What the police think - I'm not sure.
Kate and Gerry think in terms of a break in or at least an exit via the window. But why exit via window when one can just exit via the front door? As I see it any exit via the front door would end up with an unlatched front door. But Kate didn't find any of the rear gates or patio door wide open, nor the front door wide open. So they can't accept Madeleine wandering as the doors and or gates weren't found open. It might just be too difficult for them to think that someone else (a caring individual) closed the doors or gates after Madeleine had left them open. Can anyone accept that Kate could be confused because someone (a caring individual) closed the door/s or gate/s after Madeleine wandered?
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Robittybob1 on December 01, 2018, 08:35:09 AM
You infer that you know how the latch works but you don't say it so we have no idea as to whether your claim is true.
Explain what the cylindrical rod does in the following photo? (https://www.gjohns.co.uk/media/catalog/product/cache/1/image/480x/9df78eab33525d08d6e5fb8d27136e95/t/u/tubular-latch-supplied-with-extrenal-grade-code-lock.jpg?1457463747)
As I understand it that rod is part of the Latch bolt lock called a "dead latch plunger".
"Once the dead latch plunger is pushed in AND held in via contact with the striker plate, then the main door plunger is locked in place and will not move.....thus preventing a burglar from using a tool to push it in." https://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=2686944
Why didn't Alexandre Simas say something along these lines rather than explaining that an improperly screwed in screw was providing the necessary security?
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Robittybob1 on December 01, 2018, 08:44:21 AM
from this site https://www.kwikpicklockandsafe.com/locksmith-blog/2017/4/29/when-its-not-the-lock
"If a strike plate is aligned incorrectly, the dead latch plunger can fall into the opening of the strike. How will you know? Sometimes, you can see it when you shut the door. Another method is to listen carefully: when you close the door, you might be able to hear two clicks instead of one."
Now from looking at the photos of 5A (above) it looks to me that strike plate has been opened up to be large enough that "the dead latch plunger can fall into the opening of the strike". Hence the latch has been modified in some particular way.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: G-Unit on December 01, 2018, 09:33:16 AM
Is it factual to say that the police are not treating the case as one of abduction as Miss Taken has claimed?
The police have made no comment, but there were allegedly two meetings; one in Portugal and one in Rothley. If both police forces decide that (woke and wandered) is the explanation, however, the McCann's opinion will make no difference.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: jassi on December 01, 2018, 10:06:54 AM
The police have made no comment, but there were allegedly two meetings; one in Portugal and one in Rothley. If both police forces decide that (woke and wandered) is the explanation, however, the McCann's opinion will make no difference.
Agreed.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: G-Unit on December 01, 2018, 10:18:28 AM
I was wondering what was discussed in Portugal and I thought if both forces have agreed to stop an announcement of some kind will ensue. I don't think the Met would agree to accidental death and I don't think the PJ would agree to abduction. The compromise is woke and wandered.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: faithlilly on December 01, 2018, 10:26:25 AM
The police have made no comment, but there were allegedly two meetings; one in Portugal and one in Rothley. If both police forces decide that (woke and wandered) is the explanation, however, the McCann's opinion will make no difference.
I’m not sure how after 7 years woke and wandered can’t already have been ruled out.
For this to be brought to the fore at this juncture someone must either have admitted to knocking Madeleine down, someone must have seen it happen or a body has been found in a hole that was exposed at the time. Any of these would have given the investigation a conclusion to the case not merely another theory.
My theory. Abduction is off the cards.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Montclair on December 01, 2018, 11:05:55 AM
I was wondering what was discussed in Portugal and I thought if both forces have agreed to stop an announcement of some kind will ensue. I don't think the Met would agree to accidental death and I don't think the PJ would agree to abduction. The compromise is woke and wandered.
Why wouldn't the Met agree to accidental death if the evidence points in that direction?
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: G-Unit on December 01, 2018, 11:21:22 AM
Why wouldn't the Met agree to accidental death if the evidence points in that direction?
I was speculating about how the two forces, lacking definitive evidence, could simultaneously close their investigations with a conclusion agreeable to both.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: barrier on December 01, 2018, 12:13:38 PM
I was speculating about how the two forces, lacking definitive evidence, could simultaneously close their investigations with a conclusion agreeable to both.
Then there is the squaring the circle of giving comfort to the family.(Hogan Howe April 2016).
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: faithlilly on December 01, 2018, 12:29:56 PM
If the two investigations merely wanted to forward an explanation which was neutral enough to be accepted by everyone why wasn’t it done years ago ? Does anyone seriously think that both the HO and the Portuguese authorities would be channeling money into the investigation if there wasn’t some serious investigating being done ?
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Brietta on December 01, 2018, 12:42:59 PM
As I understand it that rod is part of the Latch bolt lock called a "dead latch plunger".
"Once the dead latch plunger is pushed in AND held in via contact with the striker plate, then the main door plunger is locked in place and will not move.....thus preventing a burglar from using a tool to push it in." https://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=2686944
Why didn't Alexandre Simas say something along these lines rather than explaining that an improperly screwed in screw was providing the necessary security?
Perhaps because that was the only explanation he could come up with when investigating the lock?
In the absence of any detail about the state of the lock at the time in question ... whether or not such bolts were fitted ... all else is speculation.
Had they been there I think Alexandre Simas would have mentioned them ... bearing in mind his brief was to prove access impossible and not egress.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Robittybob1 on December 01, 2018, 02:40:48 PM
What wakes her, what makes her go out one door or the other?
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Robittybob1 on December 01, 2018, 02:47:04 PM
Perhaps because that was the only explanation he could come up with when investigating the lock?
In the absence of any detail about the state of the lock at the time in question ... whether or not such bolts were fitted ... all else is speculation.
Had they been there I think Alexandre Simas would have mentioned them ... bearing in mind his brief was to prove access impossible and not egress.
He is supposed to be the security expert but doesn't describe the lock - complete fail IMO.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Angelo222 on December 01, 2018, 03:54:05 PM
What wakes her, what makes her go out one door or the other?
Considering the intruder theory for a moment. The shutter could be pushed up from the outside but unless a potential intruder had access to the pull strap they could not get the shutter fully up. It would have been impossible to get to the strap through a closed window and that window couldn't be opened from the outside. IMO the window was opened and the shutter raised from inside and only Kate McCann's prints were found. Little wonder therefore that the police questioned their version of events imo.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: misty on December 01, 2018, 04:18:29 PM
Considering the intruder theory for a moment. The shutter could be pushed up from the outside but unless a potential intruder had access to the pull strap they could not get the shutter fully up. It would have been impossible to get to the strap through a closed window and that window couldn't be opened from the outside. IMO the window was opened and the shutter raised from inside and only Kate McCann's prints were found. Little wonder therefore that the police questioned their version of events imo.
In that scenario, what would Kate's reason have been for entering the bedroom to do a visual check on the children?
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Alice Purjorick on December 01, 2018, 04:28:51 PM
You infer that you know how the latch works but you don't say it so we have no idea as to whether your claim is true.
Explain what the cylindrical rod does in the following photo? (https://www.gjohns.co.uk/media/catalog/product/cache/1/image/480x/9df78eab33525d08d6e5fb8d27136e95/t/u/tubular-latch-supplied-with-extrenal-grade-code-lock.jpg?1457463747)
You need to know how the lock on 5A worked. So far you don't know. Work it out from photos and "comics" [TDs] already posted or by buying a lock and stripping it. I think I may have suggested this a year or so ago.
Is that photo relevant to 5A ?
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: G-Unit on December 01, 2018, 04:46:10 PM
Who said she entered the bedroom to do a visual check? Was it the same person who said the shutter was raised and the window open?
The shutter was not raised at 9pm according to Matt when he did an aural check at 5A bedroom window. Kate was at the Tapas Bar between 8.30 & 10pm. If Kate did not have cause to enter the bedroom at 10pm then how can her fingerprints on the window be associated with a woke & wandered scenario following intruder attempt?
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: G-Unit on December 01, 2018, 05:36:46 PM
The shutter was not raised at 9pm according to Matt when he did an aural check at 5A bedroom window. Kate was at the Tapas Bar between 8.30 & 10pm. If Kate did not have cause to enter the bedroom at 10pm then how can her fingerprints on the window be associated with a woke & wandered scenario following intruder attempt?
With great difficulty, like the moving bedroom door.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: jassi on December 01, 2018, 05:38:40 PM
The shutter was not raised at 9pm according to Matt when he did an aural check at 5A bedroom window. Kate was at the Tapas Bar between 8.30 & 10pm. If Kate did not have cause to enter the bedroom at 10pm then how can her fingerprints on the window be associated with a woke & wandered scenario following intruder attempt?
At least 1 other person was in the room between Matt's listening at 9 and Kate's visit at 10
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: misty on December 01, 2018, 05:48:42 PM
At least 1 other person was in the room between Matt's listening at 9 and Kate's visit at 10
Neither of those people have Kate's fingerprints. In an intruder-instigated woke & wandered, why would Kate have felt the need to open the window & shutter if both appeared closed? It would have been both quicker & quieter to have gone out the front door to look for Madeleine under the assumption she had just wandered. If an earlier visitor had opened the window & shutter, that validates Kate's version of events at 10pm, her reason for actually entering the bedroom & touching the window.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: misty on December 01, 2018, 05:58:25 PM
With great difficulty, like the moving bedroom door.
The moving bedroom door can be plausibly explained by a toilet visit & later Madeleine leaving the bedroom. However, those things are unlikely to have happened if Kate was not truthful about her reason for entering the bedroom at 10pm.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Montclair on December 01, 2018, 06:26:02 PM
Absolutely not the case as there is real evidence to support some and wandered.
What evidence? Please tell me what evidence there is, as I have missed it. IMHO, there is more evidence of an accident and hiding of a body than there is of woke and wandered.!
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Montclair on December 01, 2018, 06:28:20 PM
I was wondering what was discussed in Portugal and I thought if both forces have agreed to stop an announcement of some kind will ensue. I don't think the Met would agree to accidental death and I don't think the PJ would agree to abduction. The compromise is woke and wandered.
Decisions in criminal cases are made based on evidence not on compromises which will allegedly please everyone.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on December 01, 2018, 06:34:21 PM
The police have made no comment, but there were allegedly two meetings; one in Portugal and one in Rothley. If both police forces decide that (woke and wandered) is the explanation, however, the McCann's opinion will make no difference.
Neither police force can decide for certain that’s what happened without some pretty compelling evidence.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: G-Unit on December 01, 2018, 06:36:41 PM
Decisions cannot be made without evidence to accompany it. What evidence is there that Madeleine woke and wandered?
there is no real evidence for woke and wandered......those who claim there is quote the tracker dogs but if the testimony of the handlers is looked at it is very unconvincing...
secondly...what is the evidence that the investigation is looking at woke and wandered...an article in the sun...for those who claim to question everything it really is laughable
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Robittybob1 on December 01, 2018, 06:56:49 PM
Considering the intruder theory for a moment. The shutter could be pushed up from the outside but unless a potential intruder had access to the pull strap they could not get the shutter fully up. It would have been impossible to get to the strap through a closed window and that window couldn't be opened from the outside. IMO the window was opened and the shutter raised from inside and only Kate McCann's prints were found. Little wonder therefore that the police questioned their version of events imo.
As I understand it Kate's fingerprints were all found on the glass of the sliding window. From her left hand too, and I can't be absolute certain but I think she is right handed. You open the window by releasing the catch which was on the central window frame. IMO if you want to say who opened the window the fingerprints found need to be on the latch.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Robittybob1 on December 01, 2018, 07:02:03 PM
I don't really give a rats ass whether the forum at large believes me or not. You need to know how the lock on 5A worked. So far you don't know. Work it out from photos and "comics" [TDs] already posted or by buying a lock and stripping it. I think I may have suggested this a year or so ago.
Is that photo relevant to 5A ?
It shows a latch with the the external "dead latch plunger" components just like that of 5A. The 5A photos are out of focus and taken without flash and basically they are such poor quality as to to be practically useless.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Montclair on December 01, 2018, 07:04:13 PM
But we were told only the other week that the parents had been notified that there was still two leads being followed.
Are we supposed to believe this? We don't know what the police said to the McCanns and any information from a mysterious source should be taken with a mountain of salt.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: faithlilly on December 01, 2018, 07:07:20 PM
Are we supposed to believe this? We don't know what the police said to the McCanns and any information from a mysterious source should be taken with a mountain of salt.
Of course we’re not but you have to ask where is the latest media blitz coming from and, more importantly, why ?
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Robittybob1 on December 01, 2018, 07:09:00 PM
Neither police force can decide for certain that’s what happened without some pretty compelling evidence.
In my theory there is a "caring person" who closes any open doors or gates. Therefore if that was to be true it is possible that that person admits to that. Admits that he went there prior to Kate's visit and found a door open, so he closed it.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Robittybob1 on December 01, 2018, 07:23:22 PM
In my theory there is a "caring person" who closes any open doors or gates. Therefore if that was to be true it is possible that that person admits to that. Admits that he went there prior to Kate's visit and found a door open, so he closed it.
If there was a woke and wandered Kate feels that she would have seen evidence that Madeleine left by either the back or front doors. She found none, therefore if the woke and wandering theory is to be valid someone else must have been there in the apartment ahead of Kate and altered the scene IMO based on logic.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on December 01, 2018, 07:32:27 PM
Of course we’re not but you have to ask where is the latest media blitz coming from and, more importantly, why ?
I would suggest (at the risk of another accusation of stalking) not giving it too much of your time and energy pondering these questions. It really isn’t that important is it?
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Alice Purjorick on December 01, 2018, 07:37:37 PM
It shows a latch with the the external "dead latch plunger" components just like that of 5A. The 5A photos are out of focus and taken without flash and basically they are such poor quality as to to be practically useless.
It shows a mortice latch with a dead latch plunger right enough but that is not what was fitted to 5A nor are the components similar. Look at the catalogue TDS for the lock fitted to 5A if you don't like the photos. The TDs are on here somewhere as the lock is like the dogs ....... reams of discussion that went/go nowhere. If the photos are in your opinion useless how do you make the comparison you have? If you don't believe me go buy a lock like the one allegedly fitted to 5A, strip it and see how it works.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Brietta on December 01, 2018, 08:09:09 PM
It shows a mortice latch with a dead latch plunger right enough but that is not what was fitted to 5A nor are the components similar. Look at the catalogue TDS for the lock fitted to 5A if you don't like the photos. The TDs are on here somewhere as the lock is like the dogs ....... reams of discussion that went/go nowhere. If the photos are in your opinion useless how do you make the comparison you have? If you don't believe me go buy a lock like the one allegedly fitted to 5A, strip it and see how it works.
I doubt if they have that type over here. But it is a good idea. I need to see if the dead latch plunger can be made to move independently of the latch bolt being depressed.
Usual is when the latch bolt is depressed the dead latch plunger moves with it, but when the latch extends into the striker plate the dead latch plunger stays depressed and locks the latch bolt.
Had this been changed in 5A?
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Robittybob1 on December 01, 2018, 08:15:33 PM
Once the front door is closed it cannot be opened from the outside without the key unless the latch is locked back. The only time it is ever locked back is when you are walking in and out and don't want the door to lock behind you. There was no reason for the door latch to be locked back that night.
The door on 5A had no exterior door handle as such, just a knob to pull on. So if the latch was locked back as you describe would the door just be swinging free to blow in the breeze going through the apartment?
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: jassi on December 01, 2018, 09:03:25 PM
Is the knob part of the mechanism - ie does it turn and move the latch?
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Robittybob1 on December 01, 2018, 09:09:23 PM
Are you talking about this photo? (http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/12_05_07/09_VOLUME_IXa_Page_2318_small.jpg)
No matter how long I look at those photos I can't tell if the latch bolt and the dead latch plunger move in unison or they move separately. One situation would allow the front door to be pulled closed behind someone if they exited via the front door and the other you'd need a key to close it from the outside.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: barrier on December 02, 2018, 09:36:16 AM
In this interview with Sandra Felgueiras, the McCanns state that Madeleine would not have been able to leave the apartment on her own and Kate says that the window and shutter were open.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_KdIKe_Zds
Not quite,Sandra suggest's to them they don't believe that madeleine would not be able to,KM describes how she found the apartment and suggest Madeline wouldn't leave it like it and leave,GM even suggest in theory its possible to leave of her own accord.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Robittybob1 on December 02, 2018, 09:54:01 AM
Not quite,Sandra suggest's to them they don't believe that madeleine would not be able to,KM describes how she found the apartment and suggest Madeline wouldn't leave it like it and leave,GM even suggest in theory its possible to leave of her own accord.
Could you edit your post to make it read properly please?
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Mr Gray on December 02, 2018, 09:58:13 AM
Could you edit your post to make it read properly please?
Self explanatory Rob.
Sandra says (and its a bit lost in her meaning I think),that didn't it cross your mind that Madeleine wouldn't cross the door and go looking for you.
KM then describes how she found the window and says Madeleine wouldn't leave it like that,GM then goes onto says leaving on her own is in theory a possibility.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: barrier on December 02, 2018, 10:02:19 AM
In this interview with Sandra Felgueiras, the McCanns state that Madeleine would not have been able to leave the apartment on her own and Kate says that the window and shutter were open.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_KdIKe_Zds
The transcript "SF So you have no doubts, she was taken from the bed?
KM No doubts. A three-year old would not be able to do that.
GM If you are saying, "Is it theoretically possible that Madeleine left the apartment, then yes. Do we believe it and do we think she was capable of leaving the apartment the way it was found and by which exit did she leave, then absolutely not."
So it is possible Madeleine left on her own, but she is incapable of leaving the apartment in the way it was found.
Doesn't that mean if she left on her own someone else had altered the scene before Kate did her check? That's what I think Gerry is implying. And that is my theory. That there was someone else who entered the apartment after Matt's check and before Kate did her check.
(Kate seems to have a different POV to Gerry. Kate seems to think she was taken from her bed. How did the intruder leave Kate?) She hasn't really worked it out IMO.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Robittybob1 on December 02, 2018, 10:05:54 AM
The problem is some posters read posts in isolation and not in context... Therein lies the problem...
Here's how I think it should read (still not perfect) IMO.
"Not quite, Sandra suggests to them they don't believe that Madeleine would not be able to [leave the apartment on her own]. KM describes how she found the apartment and suggests Madeline wouldn't leave it like it [was found] and leave [on her own]. GM even suggests in theory it is possible to leave of her own accord.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: barrier on December 02, 2018, 10:21:28 AM
Here's how I think it should read (still not perfect) IMO.
"Not quite, Sandra suggests to them they don't believe that Madeleine would not be able to [leave the apartment on her own]. KM describes how she found the apartment and suggests Madeline wouldn't leave it like it [was found] and leave [on her own]. GM even suggests in theory it is possible to leave of her own accord.
Does it matter Rob,we've all woken up and the rest of the day is a bonus,if you can keep doing that you've pretty much got it licked.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Robittybob1 on December 02, 2018, 10:22:37 AM
"SF Did it ever cross your mind, Madeleine wouldn't be able to cross the door just looking after you, alone?"
What is Sandra saying - that there was a chance Madeleine would not be able to open the door? If Madeleine wasn't able to open the door where would she be found?
I feel that if the Secondary entrance door had been closed to stop outsiders coming into the Tapas area Madeleine would be stuck on the wrong side of the door. There was not only the door of the apartment to handle but the one at the Secondary Reception as well if for any reason it was closed.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: barrier on December 02, 2018, 10:28:45 AM
If she was unable to open the doors would she try the window? Is that it?
Davel as just pointed out about context,English in the interviewee's second language,imo she means just what she says that "wouldn't Madeleine be able to go looking for them".
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Mr Gray on December 02, 2018, 01:57:53 PM
Davel as just pointed out about context,English in the interviewee's second language,imo she means just what she says that "wouldn't Madeleine be able to go looking for them".
Thanks Barrier... I was trying to make a genuine point... Anything to make the forum run smoother
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Robittybob1 on December 02, 2018, 04:59:56 PM
Davel as just pointed out about context,English in the interviewee's second language,imo she means just what she says that "wouldn't Madeleine be able to go looking for them".
Yet the translation transcript gives us a more confusing statement ""SF Did it ever cross your mind, Madeleine wouldn't be able to cross the door just looking after you, alone?"
Yet to me it seems that she is asking a different question "Did it ever cross your mind" or "did you ever think" "Madeleine wouldn't be capable of using the doors on her own in order to come looking for you?"
Plenty of discussion on the forum over the years as to whether Madeleine had enough height , weight, strength etc to be able to open the doors and or gates on her own.
In fact it was a question being asked and your translation is not a question. "wouldn't Madeleine be able to go looking for them" has to become something else as it has to be phrased as a question.
Being able to wake and wander is dependent on Madeleine being able to open a door in the first instance.
If she can't open a door would she resort to opening the window and the shutters?
I imagine a 4 year old being able to be trained in how to open the shutters but there has been no such training given to Madeline AFAIK.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Miss Taken Identity on December 02, 2018, 05:24:17 PM
Yet the translation transcript gives us a more confusing statement ""SF Did it ever cross your mind, Madeleine wouldn't be able to cross the door just looking after you, alone?"
Yet to me it seems that she is asking a different question "Did it ever cross your mind" or "did you ever think" "Madeleine wouldn't be capable of using the doors on her own in order to come looking for you?"
Plenty of discussion on the forum over the years as to whether Madeleine had enough height , weight, strength etc to be able to open the doors and or gates on her own.
In fact it was a question being asked and your translation is not a question. "wouldn't Madeleine be able to go looking for them" has to become something else as it has to be phrased as a question.
Being able to wake and wander is dependent on Madeleine being able to open a door in the first instance.
If she can't open a door would she resort to opening the window and the shutters?
I imagine a 4 year old being able to be trained in how to open the shutters but there has been no such training given to Madeline AFAIK.
oh I am sure I have no idea where this converstion is going...
Let us look at what Kate said about the window and the unlocked door,
Kate said she left the door unlocked, now why did she leave the door unlocked if not to allow her daugher to get out? What if there was a fire? saying you left a door unlocked makes it sound you had thought of that, but did they?
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: barrier on December 02, 2018, 05:40:10 PM
Yet the translation transcript gives us a more confusing statement ""SF Did it ever cross your mind, Madeleine wouldn't be able to cross the door just looking after you, alone?"
Yet to me it seems that she is asking a different question "Did it ever cross your mind" or "did you ever think" "Madeleine wouldn't be capable of using the doors on her own in order to come looking for you?"
Plenty of discussion on the forum over the years as to whether Madeleine had enough height , weight, strength etc to be able to open the doors and or gates on her own.
In fact it was a question being asked and your translation is not a question. "wouldn't Madeleine be able to go looking for them" has to become something else as it has to be phrased as a question.
Being able to wake and wander is dependent on Madeleine being able to open a door in the first instance.
If she can't open a door would she resort to opening the window and the shutters?
I imagine a 4 year old being able to be trained in how to open the shutters but there has been no such training given to Madeline AFAIK.
Rob stop making a mountain out of a molehill,AF asked it as a question, listen to KM and GM reply they fully understood it as such.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Robittybob1 on December 02, 2018, 05:48:29 PM
oh I am sure I have no idea where this converstion is going...
Let us look at what Kate said about the window and the unlocked door,
Kate said she left the door unlocked, now why did she leave the door unlocked if not to allow her daugher to get out? What if there was a fire? saying you left a door unlocked makes it sound you had thought of that, but did they?
The question has always been even if the patio door was left unlocked could Madeleine pull the door open when needed? It has to be more than Kate's intentions, Kate has to check that Madeleine was capable. She may have seen it happen during the week so she knew Madeleine was more than able to do these tasks.
You can't have it both ways, in case of fire would Madeleine have had to rescue the the twins as well as getting herself out of the building?
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Mr Gray on December 02, 2018, 05:54:44 PM
The question has always been even if the patio door was left unlocked could Madeleine pull the door open when needed? It has to be more than Kate's intentions, Kate has to check that Madeleine was capable. She may have seen it happen during the week so she knew Madeleine was more than able to do these tasks.
You can't have it both ways, in case of fire would Madeleine have had to rescue the the twins as well as getting herself out of the building?
In case of fire.....this would be seen by passers by...the fact the patio door was open would enable passers by to access the apartment
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Robittybob1 on December 02, 2018, 06:02:19 PM
Rob stop making a mountain out of a molehill,AF asked it as a question, listen to KM and GM reply they fully understood it as such.
Please just write down the question SF asked, as you think it meant, pretend that you were being interviewed.
Goncalo Amaral seems to be of the opinion the only way in to the apartment without leaving a trace would be if the intruder had a key. Even though the patio door was unlocked he felt it was unlikely an intruder would attack from the back as it would be too visible from the Tapas area.
Please just write down the question SF asked, as you think it meant, pretend that you were being interviewed.
Goncalo Amaral seems to be of the opinion the only way in to the apartment without leaving a trace would be if the intruder had a key. Even though the patio door was unlocked he felt it was unlikely an intruder would attack from the back as it would be too visible from the Tapas area. Only to those that knew it was open. Would passers by enter a building on fire without know there was someone in there?
of course they would...and they would try the doors
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Miss Taken Identity on December 02, 2018, 06:11:13 PM
The question has always been even if the patio door was left unlocked could Madeleine pull the door open when needed? It has to be more than Kate's intentions, Kate has to check that Madeleine was capable. She may have seen it happen during the week so she knew Madeleine was more than able to do these tasks.
You can't have it both ways, in case of fire would Madeleine have had to rescue the the twins as well as getting herself out of the building?
I am not asking what would happen in a fire. I was stating that KATE left a door unlocked and I am seeking to find out why? I merely used the fire scenaro to use as an excuse... to explain about the locking mechanism you were obsessing about.
...and why was this important information not allowed airtime at the same time in the same interview along with the 'abduction via window'!?
PR PR and PR...
So now we have a situation when the unlocked door was eventuallly discussed, the woke and wandered was seen as another theory....but dismissed out of hand by the parents who claim it ws impossible for MBM to get out of the apartment SO AGAIN I ask.. why did Kate leave a door unlocked- one which her child could not escape?
Davel, as You have no firefighting experience, your remarks are better ignored.
But a nod to those who seem keen to find out. https://www.firerescue1.com/Firefighter-Training
Please note: member of the public with no firefighting experience can casue death by allowing oxygen to access a buring building.
Oh and just for a bit of fun... Why do we have fire doors? um erm ah yes difficult one that!
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Mr Gray on December 02, 2018, 06:16:34 PM
I am not asking what would happen in a fire. I was stating that KATE left a door unlocked and I am seeking to find out why? I merely used the fire scenaro to use as an excuse... to explain about the locking mechanism you were obsessing about.
...and why was this important information not allowed airtime at the same time in the same interview along with the 'abduction via window'!?
PR PR and PR...
So now we have a situation when the unlocked door was eventuallly discussed, the woke and wandered was seen as another theory....but dismissed out of hand by the parents who claim it ws impossible for MBM to get out of the apartment SO AGAIN I ask.. why did Kate leave a door unlocked- one which her child could not escape?
Davel, as You have no firefighting experience, your remarks are better ignored.
But a nod to those who seem keen to find out. https://www.firerescue1.com/Firefighter-Training
Please note: member of the public with no firefighting experience can casue death by allowing oxygen to access a buring building.
Oh and just for a bit of fun... Why do we have fire doors? um erm ah yes difficult one that!
LOL....I do have fire fighting training...so your remarks are better ignored...Its a mandatory requirement for me and my staff...and for many employed people....perhps thats why you dont realise www.highspeedtraining.co.uk/hub/how-many-fire-wardens/
you claim to work in an office....which must have fire extinguishers...have you really had no training
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Miss Taken Identity on December 02, 2018, 06:22:33 PM
LOL....I do have fire fighting training...so your remarks are better ignored...Its a mandatory requirement for me and my staff...and for many employed people....perhps thats why you dont realise
Oh I do know about mandatory training in the NHS as do the great Doctors who left their children alone.
At no time in the training are you advised to open a door of a burning building with no firefighting equiptment.
But that was from experts in that field doing the training. I find your claims hilarious and without foundation. AND down right dangerous!
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Mr Gray on December 02, 2018, 06:23:45 PM
Oh I do know about mandatory training in the NHS as do the great Doctors who left their children alone.
At no time in the training are you advised to open a door of a burning building with no firefighting equiptment.
But that was from experts in that field doing the training. I find your claims hilarious and without foundation. AND down right dangerous!
really...so if a building is burning...and there is a child in an accessible room...you dont open the door but leave the child to burn to death.......bonkers as opposed to hilarious
so if the building is burning...should you not open the door to escape...the first rule is get out and stay out
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Miss Taken Identity on December 02, 2018, 06:41:22 PM
I have never claimed I work in an office! do you feel insulted.. oh dear.
You are not trained in firefighting- claiming that you are is hilarious as the advice you offer is against the firefighting training offered by experts!
Yes too funny open the door and let the oxygen cause a backdraft... wow what really?
Now then one can look at the philpots-- tried to 'save' their children... Dad had it all planned... as a non experienced firefighter...
Anyway back to the thread.
Why did Kate leave a door unlocked? who was supposed to use it, who knew about it?
Not for her daughter as she claims her daughter coulnd't have left the apartment...
read my post again....I said TRYING to insult...
so expert advice...according to you is to let a child burn to death
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Sunny on December 02, 2018, 06:53:20 PM
LOL....I do have fire fighting training...so your remarks are better ignored...Its a mandatory requirement for me and my staff...and for many employed people....perhps thats why you dont realise www.highspeedtraining.co.uk/hub/how-many-fire-wardens/
you claim to work in an office....which must have fire extinguishers...have you really had no training
Can you show me where the link shows that fire extinguisher training is given please?
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on December 02, 2018, 06:55:08 PM
I have never claimed I work in an office! do you feel insulted.. oh dear.
You are not trained in firefighting- claiming that you are is hilarious as the advice you offer is against the firefighting training offered by experts!
Yes too funny open the door and let the oxygen cause a backdraft... wow what really?
Now then one can look at the philpots-- tried to 'save' their children... Dad had it all planned... as a non experienced firefighter...
Anyway back to the thread.
Why did Kate leave a door unlocked? who was supposed to use it, who knew about it?
Not for her daughter as she claims her daughter coulnd't have left the apartment...
Did she claim her daughter could not have physically left the apartment or that the manner in which the apartment was left (ie patio doors closed, stairgate shut etc) meant it was not possible her daughter had left the apartment?
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Mr Gray on December 02, 2018, 06:56:18 PM
Can you show me where the link shows that fire extinguisher training is given please?
so you think you can have an office or workplace full of fire extinguishers and no one with experience of using them...try using a little logic.....fire training involves going in the car park and letting off a few extinguishers
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Miss Taken Identity on December 02, 2018, 06:56:38 PM
so expert advice...according to you is to let a child burn to death
Can anyone offer a reasonable explanation as to why Kate would leave a door unlocked- which wasn't for her daughter as she claims her daughter couldn't have got out of that apartment.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on December 02, 2018, 06:58:13 PM
Can anyone offer a reasonable explanation as to why Kate would leave a door unlocked- which wasn't for her daughter as she claims her daughter couldn't have got out of that apartment.
Did she claim her daughter could not have physically left the apartment or that the manner in which the apartment was left (ie patio doors closed, stairgate shut etc) meant it was not possible her daughter had left the apartment?
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Mr Gray on December 02, 2018, 06:58:32 PM
Can anyone offer a reasonable explanation as to why Kate would leave a door unlocked- which wasn't for her daughter as she claims her daughter couldn't have got out of that apartment.
show me where I claimed to be an expert firefighter,....(deleted)
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Mr Gray on December 02, 2018, 06:59:41 PM
I am not asking what would happen in a fire. I was stating that KATE left a door unlocked and I am seeking to find out why? I merely used the fire scenaro to use as an excuse... to explain about the locking mechanism you were obsessing about.
...and why was this important information not allowed airtime at the same time in the same interview along with the 'abduction via window'!?
PR PR and PR...
So now we have a situation when the unlocked door was eventuallly discussed, the woke and wandered was seen as another theory....but dismissed out of hand by the parents who claim it ws impossible for MBM to get out of the apartment SO AGAIN I ask.. why did Kate leave a door unlocked- one which her child could not escape?
Davel, as You have no firefighting experience, your remarks are better ignored.
But a nod to those who seem keen to find out. https://www.firerescue1.com/Firefighter-Training
Please note: member of the public with no firefighting experience can casue death by allowing oxygen to access a buring building.
Oh and just for a bit of fun... Why do we have fire doors? um erm ah yes difficult one that!
Basic science is that..................... *%87
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Miss Taken Identity on December 02, 2018, 07:00:59 PM
so you think you can have an office or workplace full of fire extinguishers and no one with experience of using them...try using a little logic.....fire training involves going in the car park and letting off a few extinguishers
OK using that logic can you please show me the firefighting equiptment next to the unlocked doors which 'passers by' can use?
Thanks in advance.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Mr Gray on December 02, 2018, 07:01:37 PM
so you think you can have an office or workplace full of fire extinguishers and no one with experience of using them...try using a little logic.....fire training involves going in the car park and letting off a few extinguishers
Yep and not to approach a burning building with out the proper equipment,respirator etc,if you discover a fire and attempt to put it out have your back to the exit and face the fire,there is more but you get the gist. 8(0(*
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Miss Taken Identity on December 02, 2018, 07:07:10 PM
Yep and not to approach a burning building with out the proper equipment,respirator etc,if you discover a fire and attempt to put it out have your back to the exit and face the fire,there is more but you get the gist. 8(0(*
Some people have different fire training than others (&^& (&^& (&^&
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on December 02, 2018, 07:07:46 PM
its basic science...so would you open the door or let a child die
I think in this day and age of health and safety you’d probably have to call 999 and watch the kids burn to death while waiting for the professionals to arrive.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: barrier on December 02, 2018, 07:10:55 PM
Please just write down the question SF asked, as you think it meant, pretend that you were being interviewed.
Goncalo Amaral seems to be of the opinion the only way in to the apartment without leaving a trace would be if the intruder had a key. Even though the patio door was unlocked he felt it was unlikely an intruder would attack from the back as it would be too visible from the Tapas area. Only to those that knew it was open. Would passers by enter a building on fire without know there was someone in there?
Rack to topic: the question she asked is obvious.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Mr Gray on December 02, 2018, 07:12:07 PM
Yep and not to approach a burning building with out the proper equipment,respirator etc,if you discover a fire and attempt to put it out have your back to the exit and face the fire,there is more but you get the gist. 8(0(*
I would open the door and save the child.....its important to see expert advice in....CONTEXT.....of course the experts got it totally wrong at Grenfell
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: barrier on December 02, 2018, 07:12:54 PM
Did she claim her daughter could not have physically left the apartment or that the manner in which the apartment was left (ie patio doors closed, stairgate shut etc) meant it was not possible her daughter had left the apartment?
She didn't say couldn't which would indicate a barrier of some kind,she said she wouldn't.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Robittybob1 on December 02, 2018, 07:13:18 PM
I have never claimed I work in an office! do you feel insulted.. oh dear.
You are not trained in firefighting- claiming that you are is hilarious as the advice you offer is against the firefighting training offered by experts!
Yes too funny open the door and let the oxygen cause a backdraft... wow what really?
Now then one can look at the philpots-- tried to 'save' their children... Dad had it all planned... as a non experienced firefighter...
Anyway back to the thread.
Why did Kate leave a door unlocked? who was supposed to use it, who knew about it?
Not for her daughter as she claims her daughter coulnd't have left the apartment...
I will be deleting your posts if you keep claiming that Kate claims her daughter couldn't leave the apartment. She has never made this claim.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: barrier on December 02, 2018, 07:13:48 PM
I would open the door and save the child.....its important to see expert advice in....CONTEXT.....of course the experts got it totally wrong at Grenfell
Or attempt to.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Robittybob1 on December 02, 2018, 07:16:04 PM
Kate never said she wouldn't leave the apartment either. If you think I'm wrong show me a cite where Kate says she wouldn't.
GM to SF: If you are saying, "Is it theoretically possible that Madeleine left the apartment, then yes. Do we believe it and do we think she was capable of leaving the apartment the way it was found and by which exit did she leave, then absolutely not.
So she wouldn't leave as the apartment was left. So in what state would Madeleine leave the apartment in if she wanted to go and find her parents?
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Robittybob1 on December 02, 2018, 07:30:02 PM
GM to SF: If you are saying, "Is it theoretically possible that Madeleine left the apartment, then yes. Do we believe it and do we think she was capable of leaving the apartment the way it was found and by which exit did she leave, then absolutely not.
So she wouldn't leave as the apartment was left. So in what state would Madeleine leave the apartment in if she wanted to go and find her parents?
There is a big difference in the two expressions "do we think she was capable of leaving the apartment the way it was found...? "do we think she was capable of leaving the apartment ...?
One is talking about the state of the apartment and the other is the state of the person.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on December 02, 2018, 07:33:20 PM
GM to SF: If you are saying, "Is it theoretically possible that Madeleine left the apartment, then yes. Do we believe it and do we think she was capable of leaving the apartment the way it was found and by which exit did she leave, then absolutely not.
So she wouldn't leave as the apartment was left. So in what state would Madeleine leave the apartment in if she wanted to go and find her parents?
Thanks for proving my point.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: barrier on December 02, 2018, 07:34:22 PM
There is a big difference in the two expressions "do we think she was capable of leaving the apartment the way it was found...? "do we think she was capable of leaving the apartment ...?
One is talking about the state of the apartment and the other is the state of the person.
Are not the two interlinked.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Miss Taken Identity on December 02, 2018, 07:42:18 PM
Well they are both talking about Madeleine. I believe Gerry is saying Madeleine was capable of leaving the apartment but not capable of leaving the apartment the way it was found. So if Madeleine left the apartment (which she is capable of doing) someone else has come in and left the apartment the way it was found (found by Kate).
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Brietta on December 02, 2018, 07:48:42 PM
I think Madeleine would have been perfectly capable of reaching the interior handle on the patio doors to push it aside and exit.
There was no handle on the exterior for use in closing the door behind her.
Doing that would have required that she but her hands somewhere on the exterior glass or metal frame to push it across.
To do that would entail leaving fingerprints somewhere on one of the exterior surfaces ... Madeleine left none.
Really, not one fingerprint. How odd. Someone must have wiped them clean. Patio doors with no child prints on them?
OR Madeliene didn't close the patio door, just opened it a little to squeeze out. Perhaps this is where the draft came from to create the slamming door?
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Robittybob1 on December 02, 2018, 08:05:06 PM
Was Madeleine capable of opening the patio door - yes Was Madeline capable of opening the gates - yes.
But is it like she would open and close them leaving the place as it was found? Kate doesn't think so. Madeleine would not have left it the way it was found (Kate found the gates closed and the doors closed), so the realisation must be that someone had altered the scene. The question then becomes who altered the scene and why was it changed?
Kate accepts that someone entered the apartment, but she is making that person out to be an abductor, whereas I'm saying he was just a person who realised that the gates and doors should be better if they were closed.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Brietta on December 02, 2018, 08:07:39 PM
Really, not one fingerprint. How odd. Someone must have wiped them clean. Patio doors with no child prints on them?
OR Madeliene didn't close the patio door, just opened it a little to squeeze out. Perhaps this is where the draft came from to create the slamming door?
Precisely and just as I said. Had Madeleine closed the door behind her she would have left a trace. Not to mention that she left no trace on the two gates which were also closed.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Mr Gray on December 02, 2018, 08:09:23 PM
Really, not one fingerprint. How odd. Someone must have wiped them clean. Patio doors with no child prints on them?
OR Madeliene didn't close the patio door, just opened it a little to squeeze out. Perhaps this is where the draft came from to create the slamming door?
were the patio doors checked for prints... do you have a cite.....ive seen nothing to say they were
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: slartibartfast on December 02, 2018, 08:09:51 PM
Well they are both talking about Madeleine. I believe Gerry is saying Madeleine was capable of leaving the apartment but not capable of leaving the apartment the way it was found. So if Madeleine left the apartment (which she is capable of doing) someone else has come in and left the apartment the way it was found (found by Kate).
Which implies that Gerry thought Madeleine was capable of opening doors and gates but incapable of them.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Miss Taken Identity on December 02, 2018, 08:10:19 PM
Was Madeleine capable of opening the patio door - yes Was Madeline capable of opening the gates - yes.
But is it like she would open and close them leaving the place as it was found? Kate doesn't think so. Madeleine would not have left it the way it was found (Kate found the gates closed and the doors closed), so the realisation must be that someone had altered the scene. The question then becomes who altered the scene and why was it changed?
Indeed!
maybe the self same person who closed the alleged open window/shutters?
Let us have a look at who that could be?
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Robittybob1 on December 02, 2018, 08:12:58 PM
Really, not one fingerprint. How odd. Someone must have wiped them clean. Patio doors with no child prints on them?
OR Madeliene didn't close the patio door, just opened it a little to squeeze out. Perhaps this is where the draft came from to create the slamming door?
Have you listened to what Kate says and thought each step through? When you say Perhaps this is where the draft came from to create the slamming door? it shows me a void, because Kate says she went and checked that the patio door was closed after the bedroom door slammed.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: barrier on December 02, 2018, 08:13:38 PM
Have you listened to what Kate says and thought each step through? When you say Perhaps this is where the draft came from to create the slamming door? it shows me a void, because Kate says she went and checked that the patio door was closed after the bedroom door slammed.
Why would she need to check if that was her point of entry.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Robittybob1 on December 02, 2018, 08:21:36 PM
Which implies that Gerry thought Madeleine was capable of opening doors and gates but incapable of them.
You might have missed a word "closing" : "Which implies that Gerry thought Madeleine was capable of opening doors and gates but incapable of [closing] them."
She would have been capable of opening and closing them but would she do 4 things perfectly in order?
Open and close the curtain. Open and close the patio door. Open and close the child proof gate. Open and close the gate to the path.
All in perfect sequence? Unlikely that this was Madeleine in Kate's opinion.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Brietta on December 02, 2018, 08:22:16 PM
Ahh it was Kate who checked the patio doors, implied they were not used. Hmm OK. It was Kate who also noticed the door had moved a few centimeters from the last person who closed it over, that would have been an interesting conversation don't you think?
Possible Scenario: MS A Darling how closed was the door when you last checked? MR A Oh about this much sweetie.... MS A ah ok just so I know when it is my turn to check....
Yes the door was open differently from when the last person opened it- even though I don't know how open he left it... um... oh *%87
It just never happened as KATE CLAIMS it doesn't hold up to scrutiny.
It just never happened as KATE CLAIMS it doesn't hold up to scrutiny. You can't say that as a fact either, that is your opinion.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: barrier on December 02, 2018, 08:31:40 PM
I think Madeleine would have been perfectly capable of reaching the interior handle on the patio doors to push it aside and exit.
There was no handle on the exterior for use in closing the door behind her.
Doing that would have required that she but her hands somewhere on the exterior glass or metal frame to push it across.
To do that would entail leaving fingerprints somewhere on one of the exterior surfaces ... Madeleine left none.
Quote
Side of the patio door: One adequate print recovered but not matched to known persons.
- Outside of one patio door: Eight inadequate prints were recovered.- Outside of [the other] patio door: One inadequate print was recovered.- Outside of the external blinds to the children's bedroom: three inadequate prints were recovered.
So why would they have Madeleines prints on a database.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Robittybob1 on December 02, 2018, 08:32:17 PM
Well, considering she is so very sure her daughter was abducted, she would have noticed if the door was slightly open or not when she left the babies alone to go and announce the abduction to the waiting tapas...
The abduction via the parents version has been dismissed by two police forces. it has also been dismissed by those same police fores that JT saw MBM being abducted.
It remains to be seen why they made up these claims which under scrutiny- just fall apart.
Now you are changing the topic.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Miss Taken Identity on December 02, 2018, 08:33:04 PM
It just never happened as KATE CLAIMS it doesn't hold up to scrutiny. You can't say that as a fact either, that is your opinion.
My apologies. I share the opinion of two police forces that MBM was NOT abducted via an open window as described By Kate McCann and was NOT abducted by a man as claimed by the parents who was seen leaving the apartment by JT.
Better?
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Robittybob1 on December 02, 2018, 08:36:58 PM
My apologies. I share the opinion of two police forces that MBM was NOT abducted via an open window as described By Kate McCann and was NOT abducted by a man as claimed by the parents who was seen leaving the apartment by JT.
Better?
Yes better. in that you are expressing an opinion but your claims of fact could still be disputed.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: barrier on December 02, 2018, 08:37:37 PM
My apologies. I share the opinion of two police forces that MBM was NOT abducted via an open window as described By Kate McCann and was NOT abducted by a man as claimed by the parents who was seen leaving the apartment by JT.
Better?
Better.. SY have said however Maddie left the apartment she was, abducted
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Robittybob1 on December 02, 2018, 08:41:32 PM
She says a lot of things. It comes down to who believes her...
What I've found is that anyone's story could be true. It is when the story gets told differently over a period of time that is when it becomes evident someone is lying. IMO this is not the case with Kate's story.
Are you talking about this photo? (http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/12_05_07/09_VOLUME_IXa_Page_2318_small.jpg)
Those are they. Whilst the clarity leaves something to be desired it’s possible to knock up a couple of sectional plans and elevations of what can be seen, then work out what you should see if it works how you seem to think it does. For example if the knob operates anything in the lock you would see the linkage or evidence of it. Nothing like that can be seen. The knob is a single dummy having neither latching nor locking function. The door appears to pull closed against a shoulder or weather strip. That gives a clue about using the credit card dodge. The lock assembly shown clearly has a dead bolt in the upper part of the lock with a latch bolt in the lower. The latch bolt tongue that can be seen is a conventional fabrication where the wedge is welded or brazed to the flat plate. ie the flat plate is NOT a plunger. The latch bolt is likely fitted with a spring loaded manual actuator to pull it clear and hold it clear, by rotating it through 90 degrees,such that you do not lock yourself out while you are dicking about running in and out with the groceries. There is nothing clever and nothing unusual about any of it; just basic security measures installed in an “L Cheapo” holiday apartment.
Possible attitudes are: Latch bolt closed and dead bolt open; this requires a key to gain access from outside and manual operation of spring loaded actuator to allow egress. Dead bolt closed and latch bolt open*; this requires a key for access or egress. Dead bolt closed and latch bolt closed this requires key for access or egress. • Pure speculation on my part that this can be done.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Robittybob1 on December 03, 2018, 06:44:38 PM
Those are they. Whilst the clarity leaves something to be desired it’s possible to knock up a couple of sectional plans and elevations of what can be seen, then work out what you should see if it works how you seem to think it does. For example if the knob operates anything in the lock you would see the linkage or evidence of it. Nothing like that can be seen. The knob is a single dummy having neither latching nor locking function. The door appears to pull closed against a shoulder or weather strip. That gives a clue about using the credit card dodge. The lock assembly shown clearly has a dead bolt in the upper part of the lock with a latch bolt in the lower. The latch bolt tongue that can be seen is a conventional fabrication where the wedge is welded or brazed to the flat plate. ie the flat plate is NOT a plunger. The latch bolt is likely fitted with a spring loaded manual actuator to pull it clear and hold it clear, by rotating it through 90 degrees,such that you do not lock yourself out while you are dicking about running in and out with the groceries. There is nothing clever and nothing unusual about any of it; just basic security measures installed in an “L Cheapo” holiday apartment.
Possible attitudes are: Latch bolt closed and dead bolt open; this requires a key to gain access from outside and manual operation of spring loaded actuator to allow egress. Dead bolt closed and latch bolt open*; this requires a key for access or egress. Dead bolt closed and latch bolt closed this requires key for access or egress. • Pure speculation on my part that this can be done.
Thanks for the reply. The bit I still need to confirm is in italics The latch bolt tongue that can be seen is a conventional fabrication where the wedge is welded or brazed to the flat plate. ie the flat plate is NOT a plunger.
Was this the speculative part? The latch bolt is likely fitted with a spring loaded manual actuator to pull it clear and hold it clear, by rotating it through 90 degrees,such that you do not lock yourself out while you are dicking about running in and out with the groceries.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Robittybob1 on December 03, 2018, 07:55:26 PM
Latch of similar design (https://sc01.alicdn.com/kf/HTB1TOjunjnD8K[Name removed]Sspbq6zbEXXag/G720-120-rim-door-lock-Angola-door.jpg)
The pull lever is fitted into a rectangular hole. In this next version the stricker plate is larger enough to to accommodate both parts of the latch bolt, so I do accept that they didn't have a deadlatch plunger. (https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/41LLp0gJLRL._SX425_.jpg)
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Alice Purjorick on December 03, 2018, 09:20:35 PM
Thanks for the reply. The bit I still need to confirm is in italics The latch bolt tongue that can be seen is a conventional fabrication where the wedge is welded or brazed to the flat plate. ie the flat plate is NOT a plunger.
Was this the speculative part? The latch bolt is likely fitted with a spring loaded manual actuator to pull it clear and hold it clear, by rotating it through 90 degrees,such that you do not lock yourself out while you are dicking about running in and out with the groceries.
First bit in bold: have a browse through some catalogues. Second bit in bold: No! that is an educated guess based on what I can see and what I know about locks. The speculation was being able to close the dead bolt and leave the latchbolt open.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Robittybob1 on December 03, 2018, 09:44:14 PM
First bit in bold: have a browse through some catalogues. Second bit in bold: No! that is an educated guess based on what I can see and what I know about locks. The speculation was being able to close the dead bolt and leave the latchbolt open.
The speculation was being able to close the dead bolt and leave the latchbolt open. I'm wondering what that actually means. I think of the deadbolt as being either extended or retracted. "close the dead bolt" would be extended. How do you get the combination "close the dead bolt and leave the latchbolt open"?
Would that be locking the door with the deadbolt only, the other part pulled back in the held open position?
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: John on December 04, 2018, 11:26:57 PM
Thanks for the reply. The bit I still need to confirm is in italics The latch bolt tongue that can be seen is a conventional fabrication where the wedge is welded or brazed to the flat plate. ie the flat plate is NOT a plunger.
Was this the speculative part? The latch bolt is likely fitted with a spring loaded manual actuator to pull it clear and hold it clear, by rotating it through 90 degrees,such that you do not lock yourself out while you are dicking about running in and out with the groceries.
I think you can see from the photo below that the wedge is NOT attached/welded/brazed to the flat plate.
The wedge is retracted but the flat plate is extended.
Decisions cannot be made without evidence to accompany it. What evidence is there that Madeleine woke and wandered?
The most compelling evidence is that of the two GNR police tracker dogs which followed the child's scent out the front door, around the block and mysteriously ended at the lamppost opposite the entrance to mini reception. We know Madeleine knew this route extremely well and being barefooted a fresh scent trail would be easy for these dogs to follow. There is no other credible reason why the dogs would have taken this route. The fact that the scent ended abruptly would suggest the child was lifted and carried away from the location.
Other evidence would include the absence of any indicators that an intruder attempted to enter or entered the apartment.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: John on December 05, 2018, 01:51:02 AM
there is no real evidence for woke and wandered......those who claim there is quote the tracker dogs but if the testimony of the handlers is looked at it is very unconvincing...
secondly...what is the evidence that the investigation is looking at woke and wandered...an article in the sun...for those who claim to question everything it really is laughable
Police tracker dogs are generally extremely good at what they do. It matters little whether the second dog simply followed the first dog as suggested by its handler. The fact that the first dog locked onto Madeleine's scent and was able to follow it around the block is compelling as a barefooted child would have been very easy to follow.
As for the Sun story being fiction, I know for a fact it is true and that the Portuguese police are indeed actively investigating the possibility that Madeleine let herself out of apartment 5a and met with an accident in the street outside.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: John on December 05, 2018, 01:54:20 AM
IMO with Matt at the door to the kids bedroom he would have heard Madeleine breathing. Therefore I'd say she wasn't in the bed then.
There is no proof these checks at 9pm and 9.30pm ever happened.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: John on December 05, 2018, 02:35:38 AM
There would have been child fingerprints all over the apartment so finding them was irrelevant as to whether Madeleine opened the front door or the patio door. In fact, we know she went out the front door every morning before heading to the kids club so was very familiar with that door and how it opened.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on December 05, 2018, 07:13:13 AM
Police tracker dogs are generally extremely good at what they do. It matters little whether the second dog simply followed the first dog as suggested by its handler. The fact that the first dog locked onto Madeleine's scent and was able to follow it around the block is compelling as a barefooted child would have been very easy to follow.
As for the Sun story being fiction, I know for a fact it is true and that the Portuguese police are indeed actively investigating the possibility that Madeleine let herself out of apartment 5a and met with an accident in the street outside.
As for the Sun story being fiction, I know for a fact it is true and that the Portuguese police are indeed actively investigating the possibility that Madeleine let herself out of apartment 5a and met with an accident in the street outside.
So in a way, GA was right about the accident - only it happened outside not in the apartment.
It also is possible imo - one of the tapas 7 or k g found her on one of there checks.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Angelo222 on December 05, 2018, 10:07:47 AM
There is no proof these checks at 9pm and 9.30pm ever happened.
I assume that these were the checks which Matthew Oldfield was supposed to have made, listening at the bedroom shutter/window at 9pm and going into the apartment at 9.30pm? If that is true then the shutter was down until at least 9.30pm. Could it be that Maddie was disturbed by all that kerfuffle and had actually gone out between Gerry and Matt's second check?
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: faithlilly on December 05, 2018, 10:32:43 AM
Police tracker dogs are generally extremely good at what they do. It matters little whether the second dog simply followed the first dog as suggested by its handler. The fact that the first dog locked onto Madeleine's scent and was able to follow it around the block is compelling as a barefooted child would have been very easy to follow.
As for the Sun story being fiction, I know for a fact it is true and that the Portuguese police are indeed actively investigating the possibility that Madeleine let herself out of apartment 5a and met with an accident in the street outside.
If Madeleine had been knocked down wouldn’t there be evidence of it on the road ?
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: kizzy on December 05, 2018, 01:03:20 PM
I assume that these were the checks which Matthew Oldfield was supposed to have made, listening at the bedroom shutter/window at 9pm and going into the apartment at 9.30pm? If that is true then the shutter was down until at least 9.30pm. Could it be that Maddie was disturbed by all that kerfuffle and had actually gone out between Gerry and Matt's second check?
My mistake, I should have made that clear. Matt's checks are uncorroborated but Gerry was witnessed coming out of the apartment at around 9.15pm by independent witness Jeremy Wilkins.
Matt certainly claims to have not seen Maddie on his 9.30pm check and that to me suggests that the shutter was still down.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: John on December 05, 2018, 01:36:44 PM
If Madeleine had been knocked down wouldn’t there be evidence of it on the road ?
Not necessarily. Children can be hit by a car and be knocked unconscious without leaving any evidence behind. On that point I don't recall the PJ putting out any alerts about local vehicles having mysteriously sustained accident damage on the night of the 3rd May 2007, possibly another failing by the authorities.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on December 05, 2018, 01:47:06 PM
Not necessarily. Children can be hit by a car and be knocked unconscious without leaving any evidence behind. On that point I don't recall the PJ putting out any alerts about local vehicles having mysteriously sustained accident damage on the night of the 3rd May 2007, possibly another failing by the authorities.
Can they be knocked down without any subsequent sharp application of brakes which would have been necessary for the motorist to get out and pick up the body, and which often leaves marks on the road? This spot where the dogs lost Madeleine’s scent, are there no apartments nearby with occupants inside who may have heard a screech of brakes, a scream, a loud thud, a door slam, etc etc?
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: faithlilly on December 05, 2018, 02:45:35 PM
My mistake, I should have made that clear. Matt's checks are uncorroborated but Gerry was witnessed coming out of the apartment at around 9.15pm by independent witness Jeremy Wilkins.
Matt certainly claims to have not seen Maddie on his 9.30pm check and that to me suggests that the shutter was still down.
Not true. Wilkins could only narrow it down to between 8.45 and 9.15pm. He could be no more accurate than that.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on December 05, 2018, 03:45:38 PM
Where does Jeremy Wilkins say he was certain that Gerry McCann was LEAVING 5a. I thought he couldn't be sure.
He was in close proximity to his apartment where his children were sleeping, the ones he said he was checking on every 30 minutes. If he wasn't there to check on them, what else do you think he was doing in that close proximity? Picking flowers?
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Sunny on December 05, 2018, 04:02:35 PM
He was in close proximity to his apartment where his children were sleeping, the ones he said he was checking on every 30 minutes. If he wasn't there to check on them, what else do you think he was doing in that close proximity? Picking flowers?
That is immaterial to my question. Was he on the way in or out of 5a. Jeremy wasn't certain. No need to be facetious.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: John on December 05, 2018, 05:35:15 PM
Can they be knocked down without any subsequent sharp application of brakes which would have been necessary for the motorist to get out and pick up the body, and which often leaves marks on the road? This spot where the dogs lost Madeleine’s scent, are there no apartments nearby with occupants inside who may have heard a screech of brakes, a scream, a loud thud, a door slam, etc etc?
Low speed impacts can be fatal yet are silent is respect of noise or skid marks.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: John on December 05, 2018, 05:38:36 PM
That is immaterial to my question. Was he on the way in or out of 5a. Jeremy wasn't certain. No need to be facetious.
Surely if Gerry was walking towards him (albeit on the other side of the road) and away from the property gate he could only but infer that he was returning from the apartment.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: jassi on December 05, 2018, 06:29:14 PM
What makes you think it’s possible he was on his way to the apartment when he bumped into Jez?
Simply? Because Jeremy Wilkins wasn't certain that Gerry McCann was coming out. Unless you can find a quote where he says he is certain that Gerry McCann was leaving 5a there will be a doubt.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on December 05, 2018, 11:06:58 PM
Simply? Because Jeremy Wilkins wasn't certain that Gerry McCann was coming out. Unless you can find a quote where he says he is certain that Gerry McCann was leaving 5a there will be a doubt.
“I met him near the stairs of a ground floor. There was a gate leading up to some stairs. I was pretty certain that he had left the apartment. We spoke for a few minutes. He said you’re on walking duty. I said I was staying in and pros and cons and what to do with the children”.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: kizzy on December 06, 2018, 08:15:34 AM
He was in close proximity to his apartment where his children were sleeping, the ones he said he was checking on every 30 minutes. If he wasn't there to check on them, what else do you think he was doing in that close proximity? Picking flowers?
No one knows what he was doing when Jez left - wasn't a quick check either.
He may have been in the garden part - but like you say not to pick flowers.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Sunny on December 06, 2018, 08:19:10 AM
“I met him near the stairs of a ground floor. There was a gate leading up to some stairs. I was pretty certain that he had left the apartment. We spoke for a few minutes. He said you’re on walking duty. I said I was staying in and [ censored word ] and cons and what to do with the children”.
And later he wasn't so sure
Q. From which direction Gerry travelling when you met' From previous conversations had with Gerry, I am of the notion of the usual routine of the group in relation to checking on their children when they were in the Tapas Bar. I also was aware of the location of the McCann apartment. Naturally when I met him that night, I assumed that he had gone to check on the children. I cannot affirm if I saw him exactly leaving the apartment through the passageway, and if he was heading towards the tapas Bar.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on December 06, 2018, 08:26:22 AM
Q. From which direction Gerry travelling when you met' From previous conversations had with Gerry, I am of the notion of the usual routine of the group in relation to checking on their children when they were in the Tapas Bar. I also was aware of the location of the McCann apartment. Naturally when I met him that night, I assumed that he had gone to check on the children. I cannot affirm if I saw him exactly leaving the apartment through the passageway, and if he was heading towards the tapas Bar.
I thought we had to go on the earlier statements as being more accurate. Has that changed now?
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Robittybob1 on December 06, 2018, 08:34:27 AM
“I met him near the stairs of a ground floor. There was a gate leading up to some stairs. I was pretty certain that he had left the apartment. We spoke for a few minutes. He said you’re on walking duty. I said I was staying in and [ censored word ] and cons and what to do with the children”.
I find that strange. 'a ground floor'is actually 'a ground floor flat' in the original statement. I have wondered why Jes didn't say 'his' or 'their' flat.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: sadie on December 06, 2018, 09:39:28 AM
I assume that these were the checks which Matthew Oldfield was supposed to have made, listening at the bedroom shutter/window at 9pm and going into the apartment at 9.30pm? If that is true then the shutter was down until at least 9.30pm. Could it be that Maddie was disturbed by all that kerfuffle and had actually gone out between Gerry and Matt's second check?
My mistake, I should have made that clear. Matt's checks are uncorroborated but Gerry was witnessed coming out of the apartment at around 9.15pm by independent witness Jeremy Wilkins.
Matt certainly claims to have not seen Maddie on his 9.30pm check and that to me suggests that the shutter was still down.
Matt commented that when he checked at 9.30 ish, the room seemed a bit lighter than he would have expected and that there appeared to be a greenish glow coming via the curtains. The cutains were blue tones and the light was yellow.
Blue and yellow mixed make green.
This indicates to me that the shutters were already lifted and dim street light was coming through the curtains.
I am doing this without cites, but I feel confident that what I am saying was in Matts statemments
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: sadie on December 06, 2018, 09:47:29 AM
Dave Edgar refers to inconsistencies in that video immediately after Jane and Gerry disagree but how could one possibly get that so wrong?
This issue more than any other drives a horse and cart through the argument that the parents wouldn’t provide untrue information that they must know would be discredited later.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Robittybob1 on December 06, 2018, 06:31:28 PM
This issue more than any other drives a horse and cart through the argument that the parents wouldn’t provide untrue information that they must know would be discredited later.
You make it sound like some were deliberately lying rather than just having a bad recall.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: John on December 06, 2018, 08:38:44 PM
You make it sound like some were deliberately lying rather than just having a bad recall.
The point being that there are just far too many inconsistencies for them to be considered simple memory failures.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Brietta on December 06, 2018, 08:46:08 PM
Did anyone ever give the woke and wandered scenario credence at any time? The Amaral investigation had put all their eggs into the one basket of parental involvement once they had discarded Murat
No-one has been able to make that one stick over a period of coming up now for nearly twelve years, despite the most intense scrutiny possible.
Bearing in mind they are doctors and not master criminals ... the reason the police had to progress down an investigative path which did not involve them seems self explanatory.
The only mystery is that it seems to have passed some people by entirely.
PJ re-believes Maddie's abduction 03.05.2008 at 5:00 p.m
The Judiciary Police (PJ) is preparing to release the McCann couple from any involvement in the death and disappearance of their daughter Madeleine.
A year of investigations was not enough to gather evidence or strong evidence to support an indictment against Kate and Gerry.
According to an official of the PJ, the analysis of the testimony of the seven friends of the couple, collected last month in England, "did not detect contradictions that can not be solved."
Further, the biological traces found in the apartment and in the car rented by the McCanns are insufficient to support the thesis of accidental murder and subsequent concealment of the child's corpse, vanished today. https://expresso.sapo.pt/dossies/dossiest_actualidade/dos_madeleine_mccan/pj-volta-a-acreditar-no-rapto-de-maddie=f310393#gs.z0vnvGw
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Brietta on December 06, 2018, 08:50:09 PM
I find that strange. 'a ground floor'is actually 'a ground floor flat' in the original statement. I have wondered why Jes didn't say 'his' or 'their' flat.
Obviouly there is a word missing, when it went missing, who knows...
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: faithlilly on December 06, 2018, 09:06:57 PM
I think if they had all been singing from the same song sheet without deviation ... that would have merited suspicion.
What is suspicious is when two witnesses to an event, one whose evidence you rely on elsewhere, recall things differently to you but you relentlessly stick to your recollection.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on December 06, 2018, 09:07:36 PM
This issue more than any other drives a horse and cart through the argument that the parents wouldn’t provide untrue information that they must know would be discredited later.
???
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Robittybob1 on December 06, 2018, 09:13:36 PM
What is suspicious is when two witnesses to an event, one whose evidence you rely on elsewhere, recall things differently to you but you relentlessly stick to your recollection.
Why is that suspicious?
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: faithlilly on December 07, 2018, 09:16:34 AM
There was three witnesses, two agreed on their position, one didn’t yet the one that didn’t wouldn’t concede he was wrong. That is suspicious.
This has all been gone thru before, over and over.
1) Gerry and Jez first noticed each other when Gerry was near the gate out of 5A and Jez was on the opposite side of the road, but further down by the little car park opposite the Tapas restaurant, They walked tpwards each other at some stage crossing the road to chat. They met in the middle of the road. This is where Gerry got his impression of looking at the wall of block 6.
It was dangerous chatting there . Maybe a car came up the road, or from the tiny car park opposite the Tapas reception? Anyway one man had to back up and Gerry did. There were several cars parked along the kerb on the western side of the road (Stephen Carpenter words/ statement).and they backed into a gap. Gerry stood astride the western kerb, hence his recollection of a kerb and Jez stood in the roadway between two vehicles with the pram pointing downhill.
All were safe in that position, which was roughly half way between where they saw each other and as it happens was also at the entrance to the alleyway that runs between the flats and the Tapas area. Confirmed by Jane, Jez and Goncalo (in his video)
2. Gerry was in a state of panic and enormous distress and that caused a mixing of images in his mind and memory loss. He genuinely forgot the stepping back into the gap.
I have experienced similar memory loss and muddled thinking when I lost my son to cancer. My memory was blown.
Furthermore, I dont think that there was any benefit to Gerry to have disagreed with two friends; it just gave the opportunity to unthinking others to call him a liar and make out it was suspicious
All the above is in my opinion, but it is thought out and makes sense
I am not supplying any cites per se, because this has all been gone over in detail on forum several times before
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: kizzy on December 07, 2018, 12:21:28 PM
This has all been gone thru before, over and over.
1) Gerry and Jez first noticed each other when Gerry was near the gate out of 5A and Jez was on the opposite side of the road, but further down by the little car park opposite the Tapas restaurant, They walked tpwards each other at some stage crossing the road to chat. They met in the middle of the road. This is where Gerry got his impression of looking at the wall of block 6.
It was dangerous chatting there . Maybe a car came up the road, or from the tiny car park opposite the Tapas reception? Anyway one man had to back up and Gerry did. There were several cars parked along the kerb on the western side of the road (Stephen Carpenter words/ statement).and they backed into a gap. Gerry stood astride the western kerb, hence his recollection of a kerb and Jez stood in the roadway between two vehicles with the pram pointing downhill.
All were safe in that position, which was roughly half way between where they saw each other and as it happens was also at the entrance to the alleyway that runs between the flats and the Tapas area. Confirmed by Jane, Jez and Goncalo (in his video)
2. Gerry was in a state of panic and enormous distress and that caused a mixing of images in his mind and memory loss. He genuinely forgot the stepping back into the gap.
I have experienced similar memory loss and muddled thinking when I lost my son to cancer. My memory was blown.
Furthermore, I dont think that there was any benefit to Gerry to have disagreed with two friends; it just gave the opportunity to unthinking others to call him a liar and make out it was suspicious
All the above is in my opinion, but it is thought out and makes sense
I am not supplying any cites per se, because this has all been gone over in detail on forum several times before
I have experienced similar memory loss and muddled thinking when I lost my son to cancer. My memory was blown.
The last hours of normality would play in your head - like a video of what you did/happened.
I mean S lets face it his memory was perfect - when he wrote the timeline under duress.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: G-Unit on December 07, 2018, 01:25:43 PM
Having examined all three's statements there is only one thing I believe. At some point between 8.45 and 9.15 Gerry and Jes met and chatted for a couple of minutes.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: John on December 07, 2018, 02:10:09 PM
This has all been gone thru before, over and over.
1) Gerry and Jez first noticed each other when Gerry was near the gate out of 5A and Jez was on the opposite side of the road, but further down by the little car park opposite the Tapas restaurant, They walked tpwards each other at some stage crossing the road to chat. They met in the middle of the road. This is where Gerry got his impression of looking at the wall of block 6.
It was dangerous chatting there . Maybe a car came up the road, or from the tiny car park opposite the Tapas reception? Anyway one man had to back up and Gerry did. There were several cars parked along the kerb on the western side of the road (Stephen Carpenter words/ statement).and they backed into a gap. Gerry stood astride the western kerb, hence his recollection of a kerb and Jez stood in the roadway between two vehicles with the pram pointing downhill.
All were safe in that position, which was roughly half way between where they saw each other and as it happens was also at the entrance to the alleyway that runs between the flats and the Tapas area. Confirmed by Jane, Jez and Goncalo (in his video)
2. Gerry was in a state of panic and enormous distress and that caused a mixing of images in his mind and memory loss. He genuinely forgot the stepping back into the gap.
I have experienced similar memory loss and muddled thinking when I lost my son to cancer. My memory was blown.
Furthermore, I dont think that there was any benefit to Gerry to have disagreed with two friends; it just gave the opportunity to unthinking others to call him a liar and make out it was suspicious
All the above is in my opinion, but it is thought out and makes sense
I am not supplying any cites per se, because this has all been gone over in detail on forum several times before
The mind does play tricks after extreme trauma so it's not beyond the realm of possibilities that Kate lifted the shutter and slid across the window to look for Madeleine and then forgot she had done so.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: faithlilly on December 07, 2018, 03:31:08 PM
The mind does play tricks after extreme trauma so it's not beyond the realm of possibilities that Kate lifted the shutter and slid across the window to look for Madeleine and then forgot she had done so.
And the slamming of the door and whooshing of the curtains ? Did she simply imagine that ?
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on December 07, 2018, 05:31:53 PM
Having examined all three's statements there is only one thing I believe. At some point between 8.45 and 9.15 Gerry and Jes met and chatted for a couple of minutes.
You believe they only chatted for two minutes? Why?
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: jassi on December 07, 2018, 05:56:57 PM
I don't know how long they spoke for, but they were hardly bosom pals - barely knew one another, so unlikely to have conducted a deep and meaningful conversation for very long. IMO
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Robittybob1 on December 07, 2018, 06:02:34 PM
Having examined all three's statements there is only one thing I believe. At some point between 8.45 and 9.15 Gerry and Jes met and chatted for a couple of minutes.
If after leaving Gerry Jez goes home arriving at around 9:30 PM after speaking for a couple of minutes, most of that time range leaves Jez with a lot of unaccounted for time.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on December 07, 2018, 06:10:28 PM
I don't know how long they spoke for, but they were hardly bosom pals - barely knew one another, so unlikely to have conducted a deep and meaningful conversation for very long. IMO
It’s quite possible to chat for 5 or more minutes with someone you don’t know very well, that’s a fact.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: faithlilly on December 07, 2018, 06:17:41 PM
Only Wilkin’s partner wife says he arrived home ‘around 9.30’ and only months later and in a newspaper article.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Robittybob1 on December 07, 2018, 06:23:05 PM
It’s quite possible to chat for 5 or more minutes with someone you don’t know very well, that’s a fact.
Aspecially if Gerry was curious as to why Jez is out and about that time of the night. Gerry is reported as saying something like "Oh I see you are on walking duty".
To me that suggests Gerry is implying Jez is getting ordered about.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Robittybob1 on December 07, 2018, 06:31:27 PM
Only Wilkin’s partner says he arrived home ‘around 9.30’ and only months later and in a newspaper article.
In his statement all this happens before 11:00 PM. "I met him near the stairs of a ground floor. There was a gate leading up to some stairs. I was pretty certain that he had left the apartment. We spoke for a few minutes. He said you're on walking duty. I said I was staying in and pros and cons and what to do with the children.
He said that as he was staying two weeks XXXXX he was staying one night' (unreadable) I don't remember anyone else walking around with a child. The conversation lasted for about three (3) to five (5) minutes.
He was acting completely normal from what I know of him so far. I then walked back to the apartment. I had dinner, watched a DVD and went to bed at about 11 pm."
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on December 07, 2018, 06:46:57 PM
You believe they only chatted for two minutes? Why?
Why do you believe that G-Unit used "couple" in its formal rather than informal sense ? . Look it up in the OED. Not the little one you carry in your possibles bag but the big multivolume jobby with free issue free standing magnifying glass 8(>((
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Mr Gray on December 07, 2018, 09:48:28 PM
Why do you believe that G-Unit used "couple" in its formal rather than informal sense ? . Look it up in the OED. Not the little one you carry in your possibles bag but the big multivolume jobby with free issue free standing magnifying glass 8(>((
What’s it to you?
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Alice Purjorick on December 07, 2018, 10:33:39 PM
Police tracker dogs are generally extremely good at what they do. It matters little whether the second dog simply followed the first dog as suggested by its handler. The fact that the first dog locked onto Madeleine's scent and was able to follow it around the block is compelling as a barefooted child would have been very easy to follow.
As for the Sun story being fiction, I know for a fact it is true and that the Portuguese police are indeed actively investigating the possibility that Madeleine let herself out of apartment 5a and met with an accident in the street outside.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Mr Gray on December 08, 2018, 01:52:24 PM
What evidence - there isn't any apart from g k mcs say so.
The evidence referred to by Redwood Re abduction.... Sceptics and supporters have different ideas about evidence... IMO the evidence puts abduction as by far the most likely scenario... We wil not agree but it's not important
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Mr Gray on December 08, 2018, 01:53:19 PM
There's very little evidence in this case and the route followed by the GNR dogs is unexplained except by one of those later made arguido.
Could you cite the dog handlers view on the dogs tracking... As John said Maddie followed this route everday so it could have been a scent left previously... If anything
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Mr Gray on December 08, 2018, 02:15:34 PM
The evidence referred to by Redwood Re abduction.... Sceptics and supporters have different ideas about evidence... IMO the evidence puts abduction as by far the most likely scenario... We wil not agree but it's not important
Andy Redwood also said she could be dead and had cadaver dogs out in 2014.
''Redwood said McCann might have long been dead.
“There is always the potential that she didn’t leave the apartment alive. What is important for us to do is consider all the options,” he said.''
Could you cite the dog handlers view on the dogs tracking... As John said Maddie followed this route everday so it could have been a scent left previously... If anything
I can cite the handler's evidence. I'm afraid John mat be mistaken because according to her father she exited via the patio doors and down the steps onto R Fransisco G Martins twice every day. Only two exceptions were mentioned when they all used the front door. One of these being when the children 'ran away' and were taken down the passageway afterwards. This was only mentioned after the dogs followed that route, however.
it can be confirmed with a certain degree of certainty that the missing child passed by that location, on that day or on a previous day. http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/ANTONIO_SILVA.htm
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Mr Gray on December 08, 2018, 02:32:13 PM
I can cite the handler's evidence. I'm afraid John mat be mistaken because according to her father she exited via the patio doors and down the steps onto R Fransisco G Martins twice every day. Only two exceptions were mentioned when they all used the front door. One of these being when the children 'ran away' and were taken down the passageway afterwards. This was only mentioned after the dogs followed that route, however.
it can be confirmed with a certain degree of certainty that the missing child passed by that location, on that day or on a previous day. http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/ANTONIO_SILVA.htm
As I said.... The trail could have been from a previous day according to the handler yet you claimed it was unexplained
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: G-Unit on December 08, 2018, 03:24:20 PM
Police tracker dogs are generally extremely good at what they do. It matters little whether the second dog simply followed the first dog as suggested by its handler. The fact that the first dog locked onto Madeleine's scent and was able to follow it around the block is compelling as a barefooted child would have been very easy to follow.
As for the Sun story being fiction, I know for a fact it is true and that the Portuguese police are indeed actively investigating the possibility that Madeleine let herself out of apartment 5a and met with an accident in the street outside.
There was only around 30 meters of footpath from the lane to the secondary gate. What are the chances of an accident? IMO the chances of an accident increase if for any reason the Tapas entrance door was closed at any stage coinciding with Madeleine's attempt to get to the table.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on December 08, 2018, 06:38:51 PM
I wonder what Martin Grime makes of the woke and wandered theory, and the “compelling” evidence of the tracker dogs...
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: pathfinder73 on December 08, 2018, 06:47:11 PM
I can cite the handler's evidence. I'm afraid John mat be mistaken because according to her father she exited via the patio doors and down the steps onto R Fransisco G Martins twice every day. Only two exceptions were mentioned when they all used the front door. One of these being when the children 'ran away' and were taken down the passageway afterwards. This was only mentioned after the dogs followed that route, however.
it can be confirmed with a certain degree of certainty that the missing child passed by that location, on that day or on a previous day. http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/ANTONIO_SILVA.htm
Kate contradicts Gerry.
3 May 2007
"After breakfast they got dressed and left the apartment by the main door. All children went walking. The veranda door was closed and locked; she doesn't know whether the main door was locked or unlocked.
At the flat they both bathed the children, and close to 6:00PM Gerry went to the tennis courts, soon after the children had finished their bath. They entered the apartment by the main door, with the key. She does not know if it was locked, and presumes it was Gerry who opened it. At lunch time they also entered by the same door."
There was only around 30 meters of footpath from the lane to the secondary gate. What are the chances of an accident? IMO the chances of an accident increase if for any reason the Tapas entrance door was closed at any stage coinciding with Madeleine's attempt to get to the table.
Maybe she ran out from the path which skirts block 5 and ran across the road right in front of a car?
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Angelo222 on December 08, 2018, 07:38:00 PM
What evidence - there isn't any apart from g k mcs say so.
How many times is it necessary to provide links to the fact that the PJ and SY have been investigating Madeleine McCann's abduction since 2013 when both opened the active re-investigation into her case?
In my opinion ignoring already well documented cites does absolutely zero for rational discussion on any aspect of the case neither does it bring anything to the forum except perhaps damaging credibility.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: faithlilly on December 08, 2018, 07:50:08 PM
How many times is it necessary to provide links to the fact that the PJ and SY have been investigating Madeleine McCann's abduction since 2013 when both opened the active re-investigation into her case?
In my opinion ignoring already well documented cites does absolutely zero for rational discussion on any aspect of the case neither does it bring anything to the forum except perhaps damaging credibility.
The remit in your signature, was it for the review or the investigation?
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Mr Gray on December 08, 2018, 07:55:20 PM
So pure speculation.... But they have both made statements supporting the mccanns innocence... Just part of the evidence that supports the mccanns innocence
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: barrier on December 08, 2018, 08:30:50 PM
So pure speculation.... But they have both made statements supporting the mccanns innocence... Just part of the evidence that supports the mccanns innocence
With Pedro Do Carmo explaining that they have to be prepared for different scenarios,thats a leap in the dark. Not forgetting the SC court words.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Robittybob1 on December 08, 2018, 08:33:06 PM
Maybe she ran out from the path which skirts block 5 and ran across the road right in front of a car?
I find your last two comments contradict each other "Explain why it terminated at the lamppost opposite mini reception then and didn't go all the way to the juniors club?" Either she made it to the lamp post or knocked down at the path. Which? Or how do you link the two?
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Robittybob1 on December 08, 2018, 08:36:05 PM
De carmo said thetevwsd no evidence against the mccanns and they were not suspects... The SCsaid nothing that contradicts that
I have seen a link to where Do Carmo said they are not suspects but not one where he said there was no evidence against the McCanns. Could you provide a cite please Davel.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Mr Gray on December 08, 2018, 08:52:12 PM
I have seen a link to where Do Carmo said they are not suspects but not one where he said there was no evidence against the McCanns. Could you provide a cite please Davel.
It's on the same link and been cited many times.... It never ceases to amaze me how some posters, are just not aware of some very basic facts...
I see your search referred to "lack of evidence" not "no evidence". And by the way there is no reason to be rude.
There is no fact... There is no evidence that the mccanns are involved in Madeleines disappearance... The words of Da Carmo... It's annoying to have to keep supplying the same cites over and over again... That isn't rude... It's a fact... Again my claim is correct... It's NO EVIDENCE... That to me is quite conclusive
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Mr Gray on December 08, 2018, 09:12:54 PM
There is no fact... There is no evidence that the mccanns are involved in Madeleines disappearance... The words of Da Carmo... It's annoying to have to keep supplying the same cites over and over again... That isn't rude... It's a fact... Again my claim is correct... It's NO EVIDENCE... That to me is quite conclusive
It may be to you but it is not a FACT imo. He didn't say those words so your claimof fact is false- unless you can give me a cite that he actually did Davel.
Davel your request was for "no evidence" from Pedro Do Carmo but there were no hits with that only "lack of evidence". Simples.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Mr Gray on December 08, 2018, 09:16:32 PM
It may be to you but it is not a FACT imo. He didn't say those words so your claimof fact is false- unless you can give me a cite that he actually did Davel.
Davel your request was for "no evidence" from Pedro Do Carmo but there were no hits with that only "lack of evidence". Simples.
Click on my search for no evidence.... There is a video there... The first one.... Watch it... It says.... No fact... No evidence... DA Carmo speaks those precise words
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Mr Gray on December 08, 2018, 09:18:14 PM
It may be to you but it is not a FACT imo. He didn't say those words so your claimof fact is false- unless you can give me a cite that he actually did Davel.
Davel your request was for "no evidence" from Pedro Do Carmo but there were no hits with that only "lack of evidence". Simples.
There is no fact... There is no evidence that the mccanns are involved in Madeleines disappearance.
The above are the verbatim words of PD Carmo from the video interview
Once again... You are totally wrong... You are quoting Morais biased version.. I'm quoting what DA Carmo actually said
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: faithlilly on December 08, 2018, 09:25:20 PM
Of course, I assume you will also accept that when he used those words he also said "at this time".
No he didn't... He said at this point... He is being totally professional and accurate..... So 10 years on... No evidence that the mccanns are involved... And no evidence that anything has changed since he said this ...what is significant is that he says this now... Yet the initial investigation thought there was... Proving they were wrong
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: sadie on December 08, 2018, 09:41:59 PM
Could you cite the dog handlers view on the dogs tracking... As John said Maddie followed this route everday so it could have been a scent left previously... If anything
And have we forgotten that if an abduction took place then the fear-sweaty hands of the abductor (lifter) would have been on the cue blanket used to give the dog a scent. That scent would have been far stronger than the gentle scent of Madeleine and the dog would have followed the scent of the lifter rather than Madeleines scent, imo.
The dog would not know which was Madeleines scent and which was the lifters. He would follow the strongest.
This explains why the scent previously thought to be Madeleines ended at the car park. It seems that is where the abductor and his assistant/s (lifter/s) scent started; from a car parked there.
All IMO but entirely plausible and possible.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: sadie on December 08, 2018, 10:00:41 PM
And as I said the only testimony placing Madeleine in that area was given by her father after the dogs had been deployed.
So ?
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Mr Gray on December 08, 2018, 10:04:53 PM
So may 17 the head of the PJ admits there is no evidence against the mccanns but in Jan 17 the SC are claiming the mccanns have not been cleared...cleared of what.... And DA Carmo said No evidence... Not insufficient evidence..
The ECHR case should be interesting.... Shame wr have to wait so long
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: G-Unit on December 08, 2018, 10:07:31 PM
And have we forgotten that if an abduction took place then the fear-sweaty hands of the abductor (lifter) would have been on the cue blanket used to give the dog a scent. That scent would have been far stronger than the gentle scent of Madeleine and the dog would have followed the scent of the lifter rather than Madeleines scent, imo.
The dog would not know which was Madeleines scent and which was the lifters. He would follow the strongest.
This explains why the scent previously thought to be Madeleines ended at the car park. It seems that is where the abductor and his assistant/s (lifter/s) scent started; from a car parked there.
All IMO but entirely plausible and possible.
Did this hypothetical person pause to wipe his hands on the very towel used to dry Madeleine after her bath, too? What a coincidence!
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: sadie on December 08, 2018, 10:07:41 PM
There was only around 30 meters of footpath from the lane to the secondary gate. What are the chances of an accident? IMO the chances of an accident increase if for any reason the Tapas entrance door was closed at any stage coinciding with Madeleine's attempt to get to the table.
The Tapas door was open when we visited and ate there ... and there was an empty chair at a desk that appeared to be there for someone to monitor who entered.
I seem to remember that it was mentioned in one of the statements that an unknown man had been seen in the toilets there on the evening in question. How did he get in, if the door was locked?
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Mr Gray on December 08, 2018, 10:09:48 PM
No, I’m asking you what sort of evidence would you expect the police to have uncovered since the archiving report which turned the least likely scenario of woke and wandered into the most likely scenario?
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: sadie on December 08, 2018, 10:13:06 PM
Just more of the uncorroberated evidence which abounds in this case.
I am sorry but I find your suspicious mind of everything the Mccanns do and say intolerable at times.
Have you analysed every word that Bens mother and grandparents used?
What about April Jones ? Where have you analysd everything they said and did ?
Has it troubled you that both families allowed a small child not only out of sight, but to be in dangerous places. One a tot playing where a giant digger was on the lose and one across the main road and also after dark
You and others on here seem to have double standards .... and can see no good in the Mccanns .
Why is that ?
Please note that I am not very happy having to use these examples because I basically think both sets of parents were generally good ones, but both made massive mistakes. Do you acknowledge they made mistakes, Gunit?
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: G-Unit on December 08, 2018, 11:21:41 PM
I am sorry but I find your suspicious mind of everything the Mccanns do and say intolerable at times.
Have you analysed every word that Bens mother and grandparents used?
What about April Jones ? Where have you analysd everything they said and did ?
Has it troubled you that both families allowed a small child not only out of sight, but to be in dangerous places. One a tot playing where a giant digger was on the lose and one across the main road and also after dark
You and others on here seem to have double standards .... and can see no good in the Mccanns .
Why is that ?
Please note that I am not very happy having to use these examples because I basically think both sets of parents were generally good ones, but both made massive mistakes. Do you acknowledge they made mistakes, Gunit?
We all have our own little ways, Sadie. Some of us examine the evidence which is documented, some of us prefer to discuss hypothetical situations.
snip/
They met in the middle of the road. ....... http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=10478.msg506199#msg506199
Neither Jes nor Gerry reported that, it's pure conjecture .
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Mr Gray on December 08, 2018, 11:36:52 PM
We all have our own little ways, Sadie. Some of us examine the evidence which is documented, some of us prefer to discuss hypothetical situations.
snip/
They met in the middle of the road. ....... http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=10478.msg506199#msg506199
Neither Jes nor Gerry reported that, it's pure conjecture .
Anything that I say IMO for is opinion, same as stuff that you also add IMO to.
However, the suffix IMO means, in my case, that I have studied the befores and afters and worked out a sensible scenario that fits and provides a sensible reason why certain things happened. They call it "LOGIC" and "LATERAL THINKING". It is Creative Investigation based upon logic
Unlike others, I do not allow myself to be RESTRICTED by what has accidentally been left out of statements; either by muddled thinking, memory loss or simply not thinking it important enough to record.
Tons will have been left out, but because it has not been recorded in statements, it doesn't necessarily mean that certain things did not happen.
In Gerrys case it is almost without doubt a muddled and memory loss situation.
No other sensible reason that I can think of why he should get it wrong. No way that I can think of that his misremembering could have benefitted him.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: faithlilly on December 09, 2018, 12:57:10 AM
Anything that I say IMO for is opinion, same as stuff that you also add IMO to.
However, the suffix IMO means, in my case, that I have studied the befores and afters and worked out a sensible scenario that fits and provides a sensible reason why certain things happened. They call it "LOGIC" and "LATERAL THINKING". It is Creative Investigation based upon logic
Unlike others, I do not allow myself to be RESTRICTED by what has accidentally been left out of statements; either by muddled thinking, memory loss or simply not thinking it important enough to record.
Tons will have been left out, but because it has not been recorded in statements, it doesn't necessarily mean that certain things did not happen.
In Gerrys case it is almost without doubt a muddled and memory loss situation.
No other sensible reason that I can think of why he should get it wrong. No way that I can think of that his misremembering could have benefitted him.
Nope I’m afraid it’s simply called making things up.....IMO.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: sadie on December 09, 2018, 01:27:33 AM
Nope I’m afraid it’s simply called making things up.....IMO.
Many moons ago i posted a serious study and American paper on the best modern methods of investigation, especially for cases which were complex and 'stuck. I can no longer find it on the internet and in all probability it has been wiped from the forum
This long paper, discussed the best methods of searching and the best people to do it. In 'stuck' cases, where all the known facts and leads had been gone over repeatedly, without producing results, It recommended LATRAL THINKING with strict adherence to basic KNOWN FACTS
It also said that Police officers were not trained to do such work; their skills base was different.
This very serious Police paper recommended that Design Engineers had the necessary skills and approach to successfully problem solve certain cases.
And, my first career was as a DESIGN ENGINEER.
You were on Forum at the time, but I doubt you bothered to read it.
Sorry, my dear, but you are out of date with modern thinking on solving the very difficult cases.
From this it seems strictly controlled Creative Investigation is the way forward.
This is all fact so no need to remove bits or splash IMO's all over it
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Brietta on December 09, 2018, 01:35:38 AM
From the Expresso interview in which Pedro do Carmo emphatically reiterated that ... "Maddie's parents are not suspects. Period" ... the following question asked of him makes it clear that the 'woke and wandered' hypothesis was not one which was ever considered seriously by the Judicial Police.
Q: Until the case was closed in 2008, there were three lines of investigation by the Judiciary Police on the case.
Hypothesis 1: parents accidentally killed their daughter and then hid the body.
Hypothesis 2: Maddie was abducted by a group linked to trafficking in minors and sold for the purpose of sexual exploitation.
Hypothesis 3: The child was killed after a rapture that went wrong.
Would the reopening of the case in 2013 open up more lines of investigation than the three that were followed at that time?
A: About the investigation I can not speak. I can say that the PJ remains convinced that there are elements that can be worked and that can lead to some results. If it is not possible to achieve this result, at least get some answers to the many questions that the case raises. In the limit, get to a point where the PJ concludes that there is nothing more to do to answer these questions.
If by some chance SY and the PJ have evidence that the answer lies with 'woke and wandered' ... why hasn't the case been wrapped up and the solution presented in the public domain?
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Robittybob1 on December 09, 2018, 03:51:01 AM
... snip ... If by some chance SY and the PJ have evidence that the answer lies with 'woke and wandered' ... why hasn't the case been wrapped up and the solution presented in the public domain?
The new theory being investigated isn't just woke and wandered but woke and wandered then abducted.
If it was just woke and wandered Madeleine would have been found wandering the streets that night IMO.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Sunny on December 09, 2018, 08:05:47 AM
Many moons ago i posted a serious study and American paper on the best modern methods of investigation, especially for cases which were complex and 'stuck. I can no longer find it on the internet and in all probability it has been wiped from the forum
This long paper, discussed the best methods of searching and the best people to do it. In 'stuck' cases, where all the known facts and leads had been gone over repeatedly, without producing results, It recommended LATRAL THINKING with strict adherence to basic KNOWN FACTS
It also said that Police officers were not trained to do such work; their skills base was different.
This very serious Police paper recommended that Design Engineers had the necessary skills and approach to successfully problem solve certain cases.
And, my first career was as a DESIGN ENGINEER.
You were on Forum at the time, but I doubt you bothered to read it.
Sorry, my dear, but you are out of date with modern thinking on solving the very difficult cases.
From this it seems strictly controlled Creative Investigation is the way forward.
This is all fact so no need to remove bits or splash IMO's all over it
I am intrigued Sadie. Did you do the designing from scratch or draw up other's ideas?
Well done you if the latter.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: barrier on December 09, 2018, 08:36:21 AM
No, I’m asking you what sort of evidence would you expect the police to have uncovered since the archiving report which turned the least likely scenario of woke and wandered into the most likely scenario?
I'm not party to anything the PJ are into,OG don't count they have no jurisdiction over the case.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on December 09, 2018, 09:12:30 AM
What of it? It still involves a criminal act and body occultation, only neither perpetrated by the McCanns. It also makes a nonsense of Martin Grime’s dogs, and the entire “parents dunnit” movement.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on December 09, 2018, 09:13:16 AM
What of this from the opening post. "It has also been suggested a panicking drink-driver might have run her over and sped off with her body before hiding it in the countryside."
If that was the case we are wasting our time here.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: barrier on December 09, 2018, 09:33:45 AM
What of it? It still involves a criminal act and body occultation, only neither perpetrated by the McCanns. It also makes a nonsense of Martin Grime’s dogs, and the entire “parents dunnit” movement.
Anything that I say IMO for is opinion, same as stuff that you also add IMO to.
However, the suffix IMO means, in my case, that I have studied the befores and afters and worked out a sensible scenario that fits and provides a sensible reason why certain things happened. They call it "LOGIC" and "LATERAL THINKING". It is Creative Investigation based upon logic
Unlike others, I do not allow myself to be RESTRICTED by what has accidentally been left out of statements; either by muddled thinking, memory loss or simply not thinking it important enough to record.
Tons will have been left out, but because it has not been recorded in statements, it doesn't necessarily mean that certain things did not happen.
In Gerrys case it is almost without doubt a muddled and memory loss situation.
No other sensible reason that I can think of why he should get it wrong. No way that I can think of that his misremembering could have benefitted him.
Just because you can't see how Gerry McCann might have benefitted from telling a different story you have assumed he was stressed so got muddled and misremembered.
If Gerry did tell a different story deliberately, however, your assumption is wrong.
The group very helpfully wrote a timeline for the PJ, which was handed over on 10th May. It was;
"collectively prepared by the nine people of the group in question" and it said;
"2115: JT leaves table, and sees GM talking with fellow resident ("Jez" Wilkins) outside the patio gate of 5A. The two were standing just up the hill from the gate towards Rua A. da Silva Road. She did not speak to GM as she passed." http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TIME_LINE_3_MAY_07.htm
Gerry then told the PJ on the very same day;
He crossed the road in JEZ's direction who would come up on the right-hand side.............Because he had been specifically asked, he relates that during this period of time he did not see with certainty JANE pass that location, although it is clear that he was speaking when in front of JEZ, his back to the other pathway on which his apartment is situated. He relates also that JEZ never said to him that he had seen any person given that he was in front. http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN-10MAY.htm
So preparing the typed timeline and giving it to the PJ was a complete waste of time. Instead of helping them it was confusing. Gerry clearly didn't agree with what it said, but why he allowed it to be handed over uncorrected we don't know.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Robittybob1 on December 09, 2018, 09:35:17 AM
What of it? It still involves a criminal act and body occultation, only neither perpetrated by the McCanns. It also makes a nonsense of Martin Grime’s dogs, and the entire “parents dunnit” movement.
And if the dogs did find something is there an alternative explanation?
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Mr Gray on December 09, 2018, 09:39:31 AM
Many moons ago i posted a serious study and American paper on the best modern methods of investigation, especially for cases which were complex and 'stuck. I can no longer find it on the internet and in all probability it has been wiped from the forum
This long paper, discussed the best methods of searching and the best people to do it. In 'stuck' cases, where all the known facts and leads had been gone over repeatedly, without producing results, It recommended LATRAL THINKING with strict adherence to basic KNOWN FACTS
It also said that Police officers were not trained to do such work; their skills base was different.
This very serious Police paper recommended that Design Engineers had the necessary skills and approach to successfully problem solve certain cases.
And, my first career was as a DESIGN ENGINEER.
You were on Forum at the time, but I doubt you bothered to read it.
Sorry, my dear, but you are out of date with modern thinking on solving the very difficult cases.
From this it seems strictly controlled Creative Investigation is the way forward.
This is all fact so no need to remove bits or splash IMO's all over it
I don’t dispute any of the above but you are pulling your information from unreliable newspaper reports, twice, and sometimes thrice, translated statements and just a smidgen of partisanship. That does not make for a strictly controlled investigation.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Mr Gray on December 09, 2018, 10:06:11 AM
From the Expresso interview in which Pedro do Carmo emphatically reiterated that ... "Maddie's parents are not suspects. Period" ... the following question asked of him makes it clear that the 'woke and wandered' hypothesis was not one which was ever considered seriously by the Judicial Police.
Q: Until the case was closed in 2008, there were three lines of investigation by the Judiciary Police on the case.
Hypothesis 1: parents accidentally killed their daughter and then hid the body.
Hypothesis 2: Maddie was abducted by a group linked to trafficking in minors and sold for the purpose of sexual exploitation.
Hypothesis 3: The child was killed after a rapture that went wrong.
Would the reopening of the case in 2013 open up more lines of investigation than the three that were followed at that time?
A: About the investigation I can not speak. I can say that the PJ remains convinced that there are elements that can be worked and that can lead to some results. If it is not possible to achieve this result, at least get some answers to the many questions that the case raises. In the limit, get to a point where the PJ concludes that there is nothing more to do to answer these questions.
If by some chance SY and the PJ have evidence that the answer lies with 'woke and wandered' ... why hasn't the case been wrapped up and the solution presented in the public domain?
Is this in answer to my question to you about your signature? If not could you kindly answer it ?
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: barrier on December 09, 2018, 10:14:12 AM
Many moons ago i posted a serious study and American paper on the best modern methods of investigation, especially for cases which were complex and 'stuck. I can no longer find it on the internet and in all probability it has been wiped from the forum
This long paper, discussed the best methods of searching and the best people to do it. In 'stuck' cases, where all the known facts and leads had been gone over repeatedly, without producing results, It recommended LATRAL THINKING with strict adherence to basic KNOWN FACTS
It also said that Police officers were not trained to do such work; their skills base was different.
This very serious Police paper recommended that Design Engineers had the necessary skills and approach to successfully problem solve certain cases.
And, my first career was as a DESIGN ENGINEER.
You were on Forum at the time, but I doubt you bothered to read it.
Sorry, my dear, but you are out of date with modern thinking on solving the very difficult cases.
From this it seems strictly controlled Creative Investigation is the way forward.
This is all fact so no need to remove bits or splash IMO's all over it
Operation Grange if using this creative investigation haven't exactly moved on at a rate of knots in 7+ years,they had an advantage of having information from yourself of Madeleine being alive in 2012,or am I mistaken in that.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Mr Gray on December 09, 2018, 10:27:56 AM
Operation Grange if using this creative investigation haven't exactly moved on at a rate of knots in 7+ years,they had an advantage of having information from yourself of Madeleine being alive in 2012,or am I mistaken in that.
We don't know what is happening with Grange.... The article suggests greater co-operation with rogatory letters no longer being needed.... That suggests progress to me
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Robittybob1 on December 09, 2018, 10:44:04 AM
We don't know what is happening with Grange.... The article suggests greater co-operation with rogatory letters no longer being needed.... That suggests progress to me
By moving the possible crime scene a few yards to the road? 7+ years for that!
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: barrier on December 09, 2018, 10:47:52 AM
We don't know what is happening with Grange.... The article suggests greater co-operation with rogatory letters no longer being needed.... That suggests progress to me
It does indeed.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Robittybob1 on December 09, 2018, 10:53:25 AM
My mind is made up. Those that recall the theory I put forward in 2016 will know I have always proposed that there was a cadaver in the apartment but it wasn't Madeleine.
I'm tending to think the new theory by SY and the PJ (if true) is tending to the same conclusion in the end, for how are they going to explain the cadaver dog alerts?
Madeleine leaves alive yet there are cadaver dog alerts. That is a big mystery IMO.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: barrier on December 09, 2018, 11:02:43 AM
My mind is made up. Those that recall the theory I put forward in 2016 will know I have always proposed that there was a cadaver in the apartment but it wasn't Madeleine.
I'm tending to think the new theory by SY and the PJ (if true) is tending to the same conclusion in the end, for how are they going to explain the cadaver dog alerts?
Madeleine leaves alive yet there are cadaver dog alerts. That is a big mystery IMO.
Still leaves the option open for my ending,person/person's removed Madeleine without leaving a trace to her whereabouts.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on December 09, 2018, 11:58:44 AM
What of it? It still involves a criminal act and body occultation, only neither perpetrated by the McCanns. It also makes a nonsense of Martin Grime’s dogs, and the entire “parents dunnit” movement.
It also makes a nonsense of Martin Grime’s dogs, and the entire “parents dunnit” movement.
Not so - if maddie had been carried back into the apartment imo.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on December 09, 2018, 12:24:04 PM
It also makes a nonsense of Martin Grime’s dogs, and the entire “parents dunnit” movement.
Not so - if maddie had been carried back into the apartment imo.
Excuse me, but why would a drunk driver carry Madeleine back to the apartment? Why would parents, on discovering their daughter run over in the middle of the road decide to do the same and then hide the body? That makes very little sense to me. They would in effect be allowing the driver who killed their child and who didn't stop to get away with a terrible crime against their family. And you think this is plausible because...?
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Mr Gray on December 09, 2018, 12:42:03 PM
All this is supposed to have happened between 8.30 and 10..
A fatal accident... Maddie returned to the apartment.... Then moved out of the apartment all in 90 min..and no one saw anything.. Unrealistic imo
All the while successfully maintaining the pretense that everything was fine, chatting happily with Jez who said Gerry appeared completely normal. Was this before or after he had allegedly carried his daughter's body back to the apartment...?!
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: faithlilly on December 09, 2018, 01:32:12 PM
No.no. Mistaken - jumped to the wrong conclusion,certainly, IMO but lying?- surely not 8(0(*
You forgot ‘misremembered’ jassi !
Kate misremembered the window and shutter being open. She misremembered the whooshing of the curtains and slamming off the door. Gerry misrembered the moving door, the place where he stood while talking to Wilkins and also using his key and what door he actually used.
I’ve known people with dementia with a better memory.
If woke and wandered is being considered ( I don’t think it is ) then it can only be bad for the parents.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: jassi on December 09, 2018, 02:13:32 PM
Kate misremembered the window and shutter being open. She misremembered the whooshing of the curtains and slamming off the door. Gerry misrembered the moving door, the place where he stood while talking to Wilkins and also using his key and what door he actually used.
I’ve known people with dementia with a better memory.
If woke and wandered is being considered ( I don’t think it is ) then it can only be bad for the parents.
Aye, How could I forget about misremembering ?
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on December 09, 2018, 02:13:39 PM
Kate misremembered the window and shutter being open. She misremembered the whooshing of the curtains and slamming off the door. Gerry misrembered the moving door, the place where he stood while talking to Wilkins and also using his key and what door he actually used.
I’ve known people with dementia with a better memory.
If woke and wandered is being considered ( I don’t think it is ) then it can only be bad for the parents.
How do you figure that out? Do you think Kate is going to be arrested for saying the curtains whooshed? @)(++(*
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on December 09, 2018, 02:40:52 PM
Kate misremembered the window and shutter being open. She misremembered the whooshing of the curtains and slamming off the door. Gerry misrembered the moving door, the place where he stood while talking to Wilkins and also using his key and what door he actually used.
I’ve known people with dementia with a better memory.
If woke and wandered is being considered ( I don’t think it is ) then it can only be bad for the parents.
Who says that any of the above is factual? Where are the IMOs?
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Robittybob1 on December 09, 2018, 05:44:11 PM
Kate misremembered the window and shutter being open. She misremembered the whooshing of the curtains and slamming off the door. Gerry misrembered the moving door, the place where he stood while talking to Wilkins and also using his key and what door he actually used.
I’ve known people with dementia with a better memory.
If woke and wandered is being considered ( I don’t think it is ) then it can only be bad for the parents.
Reports were that they weren't happy about it.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Mr Gray on December 09, 2018, 05:52:05 PM
Did anyone question your tombstone Avatar with "RIP" following Brenda's death? I was simply a reader at this time but I found it very disturbing.
I remember it very well indeed and I know exactly what issue was behind it ... which I will not resurrect. You are widely short of the mark if you imagine it was directed in any way whatsoever at Mrs Leyland.
In the first instance the forum owner would not have allowed such an offensive and disrespectful avatar to bring the forum into disrepute had it been directed at any named individual.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Eleanor on December 09, 2018, 06:49:29 PM
It was directed at the state of the Forum in your opinion at the time. Nothing to do with Brenda.
Was the forum in a state at that time? Either way I found it very unpleasant and made the connection to Brenda as I am sure others did too. It certainly wasn't clear why he had the avatar and it seems he was disrespecting this forum anyway.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Eleanor on December 09, 2018, 07:04:09 PM
Was the forum in a state at that time? Either way I found it very unpleasant and made the connection to Brenda as I am sure others did too. It certainly wasn't clear why he had the avatar and it seems he was disrespecting this forum anyway.
The Forum is always in one state or another, according to someone. Nothing wrong with an opinion about that. In My Opinion.
It most certainly was nothing to do with Brenda.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Sunny on December 09, 2018, 07:14:11 PM
Was the forum in a state at that time? Either way I found it very unpleasant and made the connection to Brenda as I am sure others did too. It certainly wasn't clear why he had the avatar and it seems he was disrespecting this forum anyway.
Why would you make the connection to Brenda and not, say, Madeleine? In any case Eleanor is 100% correct.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Mr Gray on December 09, 2018, 08:19:20 PM
Was the forum in a state at that time? Either way I found it very unpleasant and made the connection to Brenda as I am sure others did too. It certainly wasn't clear why he had the avatar and it seems he was disrespecting this forum anyway.
The fact that you and others made a incorrect connection is their problem not mine
Did you not notice another member had the avatar before me... You have been told it was directed at the state of the forum... Its clear you are mistaken in your inference
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: John on December 09, 2018, 09:24:35 PM
From the Expresso interview in which Pedro do Carmo emphatically reiterated that ... "Maddie's parents are not suspects. Period" ... the following question asked of him makes it clear that the 'woke and wandered' hypothesis was not one which was ever considered seriously by the Judicial Police.
Q: Until the case was closed in 2008, there were three lines of investigation by the Judiciary Police on the case.
Hypothesis 1: parents accidentally killed their daughter and then hid the body.
Hypothesis 2: Maddie was abducted by a group linked to trafficking in minors and sold for the purpose of sexual exploitation.
Hypothesis 3: The child was killed after a rapture that went wrong.
Would the reopening of the case in 2013 open up more lines of investigation than the three that were followed at that time?
A: About the investigation I can not speak. I can say that the PJ remains convinced that there are elements that can be worked and that can lead to some results. If it is not possible to achieve this result, at least get some answers to the many questions that the case raises. In the limit, get to a point where the PJ concludes that there is nothing more to do to answer these questions.
If by some chance SY and the PJ have evidence that the answer lies with 'woke and wandered' ... why hasn't the case been wrapped up and the solution presented in the public domain?
Could be that the penny has dropped at last since all previous endeavours have ended in a dead end.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Mr Gray on December 09, 2018, 09:26:50 PM
Could be that the penny has dropped at last since all previous endeavours have ended in a dead end.
have they failed ..ive seen no real evidence they have
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Mr Gray on December 09, 2018, 09:38:14 PM
SY were asked to investigate the case.. It wasn't their choice... They have nothing to justifty... The vast money spent has been in examining and translating the vast amount of information ..they could at any time have said they had no leads to investigate.. They haven't which suggests they have
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Holly Goodhead on December 09, 2018, 10:37:10 PM
Madeleine McCann police investigate theory she disappeared after leaving holiday home to try to find her parents.
Portuguese police are probing whether toddler woke up and walked out of flat
Met Police's Operation Grange inquiry is separate to Portuguese detectives'
But both met up recently to discuss possibility she was taken after wandering off
Previous lines of investigation included a bungled burglary at the apartment
By GERARD COUZENS FOR MAILONLINE
PUBLISHED: 25 November 2018
Portuguese police are investigating the theory that Madeleine McCann disappeared after waking up and walking out of her parents' Algarve holiday apartment.
Sources close to the probe into the three-year-old's 2007 disappearance say investigators are revisiting the possibility something happened to her after she left the flat - and not inside.
The news comes after Scotland Yard's Operation Grange team told her parents Kate and Gerry McCann they are pursuing two vital new leads and not one 'final line of inquiry'.
The British and Portuguese efforts to find out what happened to the toddler are being carried out separately - but the two are believed to have met to discuss the theory.
A spokesman for Portugal's Attorney General's Office refused to comment, but a well-placed source said: 'The heads of the two police investigations are corresponding with each other directly and have combined their efforts without resorting to rogatory letters like before.
'A meeting took place recently at the HQ of the General Attorney's Office in Portugal, which was attended by the prosecutor from Portimao who is in charge of the Portuguese inquiry.
'One of the lines of investigation that continues to be pursued is that the child could have walked out of the holiday flat herself.'
Rogatory letters are ones sent to a foreign court to help in the pursuit of justice.
The last of the six sent to the Portuguese police by their British counterparts was answered on October 25 2016, but none have been sent since.
Another well-informed insider added: 'Despite the fact there are two investigations and two different teams, the relationship between both is very healthy and well-informed and benefits from shared intelligence.'
Hinting both forces may have gone cold on the idea the youngster had been the victim of a botched burglary or a paedophile who had forced entry to snatch her, the insider said: 'The theory that Madeleine left the flat of her own accord to go looking for her parents is not something that hasn't been discussed before.
'But the Portuguese process tends to value lines of investigation that are put forward.
'Until we know for sure what happened though, no scenario is likely to be ruled out.'
A third source, referring to the absence of new rogatory letters, said: 'The pattern of direct cooperation that now exists means formal requests for international cooperation are not necessary.
'The Portuguese inquiry is still open, meaning that any new work can be executed as part of that investigation without the needs for rogatory letters.
The theory Madeline may have lost her way in the dark and taken a wrong turn as she went looking for her parents in Praia da Luz was one of the early hypotheses put forward to explain her disappearance.
It has also been suggested a panicking drink-driver might have run her over and sped off with her body before hiding it in the countryside.
Portuguese police have made no secret of their rejection of the theory championed by a British detective about Madeleine being kidnapped by thieves during a bungled burglary.
In July 2014 four Portuguese men faced a barrage of more than 250 questions while being quizzed as arguidos or formal suspects in interviews on the Algarve conducted at Scotland Yard's request.
They were questioned as part of the theory Madeleine, three when she disappeared from Praia da Luz, may have been killed during a botched break-in and her body buried on waste ground nearby.
More recently it has been suggested officers are keen to identify a woman in purple seen hanging round the holiday flat around the time Madeleine went missing.
The Home Office announced last week it would grant an extra £150,000 to Operation Grange to keep the investigation going until spring next year.
It is understood police recently told her parents during a meeting at their Leicestershire home that they were 'hopeful' of a result and were focusing on 'two specific and active' lines of inquiry, not just one as was initially thought.
Scotland Yard has refused to go public with details on what they are looking at.
I know very little about this case but from what little I do know I think the most likely explanation is that MM wandered off and came to some harm.
A couple of years ago I read about the case of the Beaumont children in Australia who disappeared during 1966 in the middle of the day from a public place and have never been seen since. The children, siblings, aged between 9 and 4 took a short bus journey to visit a nearby beach which they did regularly. Although they were unaccompanied by an adult it was considered safe to do so by the standards of the time. The father was working and the mother at home. Afaik there has never been any suggestion the parents were involved.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: sadie on December 09, 2018, 10:45:54 PM
I know very little about this case but from what little I do know I think the most likely explanation is that MM wandered off and came to some harm.
A couple of years ago I read about the case of the Beaumont children in Australia who disappeared during 1966 in the middle of the day from a public place and have never been seen since. The children, siblings, aged between 9 and 4 took a short bus journey to visit a nearby beach which they did regularly. Although they were unaccompanied by an adult it was considered safe to do so by the standards of the time. The father was working and the mother at home. Afaik there has never been any suggestion the parents were involved.
The internet is full of stories of toddlers getting out and wandering off on their own. Thankfully, most are found again.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: John on December 09, 2018, 10:53:55 PM
"After breakfast they got dressed and left the apartment by the main door. All children went walking. The veranda door was closed and locked; she doesn't know whether the main door was locked or unlocked.
At the flat they both bathed the children, and close to 6:00PM Gerry went to the tennis courts, soon after the children had finished their bath. They entered the apartment by the main door, with the key. She does not know if it was locked, and presumes it was Gerry who opened it. At lunch time they also entered by the same door."
SY set out to find an abductor but all they have found are dead ends.
SY "found" Dr Totman, whose crucial evidence never featured in the PJ files/archiving report. IMO SY would have been curious about the reason behind that.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on December 09, 2018, 11:06:02 PM
Explain why it terminated at the lamppost opposite mini reception then and didn't go all the way to the juniors club?
It is my belief that there was an abductor (lifter) who that eavening walked that pathway from a vehicle parked near that lampost.
With the anxiety of what he was about to do, he was a bit sweaty / strong smelling.
I think that he touched the towel / blanket ... and that it was his/her scent that the dog followed. Not Madeleines.
The dog was given the towel / blanket and knew he had to follow that scent.
He didn't understand the word "Madeleine", he just followed the strongest strength scent. As far as he was concerned that was Madeleines scent; he didn't know any difference
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Brietta on December 09, 2018, 11:48:39 PM
I am intrigued Sadie. Did you do the designing from scratch or draw up other's ideas?
Well done you if the latter.
I have an HNC Mechanical Engineering and have physically worked in most aspects of Mechanical Engineering including hours spent filing a block of metal to one inch in each dimension so that it fitted a hole in a plate that I had also very accurately filed. I had to file each face to within one thou (one thousand of an inch). As a joke they gave me (the only girl, amonst over 250 male apprentices) the task of filing a french curve. @)(++(*
I also experienced time in most departments that led to my design job, so that I understood it all at base level and upwards. For instance I had to learn what a good weld looked like; the necessary currents and electrodes needed ... and strengths etc. It was very difficult welding. I eventually managed a decent weld horizontally, but above my head welding proved impossible for me. Welders are VERY skilled and not to be looked down upon. I also worked in a chemi lab, the metallury Lab, the main Research Dept.; the garage as a Grease Monkey/mechanic etc.
Perhaps my greatest challenge was working in a foundry. Here I learned all about making the molds, heating the steel and pouring the red hot moulton steel into the casts. Red hot sparks evetwhere! I learned the techniques by doing everything myself, including the pattern shop. Wow are some of the pattern makers ever skilled !! Also the testing labs, and at the same time, the capabilities and weaknesses of castings in design. Obviously I also learned about getting on with others of all backgrounds
This ability to appreciate and get along with all types from Labourer to Managing Director was the best lesson that I ever learned. I really appreciated the characters at the foundry, generally rough and ready but really nice guys.
Upon completion of my apprenticeship I was lucky and was placed in one of the two senior design drawing offices, and I loved it.
I generally worked as part of a design team. Only on one project was I leader and I had no-one working specifically for me, except a stronger Mathematian than I, who helped with calculations and also had some drawing up of details by others, along with a tracer who transfered my pencil drawings in to permanent ink drawings (on waxed linen, I think). In the next department was our development team who actually made prototypes full size to our designs. Because of my knowledge and training they never questioned me. They knew that I knew as much, in some cases more, than they did.
I am no Bell or Edison or Leonardo. They were geniuses. But I was a young keen Design Engineer, still learning, who worked with greater precision and integrity than some.
Few design engineers do much "pure design" of the Edison, Leonardo type, but develop and extend others ideas. The history of the motorcar is a fine example. It didn't start off as an air condioned, air tight, comfy vehicle with pneumatic tyres, top speed of 100mph etc. but stage by stage it was developed by design engineers
Because of pregnancy I left this much loved job, which I was still not a senior in .. and then with children the hours were impossile .. and the engineering business was folding. We worked 40 hour+ weeks in those days with two or three weeks holiday per year, including bank holidays. I was not a modern mother; I wanted to be with my children as youngsters, rather than farm them out
I am very proud because I was not only the first pioneer woman engineer trained via a Nationally approved apprenticeship, BUT also three guys in the office had tried to do my sole single, hydraulically based, engineering design and had failed.
And more important to me, my design was very successful and probably is still being used 50 years on. Also my very good Design Office boss bought the plans/ rights (not sure what you call them) and they provided a lucrative income for him for the next 30-40 years. Am so pleased about that.
Crikey, have I gone on. Apologies.
MODS: May I suggest that this post is left up for a few days and then along with Sunnys post that prompted it, taken down. TY. If you leave Sunnys post or any others of a similar ilk, on here, then please leave this post in response.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: sadie on December 10, 2018, 02:28:26 AM
I don’t dispute any of the above but you are pulling your information from unreliable newspaper reports, twice, and sometimes thrice, translated statements and just a smidgen of partisanship. That does not make for a strictly controlled investigation.
I beg your pardon. I dont know what you are going on about.
Cites for the sources you claim for my info would be appreciated.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Myster on December 10, 2018, 05:20:08 AM
I have an HNC Mechanical Engineering and have physically worked in most aspects of Mechanical Engineering including hours spent filing a block of metal to one inch in each dimension so that it fitted a hole in a plate that I had also very accurately filed. I had to file each face to within one thou (one thousand of an inch). As a joke they gave me (the only girl, amonst over 250 male apprentices) the task of filing a french curve. @)(++(*
I also experienced time in most departments that led to my design job, so that I understood it all at base level and upwards. For instance I had to learn what a good weld looked like; the necessary currents and electrodes needed ... and strengths etc. It was very difficult welding. I eventually managed a decent weld horizontally, but above my head welding proved impossible for me. Welders are VERY skilled and not to be looked down upon. I also worked in a chemi lab, the metallury Lab, the main Research Dept.; the garage as a Grease Monkey/mechanic etc.
Perhaps my greatest challenge was working in a foundry. Here I learned all about making the molds, heating the steel and pouring the red hot moulton steel into the casts. Red hot sparks evetwhere! I learned the techniques by doing everything myself, including the pattern shop. Wow are some of the pattern makers ever skilled !! Also the testing labs, and at the same time, the capabilities and weaknesses of castings in design. Obviously I also learned about getting on with others of all backgrounds
This ability to appreciate and get along with all types from Labourer to Managing Director was the best lesson that I ever learned. I really appreciated the characters at the foundry, generally rough and ready but really nice guys.
Upon completion of my apprenticeship I was lucky and was placed in one of the two senior design drawing offices, and I loved it.
I generally worked as part of a design team. Only on one project was I leader and I had no-one working specifically for me, except a stronger Mathematian than I, who helped with calculations and also had some drawing up of details by others, along with a tracer who transfered my pencil drawings in to permanent ink drawings (on waxed linen, I think). In the next department was our development team who actually made prototypes full size to our designs. Because of my knowledge and training they never questioned me. They knew that I knew as much, in some cases more, than they did.
I am no Bell or Edison or Leonardo. They were geniuses. But I was a young keen Design Engineer, still learning, who worked with greater precision and integrity than some.
Few design engineers do much "pure design" of the Edison, Leonardo type, but develop and extend others ideas. The history of the motorcar is a fine example. It didn't start off as an air condioned, air tight, comfy vehicle with pneumatic tyres, top speed of 100mph etc. but stage by stage it was developed by design engineers
Because of pregnancy I left this much loved job, which I was still not a senior in .. and then with children the hours were impossile .. and the engineering business was folding. We worked 40 hour+ weeks in those days with two or three weeks holiday per year, including bank holidays. I was not a modern mother; I wanted to be with my children as youngsters, rather than farm them out
I am very proud because I was not only the first pioneer woman engineer trained via a Nationally approved apprenticeship, BUT also three guys in the office had tried to do my sole single, hydraulically based, engineering design and had failed.
And more important to me, my design was very successful and probably is still being used 50 years on. Also my very good Design Office boss bought the plans/ rights (not sure what you call them) and they provided a lucrative income for him for the next 30-40 years. Am so pleased about that.
Crikey, have I gone on. Apologies.
MODS: May I suggest that this post is left up for a few days and then along with Sunnys post that prompted it, taken down. TY. If you leave Sunnys post or any others of a similar ilk, on here, then please leave this post in response.
Crikey, yes you have rambled on, but I'm seriously, seriously impressed! I used to do a bit of home welding years ago although always had difficulty preventing slag getting embedded in the weld, but eventually managed to build a trailer fitted with Indespension units which I still use today.
My guess is that even now you'd master CAD design in SolidWorks or Solid Edge with no problem.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Sunny on December 10, 2018, 05:53:56 AM
I have an HNC Mechanical Engineering and have physically worked in most aspects of Mechanical Engineering including hours spent filing a block of metal to one inch in each dimension so that it fitted a hole in a plate that I had also very accurately filed. I had to file each face to within one thou (one thousand of an inch). As a joke they gave me (the only girl, amonst over 250 male apprentices) the task of filing a french curve. @)(++(*
I also experienced time in most departments that led to my design job, so that I understood it all at base level and upwards. For instance I had to learn what a good weld looked like; the necessary currents and electrodes needed ... and strengths etc. It was very difficult welding. I eventually managed a decent weld horizontally, but above my head welding proved impossible for me. Welders are VERY skilled and not to be looked down upon. I also worked in a chemi lab, the metallury Lab, the main Research Dept.; the garage as a Grease Monkey/mechanic etc.
Perhaps my greatest challenge was working in a foundry. Here I learned all about making the molds, heating the steel and pouring the red hot moulton steel into the casts. Red hot sparks evetwhere! I learned the techniques by doing everything myself, including the pattern shop. Wow are some of the pattern makers ever skilled !! Also the testing labs, and at the same time, the capabilities and weaknesses of castings in design. Obviously I also learned about getting on with others of all backgrounds
This ability to appreciate and get along with all types from Labourer to Managing Director was the best lesson that I ever learned. I really appreciated the characters at the foundry, generally rough and ready but really nice guys.
Upon completion of my apprenticeship I was lucky and was placed in one of the two senior design drawing offices, and I loved it.
I generally worked as part of a design team. Only on one project was I leader and I had no-one working specifically for me, except a stronger Mathematian than I, who helped with calculations and also had some drawing up of details by others, along with a tracer who transfered my pencil drawings in to permanent ink drawings (on waxed linen, I think). In the next department was our development team who actually made prototypes full size to our designs. Because of my knowledge and training they never questioned me. They knew that I knew as much, in some cases more, than they did.
I am no Bell or Edison or Leonardo. They were geniuses. But I was a young keen Design Engineer, still learning, who worked with greater precision and integrity than some.
Few design engineers do much "pure design" of the Edison, Leonardo type, but develop and extend others ideas. The history of the motorcar is a fine example. It didn't start off as an air condioned, air tight, comfy vehicle with pneumatic tyres, top speed of 100mph etc. but stage by stage it was developed by design engineers
Because of pregnancy I left this much loved job, which I was still not a senior in .. and then with children the hours were impossile .. and the engineering business was folding. We worked 40 hour+ weeks in those days with two or three weeks holiday per year, including bank holidays. I was not a modern mother; I wanted to be with my children as youngsters, rather than farm them out
I am very proud because I was not only the first pioneer woman engineer trained via a Nationally approved apprenticeship, BUT also three guys in the office had tried to do my sole single, hydraulically based, engineering design and had failed.
And more important to me, my design was very successful and probably is still being used 50 years on. Also my very good Design Office boss bought the plans/ rights (not sure what you call them) and they provided a lucrative income for him for the next 30-40 years. Am so pleased about that.
Crikey, have I gone on. Apologies.
MODS: May I suggest that this post is left up for a few days and then along with Sunnys post that prompted it, taken down. TY. If you leave Sunnys post or any others of a similar ilk, on here, then please leave this post in response.
Wow. Sadie I am impressed. Well done you 8@??)(
Edited to add. You were ahead of your time Sadie and I don't blame you for giving up the wonderful job to spend time nurturing your children.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Angelo222 on December 10, 2018, 10:46:54 AM
That was such an impressive post Sadie and since you added such a nice request at the end, I will leave it for now. You don't have to reply if you don't want to but out of curiosity, what sort of items did you design?
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Holly Goodhead on December 10, 2018, 02:55:10 PM
The internet is full of stories of toddlers getting out and wandering off on their own. Thankfully, most are found again.
Yes I'm sure the vast majority happening upon lost toddlers will take him/her into their care until he/she is reunited with parents or whoever is responsible. But its a sad fact that when alone, even if only for moments, they can come to harm either accidentally or deliberately. I'm thinking Jamie Bulger and Sarah Payne who were alone for only moments, albeit their bodies were found. But if adults can vanish into thin air with their bodies never found eg Suzy Lamplugh and Claudia Lawrence then it surely follows a small child could just as easily 'disappear'.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: sadie on December 14, 2018, 02:17:32 AM
Crikey, yes you have rambled on, but I'm seriously, seriously impressed! I used to do a bit of home welding years ago although always had difficulty preventing slag getting embedded in the weld, but eventually managed to build a trailer fitted with Indespension units which I still use today.
My guess is that even now you'd master CAD design in SolidWorks or Solid Edge with no problem.
Thank you .. and well done for designing and building a working trailer; especially the welding part.
Even a trailer, simple tho it seems, needs designing if it is to be strong and efficient and be legal on the roads. A knowledge of hitches is necessary, vehicle lighting regulations have to be adhered to and there must lots of other things to do with strength, stablity and easy loading etc. that should be calculated and tested. I seem to remember that we designed various trailers that hydraulicly tipped their load out at one time.
Very well done for taking on the challenge and succeeeding.
As for CAD design and Solidworks, I think it would be very unlikely that I would master it now. I am an absolute computer ignoramous. But how i wish I was able to do it. Thanks for the idea and encouragement.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: sadie on December 14, 2018, 02:54:18 AM
That was such an impressive post Sadie and since you added such a nice request at the end, I will leave it for now. You don't have to reply if you don't want to but out of curiosity, what sort of items did you design?
Thanks to you and sunny for your kind remarks.
I rarely knew much about where the orders came from, but we were called The Contracts Design and Drawing Office, and my thoughts are that many of our designs were produced for outside engineering companies. We were a big company with many thousands of employees and a wide engineering manufacturing base, but I think thta we serviced the design needs of other major companies.
Our office seemed to have projects based mainly on hydraulic power and sheet metal fabrications (steel), but we needed ancilliary knowledge about electrical units, safety, ergonomics, road traffic regulations etc. We had a good team with wide knowledge and a good technical library. It was a long time ago, but I can remember working on the design of a car transporter, fork lift truck, digger, combine harvester, automatic potato picker, backhoe, trailer, plough share
... and there was much excitement about an instant hitching device for trailers etc behind tractors. I think (not sure) that the idea was born in our office and built and tested in the project workshop next door. A relatively simple design yet it revolutionalised the fast transfer of attachments to the rear of tractors.
The car transporter, &%%6 was that exciting. Instead of a one level transporter suddenly we had a two level one! How they have advanced since then. I count the cars on every transporter we go past and wish that I had been part of the team that designed it; how exciting to have fitted yet another car in.
I have gone on again, soz
Now why don't you ask Eleanor what work she did? Amazing.. She is one hell of a girl.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Miss Taken Identity on December 16, 2018, 05:51:10 PM
If the PJ, aided by SY, are, as John claims, investigating woke and wondered then IMO it can only be bad for the parents.
Indeed. it would show them up to be using the 'story' window and snatched from bed as a cover up. A cover up of what I am not sure about. Many people are now talking about this who never used to in my circle. And at work. Amaral has been vindicated- no abduction.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: faithlilly on December 16, 2018, 05:57:40 PM
Indeed. it would show them up to be using the 'story' window and snatched from bed as a cover up. A cover up of what I am not sure about. Many people are now talking about this who never used to in my circle. And at work. Amaral has been vindicated- no abduction.
It would certainly look that way.....and we must never forget that every private investigator who the parents have hired have been working on the information given, knowingly, by those self same parents. What an absolute waste of money.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Robittybob1 on December 16, 2018, 06:01:46 PM
Indeed. it would show them up to be using the 'story' window and snatched from bed as a cover up. A cover up of what I am not sure about. Many people are now talking about this who never used to in my circle. And at work. Amaral has been vindicated- no abduction.
Don't you mean no break-in?
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Miss Taken Identity on December 16, 2018, 09:46:20 PM
I mean what I say, and what Amaral and the PJ claim- there was no moving door which gave rise to the notion that it slammed and the curtains whooshed and MBM was abducted by an intruder who entered through an alledged, by Kate, open window- never happened none of it.
The unlocked door to enable MBM to go fetch her parents, and leaving the children alone every night does not cover a very good plot now does it? No wonder Kate forgave her 3 year old daughters abductor from her bed that night- to do terrible things to her.It is so very easy to forgive someone who doesn't even exist... ^*&&
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Robittybob1 on December 16, 2018, 11:08:18 PM
I mean what I say, and what Amaral and the PJ claim- there was no moving door which gave rise to the notion that it slammed and the curtains whooshed and MBM was abducted by an intruder who entered through an alledged, by Kate, open window- never happened none of it.
The unlocked door to enable MBM to go fetch her parents, and leaving the children alone every night does not cover a very good plot now does it? No wonder Kate forgave her 3 year old daughters abductor from her bed that night- to do terrible things to her.It is so very easy to forgive someone who doesn't even exist... ^*&&
Does Gerry forgive the perpetrator too?
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on December 16, 2018, 11:32:13 PM
I mean what I say, and what Amaral and the PJ claim- there was no moving door which gave rise to the notion that it slammed and the curtains whooshed and MBM was abducted by an intruder who entered through an alledged, by Kate, open window- never happened none of it.
The unlocked door to enable MBM to go fetch her parents, and leaving the children alone every night does not cover a very good plot now does it? No wonder Kate forgave her 3 year old daughters abductor from her bed that night- to do terrible things to her.It is so very easy to forgive someone who doesn't even exist... ^*&&
It is a lesson well worth taking on board that hatred is a terribly destructive emotion which has the ability to twist, destroy and consume. What a pity so many who associate themselves with Madeleine's case allow themselves to be eaten up by it to their own detriment and harming none but themselves.
Indeed Madeleine's mother did say when questioned that it would be possible for her to show forgiveness for the unforgivable ... Snip In the early months, even years, she despised her daughter’s unknown thief. “The thought of her feeling fear and wanting and needing her mummy and daddy provoked so much pain. It still does, when I wander down that particular path.”
Kate is a practising Catholic, and when asked about forgiveness she used to say she needed to understand the motive. Now, tentatively, she feels differently.
“I think I could probably forgive Madeleine’s abductor whatever the circumstances. I don’t know whether it’s simply because I’m stronger or because there’s no benefit in not forgiving someone. I can’t change anything and I don’t want to be eaten up by hatred and bitterness. And maybe there is an element of pity – what kind of person could do something like this? Of course, forgiveness will always be easier if there is remorse.” https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/madeleinemccann/9995377/Kate-McCann-Its-dreadful-living-with-this-void.html
I think that is a healthily balanced approach and a coping mechanism to maintain sanity in an insane situation.
Do you have a cite that Kate alleged an intruder entered via the window. My understanding is that she was of the opinion that Madeleine would have been unable to open the window and shutter to exit by herself ... similarly she would not have closed doors and gates behind her ... making the 'woke and wandered' theory highly unlikely if not an impossibility.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: sadie on December 17, 2018, 01:08:13 AM
I mean what I say, and what Amaral and the PJ claim- there was no moving door which gave rise to the notion that it slammed and the curtains whooshed and MBM was abducted by an intruder who entered through an alledged, by Kate, open window- never happened none of it.
The unlocked door to enable MBM to go fetch her parents, and leaving the children alone every night does not cover a very good plot now does it? No wonder Kate forgave her 3 year old daughters abductor from her bed that night- to do terrible things to her.It is so very easy to forgive someone who doesn't even exist... ^*&&
"I mean what I say, and what Amaral and the PJ claim- there was no moving door which gave rise to the notion that it slammed and the curtains whooshed and MBM was abducted by an intruder who entered through an alledged, by Kate, open window- never happened none of it."
Oh really? So you were there then and witnessed it all? So Matt, Gerry and Kate all lied, did they?
Can you prove that or are you overusing your imagination ? Are you commiting libel?
Cite please.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on December 17, 2018, 07:13:20 AM
"I mean what I say, and what Amaral and the PJ claim- there was no moving door which gave rise to the notion that it slammed and the curtains whooshed and MBM was abducted by an intruder who entered through an alledged, by Kate, open window- never happened none of it."
Oh really? So you were there then and witnessed it all? So Matt, Gerry and Kate all lied, did they?
Can you prove that or are you overusing your imagination ? Are you commiting libel?
Cite please.
Amazing that this opinion as fact (libellous too) has been allowed to stand.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Robittybob1 on December 17, 2018, 07:33:29 AM
Do you have a cite that Kate alleged an intruder entered via the window. My understanding is that she was of the opinion that Madeleine would have been unable to open the window and shutter to exit by herself ... similarly she would not have closed doors and gates behind her ... making the 'woke and wandered' theory highly unlikely if not an impossibility.
But not impossible if someone else tidied up after Madeleine. In my theory it is possible someone else closed whatever gates and or doors Madeleine had left open.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Robittybob1 on December 17, 2018, 07:35:17 AM
But not impossible if someone else tidied up after Madeleine. In my theory it is possible someone else closed whatever gates and or doors Madeleine had left open.
I think the only person who would have gone to the bother of doing that would be the person who removed her from the premises ... ie her abductor ... and why on earth would an abductor go to that bother if she was already out on the street?
I think the persona of Madeleine has been lost within the speculative nonsense of all the conspiracy theories which have abounded and contaminated real evidence throughout the whole of the investigation into Madeleine's disappearance.
There was no greater conspiracy theorist than Amaral from first to last.
According to him Madeleine's parents were 'protected'? ... security services involvement? ... blue bags and pink blankets? ... lost fridges? ... bereaved parents skulking around Luz keeping the frozen remains of their child one step ahead of Portugal's finest while the world's press stalked their every move? I could go on ... but I think that is enough balderdash to be going on with ... and all designed to take the easy way out of 'solving' Madeleine's case by using the precedent of implicating her mother.
And why not? It had all worked out perfectly before for the same team of detectives. Even down to writing books to make sure the general public got the message.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Robittybob1 on December 17, 2018, 09:35:03 AM
I think the only person who would have gone to the bother of doing that would be the person who removed her from the premises ... ie her abductor ... and why on earth would an abductor go to that bother if she was already out on the street?
... snip ...
Thanks for considering my theory. What about just another person who sees her leaving or at least seeing the door/gate left open and concerned for the other two infants in the apartment. - They could close the door/gates so that the other two don't escape as well. Not an actual abductor.
(There were reports of a concerned couple who attended the kids the night prior to her going missing. Could the same couple close the doors/gates on the Thursday night?)
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Eleanor on December 17, 2018, 09:42:06 AM
I think the only person who would have gone to the bother of doing that would be the person who removed her from the premises ... ie her abductor ... and why on earth would an abductor go to that bother if she was already out on the street?
I think the persona of Madeleine has been lost within the speculative nonsense of all the conspiracy theories which have abounded and contaminated real evidence throughout the whole of the investigation into Madeleine's disappearance.
There was no greater conspiracy theorist than Amaral from first to last.
According to him Madeleine's parents were 'protected'? ... security services involvement? ... blue bags and pink blankets? ... lost fridges? ... bereaved parents skulking around Luz keeping the frozen remains of their child one step ahead of Portugal's finest while the world's press stalked their every move? I could go on ... but I think that is enough balderdash to be going on with ... and all designed to take the easy way out of 'solving' Madeleine's case by using the precedent of implicating her mother.
And why not? It had all worked out perfectly before for the same team of detectives. Even down to writing books to make sure the general public got the message.
I could go much further than that, but I won't, for obvious reasons.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Brietta on December 17, 2018, 10:12:47 AM
Thanks for considering my theory. What about just another person who sees her leaving or at least seeing the door/gate left open and concerned for the other two infants in the apartment. - They could close the door/gates so that the other two don't escape as well. Not an actual abductor.
I walk through my town during the hours of darkness on a very regular basis and if I encountered a lone child wandering around dressed in pyjamas I would have done none of those things you suggest. How would I have known there were other children in the apartment and why would I allow a vulnerable little girl to continue walking about on her own?
There was no mystery to the circumstances of Madeleine's disappearance until it was made into one and inventing scenarios to fit a preconceived mind set just doesn't work.
Did the Judicial Police mention 'woke and wandered' in the files and how they had ruled the likelihood in or out apart from checking excavated road workings?
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Sunny on December 17, 2018, 10:18:55 AM
I don't see an abductor closing the gate after taking Madeleine either. It would be difficult whilst holding a child n both arms and also pointless IMO.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Robittybob1 on December 17, 2018, 10:20:21 AM
I walk through my town during the hours of darkness on a very regular basis and if I encountered a lone child wandering around dressed in pyjamas I would have done none of those things you suggest. How would I have known there were other children in the apartment and why would I allow a vulnerable little girl to continue walking about on her own?
There was no mystery to the circumstances of Madeleine's disappearance until it was made into one and inventing scenarios to fit a preconceived mind set just doesn't work.
Did the Judicial Police mention 'woke and wandered' in the files and how they had ruled the likelihood in or out apart from checking excavated road workings?
What about if it was a family you knew, and you knew the parents were away at dinner and had left the children alone and you saw their front door open when it should be closed, would you close it?
Or would you leave it open so the toddlers could wander out onto the road?
Personally I take note of farm gates that are left open onto roadways. That is similar to front doors in an urban situation.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Robittybob1 on December 17, 2018, 10:25:06 AM
I don't see an abductor closing the gate after taking Madeleine either. It would be difficult whilst holding a child n both arms and also pointless IMO.
You've missed the issue in this thread and that is it is Madeleine who makes her own way out of the building (woke and wandered). I made it clear in my theory the person who closes the doors/gates is not the abductor but a concerned citizen of some sort.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Brietta on December 17, 2018, 11:31:14 AM
What about if it was a family you knew, and you knew the parents were away at dinner and had left the children alone and you saw their front door open when it should be closed, would you close it?
Or would you leave it open so the toddlers could wander out onto the road?
Personally I take note of farm gates that are left open onto roadways. That is similar to front doors in an urban situation.
The front door of the apartment wasn't open though was it? Nor would a casual observer passing by be able to see if it was because of foliage and its recessed position.
I would never presume to enter anyone's property to close their front door under any other than prearranged circumstances, if I had any concerns at all I would deal with the situation accordingly either by summoning other neighbours or the police.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on December 17, 2018, 05:55:06 PM
The front door of the apartment wasn't open though was it? Nor would a casual observer passing by be able to see if it was because of foliage and its recessed position.
I would never presume to enter anyone's property to close their front door under any other than prearranged circumstances, if I had any concerns at all I would deal with the situation accordingly either by summoning other neighbours or the police.
Fair enough. In your situation you would take some other action to prevent the little ones wandering out onto the road. It could get tricky if you had an appointment to keep or a flight to catch.
As I said I look out for open farm gates. I have yet to actually close one, usually I find there is a reason it is open, and it seems safe enough so I move on.
When you ask "The front door of the apartment wasn't open though was it?" that has been the prime issue in my McCann study for the last year or so. I believe the evidence gathered so far points to a situation of anyone without a key cannot fully close the front door if they leave via the front door.
Therefore if Madeleine woke and wandered and left by the front door that door would be open. Remember Kate and David never found it open at the time of the alarm being raised.
But I contend this does not prove it had not being closed by someone else between the time Madeleine left (in this scenario) and when Kate found her missing (and IMO there was sufficient time available for someone to do this). Someone who knew the front door could be closed from the inside and that one could leave by the patio door and close the child proof gates on the stairs (so the toddlers are then safe, as the prime concern is for the safety of the toddlers).
But if my theory is correct whoever did this would be left in an awkward situation of not knowing where Madeleine went to, as if she left by the front door and the other person leaves via the patio door they have two options as to which way to go to find her, like at the gate onto the footpath does one turn left or right.
It is better to lose one child than all three.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Robittybob1 on December 17, 2018, 06:53:25 PM
So let’s get this straight. I can state as fact that none of the things stated by Kate McCann actually happened as she said, is that correct?
I don't make the rules around here. You would probably be better to state them as an opinion or as part of a theory. For how could you cite them as a fact?
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on December 17, 2018, 07:17:56 PM
I don't make the rules around here. You would probably be better to state them as an opinion or as part of a theory. For how could you cite them as a fact?
Well Miss Taken did, and wasn’t challenged. Oh for some consistency!
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Robittybob1 on December 17, 2018, 07:24:23 PM
Well Miss Taken did, and wasn’t challenged. Oh for some consistency!
I read what she writes as being purely opinion. OK I don't like what she writes but it is opinion so I let it go.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=10478.msg507304#msg507304 is that opinion or not? MTI says "I mean what I say". "I say" is like "I think" or "IMO".
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on December 17, 2018, 08:32:06 PM
I read what she writes as being purely opinion. OK I don't like what she writes but it is opinion so I let it go.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=10478.msg507304#msg507304 is that opinion or not? MTI says "I mean what I say". "I say" is like "I think" or "IMO".
I’ll bear that in mind next time I want to pass off opinion as fact.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: sadie on December 18, 2018, 02:43:45 AM
I read what she writes as being purely opinion. OK I don't like what she writes but it is opinion so I let it go.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=10478.msg507304#msg507304 is that opinion or not? MTI says "I mean what I say". "I say" is like "I think" or "IMO".
Well it doesn't read that way to me
If it doesn't read that way to me, then it will not read that way to others, IMO
I think that the way that Mistaken presents many of her posts sounds like she is being factual ... and IMO that isn't fair.
It isn't being fair to The Mccanns and it isn't being fair to posters of the opposite persuasion that she has this unbalanced advantsge IMO
I think that much of it is libellous. What do others think ?
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Robittybob1 on December 18, 2018, 03:32:01 AM
If it doesn't read that way to me, then it will not read that way to others, IMO
I think that the way that Mistaken presents many of her posts sounds like she is being factual ... and IMO that isn't fair.
It isn't being fair to The Mccanns and it isn't being fair to posters of the opposite persuasion that she has this unbalanced advantsge IMO
I think that much of it is libellous. What do others think ?
I've yet to see many argue against her. She has these irregular raves and leaves.
OK you have tried to coax a response out of her http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=10478.msg507325#msg507325 and cite. Fancy asking MTI for a cite!
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Lace on December 18, 2018, 11:24:22 AM
I've yet to see many argue against her. She has these irregular raves and leaves.
OK you have tried to coax a response out of her http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=10478.msg507325#msg507325 and cite. Fancy asking MTI for a cite!
She seems to forget to add IMO a lot of the time.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: G-Unit on December 18, 2018, 12:43:30 PM
If it doesn't read that way to me, then it will not read that way to others, IMO
I think that the way that Mistaken presents many of her posts sounds like she is being factual ... and IMO that isn't fair.
It isn't being fair to The Mccanns and it isn't being fair to posters of the opposite persuasion that she has this unbalanced advantsge IMO
I think that much of it is libellous. What do others think ?
I think many posters try to present their opinions as if they were facts. If Madeleine woke and wandered then how to explain why her bedroom door moved three times?
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Robittybob1 on December 18, 2018, 06:51:43 PM
I think many posters try to present their opinions as if they were facts. If Madeleine woke and wandered then how to explain why her bedroom door moved three times?
Can anyone's theory explain it?
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on December 18, 2018, 07:00:17 PM
I think many posters try to present their opinions as if they were facts. If Madeleine woke and wandered then how to explain why her bedroom door moved three times?
What makes you think the door moved three times?
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Robittybob1 on December 18, 2018, 07:23:34 PM
From recollection, Gerry found the door moved at 9:05 and returned it to the normal position.
Matt at 9:35 finds it open 50 degrees or so. but doesn't touch it.
Kate presumably finds it as Matt had left it, that is not in the position where they would normally leave it.
So I think it moved twice. Woke and wandered could easily account for the move after Gerry had left it in the correct position after checking on Madeleine.
It is possible the door moved between Matt's visit and Kate's check. We have seen both those situations covered in reconstructions and Matt appears to be working with a door more open than what Kate finds it prior to it slamming shut.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: G-Unit on December 18, 2018, 08:25:03 PM
From recollection, Gerry found the door moved at 9:05 and returned it to the normal position.
Matt at 9:35 finds it open 50 degrees or so. but doesn't touch it.
Kate presumably finds it as Matt had left it, that is not in the position where they would normally leave it.
So I think it moved twice. Woke and wandered could easily account for the move after Gerry had left it in the correct position after checking on Madeleine.
It is possible the door moved between Matt's visit and Kate's check. We have seen both those situations covered in reconstructions and Matt appears to be working with a door more open than what Kate finds it prior to it slamming shut.
Kate says completely open; wider than when Matt saw it.
She noticed that the door to her children's bedroom was completely open https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/KATE-MCCANN.htm
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Mr Gray on December 18, 2018, 08:29:21 PM
Kate says completely open; wider than when Matt saw it.
She noticed that the door to her children's bedroom was completely open https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/KATE-MCCANN.htm
"At around 10pm, the interviewee went to check on the children. She went into the apartment by the side door, which was closed but not locked, as she said before. She noticed that the door to her children's bedroom was completely open, the window was also open, the shutters raised and the curtains open, while she was certain of having closed them all as she always did."
OK problems with translation and understanding come into that. She says the door was closed to begin with. But a closed door in my understanding is latched but later it was defined as 5 degrees open. How open is completely open? To me "completely open" means it can't be any more open, but we'll never know what was meant in the interview with Kate on the 4th.
When is a window open? I've just reviewed TTOL and GA makes the point that Kate says the window was completely open, but we've just seen she says the door was "completely open" and the window was just "open" (no degree of openness expressed).
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: G-Unit on December 18, 2018, 09:56:08 PM
"At around 10pm, the interviewee went to check on the children. She went into the apartment by the side door, which was closed but not locked, as she said before. She noticed that the door to her children's bedroom was completely open, the window was also open, the shutters raised and the curtains open, while she was certain of having closed them all as she always did."
OK problems with translation and understanding come into that. She says the door was closed to begin with. But a closed door in my understanding is latched but later it was defined as 5 degrees open. How open is completely open? To me "completely open" means it can't be any more open, but we'll never know what was meant in the interview with Kate on the 4th.
When is a window open? I've just reviewed TTOL and GA makes the point that Kate says the window was completely open, but we've just seen she says the door was "completely open" and the window was just "open" (no degree of openness expressed).
Her recreation; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhACS6ck-Dw
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Sunny on December 18, 2018, 10:03:31 PM
Her recreation; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhACS6ck-Dw
OK if that is how she remembers it, the door could have been open a little wider than when Matt visited. Maybe three movements do need to be accounted for.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Robittybob1 on December 19, 2018, 06:43:45 AM
"At around 10pm, the interviewee went to check on the children. She went into the apartment by the side door, which was closed but not locked, as she said before. She noticed that the door to her children's bedroom was completely open, the window was also open, the shutters raised and the curtains open, while she was certain of having closed them all as she always did."
OK problems with translation and understanding come into that. She says the door was closed to begin with. But a closed door in my understanding is latched but later it was defined as 5 degrees open. How open is completely open? To me "completely open" means it can't be any more open, but we'll never know what was meant in the interview with Kate on the 4th.
When is a window open? I've just reviewed TTOL and GA makes the point that Kate says the window was completely open, but we've just seen she says the door was "completely open" and the window was just "open" (no degree of openness expressed).
This is what GA says about Amy Tierney: "Going back to the window, there is no doubt that it was opened at some point. When Amy T., one of the workers from the nursery, heard the alarm drawing attention to the disappearance shortly after 10pm, she went to apartment 5A. She noted that the window was just half-open and the shutter was raised. The twins were still asleep."
At the end of the book he mentions her again: "3. The only person to have seen that window open with the shutters raised is Amy, one of the play workers from the children's centre of the Ocean Club. She made that observation at around 10.20/1030pm, which means well after the alert - which doesn't exclude that the window could have been closed at the time of the criminal act."
It could also be that open and half open are describing the same degree of openness. Also he could be wrong about there being a criminal act. What criminal act is he talking about?
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Robittybob1 on December 19, 2018, 07:09:13 AM
Chapter 18: "On the window, there were no signs of a break-in or of gloves. It had been cleaned the day before, May 2nd, by an Ocean Club employee, and the only fingerprints found were Kate's. The position of the fingerprints indicate that the window had been opened to the left, as Kate Healy stated: "the window was fully open to the left." There is no doubt that somebody opened that window on the evening of May 3rd and the only fingerprints found on it were those of Kate Healy. The manager of the Ocean Club's crèche, who went to the apartment after the alarm was raised, remarked that, "the window was partially open to the left," confirming Kate's earlier statement."
Did Kate ever say "the window was fully open to the left."?
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Sunny on December 19, 2018, 07:35:06 AM
Chapter 18: "On the window, there were no signs of a break-in or of gloves. It had been cleaned the day before, May 2nd, by an Ocean Club employee, and the only fingerprints found were Kate's. The position of the fingerprints indicate that the window had been opened to the left, as Kate Healy stated: "the window was fully open to the left." There is no doubt that somebody opened that window on the evening of May 3rd and the only fingerprints found on it were those of Kate Healy. The manager of the Ocean Club's crèche, who went to the apartment after the alarm was raised, remarked that, "the window was partially open to the left," confirming Kate's earlier statement."
Did Kate ever say "the window was fully open to the left."?
She said it was wide open in her book Rob.
My heart lurched as I saw that, behind them, the window was wide open and the shutters on the outside raised all the way up.
At around 10pm, the interviewee went to check on the children. She went into the apartment by the side door, which was closed but not locked, as she said before. She noticed that the door to her children's bedroom was completely open, the window was also open, the shutters raised and the curtains open, while she was certain of having closed them all as she always did.
At around 10pm, the interviewee went to check on the children. She went into the apartment by the side door, which was closed but not locked, as she said before. She noticed that the door to her children's bedroom was completely open, the window was also open, the shutters raised and the curtains open, while she was certain of having closed them all as she always did.
The Murat statements are well worth a read ... every time the disingenuous accusation is made of changes to statements and "discrepancies" I think of the master class in both he gives.
Don't you think the "half open" description for the window is due to the construction? When the widow is fully open the pane of glass has been slid side aside and covers the pane of glass which is static ... therefore when fully open the window is indeed half opened ... making both descriptions accurate and exactly as described by Kate.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Eleanor on December 20, 2018, 01:36:00 PM
The Murat statements are well worth a read ... every time the disingenuous accusation is made of changes to statements and "discrepancies" I think of the master class in both he gives.
Don't you think the "half open" description for the window is due to the construction? When the widow is fully open the pane of glass has been slid side aside and covers the pane of glass which is static ... therefore when fully open the window is indeed half opened ... making both descriptions accurate and exactly as described by Kate.
Thank You. That is the truth of the matter.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: The General on December 20, 2018, 02:55:16 PM
With one static window it could have been deemed fully open or half open. Why are we arguing this point? Those blimmin Semantics again.
The reason the point us being argued is because there us no real evidence against the mccanns but posters who believe they are guilty have to try and manufacture some.... Imo
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Eleanor on December 20, 2018, 04:06:10 PM
The reason the point us being argued is because there us no real evidence against the mccanns but posters who believe they are guilty have to try and manufacture some.... Imo
Ah, I see. So Kate having had a confab with Gerry at the dinner table when everyone was listening, or not, Kate decided to make a cock of their alibi by saying that a window that couldn't actually be fully opened actually was fully open. Okay.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Robittybob1 on December 20, 2018, 05:26:21 PM
With one static window it could have been deemed fully open or half open. Why are we arguing this point? Those blimmin Semantics again.
Because GA used it (fully open or half open) in his theory to show Kate staged the crime scene and that the scene had been changed before Amy Tierney got there.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Brietta on December 20, 2018, 05:44:52 PM
Because GA used it (fully open or half open) in his theory to show Kate staged the crime scene and that the scene had been changed before Amy Tierney got there.
Of course it had been changed. Gerry closed the shutter ... then was appalled to discover that it could be easily raised from the outside although his technique for doing so left it askew as witnessed by I think, one of the GNR.
Why would anyone "stage" a scenario ... then as their very first action dive in feet first and destroy the set-up before anyone could see it?
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on December 20, 2018, 06:09:23 PM
Of course it had been changed. Gerry closed the shutter ... then was appalled to discover that it could be easily raised from the outside although his technique for doing so left it askew as witnessed by I think, one of the GNR.
Why would anyone "stage" a scenario ... then as their very first action dive in feet first and destroy the set-up before anyone could see it?
For the same reason anyone would choose to walk through town at 10pm carrying the corpse of their dead child uncovered for all to see - that reason is: having carefully constructed an abduction scenario they then went into a blind panic and did lots of daft things, but nevertheless still managed to get away with it without leaving any tangible evidence”. Innit though.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Mr Gray on December 20, 2018, 06:25:30 PM
Because GA used it (fully open or half open) in his theory to show Kate staged the crime scene and that the scene had been changed before Amy Tierney got there.
Did he have any evidence of staging or is that a silly question
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Robittybob1 on December 20, 2018, 06:56:21 PM
Did he have any evidence of staging or is that a silly question
He is developing a theory, so the same evidence can be interpreted differently in different theories.
An open window could be an escape route for an abductor. An open window could be opened by Madeleine looking for her dad. An open window could be opened by Kate as staging. An open window could be opened in an attempted burglary.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Miss Taken Identity on January 04, 2019, 11:44:27 PM
For the same reason anyone would choose to walk through town at 10pm carrying the corpse of their dead child uncovered for all to see - that reason is: having carefully constructed an abduction scenario they then went into a blind panic and did lots of daft things, but nevertheless still managed to get away with it without leaving any tangible evidence”. Innit though.
You were quite happy to accept that JT saw MBM being abducted for years, perhaps still do, did JT confirm that the child being carried was dead or alive?
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on January 05, 2019, 12:01:26 AM
You were quite happy to accept that JT saw MBM being abducted for years, perhaps still do, did JT confirm that the child being carried was dead or alive?
Did JT say she saw a man carrying a dead child through town? I don’t think she did. Also, if you can’t see the difference between an anonymous man carrying an uncovered child (dead or alive) and the child’s own father carrying her body through town, a man who would a few hours later present himself in front of the world’s media for all to see (including the numerous individuals he allegedly passed on his mission) appealing for the return of said child then I can’t help you.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: barrier on January 05, 2019, 08:40:15 AM
He is developing a theory, so the same evidence can be interpreted differently in different theories.
An open window could be an escape route for an abductor. An open window could be opened by Madeleine looking for her dad. An open window could be opened by Kate as staging. An open window could be opened in an attempted burglary.
An open window could also be for passing the child through in a staged abduction,just a thought.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Brietta on January 05, 2019, 10:29:03 AM
Isn't the result exactly the same for the victim of the crime who was passed through the window?
I have always believed that Madeleine was passed through the wind to another abductor because the child Jane Tanner saw was being carried in the opposite fashion to which Madeleine would have been picked up out of her bed.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: jassi on January 05, 2019, 10:32:54 AM
I have always believed that Madeleine was passed through the wind to another abductor because the child Jane Tanner saw was being carried in the opposite fashion to which Madeleine would have been picked up out of her bed.
... and we still don't know why Dr Totman was walking in the wrong direction.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: barrier on January 05, 2019, 10:37:19 AM
I have always believed that Madeleine was passed through the wind to another abductor because the child Jane Tanner saw was being carried in the opposite fashion to which Madeleine would have been picked up out of her bed.
Not quite what I had in mind,but not too far away.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: barrier on January 05, 2019, 10:44:12 AM
The Portuguese police of the time were unable to determine what crime had been committed partly I believe as a direct result of the blinkered attitude taken by the investigators ... remnants of which still rears its ugly head in a time warp adhered to by some, oblivious to the fact time has moved on as far as the present investigations are concerned.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Eleanor on January 05, 2019, 10:45:42 AM
... and we still don't know why Dr Totman was walking in the wrong direction.
It almost certainly wasn't Dr. Totman that Jane Tanner saw. I can only assume that we know more about the lay out of Praia da Luz than Andy Redwood did. But it did take us a fair old time to work it out, what with Front Doors and Back Doors.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: barrier on January 05, 2019, 10:46:24 AM
The Portuguese police of the time were unable to determine what crime had been committed partly I believe as a direct result of the blinkered attitude taken by the investigators ... remnants of which still rears its ugly head in a time warp adhered to by some, oblivious to the fact time has moved on as far as the present investigations are concerned.
With the passing of time,the crime is still to be determined.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: G-Unit on January 05, 2019, 10:46:55 AM
There was, of course, something said in the very first reports that was later dropped;
"They were all sound asleep, windows shut, shutters shut," said Trish Cameron, Madeleine's aunt. "Kate went back at 10pm to check, the front door was lying open, the window had been tampered with, the shutters had been jammied open, and Madeleine was missing." http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/press/1may7/04-05-07-Times-Transcript.htm
The front door was lying open. As it would be of MM opened it and went out all by herself.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Brietta on January 05, 2019, 10:53:29 AM
Wrong direction for what,all Redwood said was a person was in the exact same area at that time.
Does no one keep up with discussions, necessitating interminable repetition???
The Totmans were resident in apartment block four.
Why do you think the man seen carrying a child at the periphery of block five was walking away from the direction of both block five and block four if returning to block four from the night creche?
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Brietta on January 05, 2019, 10:59:17 AM
There was, of course, something said in the very first reports that was later dropped;
"They were all sound asleep, windows shut, shutters shut," said Trish Cameron, Madeleine's aunt. "Kate went back at 10pm to check, the front door was lying open, the window had been tampered with, the shutters had been jammied open, and Madeleine was missing." http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/press/1may7/04-05-07-Times-Transcript.htm
The front door was lying open. As it would be of MM opened it and went out all by herself.
Where exactly was Trish Cameron when relaying this information? Glasgow I believe? Hardly an eye witness was she? Only a concerned relative reacting to an hysterical phone call of disastrous family news.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Brietta on January 05, 2019, 11:03:43 AM
With the passing of time,the crime is still to be determined.
Madeleine is missing and two national police forces with a little help from their friends, have spent a considerable amount of time and resources finding out why.
I'm sure they have something in mind.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: jassi on January 05, 2019, 11:04:22 AM
Where exactly was Trish Cameron when relaying this information? Glasgow I believe? Hardly an eye witness was she? Only a concerned relative reacting to an hysterical phone call of disastrous family news.
You may be right, but why would either parent say that the door was lying open if in fact it was closed?
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: jassi on January 05, 2019, 11:05:46 AM
Madeleine is missing and two national police forces with a little help from their friends, have spent a considerable amount of time and resources finding out why.
I'm sure they have something in mind.
I'm sure having 'something in mind' wouldn't cut much ice with lawyers
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Robittybob1 on January 05, 2019, 11:09:57 AM
You may be right, but why would either parent say that the door was lying open if in fact it was closed?
You have no idea what was said to Trish in that phone call ... only her interpretation of it ... including "jemmied shutters" which neither Kate or Gerry ever said because they were there and were eye witnesses. Trish wasn't.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Eleanor on January 05, 2019, 11:10:36 AM
I don't recall it ever being said that the patio door was found wide open
It was "open" in that it was never locked or even latched. But I am surprised she came to picture it as being wide open. Yet in my theory I do say someone found the front door wide open and closed it to stop the other kids from escaping. Hence Kate found it closed as they had left it.
It is possible it was not Kate who said it was "wide open" but someone else. Who was talking to Trish Cameron? She is one of Gerry's sister's isn't she? "Statement from Patricia Cameron Occupation : Nurse
Date 15th April 2008
I am Gerry McCanns oldest sister, he is the youngest of five children. I'm married to Sandy Cameron and we have an adult son ...." http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/PATRICIA_CAMERON.htm
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Eleanor on January 05, 2019, 11:23:00 AM
Sometimes it's what we don't say that matters.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Brietta on January 05, 2019, 11:34:30 AM
Of course not. I wasn't referring to Briettas post, but to the suggestion that 'having something in mind' would be satisfactory for case progression.
How did they progress the case then? They had to work their way through years worth of material. How did they manage that without thinking about the next step as each preceding one was checked out?
Unlike Amaral who made a name for himself writing a book based on 'something he had in mind' ... proper procedure requires solid evidence and if there ever should be a court case here, which like Eleanor I think remains to be seen, there will be plenty of that.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: jassi on January 05, 2019, 11:42:23 AM
What evidence is there that the case has progressed significantly in say, the last 2 or 3 years?
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: barrier on January 05, 2019, 11:46:19 AM
Does no one keep up with discussions, necessitating interminable repetition???
The Totmans were resident in apartment block four.
Why do you think the man seen carrying a child at the periphery of block five was walking away from the direction of both block five and block four if returning to block four from the night creche?
Obviously not,no one in any official capacity indentified who it was in the "exact same area at that time".
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Eleanor on January 05, 2019, 11:47:01 AM
It was "open" in that it was never locked or even latched. But I am surprised she came to picture it as being wide open. Yet in my theory I do say someone found the front door wide open and closed it to stop the other kids from escaping. Hence Kate found it closed as they had left it.
It is possible it was not Kate who said it was "wide open" but someone else. Who was talking to Trish Cameron? She is one of Gerry's sister's isn't she? "Statement from Patricia Cameron Occupation : Nurse
Date 15th April 2008
I am Gerry McCanns oldest sister, he is the youngest of five children. I'm married to Sandy Cameron and we have an adult son ...." http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/PATRICIA_CAMERON.htm
"I was woken by the phone ringing at about 23.30. It was Gerry telling me that Madeleine had been taken. He was very upset on the phone,..." So why would Gerry say the front door was wide open, when IMO Kate found it closed?
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: jassi on January 05, 2019, 11:56:14 AM
That's evidence that the investigation is continuing, not progressing - IMO
This could be true. Mayhap Scotland Yard or The Home Office care very much about a British Citizen lost abroad. But they would hardly be liaising with Portugal if they thought The McCanns were responsible. And The Home Office wouldn't have dished out knocking on Twelve Million Pounds if they thought that this was a crime committed by British Citizens.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Brietta on January 05, 2019, 12:30:52 PM
Where exactly was Trish Cameron when relaying this information? Glasgow I believe? Hardly an eye witness was she? Only a concerned relative reacting to an hysterical phone call of disastrous family news.
I think she was quite capable of repeating what she had been told, and the door clearly features in early reports.
Madeleine’s aunt, Trish Cameron.......said..........The door was lying open.........“They think someone must have come in the window and gone out the door with her.” http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/press/1may7/Sun1_04_05_2007.htm
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Eleanor on January 05, 2019, 03:57:45 PM
I think she was quite capable of repeating what she had been told, and the door clearly features in early reports.
Madeleine’s aunt, Trish Cameron.......said..........The door was lying open.........“They think someone must have come in the window and gone out the door with her.” http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/press/1may7/Sun1_04_05_2007.htm
This is just more confusion about Doors. Everybody was confused about Doors.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: faithlilly on January 05, 2019, 07:12:11 PM
This is just more confusion about Doors. Everybody was confused about Doors.
It is really important though to sort it out.
If someone came in the window on the car park side they would leave by the door on the same side. A kidnapper would not worry about leaving the door open.
OK how did Kate first read the scene as she found it? All she saw was the window open and the shutters up. Front door was closed as far as she knows, so where did the open front door concept come from?
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: barrier on January 05, 2019, 08:08:51 PM
I think she was quite capable of repeating what she had been told, and the door clearly features in early reports.
Madeleine’s aunt, Trish Cameron.......said..........The door was lying open.........“They think someone must have come in the window and gone out the door with her.” http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/press/1may7/Sun1_04_05_2007.htm
Which Mitchell later cleared up.
Quote
Mr Mitchell made his comments when questioned by a 'Prime Time' team in a report on the disappearance to be screened tomorrow. "There was no evidence of a break-in," said Mr Mitchell. "I'm not going into the detail, but I can say that Kate and Gerry are firmly of the view that somebody got into the apartment and took Madeleine out the window as their means of escape, and to do that they did not necessarily have to tamper with anything. They got out of the window fairly easily."
You would wonder why they never changed their beliefs. OK I can accept Kate's thinking when faced with the scene, but if the PJ say no one went through the open window, surely the McCanns need to reconsider their initial assumptions.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Brietta on January 05, 2019, 09:09:41 PM
I can’t remember anyone being confused about doors.
I wonder why the interviewing officer felt some clarification was necessary if that is the case.
Snip 4078 “And what was, if you were to go in through the, well I know we’ve discussed this in the office and it’s difficult to say the front door or the back door of the apartment because there’s some confusion.” Reply “Yeah.”
4078 “If we were to say poolside and roadside, would that make it clearer as to what I was referring to?” Reply “Yeah, yeah.”
4078 “Which, which entrance did you use mostly?” Reply “For checking or for anything?”
4078 “For anything. Was there a check, that you’d use mostly?” Reply “Err the back, the roadside entrance because you couldn’t actually get in to the err the poolside entrance but there was no key to get in from the outside so you could only get in there if it was unlocked. It was sort of like a, you know like patio doors have a…”
4078 “Yeah.” Reply “Thing that goes up and down.”
4078 “Oh right.” Reply “So the only time we’d have probably used the back, the poolside entrance is during the day if somebody else was in there already. http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JANE_TANNER_RIGATORY.htm
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Robittybob1 on January 05, 2019, 09:31:06 PM
Jane in this portion calls the front side the "back".
"4078 “Which, which entrance did you use mostly?” Reply “For checking or for anything?”
4078 “For anything. Was there a check, that you’d use mostly?” Reply “Err the back, the roadside entrance...."
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Robittybob1 on January 05, 2019, 10:04:55 PM
there was a YouTube video produced by Colombo recently and when he read it out I was knocked over by the glaring error in the statement.
https://youtu.be/JGtP1uFpCuY "Madeleine McCann columbo 5a the apartment window"
At around the 4:40 mark he begins discussing Dianne Webster https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JGtP1uFpCuY&feature=youtu.be&t=251
When he gets to Fiona Paynes statement he reads this bit: "Reply 'Erm, tut, she sort of raced back and she just appeared at the doors of the sort of reception area and just shouted across, erm, 'She's gone. Gerry, Madeleine's gone'. And, you know, well you can just imagine the shock maybe. So everyone was just sort of still for what seemed like, sort of five seconds or so. Gerry jumped up and went 'She can't be gone' and raced off with Kate. And obviously we all followed, bar my mum, who I had said, I had the baby monitor, our baby monitor, and, plus, at that point, I just thought well, you know, the assumption was that she must have just wandered off, so I said to mum, you know, 'You stay put here just in case Madeleine comes down to the pool area' and gave her the monitor, our baby monitor, and said 'You you listen out for our kids'." http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/FIONA-PAYNE-ROGATORY.htm
That to me only makes sense if she knew immediately that Madeleine had wandered from the apartment.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: G-Unit on January 05, 2019, 10:18:49 PM
I wonder why the interviewing officer felt some clarification was necessary if that is the case.
Snip 4078 “And what was, if you were to go in through the, well I know we’ve discussed this in the office and it’s difficult to say the front door or the back door of the apartment because there’s some confusion.” Reply “Yeah.”
4078 “If we were to say poolside and roadside, would that make it clearer as to what I was referring to?” Reply “Yeah, yeah.”
4078 “Which, which entrance did you use mostly?” Reply “For checking or for anything?”
4078 “For anything. Was there a check, that you’d use mostly?” Reply “Err the back, the roadside entrance because you couldn’t actually get in to the err the poolside entrance but there was no key to get in from the outside so you could only get in there if it was unlocked. It was sort of like a, you know like patio doors have a…”
4078 “Yeah.” Reply “Thing that goes up and down.”
4078 “Oh right.” Reply “So the only time we’d have probably used the back, the poolside entrance is during the day if somebody else was in there already. http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JANE_TANNER_RIGATORY.htm
The only person causing confusion seems to be Jane Tanner who used 'back' for both sides of the block.
“Err the back, the roadside entrance
the only time we’d have probably used the back, the poolside entrance
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Miss Taken Identity on January 06, 2019, 09:30:14 PM
You would wonder why they never changed their beliefs. OK I can accept Kate's thinking when faced with the scene, but if the PJ say no one went through the open window, surely the McCanns need to reconsider their initial assumptions.
Yes INDEED!
Their behaviour suggests otherwise, as Kate tells the group MBM was missing and NOT abducted- Diane staye behind in the Tapas bar just incase....?
They all went 'looking ' for Madeleine, why? if she was abducted, as claimed, she would have been long gone my dears. They searched the apartment - but she was MISSING so why bother doing that? None of this behaviour makes any sense at all imo.
Kate claims she knew right away her daughter was abducted due to the curtains whooshing and door being a different angle (yeah, I know), and shutters being up. so what did this distraught mother do? Call the police right away- scream at the top of her voice from the balcony to attract the groups attention? (they claimed is was like sitting in the garden, so was it really?) No!
None of that at all. hmmm
The mother after knowing her daughter was abducted left her other two children alone- to go and tell the others in the group MBM was missing. The reason she gave was she didn't want to wake the twins? what I mean FFS your daughters been kidknapped and you don't want to wake the twins...I would imagine crying twins would be the ,least of the bloody worries in that scenario... well, I am of the opinion it was all staged and reads like a bad drama .
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: G-Unit on January 07, 2019, 09:57:04 AM
Even if the McCanns thought MM had been abducted, I can understand Gerry searching the route to the creche on the off chance. That kind of fits in with the unlocked patio door. Gerry searching the upper floors of Block 5 doesn't. It does, however, fit with a front door found 'lying open' as Trish Cameron said.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Eleanor on January 07, 2019, 10:01:50 AM
Their behaviour suggests otherwise, as Kate tells the group MBM was missing and NOT abducted- Diane staye behind in the Tapas bar just incase....?
They all went 'looking ' for Madeleine, why? if she was abducted, as claimed, she would have been long gone my dears. They searched the apartment - but she was MISSING so why bother doing that? None of this behaviour makes any sense at all imo.
Kate claims she knew right away her daughter was abducted due to the curtains whooshing and door being a different angle (yeah, I know), and shutters being up. so what did this distraught mother do? Call the police right away- scream at the top of her voice from the balcony to attract the groups attention? (they claimed is was like sitting in the garden, so was it really?) No!
None of that at all. hmmm
The mother after knowing her daughter was abducted left her other two children alone- to go and tell the others in the group MBM was missing. The reason she gave was she didn't want to wake the twins? what I mean FFS your daughters been kidknapped and you don't want to wake the twins...I would imagine crying twins would be the ,least of the bloody worries in that scenario... well, I am of the opinion it was all staged and reads like a bad drama .
This comment has no logic and makes no sense.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Robittybob1 on January 07, 2019, 10:31:56 AM
Even if the McCanns thought MM had been abducted, I can understand Gerry searching the route to the creche on the off chance. That kind of fits in with the unlocked patio door. Gerry searching the upper floors of Block 5 doesn't. It does, however, fit with a front door found 'lying open' as Trish Cameron said.
That is another important clue that someone might have known the front door had been found open at some stage prior to Kate's check. "Gerry searching the upper floors of Block 5"
OK he might think a rapist may have taken her up there or she wandered up there? Both highly unlikely IMO.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Robittybob1 on January 07, 2019, 10:34:26 AM
Their behaviour suggests otherwise, as Kate tells the group MBM was missing and NOT abducted- Diane staye behind in the Tapas bar just incase....?
They all went 'looking ' for Madeleine, why? if she was abducted, as claimed, she would have been long gone my dears. They searched the apartment - but she was MISSING so why bother doing that? None of this behaviour makes any sense at all imo.
Kate claims she knew right away her daughter was abducted due to the curtains whooshing and door being a different angle (yeah, I know), and shutters being up. so what did this distraught mother do? Call the police right away- scream at the top of her voice from the balcony to attract the groups attention? (they claimed is was like sitting in the garden, so was it really?) No!
None of that at all. hmmm
The mother after knowing her daughter was abducted left her other two children alone- to go and tell the others in the group MBM was missing. The reason she gave was she didn't want to wake the twins? what I mean FFS your daughters been kidknapped and you don't want to wake the twins...I would imagine crying twins would be the ,least of the bloody worries in that scenario... well, I am of the opinion it was all staged and reads like a bad drama .
Matt went to call the police at the main reception. OK IMO as far as Kate was concerned this was the quickest way to call the police, but for some reason the call was never made.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Brietta on January 07, 2019, 10:37:28 AM
That is another important clue that someone might have known the front door had been found open at some stage prior to Kate's check. "Gerry searching the upper floors of Block 5"
OK he might think a rapist may have taken her up there or she wandered up there? Both highly unlikely IMO.
Why? She had been to the Payne apartment on an upper floor on at least one occasion.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: G-Unit on January 07, 2019, 10:56:57 AM
That is another important clue that someone might have known the front door had been found open at some stage prior to Kate's check. "Gerry searching the upper floors of Block 5"
OK he might think a rapist may have taken her up there or she wandered up there? Both highly unlikely IMO.
Both are highly unlikely unless there was a clue pointing in that direction; such as an open front door.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Robittybob1 on January 07, 2019, 12:47:11 PM
Both are highly unlikely unless there was a clue pointing in that direction; such as an open front door.
But who found the door open? Otherwise Madeleine left by the patio door and walked around the building and up the stairs. That is completely in the opposite direction of going toward the Tapas. Exiting from the patio door she is even more unlikely to go up the stairs to the top of the building.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: G-Unit on January 07, 2019, 02:07:35 PM
But who found the door open? Otherwise Madeleine left by the patio door and walked around the building and up the stairs. That is completely in the opposite direction of going toward the Tapas. Exiting from the patio door she is even more unlikely to go up the stairs to the top of the building.
According to Gerry's sister on 4th May;
"Kate went back at 10pm to check, the front door was lying open, the window had been tampered with, the shutters had been jammied open, and Madeleine was missing." http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/press/1may7/04-05-07-Times-Transcript.htm
I assume she was repeating what she had been told at 23.40 when her brother phoned her. Her account differs from that of Kate's parents as they mentioned the broken shutters but not the open front door. They were called just after midnight.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Miss Taken Identity on January 07, 2019, 02:10:25 PM
"Kate went back at 10pm to check, the front door was lying open, the window had been tampered with, the shutters had been jammied open, and Madeleine was missing." http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/press/1may7/04-05-07-Times-Transcript.htm
I assume she was repeating what she had been told at 23.40 when her brother phoned her. Her account differs from that of Kate's parents as they mentioned the broken shutters but not the open front door. They were called just after midnight.
Yes it is interesting how stories don't collaborate properly. One would wonder who opened the front door (did Gerry use this door when he made his visit- if not did he notice if it was open?) AND why would MBM go out the front door and up the stairs in her bare feet and jammies? did someone take her upstairs?
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: jassi on January 07, 2019, 02:18:52 PM
But who found the door open? Otherwise Madeleine left by the patio door and walked around the building and up the stairs. That is completely in the opposite direction of going toward the Tapas. Exiting from the patio door she is even more unlikely to go up the stairs to the top of the building.
Not something I had previously considered, but yes, why search upstairs for her if there was no chance that she could have exited by the door facing the car park.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Brietta on January 07, 2019, 03:19:29 PM
Not something I had previously considered, but yes, why search upstairs for her if there was no chance that she could have exited by the door facing the car park.
The window was open and the shutter raised.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Miss Taken Identity on January 07, 2019, 03:22:18 PM
Not something I had previously considered, but yes, why search upstairs for her if there was no chance that she could have exited by the door facing the car park.
This is how Rachael described it. She does mention the possibility of wandering off ;
maybe about ten thirty or something, Gerry and I looked at, up at the stairwell and kind of across all the floors of the block that we were in, erm and that was really the, that was all the searching that I really did, just up the stairs, I think they were five floors or something'.
1578 'And that was just you and'' Reply 'And Gerry'.
1578 'And what time was this'' Reply 'Erm I mean that would have been you know about half ten or something like that, erm and then'. 1578 'What was Gerry saying'' Reply 'Erm I don't know, I don't remember, erm no I don't remember in particular, erm'.
1578 'And how long did you spend doing that search'' Reply 'It was just really a quick you know, it would have been about five minutes, it was just up the flights and along the, you know the sort of verandas in front of the apartments, erm but there wasn't really anywhere you know, somebody could hide, well you know, if Madeleine had sort of wandered by herself, erm you know there were just really open corridors that we were just kind of looking to see if there was anything down there, erm'.......
Reply 'I mean only just searching the steps and the other floors with Gerry'.
1578 'Just yourself and Gerry'' Reply 'Yeah'. http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RACHAEL-OLDFIELD-ROGATORY.htm
The GNR dogs followed a trail beginning at the front door of 5A too.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: jassi on January 07, 2019, 03:49:38 PM
Where was Rachel's child at this point ? Is this mentioned anywhere?
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: barrier on January 07, 2019, 04:00:01 PM
What if it was,its not the be all and end all of how Madeleine is supposed to have left 5a,if OG are looking at woke and wandered what part would an open window play in that?
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: G-Unit on January 07, 2019, 04:24:21 PM
Matt went to call the police at the main reception. OK IMO as far as Kate was concerned this was the quickest way to call the police, but for some reason the call was never made.
Gerry said in BBC 4 Radio in September 2018: "You're in this quiet little holiday resort - that seemed idyllic - out of season and I certainly didn't speak Portuguese so I asked [our friend] Matt to go to reception and ask them to call the police." https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-45694119
As we can see from the phone records was this phonecall made from the OC reception to GNR at 22:41.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Brietta on January 07, 2019, 06:30:43 PM
What if it was,its not the be all and end all of how Madeleine is supposed to have left 5a,if OG are looking at woke and wandered what part would an open window play in that?
Precisely.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Brietta on January 07, 2019, 06:45:37 PM
Did he just go up one floor to the Payne's apartment or all the way to the top?
That is a question you must pose to gunit for a response. http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=10478.msg509262#msg509262 her post makes reference to it here ... which is the first time I have ever seen mention of any named individual carrying out searches any where in areas not specifically connected with Madeleine.
Of course we do know that individuals did knock doors in the apartment blocks, but I am unaware of any being identified.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Robittybob1 on January 07, 2019, 06:48:20 PM
"Kate went back at 10pm to check, the front door was lying open, the window had been tampered with, the shutters had been jammied open, and Madeleine was missing." http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/press/1may7/04-05-07-Times-Transcript.htm
I assume she was repeating what she had been told at 23.40 when her brother phoned her. Her account differs from that of Kate's parents as they mentioned the broken shutters but not the open front door. They were called just after midnight.
So did Gerry and some others know something that Kate didn't? I tend to think they did and this following is my reasoning: 1. Gerry told Kate to commence her check (urgency) 2. She only took a couple of minutes to do her check, yet it seemed like 10 minutes to Gerry (anxious to know the outcome) 3. The guys started looking for Madeleine in the immediate vicinity without checking the actual scene first (no need for a plan to be formulated based on evidence). 4. Fiona was asked to stay there in case Madeline came back there, not in case she wandered but actually wander back there (seems somewhat based on knowledge).
I feel that Mark Rowley had been told about these circumstances earlier as he said in 2017 "however Madeleine left the apartment, she was abducted" So that to me is him saying "let's not get too fussed over the reason why she left the apartment, we know she got outside for some reason, and hence because she wasn't found immediately she must have been abducted."
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Robittybob1 on January 07, 2019, 06:52:02 PM
That is a question you must pose to gunit for a response. http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=10478.msg509262#msg509262 her post makes reference to it here ... which is the first time I have ever seen mention of any named individual carrying out searches any where in areas not specifically connected with Madeleine.
Of course we do know that individuals did knock doors in the apartment blocks, but I am unaware of any being identified.
There is a difference in what was done in the first 10 minutes and what was done after they all regrouped and formulated plans.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Brietta on January 07, 2019, 06:58:18 PM
Gerry said in BBC 4 Radio in September 2018: "You're in this quiet little holiday resort - that seemed idyllic - out of season and I certainly didn't speak Portuguese so I asked [our friend] Matt to go to reception and ask them to call the police." https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-45694119
As we can see from the phone records was this phonecall made from the OC reception to GNR at 22:41.
The phone call was made at 22.41, but not at Matt's request. He was 'sent' there at 22.10.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Robittybob1 on January 07, 2019, 07:22:08 PM
There is a difference in what was done in the first 10 minutes and what was done after they all regrouped and formulated plans.
According to Rachael Gerry, Kate, Fiona and David 'might have' emerged from the front door of 5A almost immediately after entering by the patio door. How did the Paynes avoid seeing the open shutters and window?
'Erm well I think it must have been just before I told Jane that, you know we, Matt checked on Grace and I mean I, I did, I thought we'll go straight to Jane and you know tell her that Madeleine was missing but if sort of Kate and Fi and you know Dave and Gerry might have come out of the apartment and sort of been standing around there and talking about this, these shutters being up and the window being open, erm and I didn't, I didn't have a conversation with anyone, I just heard them talking about it, erm so I think it was you know in that time between sort of you know five past ten and ten fifteen, erm but it wasn't somebody specifically coming up to me and saying, 'the windows were open and the shutters were up'.' http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RACHAEL-OLDFIELD-ROGATORY.htm
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Robittybob1 on January 07, 2019, 07:55:38 PM
According to Rachael Gerry, Kate, Fiona and David 'might have' emerged from the front door of 5A almost immediately after entering by the patio door. How did the Paynes avoid seeing the open shutters and window?
'Erm well I think it must have been just before I told Jane that, you know we, Matt checked on Grace and I mean I, I did, I thought we'll go straight to Jane and you know tell her that Madeleine was missing but if sort of Kate and Fi and you know Dave and Gerry might have come out of the apartment and sort of been standing around there and talking about this, these shutters being up and the window being open, erm and I didn't, I didn't have a conversation with anyone, I just heard them talking about it, erm so I think it was you know in that time between sort of you know five past ten and ten fifteen, erm but it wasn't somebody specifically coming up to me and saying, 'the windows were open and the shutters were up'.' http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RACHAEL-OLDFIELD-ROGATORY.htm
That sentence has a strange construction. There could even be a change of thought half way through it TBH.
" I thought we'll go straight to Jane and you know tell her that Madeleine was missing but if sort of Kate and Fi and you know Dave and Gerry might have come out of the apartment and sort of been standing around there and talking about this, these shutters being up and the window being open, ..."
The bolded bit is not fluent and I wouldn't take it as gospel. but if sort of Kate and Fi and you know Dave and Gerry might have come out of the apartment On its own it hardly makes sense.
Generally Rachael is understandable but not always correct.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: niklasericson on January 07, 2019, 07:57:23 PM
Matt says he tried to get them to call the police.
Two receptionist at duty and no one mentioned anything about this phonecall. One of them stated that Gerry came to the reception with John Hill and Hill arrived at 22:35. Amy also stated that Gerry went to the reception to made the phone call.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: niklasericson on January 07, 2019, 08:07:12 PM
Do we know for sure, without any doubts that the gates at the stairs were closed and locked? Is there an independent witness to this?
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: jassi on January 07, 2019, 08:16:00 PM
Does Matt mention the child gate ? He went through it at 9.30. Was it open or closed when he got there? Did he close it on leaving ?
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Robittybob1 on January 07, 2019, 08:26:35 PM
Does it? Kate said the gate was closed. Nobody corroborated that as far as I'm aware. If Matt definitely closed the gate, then that would be corroboration.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Robittybob1 on January 07, 2019, 08:39:26 PM
Does it? Kate said the gate was closed. Nobody corroborated that as far as I'm aware. If Matt definitely closed the gate, then that would be corroboration.
No it wouldn't for there was 30 minutes between Matt's visit and Kate's check. Many things could have happened in half an hour.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: G-Unit on January 07, 2019, 08:57:20 PM
That sentence has a strange construction. There could even be a change of thought half way through it TBH.
" I thought we'll go straight to Jane and you know tell her that Madeleine was missing but if sort of Kate and Fi and you know Dave and Gerry might have come out of the apartment and sort of been standing around there and talking about this, these shutters being up and the window being open, ..."
The bolded bit is not fluent and I wouldn't take it as gospel. but if sort of Kate and Fi and you know Dave and Gerry might have come out of the apartment On its own it hardly makes sense.
Generally Rachael is understandable but not always correct.
Just before that Rachael said more. I wonder if the shutters do stay up if lifted from outside? All this experimentation with those shutters!
Reply 'Erm but I mean I remember kind of standing near the window with Kate and Fiona, erm so but I mean I don't remember the specifics of anyone actually saying to me that, I think it was just sort of a general, Kate and Fi were sort of milling around outside the apartment, outside her and Kate's apartment and cos I think at, either at that point or perhaps it was later in the night, erm you know Kate had tried to see whether you could lift the shutters from the outside, erm but which you could and they would stay up, erm so I think, I don't think anyone told me specifically that the windows were open and the shutters were up, it was just erm you know kind of listening to conversations and seeing Kate and Fiona, erm sort of outside the apartment'. http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RACHAEL-OLDFIELD-ROGATORY.htm
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: jassi on January 07, 2019, 09:06:27 PM
No it wouldn't for there was 30 minutes between Matt's visit and Kate's check. Many things could have happened in half an hour.
Well yes it could, but I don't think there would have been a stream of people coming and going through that gate. It is reasonable to think that Kate should have found the gate just as Matt left it - IMO
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: niklasericson on January 07, 2019, 09:17:04 PM
If the Detectives are investigating the woke and wandered scenario and that a possible accident occurred, I have a strong feeling which element they are investigates.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Robittybob1 on January 07, 2019, 09:36:42 PM
Well yes it could, but I don't think there would have been a stream of people coming and going through that gate. It is reasonable to think that Kate should have found the gate just as Matt left it - IMO
There only needs to be one person.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Robittybob1 on January 07, 2019, 09:38:49 PM
If the Detectives are investigating the woke and wandered scenario and that a possible accident occurred, I have a strong feeling which element they are investigates.
If you have a feeling you are allowed to say it on the forum as long as it is clear it is your opinion. You can't state feelings as if they are facts OK.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Miss Taken Identity on January 07, 2019, 10:03:58 PM
Just before that Rachael said more. I wonder if the shutters do stay up if lifted from outside? All this experimentation with those shutters!
Reply 'Erm but I mean I remember kind of standing near the window with Kate and Fiona, erm so but I mean I don't remember the specifics of anyone actually saying to me that, I think it was just sort of a general, Kate and Fi were sort of milling around outside the apartment, outside her and Kate's apartment and cos I think at, either at that point or perhaps it was later in the night, erm you know Kate had tried to see whether you could lift the shutters from the outside, erm but which you could and they would stay up, erm so I think, I don't think anyone told me specifically that the windows were open and the shutters were up, it was just erm you know kind of listening to conversations and seeing Kate and Fiona, erm sort of outside the apartment'. http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RACHAEL-OLDFIELD-ROGATORY.htm
"Kate had tried to see whether you could lift the shutters from the outside, erm but which you could and they would stay up,"
Oh we we not told the shutters were up and the window was open? so why would Kate play with the shutters to see if they would stay up after telling us they did stay up? how bloody odd. So the tapas were playing with the shutters and window beofre the PJ arrived. not tampering with evidence then eh? Perhaps it is no surprise Kates finger prints are on the window and the 'abductors isn't... Hmmmm
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: niklasericson on January 07, 2019, 10:18:20 PM
If you have a feeling you are allowed to say it on the forum as long as it is clear it is your opinion. You can't state feelings as if they are facts OK.
In some way it is facts because it can be found in the files so maybe you already know about it but I will not drop any names, this couple are today married and lives in the UK.
Snipped from the files: Element 1 (Female) on the day in question (03.05.07) at around 20h30, her boyfriend was called as there was a problem with a lock in an apartment situated in the northern part of the resort, close to the Millennium restaurant and she had accompanied her boyfriend in her car from her home in Lagos to the apartment in question. After her boyfriend had completed the service, at about 21H00, they went to the resort reception with the aim of her boyfriend collecting a service vehicle. For this purpose, the witness and her boyfriend travelled in her car, a Peugeot model 106, metallic grey in colour, along various roads of the resort, having taken the road adjacent to the pool and Tapas restaurant area, passing by the apartment where Madeleine and her family were staying, according to what she was subsequently informed about the location. When questioned, the witness states that when she travelled along the roads in question, which make up the resort, and principally those which she later learnt were adjacent to the apartment where Madeleine was staying and disappeared from, close to the Tapas restaurant, which she did at about 21H00, (03 May, 2007) the witness states that she saw no vehicle, person or other situation that she considered suspicious that could be directly or indirectly related to the facts being investigated. When asked, the witness states that after her boyfriend had collected a service vehicle, from the Ocean Club reception, which took place at about 21H00, they both went to her home, but in separate vehicles, arriving at about 21H15. ---------------- Element 2 Boyfriend; Snipped from the files: Questioned, he states that, last Thursday, he was off duty but was called by the reception and went to the resort around 020H30 to open a door that had problems. After completing the work for which he was called, which took him about 15 minutes, he left for his residence, and was again contacted, at around 22H15 to ask him if there were torch/flash lights that could be used to help look for a child that had gone missing. The deponent responded that there weren't any and was not called again that night.
------------ The girlfriend says: He was done with the work at 21:00 and after this they were going to the reception because her boyfriend would pick up a service vehicle and after this they were driving home in separate cars.
The boyfriend says: He was done with work at 20:45 and left for his residence.
It was a very short period of time but it differ about ~20-30minutes and he not even mentioned that he picked up a service vehicle.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: G-Unit on January 07, 2019, 10:36:25 PM
"Kate had tried to see whether you could lift the shutters from the outside, erm but which you could and they would stay up,"
Oh we we not told the shutters were up and the window was open? so why would Kate play with the shutters to see if they would stay up after telling us they did stay up? how bloody odd. So the tapas were playing with the shutters and window beofre the PJ arrived. not tampering with evidence then eh? Perhaps it is no surprise Kates finger prints are on the window and the 'abductors isn't... Hmmmm
Gerry said he had a go at the shutters too; as did Fiona, I think. So we have Kate, Fiona, Gerry and David discussing and moving shutters between 22.05 and 22.15. Rachael is lurking nearby, between the McCann's window and the main entrance. This is just after she and Matt have checked on their daughter. Jane, I assume, is still in her apartment oblivious to what is going on because Rachael is planning to go and tell her about it. So where are Russell and Mathew? Mathew seems to have been around, because Fiona asked him to go and call the police. He mentions Jane, but she was still in her apartment according to Rachael and knew nothing.
we went round to check firstly on Grace to make sure she was okay......and then Jane said, the shutters up........so Fiona, I think, asked me to go and phone the Police, and that must have been about five past, it's difficult to know what time it was at that time, but maybe about ten past ten, five past ten, ten past ten'. http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MATTHEW-OLDFIELD-ROGATORY.htm
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Robittybob1 on January 07, 2019, 11:10:38 PM
"Kate had tried to see whether you could lift the shutters from the outside, erm but which you could and they would stay up,"
Oh we we not told the shutters were up and the window was open? so why would Kate play with the shutters to see if they would stay up after telling us they did stay up? how bloody odd. So the tapas were playing with the shutters and window beofre the PJ arrived. not tampering with evidence then eh? Perhaps it is no surprise Kates finger prints are on the window and the 'abductors isn't... Hmmmm
Rachael doesn't say she saw Kate playing with the shutters , no she only thinks Kate was playing with the shutters. It could be a complete misunderstanding on Rachael's part.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Robittybob1 on January 07, 2019, 11:17:07 PM
In some way it is facts because it can be found in the files so maybe you already know about it but I will not drop any names, this couple are today married and lives in the UK.
Snipped from the files: Element 1 (Female) on the day in question (03.05.07) at around 20h30, her boyfriend was called as there was a problem with a lock in an apartment situated in the northern part of the resort, close to the Millennium restaurant and she had accompanied her boyfriend in her car from her home in Lagos to the apartment in question. After her boyfriend had completed the service, at about 21H00, they went to the resort reception with the aim of her boyfriend collecting a service vehicle. For this purpose, the witness and her boyfriend travelled in her car, a Peugeot model 106, metallic grey in colour, along various roads of the resort, having taken the road adjacent to the pool and Tapas restaurant area, passing by the apartment where Madeleine and her family were staying, according to what she was subsequently informed about the location. When questioned, the witness states that when she travelled along the roads in question, which make up the resort, and principally those which she later learnt were adjacent to the apartment where Madeleine was staying and disappeared from, close to the Tapas restaurant, which she did at about 21H00, (03 May, 2007) the witness states that she saw no vehicle, person or other situation that she considered suspicious that could be directly or indirectly related to the facts being investigated. When asked, the witness states that after her boyfriend had collected a service vehicle, from the Ocean Club reception, which took place at about 21H00, they both went to her home, but in separate vehicles, arriving at about 21H15. ---------------- Element 2 Boyfriend; Snipped from the files: Questioned, he states that, last Thursday, he was off duty but was called by the reception and went to the resort around 020H30 to open a door that had problems. After completing the work for which he was called, which took him about 15 minutes, he left for his residence, and was again contacted, at around 22H15 to ask him if there were torch/flash lights that could be used to help look for a child that had gone missing. The deponent responded that there weren't any and was not called again that night.
------------ The girlfriend says: He was done with the work at 21:00 and after this they were going to the reception because her boyfriend would pick up a service vehicle and after this they were driving home in separate cars.
The boyfriend says: He was done with work at 20:45 and left for his residence.
It was a very short period of time but it differ about ~20-30 minutes and he not even mentioned that he picked up a service vehicle.
I did study those two statements and found them a bit odd. So for some reason you have a belief this couple is being investigated. That is complete news to me. HAYLEY MAY CRAWFORD Nuno Conceicao
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: niklasericson on January 08, 2019, 05:55:23 AM
I did study those two statements and found them a bit odd. So for some reason you have a belief this couple is being investigated. That is complete news to me. HAYLEY MAY CRAWFORD Nuno Conceicao
That's my feeling, of course I don't have any insight in the investigation but it would be strange if the detectives investigating an car accident and not ask them again to clarify why there were discrepancies in their statements.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Brietta on January 08, 2019, 03:14:11 PM
I did study those two statements and found them a bit odd. So for some reason you have a belief this couple is being investigated. That is complete news to me. HAYLEY MAY CRAWFORD Nuno Conceicao
Did anyone else, either employee or visitor, mention seeing either of these witnesses?
If not, I think it is an example of why people who were out and about indulging in legitimate activities could become invisible.
Particularly if they were dressed in a recognisable holiday firm livery or even better and or, driving a van displaying a holiday company logo.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Sunny on January 08, 2019, 04:01:00 PM
That is a question you must pose to gunit for a response. http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=10478.msg509262#msg509262 her post makes reference to it here ... which is the first time I have ever seen mention of any named individual carrying out searches any where in areas not specifically connected with Madeleine.
Of course we do know that individuals did knock doors in the apartment blocks, but I am unaware of any being identified.
Weren't you aware that Jez Wilkins was woken up around 1am I think.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: niklasericson on January 08, 2019, 04:20:30 PM
Did anyone else, either employee or visitor, mention seeing either of these witnesses?
If not, I think it is an example of why people who were out and about indulging in legitimate activities could become invisible.
Particularly if they were dressed in a recognisable holiday firm livery or even better and or, driving a van displaying a holiday company logo.
Correct me if wrong but I do not think any witness saw them. Jenny Murat claimed in media she saw a small grey car driving the wrong way street. This couple were driving a grey Peugeot 106. Jenny said she left home for the Supermarket at 19:50 so the time do not match. This Nuno was off duty this evening and they drove away after he got the call from OC so why did he collect a service vehicle AFTER the job was done when he was on the way home? and he also leaves this information out of his statement?
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Eleanor on January 08, 2019, 04:23:32 PM
Correct me if wrong but I do not think any witness saw them. Jenny Murat claimed in media she saw a small grey car driving the wrong way street. This couple were driving a grey Peugeot 106. Jenny said she left home for the Supermarket at 19:50 so the time do not match. This Nuno was off duty this evening and they drove away after he got the call from OC so why did he collect a service vehicle AFTER the job was done when he was on the way home? and he also leaves this information out of his statement?
Good Find, Niklasericson. The whole thing I mean.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Sunny on January 08, 2019, 04:35:48 PM
I have found a link where Jenny Murat claims to have seen a small BROWN rental car going the wrong way down the one way street.
She said she also saw a brown car speeding towards the McCann's apartment that night going the wrong way down a one-way street. "It was a small rental car," she told the BBC.
A quick look at google maps doesn't show any one way streets near to 5a.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Robittybob1 on January 08, 2019, 05:11:08 PM
Misty had raised the issue years ago http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=2705.msg180468#msg180468.
one important bit IMO "- He states that the break-ins to the apartments are common, especially for burglary purposes, and that some are the result of clients leaving their doors open."
Once again there is a spelling error in the title to this file http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/NLNO-CONCEIGAO.htm
Nuno - spelt NLNO and CONCEICAO spelt CONCEIGAO what is it in the index?
They have the correct spelling in the alphabetical index. "NUNO FILIPE GUERREIRO DA CONCEICAO"
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Robittybob1 on January 08, 2019, 05:24:38 PM
Misty also raised Nuno's statement here http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8014.msg390340#msg390340
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Brietta on January 08, 2019, 07:08:38 PM
I have found a link where Jenny Murat claims to have seen a small BROWN rental car going the wrong way down the one way street.
She said she also saw a brown car speeding towards the McCann's apartment that night going the wrong way down a one-way street. "It was a small rental car," she told the BBC.
Correct me if wrong but I do not think any witness saw them. Jenny Murat claimed in media she saw a small grey car driving the wrong way street. This couple were driving a grey Peugeot 106. Jenny said she left home for the Supermarket at 19:50 so the time do not match. This Nuno was off duty this evening and they drove away after he got the call from OC so why did he collect a service vehicle AFTER the job was done when he was on the way home? and he also leaves this information out of his statement?
I do not think you are wrong.
The couple were very active in and around the time and area from which a child vanished and apparently were not seen by anyone ... or at least not recorded in any of the witness statements seen by us.
Mr and Mrs Moyes were returning to their apartment in the same block from which a child vanished at a very relevant time ... yet there are no witness statements from anyone who saw them.
Although the resort was very quiet there was obviously a bit of movement with people moving around going about their lawful business but unseen by anyone else.
Why is it then that the focus was directed so intensely at nine people to the extent that one could be mistaken in thinking that they, their children and Jes wilkins were the only inhabitants of Luz on the evening Madeleine disappeared?
There was a lot going on and there were very very many investigative opportunities which appear to have been overlooked while the McCanns and their friends were exhaustively scrutinised over an extended period.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Miss Taken Identity on January 08, 2019, 08:50:42 PM
In some way it is facts because it can be found in the files so maybe you already know about it but I will not drop any names, this couple are today married and lives in the UK.
Snipped from the files: Element 1 (Female) on the day in question (03.05.07) at around 20h30, her boyfriend was called as there was a problem with a lock in an apartment situated in the northern part of the resort, close to the Millennium restaurant and she had accompanied her boyfriend in her car from her home in Lagos to the apartment in question. After her boyfriend had completed the service, at about 21H00, they went to the resort reception with the aim of her boyfriend collecting a service vehicle. For this purpose, the witness and her boyfriend travelled in her car, a Peugeot model 106, metallic grey in colour, along various roads of the resort, having taken the road adjacent to the pool and Tapas restaurant area, passing by the apartment where Madeleine and her family were staying, according to what she was subsequently informed about the location. When questioned, the witness states that when she travelled along the roads in question, which make up the resort, and principally those which she later learnt were adjacent to the apartment where Madeleine was staying and disappeared from, close to the Tapas restaurant, which she did at about 21H00, (03 May, 2007) the witness states that she saw no vehicle, person or other situation that she considered suspicious that could be directly or indirectly related to the facts being investigated. When asked, the witness states that after her boyfriend had collected a service vehicle, from the Ocean Club reception, which took place at about 21H00, they both went to her home, but in separate vehicles, arriving at about 21H15. ---------------- Element 2 Boyfriend; Snipped from the files: Questioned, he states that, last Thursday, he was off duty but was called by the reception and went to the resort around 020H30 to open a door that had problems. After completing the work for which he was called, which took him about 15 minutes, he left for his residence, and was again contacted, at around 22H15 to ask him if there were torch/flash lights that could be used to help look for a child that had gone missing. The deponent responded that there weren't any and was not called again that night.
------------ The girlfriend says: He was done with the work at 21:00 and after this they were going to the reception because her boyfriend would pick up a service vehicle and after this they were driving home in separate cars.
The boyfriend says: He was done with work at 20:45 and left for his residence.
It was a very short period of time but it differ about ~20-30minutes and he not even mentioned that he picked up a service vehicle.
This is a very interesting theory.
It is interesting you mention inconsistanes in the statements. Ask the supporters- they can fill you in with all the excuses they have mapped out for the inconsistances in the Tapas teams statements!
So, what are we to make of this then. How did they get into the flat...not by jemmied shutters and whooshing curtains by all accounts.. perhaps the unlocked door.... or are we going with MBM leaving the apartment to go get her parents using the unlocked door?
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: G-Unit on January 09, 2019, 08:33:40 AM
Gerry said he had a go at the shutters too; as did Fiona, I think. So we have Kate, Fiona, Gerry and David discussing and moving shutters between 22.05 and 22.15. Rachael is lurking nearby, between the McCann's window and the main entrance. This is just after she and Matt have checked on their daughter. Jane, I assume, is still in her apartment oblivious to what is going on because Rachael is planning to go and tell her about it. So where are Russell and Mathew? Mathew seems to have been around, because Fiona asked him to go and call the police. He mentions Jane, but she was still in her apartment according to Rachael and knew nothing.
we went round to check firstly on Grace to make sure she was okay......and then Jane said, the shutters up........so Fiona, I think, asked me to go and phone the Police, and that must have been about five past, it's difficult to know what time it was at that time, but maybe about ten past ten, five past ten, ten past ten'. http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MATTHEW-OLDFIELD-ROGATORY.htm
Russell described how they all went to the McCann apartment when Kate raised the alarm. He also seems confused about doors;
Reply “Yeah, ‘Some remained at the porch entry’, ‘at the’, erm, I keep saying porch, ‘at the foot of the stairs’, is probably the best one.
Why would Russell even mention the porch entrance? He then says 'the exit'.
I didn’t go into the apartment directly after the alarm had been raised, I don’t think, we just sort of got to the, the exit, some people had gone in....
He then seems to have said;
1578 “’We searched the cul-de-sac area’'”
Who were 'we'? David was by the front window with Gerry, Fiona and Kate according to Rachael. Matt was in the area too, otherwise Fiona couldn't have asked him to go and call the police. So who was with Russell if he was round the corner still hanging around the bottom of those stairs?
(Bolded passages from http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RUSSELL-OBRIEN_ROGATORY.htm)
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Sunny on January 09, 2019, 01:29:40 PM
In some way it is facts because it can be found in the files so maybe you already know about it but I will not drop any names, this couple are today married and lives in the UK.
Snipped from the files: Element 1 (Female) on the day in question (03.05.07) at around 20h30, her boyfriend was called as there was a problem with a lock in an apartment situated in the northern part of the resort, close to the Millennium restaurant and she had accompanied her boyfriend in her car from her home in Lagos to the apartment in question. After her boyfriend had completed the service, at about 21H00, they went to the resort reception with the aim of her boyfriend collecting a service vehicle. For this purpose, the witness and her boyfriend travelled in her car, a Peugeot model 106, metallic grey in colour, along various roads of the resort, having taken the road adjacent to the pool and Tapas restaurant area, passing by the apartment where Madeleine and her family were staying, according to what she was subsequently informed about the location. When questioned, the witness states that when she travelled along the roads in question, which make up the resort, and principally those which she later learnt were adjacent to the apartment where Madeleine was staying and disappeared from, close to the Tapas restaurant, which she did at about 21H00, (03 May, 2007) the witness states that she saw no vehicle, person or other situation that she considered suspicious that could be directly or indirectly related to the facts being investigated. When asked, the witness states that after her boyfriend had collected a service vehicle, from the Ocean Club reception, which took place at about 21H00, they both went to her home, but in separate vehicles, arriving at about 21H15. ---------------- Element 2 Boyfriend; Snipped from the files: Questioned, he states that, last Thursday, he was off duty but was called by the reception and went to the resort around 020H30 to open a door that had problems. After completing the work for which he was called, which took him about 15 minutes, he left for his residence, and was again contacted, at around 22H15 to ask him if there were torch/flash lights that could be used to help look for a child that had gone missing. The deponent responded that there weren't any and was not called again that night.
------------ The girlfriend says: He was done with the work at 21:00 and after this they were going to the reception because her boyfriend would pick up a service vehicle and after this they were driving home in separate cars.
The boyfriend says: He was done with work at 20:45 and left for his residence.
It was a very short period of time but it differ about ~20-30minutes and he not even mentioned that he picked up a service vehicle.
Hi Niklas & welcome to the bright side of the moon.
When leaving the main OC reception, wouldn't both Hayley & Nuno have turned left due to the one-way system on Rua Direita, meaning that they would have headed away from Block 5 rather than passing by it again?
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: niklasericson on January 10, 2019, 08:43:04 AM
Hi Niklas & welcome to the bright side of the moon.
When leaving the main OC reception, wouldn't both Hayley & Nuno have turned left due to the one-way system on Rua Direita, meaning that they would have headed away from Block 5 rather than passing by it again?
Thank you. It's hard to say, it's all very diffuse. He says nothing about any roads and she says: "....along various roads of the resort, having taken the road adjacent to the pool and Tapas restaurant area" What road? The road to the west of OC or to the east, on the one way road? "...the witness states that when she travelled along the roads in question" "along the roads"?? In theory they could have passed the apartment 3 times on the one way road, we don't know from what direction they came from after they left home for Millenium area. And then back to reception and home. If he was off duty, I believe he also had to pick up a key somewhere for the door he was called in to repair or were the guests in the apartment so he didn't need any key?
Imo, if an accident occurred I believe the most likely scenario is if the car came from the north heading to south on the road to the east of block 5.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: G-Unit on January 10, 2019, 09:21:28 AM
Thank you. It's hard to say, it's all very diffuse. He says nothing about any roads and she says: "....along various roads of the resort, having taken the road adjacent to the pool and Tapas restaurant area" What road? The road to the west of OC or to the east, on the one way road? "...the witness states that when she travelled along the roads in question" "along the roads"?? In theory they could have passed the apartment 3 times on the one way road, we don't know from what direction they came from after they left home for Millenium area. And then back to reception and home. If he was off duty, I believe he also had to pick up a key somewhere for the door he was called in to repair or were the guests in the apartment so he didn't need any key?
Imo, if an accident occurred I believe the most likely scenario is if the car came from the north heading to south on the road to the east of block 5.
At approximately 21.00 they left PdL and returned to Lagos. At 21.05 Gerry saw Madeleine sleeping in her bed, then he spent around 5 minutes outside the apartment speaking to Jez.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: ShiningInLuz on January 10, 2019, 09:30:12 AM
Please note.
If you know what you are doing it is possible to 'bypass' Rua Direita to go south and west, rather than east.
I have no reason to believe anyone did this. I doubt very much that the GNR response team knew of this route.
Consequently, I believe the response team passed 5A to get to OC reception.
And I believe they headed east on Rua Direita when they went with Gerry from OC reception to get to 5A.
Without talking to one of the individuals involved, I cannot be 100% certain of the routes taken.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: G-Unit on January 12, 2019, 07:34:52 AM
When Matthew and Russell wnet ti check at 9.25-30 I thought they planned to enter the apartments. I wonder why Russell passed the entrance to Block 5 and listened at his window? Did he only enter the apartment because he heard noise?
I made erm a single trip back to the flat, err and then returned and that was err with Matthew OLDFIELD at about sort of twenty five past nine, somewhere around there. On that visit it was clear listening at the window that Evie had woken up http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RUSSELL-OBRIEN_ROGATORY.htm
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Robittybob1 on January 12, 2019, 10:08:40 AM
When Matthew and Russell wnet ti check at 9.25-30 I thought they planned to enter the apartments. I wonder why Russell passed the entrance to Block 5 and listened at his window? Did he only enter the apartment because he heard noise?
I made erm a single trip back to the flat, err and then returned and that was err with Matthew OLDFIELD at about sort of twenty five past nine, somewhere around there. On that visit it was clear listening at the window that Evie had woken up http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RUSSELL-OBRIEN_ROGATORY.htm
Why would they need to do more than that?
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: G-Unit on January 12, 2019, 10:39:12 AM
Sometimes they just listened and sometimes they went into the apartments. Judging by Russell's statement he didn't intend to go in, just to listen at the window. Was that Matthew's intention also? He had taken it upon himself to listen at the McCann's window at 9pm, purely because he was near to it;
4078 'Was that the first time that you had taken it upon yourself to check on somebody else's child''
Reply 'Yeah, I'd not done it before, it was only because, you know, I was there and I was, and it may not have happened if I'd actually gone in and checked on Grace through the room, you know, I might not have just been next to their shutter in terms of to actually have a listen, you know, I was just there, it was only like four steps further. But, no, I didn't, even though we now knew each other for the week and I felt a bit more comfortable about their kids knowing me, as I said before, erm, I wouldn't normally sort of impose that sort of check on somebody else unless they'd, erm, unless they'd suggested it. It'd be almost like a step, not a step too far, but, erm, it's not really our place to, you know, to do that'. http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MATTHEW-OLDFIELD-ROGATORY.htm
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: faithlilly on January 12, 2019, 10:54:53 AM
Sometimes they just listened and sometimes they went into the apartments. Judging by Russell's statement he didn't intend to go in, just to listen at the window. Was that Matthew's intention also? He had taken it upon himself to listen at the McCann's window at 9pm, purely because he was near to it;
4078 'Was that the first time that you had taken it upon yourself to check on somebody else's child''
Reply 'Yeah, I'd not done it before, it was only because, you know, I was there and I was, and it may not have happened if I'd actually gone in and checked on Grace through the room, you know, I might not have just been next to their shutter in terms of to actually have a listen, you know, I was just there, it was only like four steps further. But, no, I didn't, even though we now knew each other for the week and I felt a bit more comfortable about their kids knowing me, as I said before, erm, I wouldn't normally sort of impose that sort of check on somebody else unless they'd, erm, unless they'd suggested it. It'd be almost like a step, not a step too far, but, erm, it's not really our place to, you know, to do that'. http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MATTHEW-OLDFIELD-ROGATORY.htm
Is there any evidence that either of the McCanns specifically suggested Oldfield enter their apartment?
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: G-Unit on January 12, 2019, 11:38:20 AM
Is there any evidence that either of the McCanns specifically suggested Oldfield enter their apartment?
In his frst statement Marrhew says he went in, but not why. He also says there were two windows in the bedroom. Another thing he says is that the whole group went into the apartment after Kate raised the alarm;
Then, the whole group went to Madeleine's bedroom and checked that the twins were sleeping OK. That there was no sign of a burglary in the apartment. Only one window in the childrens' bedroom was open. The window was open and the respective shutter http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MATTHEW-OLDFIELD.htm
In his 10th May statement je says this;
At that time he offered [made himself available] to perform a check in the bedroom of MBM. .......he deponent explained that both [men] had suggested that KM remain in the restaurant [they] assuming the responsibility of verifying the children.
Nonetheless, and the question asked, he relates not being able to state exactly if the suggestion was made by himself or by ROB, adding not being able to clarify why it was done, he deponent explained that both [men] had suggested that KM remain in the restaurant [they] assuming the responsibility of verifying the children. http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MATTHEW-OLDFIELD-10MAY.htm
This seems to have been news to Russell. In his first statement he doesn't mention it;
He believes that Matthew Oldfield went to his apartment, and is not aware if he was going to also check on the McCann children http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RUSSELL-OBRIEN.htm
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Mr Gray on January 12, 2019, 11:40:12 AM
In his frst statement Marrhew says he went in, but not why. He also says there were two windows in the bedroom. Another thing he says is that the whole group went into the apartment after Kate raised the alarm;
Then, the whole group went to Madeleine's bedroom and checked that the twins were sleeping OK. That there was no sign of a burglary in the apartment. Only one window in the childrens' bedroom was open. The window was open and the respective shutter http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MATTHEW-OLDFIELD.htm
In his 10th May statement je says this;
At that time he offered [made himself available] to perform a check in the bedroom of MBM. .......he deponent explained that both [men] had suggested that KM remain in the restaurant [they] assuming the responsibility of verifying the children.
Nonetheless, and the question asked, he relates not being able to state exactly if the suggestion was made by himself or by ROB, adding not being able to clarify why it was done, he deponent explained that both [men] had suggested that KM remain in the restaurant [they] assuming the responsibility of verifying the children. http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MATTHEW-OLDFIELD-10MAY.htm
This seems to have been news to Russell. In his first statement he doesn't mention it;
He believes that Matthew Oldfield went to his apartment, and is not aware if he was going to also check on the McCann children http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RUSSELL-OBRIEN.htm
Have you considered that due to translation issues these statements may not be accurate... If they are not which I think is highly probable based on how they were taken... Sutton agrees, with this... Then your conclusions, are, suspect
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Miss Taken Identity on January 13, 2019, 11:00:16 PM
Have you considered that due to translation issues these statements may not be accurate... If they are not which I think is highly probable based on how they were taken... Sutton agrees, with this... Then your conclusions, are, suspect
The timeline and the interviews on TV were in English... And let us not forget that wee 'misunderstanding' about JT walking past Gerry and Jez, and they didn't see her as it happens she saw them and an abductor within seconds and the men saw nothing... Hmm
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on January 23, 2019, 06:06:51 PM
The thing is if they are looking at woke and wandered why were the windows and shutters open, as detailed by Kate ?
Classic tactic....don’t look over here.....the only question is why now ?
Well two months has elapsed since this "absolutely hilarious" story broke. Some believed that it presaged BIG NEWS and Kate and Gerry were behind this all to manage our expectations....
So....how much longer do we have to wait?
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on January 23, 2019, 06:17:00 PM
What is "Phase 2" and how long before you expect it to kick in? It's been two months now...
Angelo, have we entered Phase 2 yet? Only it’s now been 8 months, so...
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: John on May 26, 2019, 02:41:12 PM
Some posts have been unnecessarily aggressive and combative recently which is not conducive to constructive debate. By all means promote opinion and explore theories as long as such are based on facts and accepted understanding.
Finally, please keep posts amicable and informative at all times. TY.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Angelo222 on May 26, 2019, 03:38:49 PM
They are coming round to this reality slowly but it is the only theory which has any evidence to back it up. The McCanns have always denied that this could have happened for obvious reasons.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Brietta on May 26, 2019, 04:07:51 PM
They are coming round to this reality slowly but it is the only theory which has any evidence to back it up. The McCanns have always denied that this could have happened for obvious reasons.
I think if Kate and Gerry had any other agenda than finding out what happened to their daughter they would have leapt at the "explanation" of woke and wandered.
But since that has proved to be a dead end as far as explaining what happened to Madeleine is concerned ... I think their only hope for resolution is the current police investigations both of which are looking for an abductor.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Angelo222 on May 26, 2019, 04:15:15 PM
I think if Kate and Gerry had any other agenda than finding out what happened to their daughter they would have leapt at the "explanation" of woke and wandered.
But since that has proved to be a dead end as far as explaining what happened to Madeleine is concerned ... I think their only hope for resolution is the current police investigations both of which are looking for an abductor.
With due respect Brietta, I don't know where you get the notion that the woke and wandered theory is a dead end because in reality it is very live and kicking. The fact that Jim Gamble has now had to acknowledge that it is a very real possibility is very telling imo.
The difficulty for Maddie's parents though is that woke and wandered if proven will only highlight their neglect.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: G-Unit on May 26, 2019, 04:29:18 PM
I think if Kate and Gerry had any other agenda than finding out what happened to their daughter they would have leapt at the "explanation" of woke and wandered.
But since that has proved to be a dead end as far as explaining what happened to Madeleine is concerned ... I think their only hope for resolution is the current police investigations both of which are looking for an abductor.
I have seen nothing which confirms that the PJ are looking for an abductor.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Brietta on May 26, 2019, 05:18:54 PM
With due respect Brietta, I don't know where you get the notion that the woke and wandered theory is a dead end because in reality it is very live and kicking. The fact that Jim Gamble has now had to acknowledge that it is a very real possibility is very telling imo.
The difficulty for Maddie's parents though is that woke and wandered if proven will only highlight their neglect.
One issue the archiving report could not have been more concise about was in clearing Kate and Gerry of any question of the crime of neglect or abandonment of the children.
The archiving report goes out of its way to eliminated it from the range of crimes being considered in relation to the disappearance of Madeleine.
The system of checking which was in place was considered by the report's authors to be enough to dismiss the suggestion that the children were abandoned or neglected. The parents just didn't foresee that the supervisory model they adopted would ultimately prove to be inadequate.
Since that was the ruling of the time ... I don't see it holding any fears for Kate and Gerry at any time, particularly now ... and as we know, Bennett's attempt to institute proceedings in England against them ... also fell on deaf ears.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: G-Unit on May 26, 2019, 06:04:19 PM
One issue the archiving report could not have been more concise about was in clearing Kate and Gerry of any question of the crime of neglect or abandonment of the children.
The archiving report goes out of its way to eliminated it from the range of crimes being considered in relation to the disappearance of Madeleine.
The system of checking which was in place was considered by the report's authors to be enough to dismiss the suggestion that the children were abandoned or neglected. The parents just didn't foresee that the supervisory model they adopted would ultimately prove to be inadequate.
Since that was the ruling of the time ... I don't see it holding any fears for Kate and Gerry at any time, particularly now ... and as we know, Bennett's attempt to institute proceedings in England against them ... also fell on deaf ears.
We don't know why the Public Prosecutor (s) decided not to pursue the neglect issue. We do know that not all the Portuguese agreed with their decision.
We know that the UK Social Services visited the family when they returned home. We don't know what the outcome of that visit was.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Robittybob1 on May 26, 2019, 07:08:47 PM
We don't know why the Public Prosecutor (s) decided not to pursue the neglect issue. We do know that not all the Portuguese agreed with their decision.
We know that the UK Social Services visited the family when they returned home. We don't know what the outcome of that visit was.
Well we do know that the twins were not taken from the parents.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Angelo222 on May 26, 2019, 07:42:13 PM
One issue the archiving report could not have been more concise about was in clearing Kate and Gerry of any question of the crime of neglect or abandonment of the children.
The archiving report goes out of its way to eliminated it from the range of crimes being considered in relation to the disappearance of Madeleine.
The system of checking which was in place was considered by the report's authors to be enough to dismiss the suggestion that the children were abandoned or neglected. The parents just didn't foresee that the supervisory model they adopted would ultimately prove to be inadequate.
Since that was the ruling of the time ... I don't see it holding any fears for Kate and Gerry at any time, particularly now ... and as we know, Bennett's attempt to institute proceedings in England against them ... also fell on deaf ears.
The archiving report could only consider neglect in the context of the children being left unattended, it did not consider whether the actions of her parents contributed to the disappearance. The report was also very clear in that it could not come to a conclusion as to the parents direct involvement in the disappearance because of the refusal of their friends to assist the enquiry.
The investigation has now moved on, it is becoming very clear that the child was not abducted by an intruder as the parents have always claimed. IMO what comes next in the current investigation could very well blow the lid on everything that has gone before.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Brietta on May 26, 2019, 11:41:40 PM
The archiving report could only consider neglect in the context of the children being left unattended, it did not consider whether the actions of her parents contributed to the disappearance. The report was also very clear in that it could not come to a conclusion as to the parents direct involvement in the disappearance because of the refusal of their friends to assist the enquiry.
The investigation has now moved on, it is becoming very clear that the child was not abducted by an intruder as the parents have always claimed. IMO what comes next in the current investigation could very well blow the lid on everything that has gone before.
I think we all may have been misled by a total misunderstanding or it may even be a misrepresentation of what was actually said in the archiving document by the Attorney General if I am following correctly a previous discussion on the forum:
Snip
There seems to be some kind of misapprehension that the writer of the Archival Report is stating the the McCanns failed to prove their innocence. This just is not the case. Legal authorities such as Prosecutors and Attorney Generals would not be so ignorant of the law.
The reason for this misapprehension comes from people like you deliberately (or through shambolic ignorance) mis-quoting the relevant section of the report and moreover doing so without reference to the context.
Your mis-quotation is: "they failed to prove what they insisted since the beginning, that they were innocent"
The actual text is: "We believe that the main damage was caused to the McCann arguidos, who lost the possibility to prove what they have protested since they were constituted arguidos: their innocence towards the fateful event; the investigation was also disturbed, because said facts remain unclarified."
Those reading and comparing will see that you have twisted the meaning which in context will be seen to be much clearer.
The context being that the writer is referring to the lack of a reconstruction and is stating that this lack caused damage to the McCanns, not that the McCanns caused damage to themselves.
At no point did the McCanns refuse a reconstruction.
To go from this mis-quotation and twisting as you have done and to suggest the bizarre notion that the Portuguese authorities are claiming that innocent people should have to prove that innocence is risible. Lawyers understand that is not the case even if you don't.
When there is no evidence of any crime by a person, when there are no charges against that person then that person in a civilised society such as Portugal claims to be, have the right to be presumed innocent.
When you show that you or the police have evidence enough to charge either of the McCanns then maybe they will become suspects again. Till then, I repeat they are presumed innocent and it is libel to claim them guilty of any crime.
I believe I have demonstrated a more accurate reading of the files than you have done. Your mis-quotation shows a very flimsy regard to the content of the files.
I repeat that they have been specifically cleared of the crime of neglect/abandonment because the authorities have demonstrated that no such crime occurred.
I will also correct you in that they are not "the first and only suspects" in this case. The archived case has no current suspects at all or it would not be archived. Should some evidence appear incriminating anyone then that person/persons would be the prime suspects. And in the case of the parallel investigation from Scotland Yard, you appear unaware that the McCanns and the Tapas group have specifically been named as not being suspects or persons of interest. Your comment is therefore simply wrong both within Portugal and within the UK. http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=2001.msg66153#msg66153
Anne Guedes confirms Gilet's translation:
Snip
Yes, the AG report says "they lost the possibility to prove" and not "they failed to prove". http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=2001.msg66155#msg66155
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Eleanor on May 27, 2019, 08:36:29 AM
We don't know why the Public Prosecutor (s) decided not to pursue the neglect issue. We do know that not all the Portuguese agreed with their decision.
We know that the UK Social Services visited the family when they returned home. We don't know what the outcome of that visit was.
Did he not say that there was No Intent?
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Eleanor on May 27, 2019, 08:38:13 AM
Excellent, Brietta. And already posted and verified here.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: G-Unit on May 27, 2019, 09:23:25 AM
As I said, others in Portugal thought there was a case to answer;
Former minister of internal affairs Rui Pereira slammed Portuguese cops for not making Kate, 48, and 47-year-old dad Gerry suspects for abandonment. https://www.thesun.co.uk/archives/news/1151476/revealed-why-the-portuguese-police-didnt-charge-mccanns-for-childrens-abandonment-after-maddie-disappeared/
Ricardo Paiva; “They should have been pursued for neglect. People have been arrested for far less – even in the UK.” https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/portugal/6974917/Madeleine-McCanns-death-covered-up-by-parents-who-faked-kidnap-court-hears.html
British people agreed; according to media lawyer Mark Lewis, who said the parents might have been charged with child neglect had they come from a less privileged background. Read more at https://talkradio.co.uk/news/madeleine-mccann-if-parents-had-been-black-and-council-estate-they-might-have-been-charged#IEfM6OfDyIMIpMxP.99
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Brietta on May 27, 2019, 09:24:33 AM
Excellent, Brietta. And already posted and verified here.
I think the standard of that post from Gilet typifies John's recent post requiring members to ... " ... please keep posts amicable and informative at all times. TY."
It certainly is informative and Anne's imprimatur of it demonstrates her impartiality and interest in the accuracy of postings here ... and I think confirms the ethos and reputation of this forum for posting factually validated information.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Eleanor on May 27, 2019, 09:26:03 AM
As I said, others in Portugal thought there was a case to answer;
Former minister of internal affairs Rui Pereira slammed Portuguese cops for not making Kate, 48, and 47-year-old dad Gerry suspects for abandonment. https://www.thesun.co.uk/archives/news/1151476/revealed-why-the-portuguese-police-didnt-charge-mccanns-for-childrens-abandonment-after-maddie-disappeared/
Ricardo Paiva; “They should have been pursued for neglect. People have been arrested for far less – even in the UK.” https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/portugal/6974917/Madeleine-McCanns-death-covered-up-by-parents-who-faked-kidnap-court-hears.html
British people agreed; according to media lawyer Mark Lewis, who said the parents might have been charged with child neglect had they come from a less privileged background. Read more at https://talkradio.co.uk/news/madeleine-mccann-if-parents-had-been-black-and-council-estate-they-might-have-been-charged#IEfM6OfDyIMIpMxP.99
It wasn't for them to decide, was it.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on May 27, 2019, 09:29:27 AM
I think the standard of that post from Gilet typifies John's recent post requiring members to ... " ... please keep posts amicable and informative at all times. TY."
It certainly is informative and Anne's imprimatur of it demonstrates her impartiality and interest in the accuracy of postings here ... and I think confirms the ethos and reputation of this forum for posting factually validated information.
Bring back Gilet, a truly excellent member of this forum!
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: jassi on May 27, 2019, 09:30:35 AM
As I said, others in Portugal thought there was a case to answer;
Former minister of internal affairs Rui Pereira slammed Portuguese cops for not making Kate, 48, and 47-year-old dad Gerry suspects for abandonment. https://www.thesun.co.uk/archives/news/1151476/revealed-why-the-portuguese-police-didnt-charge-mccanns-for-childrens-abandonment-after-maddie-disappeared/
Ricardo Paiva; “They should have been pursued for neglect. People have been arrested for far less – even in the UK.” https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/portugal/6974917/Madeleine-McCanns-death-covered-up-by-parents-who-faked-kidnap-court-hears.html
British people agreed; according to media lawyer Mark Lewis, who said the parents might have been charged with child neglect had they come from a less privileged background. Read more at https://talkradio.co.uk/news/madeleine-mccann-if-parents-had-been-black-and-council-estate-they-might-have-been-charged#IEfM6OfDyIMIpMxP.99
The Judicial police ~ the Public Prosecutors and the Attorney General of Portugal were instrumental in issuing legal documentation which confirmed the innocence of Kate and Gerry McCann ... and Robert Murat ... of any involvement in Madeleine's disappearance ... and in the case of Kate and Gerry of abandonment or neglect.
The archiving report drew the line under the Amaral hysteria and the failed investigation of 2007 and opened the door for her parents to invigorate a continued search for Madeleine.
That was the start of a completely new phase. Kate and Gerry's endeavours on Madeleine's behalf ultimately bore fruit with Scotland Yard and the Policia Judiciaria taking over with two formal police investigations in 2013 which continues till this day.
I have no idea why the investigation is still a live one after all these years ... but I expect we will eventually discover that there is a lot of meat on the bones. Two national police forces just do not have the time or resources to devote to a case ... nor would they be allowed to ... unless it is very much in the public interest.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on May 27, 2019, 09:48:18 AM
Why would anyone ? However we do seem to have had several reincarnations over the years
Gilet still has an active account. It would be good for this forum if they started posting again as they made excellent contributions to the discussions.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Eleanor on May 27, 2019, 09:52:55 AM
Gilet still has an active account. It would be good for this forum if they started posting again as they made excellent contributions to the discussions.
Like a lot of us, she probably got fed up with repeating known facts. However, Gilet's contributions were way better than mine.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Brietta on May 27, 2019, 10:24:49 AM
As I said, others in Portugal thought there was a case to answer;
Former minister of internal affairs Rui Pereira slammed Portuguese cops for not making Kate, 48, and 47-year-old dad Gerry suspects for abandonment. https://www.thesun.co.uk/archives/news/1151476/revealed-why-the-portuguese-police-didnt-charge-mccanns-for-childrens-abandonment-after-maddie-disappeared/
Ricardo Paiva; “They should have been pursued for neglect. People have been arrested for far less – even in the UK.” https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/portugal/6974917/Madeleine-McCanns-death-covered-up-by-parents-who-faked-kidnap-court-hears.html
British people agreed; according to media lawyer Mark Lewis, who said the parents might have been charged with child neglect had they come from a less privileged background. Read more at https://talkradio.co.uk/news/madeleine-mccann-if-parents-had-been-black-and-council-estate-they-might-have-been-charged#IEfM6OfDyIMIpMxP.99
Don't you think the Attorney General addressed the comments made in the cites you have provided which which clearly contradict his legal ruling making them total irrelevances?
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: G-Unit on May 27, 2019, 11:22:29 AM
Don't you think the Attorney General addressed the comments made in the cites you have provided which which clearly contradict his legal ruling making them total irrelevances?
I don't know what the Attorney General said, do you have a cite?
The prosecutors reasons for their decision not to charge the McCanns with abandonment or neglect were confused imo.
Despite being unable to identify the crime committed against Madeleine, they said this;
"The parents didn't even represent the realisation of the fact, they trusted that everything would go well, as it had gone on the previous evenings, thus not equating, nor was it demanded from them, the possibility of the occurrence of an abduction of any of the children that were in their respective apartments."
Abduction hasn't been shown to have taken place, so how can it be used to justify the psrent's actions?
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on May 27, 2019, 11:28:31 AM
I don't know what the Attorney General said, do you have a cite?
The prosecutors reasons for their decision not to charge the McCanns with abandonment or neglect were confused imo.
Despite being unable to identify the crime committed against Madeleine, they said this;
"The parents didn't even represent the realisation of the fact, they trusted that everything would go well, as it had gone on the previous evenings, thus not equating, nor was it demanded from them, the possibility of the occurrence of an abduction of any of the children that were in their respective apartments."
Abduction hasn't been shown to have taken place, so how can it be used to justify the psrent's actions?
The prosecutors seem to realise that abduction was the most likely possibility, even if you don't.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on May 27, 2019, 11:38:13 AM
"The parents didn't even represent the realisation of the fact, they trusted that everything would go well, as it had gone on the previous evenings, thus not equating, nor was it demanded from them, the possibility of the occurrence of an abduction of any of the children that were in their respective apartments."
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Robittybob1 on May 27, 2019, 11:40:56 AM
I don't know what the Attorney General said, do you have a cite?
The prosecutors reasons for their decision not to charge the McCanns with abandonment or neglect were confused imo.
Despite being unable to identify the crime committed against Madeleine, they said this;
"The parents didn't even represent the realisation of the fact, they trusted that everything would go well, as it had gone on the previous evenings, thus not equating, nor was it demanded from them, the possibility of the occurrence of an abduction of any of the children that were in their respective apartments."
Abduction hasn't been shown to have taken place, so how can it be used to justify the parent's actions?
"the possibility of the occurrence of an abduction of any of the children that were in their respective apartments" makes it sound that if the McCanns were to be charged they would need to consider charge each parent "of any of the children that were in their respective apartments".
So either no one charged or all 4 families charged.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Robittybob1 on May 27, 2019, 11:42:46 AM
The word "seem" makes it an opinion and we don't expect cites for opinions, sorry. VS said "The prosecutors seem to realise that abduction was the most likely possibility, even if you don't".
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on May 27, 2019, 11:46:05 AM
The prosecutors seem to realise that abduction was the most likely possibility, even if you don't.
What they're doing, just as the McCanns did, is ignoring all the pther reasons why small children shouldn't be left alone. Fear of abduction is not the only or even the main reason not to do that,
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Robittybob1 on May 27, 2019, 11:49:34 AM
Being the obliging sort, I supplied one anyway. Should have just written "Roger Moore" now, I realise.
Personally it seemed to me that your attempt at providing a cite to prove "the prosecutors seem to realise that abduction was the most likely possibility" was a fail.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on May 27, 2019, 11:51:30 AM
Personally it seemed to me that your attempt at providing a cite to prove "the prosecutors seem to realise that abduction was the most likely possibility" was a fail.
Thanks for sharing your opinion. I disagree, as it would seem does G-Unit.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Robittybob1 on May 27, 2019, 11:52:45 AM
What they're doing, just as the McCanns did, is ignoring all the pther reasons why small children shouldn't be left alone. Fear of abduction is not the only or even the main reason not to do that,
So do you feel the 4 Tapas 9 families should have been charged with child neglect or such like that?
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on May 27, 2019, 11:53:18 AM
What they're doing, just as the McCanns did, is ignoring all the pther reasons why small children shouldn't be left alone. Fear of abduction is not the only or even the main reason not to do that,
What is the main reason?
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: G-Unit on May 27, 2019, 11:53:43 AM
"the possibility of the occurrence of an abduction of any of the children that were in their respective apartments" makes it sound that if the McCanns were to be charged they would need to consider charge each parent "of any of the children that were in their respective apartments".
So either no one charged or all 4 families charged.
A very good point. They were all equally at fault, although the McCanns allegedly went a step further by leaving their apartment less secure.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on May 27, 2019, 11:55:18 AM
That takes you right back to the old Jim Gamble paradox. How can someone with an operational insight of the case plausibly believe the child may have woke and wandered and exclude a staged abduction at the same time? That's what he has done publicly but he must know Madeleine's prints weren't on the window. IMO given his insight of the case by admitting the possibility that the child may have wandered from an unlocked apartment, he has to either be directly or indirectly admitting the possibility that there is more to this than has ever been revealed.
What other PLAUSIBLE excuses could there be for the window and the shutter? Now we take the giant leap into complete fantasy IMO.
I'm sure there other causes.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Robittybob1 on May 27, 2019, 11:57:59 AM
So do you feel the 4 Tapas 9 families should have been charged with child neglect or such like that?
I think that may have entered into the prosecutor's mind as something to be taken into account. To charge them all with neglect would have been extrenely difficult at that late stage.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Brietta on May 27, 2019, 12:40:43 PM
I don't know what the Attorney General said, do you have a cite?
The prosecutors reasons for their decision not to charge the McCanns with abandonment or neglect were confused imo.
Despite being unable to identify the crime committed against Madeleine, they said this;
"The parents didn't even represent the realisation of the fact, they trusted that everything would go well, as it had gone on the previous evenings, thus not equating, nor was it demanded from them, the possibility of the occurrence of an abduction of any of the children that were in their respective apartments."
Abduction hasn't been shown to have taken place, so how can it be used to justify the psrent's actions?
Please don't do that ... it really does present you in a bad light to obfuscate the document which archived Madeleine's case and set the stage for Amaral to release his book outwith a decent interval.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on May 27, 2019, 12:41:38 PM
If I'm picking Rob up correctly, the idea that a burglar breezed into the apartment and proceeded to squeeze their way past the cots to open the window and then done a runner out one of the doors, before the missing child woke and walked out the apartment, to meet an innocent fate that has never been detected in more than 12 years, strikes me as complete fantasy.
You can beg to differ if you like, but IMO, that more than merits a 10/10 for fantasy.
I would say that shutters and window open from the outside in an attempted break-in is less fantastical and certainly not remotely humorous.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Robittybob1 on May 27, 2019, 12:44:12 PM
If I'm picking Rob up correctly, the idea that a burglar breezed into the apartment and proceeded to squeeze their way past the cots to open the window and then done a runner out one of the doors, before the missing child woke and walked out the apartment, to meet an innocent fate that has never been detected in more than 12 years, strikes me as complete fantasy.
You can beg to differ if you like, but IMO, that more than merits a 10/10 for fantasy.
You added to what I said had happened in the burglary.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Brietta on May 27, 2019, 12:51:39 PM
What they're doing, just as the McCanns did, is ignoring all the pther reasons why small children shouldn't be left alone. Fear of abduction is not the only or even the main reason not to do that,
Just as you are totally ignoring the ruling made by the Attorney General in the Archiving document that , that as Gilet paraphrased ... "I repeat that they have been specifically cleared of the crime of neglect/abandonment because the authorities have demonstrated that no such crime occurred."
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: G-Unit on May 27, 2019, 01:37:27 PM
Please don't do that ... it really does present you in a bad light to obfuscate the document which archived Madeleine's case and set the stage for Amaral to release his book outwith a decent interval.
How am I obfuscating the archiving document? I'm quoting from it.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Brietta on May 27, 2019, 01:50:54 PM
Is that your opinion or have you found any such statistics?
It's my opinion but it is a pretty logical one. Consider all the nights your children slept soundly in their beds while you were in the house. Now imagine you had not been there. How many of those nights where your children slept soundly in their beds would have resulted in accidental injury death or abduction had you been sat 100 metres away between the hours of 8pm and 12pm? As a percentage, what do you think?
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: ShiningInLuz on May 27, 2019, 02:46:05 PM
It's my opinion but it is a pretty logical one. Consider all the nights your children slept soundly in their beds while you were in the house. Now imagine you had not been there. How many of those nights where your children slept soundly in their beds would have resulted in accidental injury death or abduction had you been sat 100 metres away between the hours of 8pm and 12pm? As a percentage, what do you think?
I know at the ages of Amelie, Sean and Madeleine, every mother in our family was an ardent user of a baby monitor. Perhaps other families are different?
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: G-Unit on May 27, 2019, 02:57:55 PM
It's my opinion but it is a pretty logical one. Consider all the nights your children slept soundly in their beds while you were in the house. Now imagine you had not been there. How many of those nights where your children slept soundly in their beds would have resulted in accidental injury death or abduction had you been sat 100 metres away between the hours of 8pm and 12pm? As a percentage, what do you think?
You seem to be advocating gambling with children's safety and well-being.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: slartibartfast on May 27, 2019, 03:23:45 PM
I know at the ages of Amelie, Sean and Madeleine, every mother in our family was an ardent user of a baby monitor. Perhaps other families are different?
Us too. Our baby monitor never once alerted us to the fact that our children were in difficulty, injured or about to be abducted, only that they were awake and hungry.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Eleanor on May 27, 2019, 03:41:56 PM
In my opinion it's obfuscation to repeatedly insinuate that the Attorney General wrote the archiving report.
I think you are putting words in my mouth yet again.
You made the claim the Attorney General "wrote".
Please indicate in which post you think I have made such a claim ... I don't think you will be able to ... but the proof of the pudding etc. Let's see it. Thank you
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Angelo222 on May 27, 2019, 07:00:44 PM
Woke and Wandered is the topic.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Eleanor on May 27, 2019, 07:02:11 PM
That takes you right back to the old Jim Gamble paradox. How can someone with an operational insight of the case plausibly believe the child may have woke and wandered and exclude a staged abduction at the same time? That's what he has done publicly but he must know Madeleine's prints weren't on the window. IMO given his insight of the case by admitting the possibility that the child may have wandered from an unlocked apartment, he has to either be directly or indirectly admitting the possibility that there is more to this than has ever been revealed.
What other PLAUSIBLE excuses could there be for the window and the shutter? Now we take the giant leap into complete fantasy IMO.
There are several possibilities as to why the children's bedroom shutter was raised and the window was open, assuming they were of course because we only have Kate McCann's say-so that they were. Given that only Kate McCann's fingerprints were found on the window I know what I believe.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on May 27, 2019, 07:20:57 PM
There are several possibilities as to why the children's bedroom shutter was raised and the window was open, assuming they were of course because we only have Kate McCann's say-so that they were. Given that only Kate McCann's fingerprints were found on the window I know what I believe.
But what you believe is quite implausible, IMO.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: G-Unit on May 27, 2019, 07:25:30 PM
I think you are putting words in my mouth yet again.
You made the claim the Attorney General "wrote".
Please indicate in which post you think I have made such a claim ... I don't think you will be able to ... but the proof of the pudding etc. Let's see it. Thank you
snip/ " the ruling made by the Attorney General in the Archiving document " http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=10478.msg531017#msg531017
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: The General on May 27, 2019, 09:07:39 PM
snip/ " the ruling made by the Attorney General in the Archiving document " http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=10478.msg531017#msg531017
You really think " the ruling made by the Attorney General in the Archiving document " equates to what you posted "I don't know what the Attorney General said ... ??
What he did say was ... Snip "Police have completed their final report of the so-called 'Maddie case', which will be carefully analyzed," the Portuguese Attorney General said in a statement. https://domtotal.com/noticia/13327/2008/07/polacia-portuguesa-conclui-relatario-sobre-caso-madeleine/
It appears that little or no credence was given to the 'woke and wandered' notion in the final report or subsequently in the archiving document ... Snip As a remote hypothesis, the possibility of the minor leaving the apartment by her own means was explored – that would be highly unlikely physically – and after, because of an accident or by a third person intervention, she would have disappeared. http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/PJ_Report_English_Translation.pdf
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Robittybob1 on May 28, 2019, 05:22:37 AM
On what basis would they think it highly unlikely physically, when in fact the front door wasn't deadlocked and could easily be opened from the inside. I had a whole thread exploring this. Combine this with the fact that the tracking dogs traced her on two occasions to the car park opposite the secondary reception it appears that is evidence that she "because of an accident or by a third person intervention, she would have disappeared".
I am convinced "the Attorney General in the Archiving document" got it wrong.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: G-Unit on May 28, 2019, 07:48:24 AM
You really think " the ruling made by the Attorney General in the Archiving document " equates to what you posted "I don't know what the Attorney General said ... ??
What he did say was ... Snip "Police have completed their final report of the so-called 'Maddie case', which will be carefully analyzed," the Portuguese Attorney General said in a statement. https://domtotal.com/noticia/13327/2008/07/polacia-portuguesa-conclui-relatario-sobre-caso-madeleine/
It appears that little or no credence was given to the 'woke and wandered' notion in the final report or subsequently in the archiving document ... Snip As a remote hypothesis, the possibility of the minor leaving the apartment by her own means was explored – that would be highly unlikely physically – and after, because of an accident or by a third person intervention, she would have disappeared. http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/PJ_Report_English_Translation.pdf
Thank you for replying, although I must admit I don't understand the relevance of the post. I'm still of the opinion that the Attorney General had no input into the Archiving document.
As to woke and wandered, perhaps the first investiigation's conclusions have been superceded by new thinking? As you have said, that was 12 years ago and I find it credible that the two new investigations may have moved on from previous theories.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Robittybob1 on May 28, 2019, 08:57:45 AM
Thank you for replying, although I must admit I don't understand the relevance of the post. I'm still of the opinion that the Attorney General had no input into the Archiving document.
As to woke and wandered, perhaps the first investigation's conclusions have been superseded by new thinking? As you have said, that was 12 years ago and I find it credible that the two new investigations may have moved on from previous theories.
If he signed off the document, let's say he had some input.
"b) The archiving of the Process concerning Arguidos Gerald Patrick McCann and Kate Marie Healy, because there are no indications of the practise of any crime under the dispositions of article 277 number 1 of the Penal Process Code.
Article 277 number 3 of the Penal Process Code is to be fulfilled.
Under article 214 number 1 item a) of the Penal Process Code, the coercion measures that have been imposed on the arguidos are declared extinct.
Portimão, 21.07.08
The Republic's Prosecutor
(José de Magalhaes e Menezes)
The Joint General Prosecutor
(signature)
(Joao Melchior Gomes)"
Where does the Attorney General come into it? There is the subtitle "Letter to the Attorney General regarding investigation details" So it is notice to him rather than a notice by him.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: G-Unit on May 28, 2019, 11:07:51 AM
If he signed off the document, let's say he had some input.
"b) The archiving of the Process concerning Arguidos Gerald Patrick McCann and Kate Marie Healy, because there are no indications of the practise of any crime under the dispositions of article 277 number 1 of the Penal Process Code.
Article 277 number 3 of the Penal Process Code is to be fulfilled.
Under article 214 number 1 item a) of the Penal Process Code, the coercion measures that have been imposed on the arguidos are declared extinct.
Portimão, 21.07.08
The Republic's Prosecutor
(José de Magalhaes e Menezes)
The Joint General Prosecutor
(signature)
(Joao Melchior Gomes)"
Where does the Attorney General come into it? There is the subtitle "Letter to the Attorney General regarding investigation details" So it is notice to him rather than a notice by him.
Looking at the timescales reveals that he merely notified the public of the prosecutor's decision. The archiving report is dated 21st July 2008, so presumeably that's when it was completed and passed on.
The Attorney General notified the public on 21st July 2008 that the case was being archived, so there was no time for him to have input. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/madeleinemccann/2439530/Madeleine-McCann-Kate-and-Gerry-cleared-of-arguido-status-by-Portuguese-police.html
He may have worked with the prosecitors, but there's no evidence that he had any input imo.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Brietta on May 28, 2019, 11:51:39 AM
Thank you for replying, although I must admit I don't understand the relevance of the post. I'm still of the opinion that the Attorney General had no input into the Archiving document.
As to woke and wandered, perhaps the first investiigation's conclusions have been superceded by new thinking? As you have said, that was 12 years ago and I find it credible that the two new investigations may have moved on from previous theories.
When did Amaral settle on a 'woke and wandered' theory?
My opinion is that he was looking for a quick prosecution not so much to settle what happened to Madeleine but to deflect from his upcoming prosecution in a torture trial.
His first bite at the cherry was Murat.
When that didn't pan out he reverted to the tried and tested 'the parents dunnit' ... and that didn't pan out for him either.
It amazes me that you were not aware of the chain of command followed which ensured the input of the Portuguese Attorney General to the archiving process ... from police reports > to prosecutors > ultimately to the Attorney General who made the decision to archive until new evidence might be found ... particularly in such a high profile case such as Madeleine's ... Snip "In an order issued today ... the investigation into the disappearance of the minor Madeleine McCann has been halted because no evidence was discovered of any crime committed by the suspects," Attorney-General Fernando Pinto Monteiro's office said.
It said the investigation could be reopened "if new evidence emerges from any serious, pertinent and authoritative" source. https://www.scotsman.com/news-2-15012/madeleine-search-shelved-by-portuguese-police-1-1081355
As part of the legal process the archiving document was issued by the Attorney General's Office ... once he had considered the evidence presented by the police and prosecutors which he used to form his decision. If you remember ... you made entirely the wrong assumption regarding my posts ... and the relevance of my post is in correcting that.
However ... I do not recall even newspaper talk let alone a police investigation based on a woke and wandered theory being developed at any time in 2007.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: The General on May 28, 2019, 11:56:13 AM
When did Amaral settle on a 'woke and wandered' theory?
My opinion is that he was looking for a quick prosecution not so much to settle what happened to Madeleine but to deflect from his upcoming prosecution in a torture trial.
His first bite at the cherry was Murat.
When that didn't pan out he reverted to the tried and tested 'the parents dunnit' ... and that didn't pan out for him either.
It amazes me that you were not aware of the chain of command followed which ensured the input of the Portuguese Attorney General to the archiving process ... from police reports > to prosecutors > ultimately to the Attorney General who made the decision to archive until new evidence might be found ... particularly in such a high profile case such as Madeleine's ... Snip "In an order issued today ... the investigation into the disappearance of the minor Madeleine McCann has been halted because no evidence was discovered of any crime committed by the suspects," Attorney-General Fernando Pinto Monteiro's office said.
It said the investigation could be reopened "if new evidence emerges from any serious, pertinent and authoritative" source. https://www.scotsman.com/news-2-15012/madeleine-search-shelved-by-portuguese-police-1-1081355
As part of the legal process the archiving document was issued by the Attorney General's Office ... once he had considered the evidence presented by the police and prosecutors which he used to form his decision. If you remember ... you made entirely the wrong assumption regarding my posts ... and the relevance of my post is in correcting that.
However ... I do not recall even newspaper talk let alone a police investigation based on a woke and wandered theory being developed at any time in 2007.
The only reason Murat was even considered was because Tanner pointed him out from 3 metres away - pretty compelling eye witness testimony that any police force in history would be remiss if they didn't take seriously. So let's not paint it as something it wasn't.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: sadie on May 28, 2019, 12:18:27 PM
The only reason Murat was even considered was because Tanner pointed him out from 3 metres away - pretty compelling eye witness testimony that any police force in history would be remiss if they didn't take seriously. So let's not paint it as something it wasn't.
Are you sure that you have got that right?
I thought that they became interested because a newspaper reporter thought him odd, or something like that.
Anyone remember?
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Robittybob1 on May 28, 2019, 12:26:27 PM
The only reason Murat was even considered was because Tanner pointed him out from 3 metres away - pretty compelling eye witness testimony that any police force in history would be remiss if they didn't take seriously. So let's not paint it as something it wasn't.
I'd also like to see where you got the "Tanner pointed him out from 3 metres away" bit from. Cite please.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: ShiningInLuz on May 28, 2019, 12:27:19 PM
When did Amaral settle on a 'woke and wandered' theory?
My opinion is that he was looking for a quick prosecution not so much to settle what happened to Madeleine but to deflect from his upcoming prosecution in a torture trial.
His first bite at the cherry was Murat.
When that didn't pan out he reverted to the tried and tested 'the parents dunnit' ... and that didn't pan out for him either.
It amazes me that you were not aware of the chain of command followed which ensured the input of the Portuguese Attorney General to the archiving process ... from police reports > to prosecutors > ultimately to the Attorney General who made the decision to archive until new evidence might be found ... particularly in such a high profile case such as Madeleine's ... Snip "In an order issued today ... the investigation into the disappearance of the minor Madeleine McCann has been halted because no evidence was discovered of any crime committed by the suspects," Attorney-General Fernando Pinto Monteiro's office said.
It said the investigation could be reopened "if new evidence emerges from any serious, pertinent and authoritative" source. https://www.scotsman.com/news-2-15012/madeleine-search-shelved-by-portuguese-police-1-1081355
As part of the legal process the archiving document was issued by the Attorney General's Office ... once he had considered the evidence presented by the police and prosecutors which he used to form his decision. If you remember ... you made entirely the wrong assumption regarding my posts ... and the relevance of my post is in correcting that.
However ... I do not recall even newspaper talk let alone a police investigation based on a woke and wandered theory being developed at any time in 2007.
The Attorney General announced the archiving of the investigation on 21st July 2008. The Archiving document was signed by the Prosecutors on 21st July 2008. So either the Attorney General examined everything before it was finished or he just accepted what had been written and issued the announcement. You may believe he "considered the evidence" but there's no evidence that he did imo.
The Portuguese police spent a week searching for a child who may have woke and wandered.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Brietta on May 28, 2019, 03:48:43 PM
The only reason Murat was even considered was because Tanner pointed him out from 3 metres away - pretty compelling eye witness testimony that any police force in history would be remiss if they didn't take seriously. So let's not paint it as something it wasn't.
Please provide a cite for that, please.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: The General on May 28, 2019, 06:17:53 PM
oooh, oooh, I like this game.....ooohh, I'm all excited now! OK, hang on.......I love this little game, satisfying the demands of an absolute non-descript on the internet.....never gets old.......hang on.....it's on it's way........
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: G-Unit on May 28, 2019, 06:32:29 PM
oooh, oooh, I like this game.....ooohh, I'm all excited now! OK, hang on.......I love this little game, satisfying the demands of an absolute non-descript on the internet.....never gets old.......hang on.....it's on it's way........
That "disgraced, bungling, fat, lying, incompetent" and non-libelling retired policeman said in his book that Jane Tanner identified Murat as the man she saw on 3rd May carrying a child.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: The General on May 28, 2019, 06:43:20 PM
That "disgraced, bungling, fat, lying, incompetent" and non-libelling retired policeman said in his book that Jane Tanner identified Murat as the man she saw on 3rd May carrying a child.
...and the identification event on the 13th with Bobby Small et al was corroborated by Jane herself in her rogatory statement. Then amazingly Murat is made Arguido 2 days later.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Miss Taken Identity on May 28, 2019, 06:52:32 PM
The woke and wandered theory is the best version if an abduction is to be accepted. The reason I believe the parents and the tapas can't be having this is because they didn't check the children as often as they claimed and on that night MBM disappeared, the parents would have been hounded for leaving a door open for her to run out to danger or someone to walk in and bring danger. Thus, the parents facilitating a horror story for their daughter - ruining their reputation- ultimately, they lost their daughter but kept their reputation.
THIS is my opinion and belief. AND the last sentence is very true!
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Erngath on May 28, 2019, 07:24:19 PM
The Attorney General announced the archiving of the investigation on 21st July 2008. The Archiving document was signed by the Prosecutors on 21st July 2008. So either the Attorney General examined everything before it was finished or he just accepted what had been written and issued the announcement. You may believe he "considered the evidence" but there's no evidence that he did imo.
The Portuguese police spent a week searching for a child who may have woke and wandered.
And if she had woke and wandered, are you suggesting they should not have looked for a week? Is that really a fact that they only looked for a week?
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: ShiningInLuz on May 28, 2019, 07:31:30 PM
It would have been better to have looked in Porto imo
With all the sightings in that area and en route. Sightings that all seem to have been dismissed by Amaral. I wonder why ? It really intrigues me that Portimao PJ chose to rewrite the original and dismiss the Processos written on the spot in Porto at the time.
Additionally the Portimao replacement Processos had a series of factual mistakes in it. I actually physically went there and checked it all out
Why did they chose to rewrite Processos 809? *%6^
It is all on this forum if you want more detail.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Robittybob1 on May 28, 2019, 09:31:45 PM
oooh, oooh, I like this game.....ooohh, I'm all excited now! OK, hang on.......I love this little game, satisfying the demands of an absolute non-descript on the internet.....never gets old.......hang on.....it's on it's way........
Well I hope so, for that must just about be a record for 3 people to ask for a cite to prove the same claim!
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Robittybob1 on May 28, 2019, 09:34:41 PM
That "disgraced, bungling, fat, lying, incompetent" and non-libelling retired policeman said in his book that Jane Tanner identified Murat as the man she saw on 3rd May carrying a child.
Were they just 3 meters apart? " Tanner pointed him out from 3 metres away" is what The General said in his post.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: sadie on May 29, 2019, 09:50:35 PM
Were they just 3 meters apart? " Tanner pointed him out from 3 metres away" is what The General said in his post.
Seems to me that The General hasn't done his homework again.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JANE_TANNER_RIGATORY.htm Scroll most of the way down
snip- So we then carried on and I met Bob SMALL and Russell wrote down the number plate of the car just in case I was taken away. And, erm, then Bob drove me up to where, erm, the rest of the team were to do the surveillance. Erm, so I went off in the back of this like refrigerated, well it was pretending to be a refrigerated, erm, van and took it round to the point on the road and obviously, in hindsight now, I realise they were probably calling Robert MURAT to try and get him to walk across, across the top of the road so that, you know, I could see. But it was a bit odd because there was a car, where we were parked there was a car that moved just at that point that he appeared and then two other people walked by, so I didn’t really, but I didn’t even recognise it as the person I’d been talking to five minutes before, well, you know, half an hour before, so. Erm, and then, erm, then went, I think because it has gone a bit wrong because this car had been there and then tried to set it up elsewhere, but again I couldn’t really see, I couldn’t really see that well and, you know, it didn’t look, it didn’t jog, jog any memories”.
4078 “Now you are left with that mental image in your head about the man carrying the child”. Reply “Umm”.
4078 “And you said, you described his hair quite well. Having seen MURAT then and obviously in the papers since, could you link the two of those?” Reply “I don’t think so. I mean, I don’t, phew, I don’t, I don’t think it, no, there doesn’t, there’s no, but then the person I see in the paper doesn’t really look like my recollection of the person I met on the way to meet Bob SMALL. It’s really annoying because normally I would have probably taken more notice but I was so worried about what I was going to do, because I didn’t know at this point at all, I didn’t really take any notice, but I think it was too short and I remember it being, being long into the neck and not so. Again, I don’t really, when I saw Robert MURAT outside his house he looked quite little to me, but then when you see him on the telly he seems quite bit, so I can’t, again, I don’t think the build, the build was right, I don’t”.
-snip-
This extract from JT's Rogatory Statement doesn't seem to reinforce anything that The General has been saying
Rather., it seems to be saying anything but …
Come on The General, May we have a cite for everything that you have spoken about Jane Tanner and Robert Murat . TY
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: G-Unit on May 30, 2019, 06:09:45 AM
Jane Tanner also said;
I don’t think it was him that I saw”.
4078 “No”. Reply “But I just thought it was”. http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JANE_TANNER_RIGATORY.htm
She appears to be saying she thought it was Murat at the time, but now she doesn't think it was.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on May 30, 2019, 07:14:25 AM
To me, she seems to be wondering if there were two men?
Wondering if a substitute was used? … but that would infer collusion for some bad reason by the PJ. But surely that couldn't be ?
Expanding what she says we end up with;
"At this moment in time I don't think it was Robert Murat that I saw on 3rd May 2007" "But at a previous moment in time I thought it was Robert Murat that I saw on 3rd May 2007"
How can you deduce from that that she's wondering if there were two men?
In my opinion she's saying she previously thought it was him, but she no longer thinks it was.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Brietta on May 30, 2019, 05:10:00 PM
"At this moment in time I don't think it was Robert Murat that I saw on 3rd May 2007" "But at a previous moment in time I thought it was Robert Murat that I saw on 3rd May 2007"
How can you deduce from that that she's wondering if there were two men?
In my opinion she's saying she previously thought it was him, but she no longer thinks it was.
What action did the police take when given a positive ID? Did anyone of them even think to take a witness statement or record it in any other way? An identification must appear in the files somewhere ... where is it?
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Carana on May 30, 2019, 06:22:31 PM
Or could have thought that the others who thought they'd seen him were right. I don't find anything odd in callling a police contact in the circumstances.
However, she doesn't seem to have been that convinced herself as she wasn't one of the people present for the confrontation.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on May 30, 2019, 07:06:33 PM
What action did the police take when given a positive ID? Did anyone of them even think to take a witness statement or record it in any other way? An identification must appear in the files somewhere ... where is it?
That whole episode was most peculiar. Bob Small rang Jane Tanner saying he wants to pick her up and take her to meet the Spanish Police. She mustn't tell anyone about it. Jane didn't know who Bob Small was. She thought it could be the press or even the man she'd seen on 3rd trying to trap her for some reason. Nevertheless she arranged to meet him at 7.30 in a car park. As a precaution she took Russell with her and he wtote down the number of the car Small drove her away in.
I don't think that's the whole story myself. No-one in their right mind would have gone anywhere near that car park if that was all the information they had.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: sadie on May 30, 2019, 07:52:04 PM
That whole episode was most peculiar. Bob Small rang Jane Tanner saying he wants to pick her up and take her to meet the Spanish Police. She mustn't tell anyone about it. Jane didn't know who Bob Small was. She thought it could be the press or even the man she'd seen on 3rd trying to trap her for some reason. Nevertheless she arranged to meet him at 7.30 in a car park. As a precaution she took Russell with her and he wtote down the number of the car Small drove her away in.
I don't think that's the whole story myself. No-one in their right mind would have gone anywhere near that car park if that was all the information they had.
Jane has shown herself to be a very brave woman. And to me, she seems the sort who would always do the RIGHT thing rather than the easy cowards way out
Fearful tho she would be, I think that she would take the risk for Madeleines sake
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: G-Unit on May 30, 2019, 07:59:44 PM
Jane has shown herself to be a very brave woman. And to me, she seems the sort who would always do the RIGHT thing rather than the easy cowards way out
Fearful tho she would be, I think that she would take the risk for Madeleines sake
How did she know it was the right thing? If, as she feared, she was about to be kidnapped by the abductor she was in danger of doing something wrong imo.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Robittybob1 on May 30, 2019, 08:26:59 PM
How did she know it was the right thing? If, as she feared, she was about to be kidnapped by the abductor she was in danger of doing something wrong imo.
Where did you get the idea she (Jane) was afraid she was about to be kidnapped by the abductor?
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: niklasericson on May 30, 2019, 08:30:25 PM
As I said before, the woke and wandered is a very plausible scenario if we are to believe their own stories from May 3rd. The timing is correct in relation to the discrepant information that two elements gave to the Police. Door unlocked, Fiona stated that Kate said it was better if she woke up and went out to looking for them, no lock on the lower securitygate and the upper "Securitygate" was of poor quality from my own experience and we don't even know if it was secured. It took only 13 steps from the patio to get hit by a car , how long does that take? Seconds. IMO therefore this obviously means that the window was opened to stage an abduction.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on May 30, 2019, 08:39:02 PM
As I said before, the woke and wandered is a very plausible scenario if we are to believe their own stories from May 3rd. The timing is correct in relation to the discrepant information that two elements gave to the Police. Door unlocked, Fiona stated that Kate said it was better if she woke up and went out to looking for them, no lock on the lower securitygate and the upper "Securitygate" was of poor quality from my own experience and we don't even know if it was secured. It took only 13 steps from the patio to get hit by a car , how long does that take? Seconds.
IMO therefore this obviously means that the window was opened to stage an abduction.
Sorry but your last sentence makes no sense.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Robittybob1 on May 30, 2019, 08:42:44 PM
As I said before, the woke and wandered is a very plausible scenario if we are to believe their own stories from May 3rd. The timing is correct in relation to the discrepant information that two elements gave to the Police. Door unlocked, Fiona stated that Kate said it was better if she woke up and went out to looking for them, no lock on the lower securitygate and the upper "Securitygate" was of poor quality from my own experience and we don't even know if it was secured. It took only 13 steps from the patio to get hit by a car , how long does that take? Seconds.
IMO therefore this obviously means that the window was opened to stage an abduction.
Don't jump to conclusions too quick. Your conclusion "This obviously means that the window was opened to stage an abduction."
Who found the body? Who knew about the accident. Who opened the window? What time was this accident?
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: G-Unit on May 30, 2019, 09:15:31 PM
Where did you get the idea she (Jane) was afraid she was about to be kidnapped by the abductor?
we were obviously worried about the Press and everything at that point, we thought it could be anybody, you know, trying to ring, and at that point I thought it could even be the person I saw ringing. https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JANE_TANNER_RIGATORY.htm
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Robittybob1 on May 30, 2019, 09:32:00 PM
we were obviously worried about the Press and everything at that point, we thought it could be anybody, you know, trying to ring, and at that point I thought it could even be the person I saw ringing. https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JANE_TANNER_RIGATORY.htm
I had a feeling you were referring to that. So that means Jane even thought for a moment the PJ and whoever Bob Small was were potentially kidnappers. I suppose that can happen, if someone goes missing and you don't know why, you might get suspicious of everyone.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: G-Unit on May 30, 2019, 09:53:03 PM
I had a feeling you were referring to that. So that means Jane even thought for a moment the PJ and whoever Bob Small was were potentially kidnappers. I suppose that can happen, if someone goes missing and you don't know why, you might get suspicious of everyone.
He said Spanish police, not the PJ
Bob SMALL rang, erm, rang me on my phone and sort of said, well he scared the living daylights out of me, because rather than saying ‘The Portuguese Police want to talk to you’, or you know, ‘I want to pick you up to see the Portuguese Police’, he said ‘I need to pick you up and take you to see the Spanish Police https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JANE_TANNER_RIGATORY.htm
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Robittybob1 on May 30, 2019, 10:10:58 PM
Bob SMALL rang, erm, rang me on my phone and sort of said, well he scared the living daylights out of me, because rather than saying ‘The Portuguese Police want to talk to you’, or you know, ‘I want to pick you up to see the Portuguese Police’, he said ‘I need to pick you up and take you to see the Spanish Police https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JANE_TANNER_RIGATORY.htm
So why would he do that? Who was Bob Small?
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: G-Unit on May 30, 2019, 10:42:54 PM
So thinking she was going to be kidknapped she went alone anyway... OK who believes this kidknapping cr@p.
"Kate claimed the window was opened and the shutters were raised. Who opened up the window and raised the shutters if she woke up and wandered?"
Yes indeed. Who... And who else saw them open and who closed them.
Gerry had an afterthought about the abducter in the flat at the same time as he, if that ws the case why did the door not slam and curtains whoosh when he was in checking his daughter who was on top of the covers...
They just expect any old bit of rubbish they say to be taken at face value.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: jassi on May 31, 2019, 08:18:03 PM
So thinking she was going to be kidknapped she went alone anyway... OK who believes this kidknapping cr@p.
"Kate claimed the window was opened and the shutters were raised. Who opened up the window and raised the shutters if she woke up and wandered?"
Yes indeed. Who... And who else saw them open and who closed them.
Gerry had an afterthought about the abducter in the flat at the same time as he, if that ws the case why did the door not slam and curtains whoosh when he was in checking his daughter who was on top of the covers...
They just expect any old bit of rubbish they say to be taken at face value.
They just didn't imagine any of it would come under public scrutiny in the way that it has - IMO
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Miss Taken Identity on May 31, 2019, 08:35:12 PM
They just didn't imagine any of it would come under public scrutiny in the way that it has - IMO
Yes!
Abraham Lincoln Quotes. "You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time". 8@??)(
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Angelo222 on June 06, 2019, 02:49:41 PM
I just had to repost my earlier comment on another board as I feel that it highly significant to this discussion.
Gerry McCann - PJ Statement dated 10 May 2007
"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."
Seems the rear door (the patio door) was unlocked as was the front door to the car park which for the benefit of those who don't already understand means that the front door could be opened easily from the inside.
The two GNR trackers dogs called in to find Maddie's scent trail a matter of hours after her disappearance followed her fresh scent out that front door. If ever there was evidence of woke and wandered then this is it imo.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Mr Gray on June 06, 2019, 02:54:30 PM
I just had to repost my earlier comment on another board as I feel that it highly significant to this discussion.
Gerry McCann - PJ Statement dated 10 May 2007
"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."
Seems the rear door (the patio door) was unlocked as was the front door to the car park which for the benefit of those who don't already understand means that the front door could be opened easily from the inside.
The two GNR trackers dogs called in to find Maddie's scent trail a matter of hours after her disappearance followed her fresh scent out that front door. If ever there was evidence of woke and wandered then this is it imo.
Yet the archiving report labelled it highly unlikely
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Admin on June 06, 2019, 03:40:06 PM
I just had to repost my earlier comment on another board as I feel that it highly significant to this discussion.
Gerry McCann - PJ Statement dated 10 May 2007
"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."
Seems the rear door (the patio door) was unlocked as was the front door to the car park which for the benefit of those who don't already understand means that the front door could be opened easily from the inside.
The two GNR trackers dogs called in to find Maddie's scent trail a matter of hours after her disappearance followed her fresh scent out that front door. If ever there was evidence of woke and wandered then this is it imo.
I believe you underestimate the significance of that second statement in which the missing child's father had to admit that neither doors to the holiday apartment were locked. I must admit I previously failed to take this on board.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Carana on June 06, 2019, 05:13:59 PM
I believe you underestimate the significance of that second statement in which the missing child's father had to admit that neither doors to the holiday apartment were locked. I must admit I previously failed to take this on board.
I don't find it necessarily odd at all. A detail in what got noted down could easily have just been a lost-in-confusion moment that needed to be clarified.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Robittybob1 on June 06, 2019, 06:12:56 PM
I believe you underestimate the significance of that second statement in which the missing child's father had to admit that neither doors to the holiday apartment were locked. I must admit I previously failed to take this on board.
The front door still required a key to open it from the outside, so in all appearance it was "locked" as far as an intruder goes.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Eleanor on June 06, 2019, 06:23:20 PM
There was such a mess in the beginning that no one knew which was front or back. But the front definitely needed a key to get in from outside, once we had all sussed which door anyone was talking about.
At the time I opined that someone could have crept up the Patio Steps unseen. I still think that this was possible.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Robittybob1 on June 06, 2019, 07:54:18 PM
There was such a mess in the beginning that no one knew which was front or back. But the front definitely needed a key to get in from outside, once we had all sussed which door anyone was talking about.
At the time I opined that someone could have crept up the Patio Steps unseen. I still think that this was possible.
So is that still part of woke and wandered?
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Carana on June 06, 2019, 07:58:22 PM
No. IMO, someone crept up the back Patio Steps, got in and then abducted Madeleine and took her out of the front door. The open window could well have been an escape route if the abductor had been caught at it.
It's all quite simple, albeit a bit risky, but it was always going to be that.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Robittybob1 on June 06, 2019, 08:04:16 PM
No. IMO, someone crept up the back Patio Steps, got in and then abducted Madeleine and took her out of the front door. The open window could well have been an escape route if the abductor had been caught at it.
It's all quite simple, albeit a bit risky, but it was always going to be that.
OK that is an intruder theory. My objection to that scenario is did the intruder close all the gates and doors behind him?
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Eleanor on June 06, 2019, 08:18:30 PM
The Abductor was never going to take Madeleine out by The Patio Door. And if he couldn't get out of the front door then there was always the window.
There was always likely to be an accomplice. You don't tackle that sort of exercise alone.
Also, the child seen by Jane Tanner being carried was opposite to how she would have been picked up from her bed.
Iwas thinking more in terms of miscalculation about no adults being present in the apartment. The intruder could get to the patio door and find an adult there and he has to make a hasty escape.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Eleanor on June 06, 2019, 09:30:02 PM
Iwas thinking more in terms of miscalculation about no adults being present in the apartment. The intruder could get to the patio door and find an adult there and he has to make a hasty escape.
Dear Rob, And No, I don't think you are stupid. You do am amazing job keeping this Forum going. I am only good at it some of the time.
I have thought that if the abductor was caught in the bedroom then he could always dive out of the window. The bedroom was always the most risky place. No escape except for the window.
I must say that I haven't much changed my mind from my original thoughts, although I have given some thought to it all.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Mr Gray on June 06, 2019, 09:52:11 PM
Dear Rob, And No, I don't think you are stupid. You do am amazing job keeping this Forum going. I am only good at it some of the time.
I have thought that if the abductor was caught in the bedroom then he could always dive out of the window. The bedroom was always the most risky place. No escape except for the window.
I must say that I haven't much changed my mind from my original thoughts, although I have given some thought to it all.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Robittybob1 on June 06, 2019, 09:57:39 PM
Dear Rob, And No, I don't think you are stupid. You do am amazing job keeping this Forum going. I am only good at it some of the time.
I have thought that if the abductor was caught in the bedroom then he could always dive out of the window. The bedroom was always the most risky place. No escape except for the window.
I must say that I haven't much changed my mind from my original thoughts, although I have given some thought to it all.
It has been an enormous effort. Three years now full time.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Eleanor on June 06, 2019, 09:59:53 PM
I spent 10 years on the Scott Watson case and basically made no difference in the end, so I wasn't looking forward to another case. This is one of the most difficult cases really because it is really hard to define what happened.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: barrier on June 07, 2019, 06:26:24 AM
What? Full time? What about the sick animals? Think of the sick animals......
I resigned, and after considering going back to practice I thought I might chance myself at solving the McCann case.
Where I have got up to is the door at the secondary reception. If Madeleine woke and wandered and got this far how come she didn't get through the door? Had someone closed the door to keep uninvited guests out?
So I'm tending to think of an abduction from the car park opposite the entrance at this stage.
The arrival of the Executive Chef to the Tapas Restaurant preceded Madeleine going missing. http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/ARLINDO-PELEGA.htm
He would have had the authority to close the door.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: G-Unit on June 07, 2019, 06:40:59 PM
I resigned, and after considering going back to practice I thought I might chance myself at solving the McCann case.
Where I have got up to is the door at the secondary reception. If Madeleine woke and wandered and got this far how come she didn't get through the door? Had someone closed the door to keep uninvited guests out?
So I'm tending to think of an abduction from the car park opposite the entrance at this stage.
The arrival of the Executive Chef to the Tapas Restaurant preceded Madeleine going missing. http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/ARLINDO-PELEGA.htm
He would have had the authority to close the door.
Yes, the chef arrived at 21:10 and left at 21:40. When he heft the group's table was empty apart from some items; mostly clothing. If his times are correct then perhaps Helder Luis was correct too;
he was on duty and was contacted by a member of staff from the Tapas Restaurant between 09.30 and 22.00 who informed him that the daughter of some guests who were dining there had disappeared. https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/HELDER_LUIS.htm
I can't imagine why he would want to close the entrance door.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: misty on June 07, 2019, 11:59:30 PM
Yes, the chef arrived at 21:10 and left at 21:40. When he heft the group's table was empty apart from some items; mostly clothing. If his times are correct then perhaps Helder Luis was correct too;
he was on duty and was contacted by a member of staff from the Tapas Restaurant between 09.30 and 22.00 who informed him that the daughter of some guests who were dining there had disappeared. https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/HELDER_LUIS.htm
I can't imagine why he would want to close the entrance door.
This may be a daft question after all these years but can anyone link me to the names of the chefs at the Millenium/Mirage who were on duty between 7.30pm & 11.30pm who would have been told by Pelega what had occurred in the Tapas Bar that night?
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Robittybob1 on June 08, 2019, 04:17:23 AM
Yes, the chef arrived at 21:10 and left at 21:40. When he heft the group's table was empty apart from some items; mostly clothing. If his times are correct then perhaps Helder Luis was correct too;
he was on duty and was contacted by a member of staff from the Tapas Restaurant between 09.30 and 22.00 who informed him that the daughter of some guests who were dining there had disappeared. https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/HELDER_LUIS.htm
I can't imagine why he would want to close the entrance door.
To me his times appear to be out.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Robittybob1 on June 08, 2019, 04:19:53 AM
This may be a daft question after all these years but can anyone link me to the names of the chefs at the Millenium/Mirage who were on duty between 7.30pm & 11.30pm who would have been told by Pelega what had occurred in the Tapas Bar that night?
Did he go back to work? You would think that someone at the Tapas Restaurant would also note the arrival of the Executive Chef.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: G-Unit on June 08, 2019, 07:43:48 AM
This may be a daft question after all these years but can anyone link me to the names of the chefs at the Millenium/Mirage who were on duty between 7.30pm & 11.30pm who would have been told by Pelega what had occurred in the Tapas Bar that night?
Peleja doesn't say where he went when he left; he may have gone home. His statement isn't listed under 'Millennium', so I assume he worked in a separate place.
It seems there were 5 kitchens. Peleja worked in the 'main' one, near the Mirage. The only other person who says he worked there was Antonio Ginjeira, a chef. He left work between 9 and 10 that evening.
So there was this main or central kitchen, then the Millennium and Tapas kitchens. The people working there are described as cooks, rather than chefs. Where the other kitchens were I don't know., but my guess us they were attached to swimming pools.
I don't know what these two did in that kitchen or who they cooked for. The Mirage wasn't part of OC as far as I know, it was owned by David Jones.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on June 08, 2019, 08:04:00 AM
I dreamt last night that me and my family went on holiday with G-Unit and her family. We stayed in London in a converted factory close to Heathrow. We both had lots of children and there was a large tortoise under one of the children’s beds. G-Unit was rather frosty towards me, but otherwise we all got on splendidly. Just thought you’d like to know. @)(++(*
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: G-Unit on June 08, 2019, 09:15:28 AM
I dreamt last night that me and my family went on holiday with G-Unit and her family. We stayed in London in a converted factory close to Heathrow. We both had lots of children and there was a large tortoise under one of the children’s beds. G-Unit was rather frosty towards me, but otherwise we all got on splendidly. Just thought you’d like to know. @)(++(*
I have just 3 children. Perhaps I brought my 8 grabdchildren and their 11 children with me? We didn't bring the tortoise.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: The General on June 08, 2019, 12:32:38 PM
No. IMO, someone crept up the back Patio Steps, got in and then abducted Madeleine and took her out of the front door. The open window could well have been an escape route if the abductor had been caught at it.
It's all quite simple, albeit a bit risky, but it was always going to be that.
Apologies for exhuming a post 2 days old, but I've been reading back. Why would an abductor require 3 egress points be made available, given the additional time, trouble and effort, plus disruption and noise? Knowing a few ex-housebreakers (council estate upbringing / questionable judgement of friends), if they could open another door or large window from the inside easily, they would, but in the main they would go out the way they came in. They had many little techniques, such as using a shovel to lever patio doors, using that same shovel to place on the stairs for a roused occupant to stumble over. They generally would be opportunistic. They would rarely enter an occupied house unless they had additional knowledge of the occupants. They would avoid houses where the comings and goings were frequent, but would have a quick go at a gaff if they saw the occupants routinely leaving doors unlocked. Doesn't matter if you're stealing a JVC VCR, a Faberge egg or a 3 year old girl, the risks of being disturbed and methods are the same. Was the front door a Yale type lock or mortice, or both? Was it possible to open the front door from the inside without a key?
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Brietta on June 08, 2019, 12:48:12 PM
Apologies for exhuming a post 2 days old, but I've been reading back. Why would an abductor require 3 egress points be made available, given the additional time, trouble and effort, plus disruption and noise? Knowing a few ex-housebreakers (council estate upbringing / questionable judgement of friends), if they could open another door or large window from the inside easily, they would, but in the main they would go out the way they came in. They had many little techniques, such as using a shovel to lever patio doors, using that same shovel to place on the stairs for a roused occupant to stumble over. They generally would be opportunistic. They would rarely enter an occupied house unless they had additional knowledge of the occupants. They would avoid houses where the comings and goings were frequent, but would have a quick go at a gaff if they saw the occupants routinely leaving doors unlocked. Doesn't matter if you're stealing a JVC VCR, a Faberge egg or a 3 year old girl, the risks of being disturbed and methods are the same. Was the front door a Yale type lock or mortice, or both? Was it possible to open the front door from the inside without a key?
Interesting post.
You mention routine. In at least one of the Rogs it was recorded that Kate and Gerry were the most punctilious of the couples regarding their checking routine.
The criminals you mention did a recon ... "They would rarely enter an occupied house unless they had additional knowledge of the occupants." in Luz a recon would have supplied the knowledge of where the parents were ... knew the routine ... and knew there was no adult presence in the apartment. Lifting Madeleine would have taken seconds ... particularly if she was being handed to an accomplice via the window. The shutter takes only seconds to raise.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: The General on June 08, 2019, 12:57:31 PM
You mention routine. In at least one of the Rogs it was recorded that Kate and Gerry were the most punctilious of the couples regarding their checking routine.
The criminals you mention did a recon ... "They would rarely enter an occupied house unless they had additional knowledge of the occupants." in Luz a recon would have supplied the knowledge of where the parents were ... knew the routine ... and knew there was no adult presence in the apartment. Lifting Madeleine would have taken seconds ... particularly if she was being handed to an accomplice via the window. The shutter takes only seconds to raise.
Let's assume an abduction took place. If the patio door was the access point, it would also be the egress point, as if it was suitable to enter unseen, in the gloom and in good cover, it would serve the same purpose coming out. If the front door opens from the inside without a key (hence the question), they would unlock or even open it. I can't think of a reason for opening a window on the same elevation as the (edit) front door, apart from if it didn't unlock from the inside. But if we assume that this abduction would have took seconds, as you suggest, and that they knew they had a clean run, there would be no messing about with any of the other egress points; it would be in through the unlocked door, grab and dash. No messing about - in and out, down the stairs and in to the night. So why is the window open? Did they leave any lights on?
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Eleanor on June 08, 2019, 01:04:06 PM
Let's assume an abduction took place. If the patio door was the access point, it would also be the egress point, as if it was suitable to enter unseen, in the gloom and in good cover, it would serve the same purpose coming out. If the front door opens from the inside without a key (hence the question), they would unlock or even open it. I can't think of a reason for opening a window on the same elevation as the back door, apart from if it didn't unlock from the inside. But if we assume that this abduction would have took seconds, as you suggest, and that they knew they had a clean run, there would be no messing about with any of the other egress points; it would be in through the unlocked door, grab and dash. No messing about - in and out, down the stairs and in to the night. So why is the window open? Did they leave any lights on?
Going in alone is one thing. Coming out carrying a child right next to The Tapas entrance is another risk altogether. Surely you can see that.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: The General on June 08, 2019, 01:07:44 PM
Going in alone is one thing. Coming out carrying a child right next to The Tapas entrance is another risk altogether. Surely you can see that.
No, I can't. It was a completely obscured route. It was gloomy and it was adjacent to the road. It is the prime access and egress point. If there was a car waiting, it could literally roll up, collect, and roll away, no need to even fire the thing up - no lights, no noise. If they went through the front then you are completely exposed the second you step out - if you go out the window when it isn't necessary, they you're an idiot.
Still need two answers to questions - were any lights left on and does the front door open from the inside without a key?
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Robittybob1 on June 08, 2019, 01:09:31 PM
Apologies for exhuming a post 2 days old, but I've been reading back. Why would an abductor require 3 egress points be made available, given the additional time, trouble and effort, plus disruption and noise? Knowing a few ex-housebreakers (council estate upbringing / questionable judgement of friends), if they could open another door or large window from the inside easily, they would, but in the main they would go out the way they came in. They had many little techniques, such as using a shovel to lever patio doors, using that same shovel to place on the stairs for a roused occupant to stumble over. They generally would be opportunistic. They would rarely enter an occupied house unless they had additional knowledge of the occupants. They would avoid houses where the comings and goings were frequent, but would have a quick go at a gaff if they saw the occupants routinely leaving doors unlocked. Doesn't matter if you're stealing a JVC VCR, a Faberge egg or a 3 year old girl, the risks of being disturbed and methods are the same. Was the front door a Yale type lock or mortice, or both? Was it possible to open the front door from the inside without a key?
The lock on the front door was rim lock (more like a Yale). but the door as long as it wasn't deadlocked it could be opened easily from the inside. I had a whole thread on the door.
There was a light left on in the lounge.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Eleanor on June 08, 2019, 01:10:09 PM
No, I can't. It was a completely obscured route. It was gloomy and it was adjacent to the road. It is the prime access and egress point. If there was a car waiting, it could literally roll up, collect, and roll away, no need to even fire the thing up - no lights, no noise. If they went through the front then you are completely exposed the second you step out - if you go out the window when it isn't necessary, they you're an idiot.
Still need two answers to questions - were any lights left on and does the front door open from the inside without a key?
Sorry, your ideas don't make much sense to me. There is no logic to them.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Robittybob1 on June 08, 2019, 01:18:33 PM
No, I can't. It was a completely obscured route. It was gloomy and it was adjacent to the road. It is the prime access and egress point. If there was a car waiting, it could literally roll up, collect, and roll away, no need to even fire the thing up - no lights, no noise. If they went through the front then you are completely exposed the second you step out - if you go out the window when it isn't necessary, they you're an idiot.
Still need two answers to questions - were any lights left on and does the front door open from the inside without a key?
That is right the street was sloping down toward the supermarket. ( The opposite direction I'd head, but you're right it would be a silent get away).
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Eleanor on June 08, 2019, 01:22:03 PM
I used to know the streets by name but I still remember part of the name Rua Doctur Gentil Martin, OK Googled that and got "R. Dr. Francisco Gentil Martins, Luz, Portugal" That is the street going past the Tapas entrance.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: ShiningInLuz on June 08, 2019, 01:34:13 PM
You mention routine. In at least one of the Rogs it was recorded that Kate and Gerry were the most punctilious of the couples regarding their checking routine.
The criminals you mention did a recon ... "They would rarely enter an occupied house unless they had additional knowledge of the occupants." in Luz a recon would have supplied the knowledge of where the parents were ... knew the routine ... and knew there was no adult presence in the apartment. Lifting Madeleine would have taken seconds ... particularly if she was being handed to an accomplice via the window. The shutter takes only seconds to raise.
How would the supposed person in the room exit? the supposed accomplish outside would be supposedly holding Madeleine not the shutter.What happened to the second supposed accomplish,JT saw only the one,Smiths saw only the one.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Robittybob1 on June 08, 2019, 01:44:12 PM
The road has a no entry sign at the bottom. Other than that, there is nothing to suggest it is one-way, so it isn't.
On the June 2014 OG digs, there was a GNR car 'guarding' the garden gate of 5A. It was parked on the LHS of the road (the wrong side) facing uphill.
It is always a bit confusing to me as we drive on the left hand side of the road in NZ. Would a car parked facing downhill outside the patio gate at 5A have been parked legally?
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Robittybob1 on June 08, 2019, 01:47:56 PM
How would the supposed person in the room exit? the supposed accomplish outside would be supposedly holding Madeleine not the shutter.What happened to the second supposed accomplish,JT saw only the one,Smiths saw only the one.
The shutters have a mechanism to hold themselves up.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: barrier on June 08, 2019, 01:57:30 PM
It is always a bit confusing to me as we drive on the left hand side of the road in NZ. Would a car parked facing downhill outside the patio gate at 5A have been parked legally?
Portugal drives on the right. A car immediately outside of the garden gate, facing downhill, on its RHS of the road, would have been parked legally.
One does not stroll over to a GNR car and tell them they appear to be parked illegally, unless one enjoys confrontation.
Incidentally, this may help explain the Jane, Jez, Gerry incident. It would have been normal for Tapas staff to park immediately outside the Tapas entrance, probably facing downhill, on the west side of the street.
The only reference I am aware of is Stephen Carpenter, who said he passed between parked cars there, and checked for more traffic.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: The General on June 08, 2019, 02:05:53 PM
Sorry, your ideas don't make much sense to me. There is no logic to them.
Thanks for the insightful response. There's no logic to using the same secluded entrance to exit? There's no logic in parking the car next to the apartment back entrance, in cover and able to coast down the road with no lights or engine? There's no logic to not bothering to open any 3rd entrance when it's not necessary and there's no time?
If you think that window was used, then I contend it is YOU who need to show why anyone would bother, given Brietta's window of opportunity of 'seconds' and why open a window on the same elevation as a door?
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: The General on June 08, 2019, 02:09:26 PM
Portugal drives on the right. A car immediately outside of the garden gate, facing downhill, on its RHS of the road, would have been parked legally.
One does not stroll over to a GNR car and tell them they appear to be parked illegally, unless one enjoys confrontation.
Incidentally, this may help explain the Jane, Jez, Gerry incident. It would have been normal for Tapas staff to park immediately outside the Tapas entrance, probably facing downhill, on the west side of the street.
The only reference I am aware of is Stephen Carpenter, who said he passed between parked cars there, and checked for more traffic.
Hence my point which should help abduction believers. Just park right outside the gate, in semi-darkness and roll down the road, no lights, no engine until you're past the Tapas entrance....that's how criminals operate. But alas, as we've seen, this most simple and obvious of escape modes just doesn't tally with the window nonsense most of them rely on.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: The General on June 08, 2019, 02:17:56 PM
The lock on the front door was rim lock (more like a Yale). but the door as long as it wasn't deadlocked it could be opened easily from the inside. I had a whole thread on the door.
There was a light left on in the lounge.
Thank you. So you have a perfect scenario for your abductor: illumination, an open back door, using the most secluded and gloomy access point with a simply opened front door, nobody home. Rush in through the patio door, maybe listen for a few seconds, walk straight to the front door (or not), put it on the snip or open it, take the wee an, straight back down through the way you came, in to the car - whoosh! Gone. Takes literally seconds. So why the window?
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Robittybob1 on June 08, 2019, 02:20:12 PM
This is oft repeated but where's the evidence this is so of 5a? Also the shutters were not seen to be up and the window open at 9-30.
No one looked. Matt and Russell walked past along the footpath and didn't look at the shutters from the exterior. Once inside the curtains hid the shutters and the window. There are photos of the 5A shutter partially raised. It is being held up by the mechanism I've talked about above.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: barrier on June 08, 2019, 02:21:04 PM
Thank you. So you have a perfect scenario for your abductor: illumination, an open back door, using the most secluded and gloomy access point with a simply opened front door, nobody home. Rush in through the patio door, maybe listen for a few seconds, walk straight to the front door (or not), put it on the snip or open it, take the wee an, straight back down through the way you came, in to the car - whoosh! Gone. Takes literally seconds. So why the window?
Indeed.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: barrier on June 08, 2019, 02:23:24 PM
No one looked. Matt and Russell walked past along the footpath and didn't look at the shutters from the exterior. Once inside the curtains hid the shutters and the window. There are photos of the 5A shutter partially raised. It is being held up by the mechanism I've talked about above.
MO checked the bedroom at 9-30,no mention of an open window and raised shutter. Partially raised shutter doesn't allow for an adult to pass through does it?
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: barrier on June 08, 2019, 02:29:03 PM
No one looked. Matt and Russell walked past along the footpath and didn't look at the shutters from the exterior. Once inside the curtains hid the shutters and the window. There are photos of the 5A shutter partially raised. It is being held up by the mechanism I've talked about above.
These? its hardly showing any locking mechanism that it can be fully locked open.Perhaps cuddle cat was the target with that small gap.
Thank you. So you have a perfect scenario for your abductor: illumination, an open back door, using the most secluded and gloomy access point with a simply opened front door, nobody home. Rush in through the patio door, maybe listen for a few seconds, walk straight to the front door (or not), put it on the snip or open it, take the wee an, straight back down through the way you came, in to the car - whoosh! Gone. Takes literally seconds. So why the window?
If you parked at the gate and left by the front door you end up with a 50 meter walk back to your car carrying a child. I wouldn't do that.
The problem with leaving via the front door is that you need the key to close it from the outside, or you can close it the same way you opened it from the inside.
Any thought that it was a just a quick job to pick up Madeleine is upset if Madeleine is already out of her bed or worse still if she leaves by the front door as the intruder is entering via the patio door.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Robittybob1 on June 08, 2019, 02:33:27 PM
If you parked at the gate and left by the front door you end up with a 50 meter walk back to your car carrying a child. I wouldn't do that.
The problem with leaving via the front door is that you need the key to close it from the outside, or you can close it the same way you opened it from the inside.
Any thought that it was a just a quick job to pick up Madeleine is upset if Madeleine is already out of her bed.
If you want a woke and wandered, the front door was left open by a burglar after disturbing Madeleine,she followed,the door then slammed shut just like the bedroom door did with Kate,simples.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Robittybob1 on June 08, 2019, 02:38:04 PM
If you want a woke and wandered, the front door was left open by a burglar after disturbing Madeleine,she followed,the door then slammed shut just like the bedroom door did with Kate,simples.
There was evidence to show the front door was made so that it could not just be slammed shut, It had to be shut using a key from the outside or the lever from the inside. There is a video of people using this type of lock.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: barrier on June 08, 2019, 02:45:48 PM
There was evidence to show the front door was made so that it could not just be slammed shut, It had to be shut using a key from the outside or the lever from the inside. There is a video of people using this type of lock.
So its out the patio doors then.Child gate at the top of the steps I believe,gate at the bottom.
If you parked at the gate and left by the front door you end up with a 50 meter walk back to your car carrying a child. I wouldn't do that.
The problem with leaving via the front door is that you need the key to close it from the outside, or you can close it the same way you opened it from the inside.
Any thought that it was a just a quick job to pick up Madeleine is upset if Madeleine is already out of her bed or worse still if she leaves by the front door as the intruder is entering via the patio door.
No, maybe I wasn't clear. Nobody is using the front door (not even Gerry because he couldn't be arsed walking round, hence why he left the patio door open). The door may have been opened by this abductor as a secondary means of escape. Nobody in their right mind would walk out of the front door not knowing what's going on out there, when you have a perfectly reasonable mode of egress through the way you came.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Eleanor on June 08, 2019, 03:13:57 PM
Thank you. So you have a perfect scenario for your abductor: illumination, an open back door, using the most secluded and gloomy access point with a simply opened front door, nobody home. Rush in through the patio door, maybe listen for a few seconds, walk straight to the front door (or not), put it on the snip or open it, take the wee an, straight back down through the way you came, in to the car - whoosh! Gone. Takes literally seconds. So why the window?
Wasn't Gez Wilkins wandering around at the time?
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: The General on June 08, 2019, 03:14:38 PM
Those photos are professionally lit. Look how dark and secluded that access is. You would have to go full retard to use any other mode of access and egress.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: The General on June 08, 2019, 03:16:09 PM
So you see the logic all of a sudden and have now moved on to picking holes? That's what I want. So where is big Jezza then? He's being sensible and locking his apartment and using the front door.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Eleanor on June 08, 2019, 03:19:42 PM
Those photos are professionally lit. Look how dark and secluded that access is. You would have to go full retard to use any other mode of access and egress.
Two gates to shut and a flight of stairs to go down, carrying a child? Not to mention the Patio Doors.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: The General on June 08, 2019, 03:30:46 PM
These gates and the patio door were shut when Kate went to check at 10pm.
You're getting the jist of this. Why in the name of Barry Gibb would someone fleeing close any doors? You'd be sharting yourself all the way out and you wouldn't have a chance. So this theory of an abductor is reliant upon the use of the window? Why? Because Kate said so? There is literally no reason for Jimmy to go anywhere near the window.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: ShiningInLuz on June 08, 2019, 03:58:44 PM
You're getting the jist of this. Why in the name of Barry Gibb would someone fleeing close any doors? You'd be sharting yourself all the way out and you wouldn't have a chance. So this theory of an abductor is reliant upon the use of the window? Why? Because Kate said so? There is literally no reason for Jimmy to go anywhere near the window.
Headstart and confusion.
Headstart because it takes anyone arriving longer to work out that there is something amiss.
Confusion, because no one can really work out what happened, just like we can't.
However, carrying Madeleine down the rear steps of 5A whilst closing doors & gates is challenging.
It is also something that once again, we have only Kate to rely upon.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Brietta on June 08, 2019, 04:10:36 PM
Let's assume an abduction took place. If the patio door was the access point, it would also be the egress point, as if it was suitable to enter unseen, in the gloom and in good cover, it would serve the same purpose coming out. If the front door opens from the inside without a key (hence the question), they would unlock or even open it. I can't think of a reason for opening a window on the same elevation as the (edit) front door, apart from if it didn't unlock from the inside. But if we assume that this abduction would have took seconds, as you suggest, and that they knew they had a clean run, there would be no messing about with any of the other egress points; it would be in through the unlocked door, grab and dash. No messing about - in and out, down the stairs and in to the night. So why is the window open? Did they leave any lights on?
The evidence was the kidnapped child.
Think of the logistics of the situation as far as your criminal contacts might have viewed them.
Once the intruder had passed the child to an accomplice ... all s/he had to do was to slip out unencumbered ... easily done by all accounts. Only Jane Tanner saw anything ... but not until she heard that Madeleine was missing did she realise the significance.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Eleanor on June 08, 2019, 04:16:26 PM
You're getting the jist of this. Why in the name of Barry Gibb would someone fleeing close any doors? You'd be sharting yourself all the way out and you wouldn't have a chance. So this theory of an abductor is reliant upon the use of the window? Why? Because Kate said so? There is literally no reason for Jimmy to go anywhere near the window.
But the gates and the patio door were shut. The window could have been used to hand Madeleine through, or simply as an escape route.
But we have done all of this, and more, many times.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: The General on June 08, 2019, 04:21:12 PM
Headstart because it takes anyone arriving longer to work out that there is something amiss.
Confusion, because no one can really work out what happened, just like we can't.
However, carrying Madeleine down the rear steps of 5A whilst closing doors & gates is challenging.
It is also something that once again, we have only Kate to rely upon.
Yes, that would be the only point to closing anything on your way out. But let's remember the narrative. Jimmy is biding his time between a rigorous checking regime. He therefore knows that any attempt at obfuscation is futile, as, apparently, another adult is soon to be making their way to do a check and will soon discover a child missing - in fact it turned quite ad hoc on the night, with various checks being supposedly completed. Jimmy would clearly have no idea the level of checking once the checker was inside the building, he would have to assume that all were counting heads.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Brietta on June 08, 2019, 04:23:00 PM
How would the supposed person in the room exit? the supposed accomplish outside would be supposedly holding Madeleine not the shutter.What happened to the second supposed accomplish,JT saw only the one,Smiths saw only the one.
Criminals don't walk around with a neon sign on their heads advertising their profession. I doubt they go about their nefarious work mob handed and attracting as much attention as possible. They work unobtrusively. No-one would look twice or even remember seeing someone going about their business in Mark Warner livery or fading into the background in some other way.
I think one way of vanishing once Madeleine had been passed through the window to an accomplice would have been a quick exit through the front door and sauntering along the pathway in the direction of block four ... and thereafter vanishing into the night either to nearby accommodation or to a vehicle.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: John on June 08, 2019, 04:24:38 PM
The front door still required a key to open it from the outside, so in all appearance it was "locked" as far as an intruder goes.
But could be opened easily from inside. Given that Madeleine used that door every morning and given that she was in the habit of dashing ahead, it isn't too difficult to conclude that she knew how to open that door and get out.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: John on June 08, 2019, 04:28:32 PM
There was such a mess in the beginning that no one knew which was front or back. But the front definitely needed a key to get in from outside, once we had all sussed which door anyone was talking about.
At the time I opined that someone could have crept up the Patio Steps unseen. I still think that this was possible.
I agree that it was certainly possible Eleanor. Wasn't there a couple who did just that when they heard children crying but didn't do anything about it for fear of being labelled busybodies?
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: John on June 08, 2019, 04:30:10 PM
No. IMO, someone crept up the back Patio Steps, got in and then abducted Madeleine and took her out of the front door. The open window could well have been an escape route if the abductor had been caught at it.
It's all quite simple, albeit a bit risky, but it was always going to be that.
Simple yes but unsupported by any evidence.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: The General on June 08, 2019, 04:30:55 PM
But the gates and the patio door were shut. The window could have been used to hand Madeleine through, or simply as an escape route.
But we have done all of this, and more, many times.
Let's pack it all in then and post about the texture of the scones in the cafe at M&S. You might have 'done all this before', but I haven't.
I will labour the point one more time, though. Why would Jimmy pass her through a window when he could just walk out of the door? What's the point? The window is 2 feet from the door on the same elevation.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Brietta on June 08, 2019, 04:32:59 PM
Hence my point which should help abduction believers. Just park right outside the gate, in semi-darkness and roll down the road, no lights, no engine until you're past the Tapas entrance....that's how criminals operate. But alas, as we've seen, this most simple and obvious of escape modes just doesn't tally with the window nonsense most of them rely on.
There was a perfectly good car park right outside Madeleine's window ... why not use that? Of course the fact it might have led to discovery either before or after the abduction is neither here nor there.
Parking further away or heading to nearby cover surely cuts the risk of a vehicle being noticed rather than parking right on top of the scene of the crime.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Eleanor on June 08, 2019, 04:33:29 PM
MO checked the bedroom at 9-30,no mention of an open window and raised shutter. Partially raised shutter doesn't allow for an adult to pass through does it?
You do know that Gerry lowered the shutter then tried to raise it from outside ???
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: John on June 08, 2019, 04:41:53 PM
The shutter is locked up at any time by pulling the strap vertically and releasing it. To release shutter you pull the strap at an angle then release strap slowly as shutter descends.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: John on June 08, 2019, 04:45:26 PM
If you parked at the gate and left by the front door you end up with a 50 meter walk back to your car carrying a child. I wouldn't do that.
The problem with leaving via the front door is that you need the key to close it from the outside, or you can close it the same way you opened it from the inside.
Any thought that it was a just a quick job to pick up Madeleine is upset if Madeleine is already out of her bed or worse still if she leaves by the front door as the intruder is entering via the patio door.
No you don't, it's a snib lock, you just pull the door behind you as you leave. You need a key to open it again from the outside however you don't need a key to open it from the inside as such would constitute a fire safety issue.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Brietta on June 08, 2019, 04:49:54 PM
Headstart because it takes anyone arriving longer to work out that there is something amiss.
Confusion, because no one can really work out what happened, just like we can't.
However, carrying Madeleine down the rear steps of 5A whilst closing doors & gates is challenging.
It is also something that once again, we have only Kate to rely upon.
We have a witness who saw a man carrying a child immediately after we know Gerry saw Madeleine sleeping ... another witness noted the light behind the curtain after the last sighting of Madeleine suggesting an open shutter.
Simplest is best ... and agreed, there is nothing simple about carrying a child down a flight of stairs while closing door and gates behind one.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: John on June 08, 2019, 04:50:21 PM
There was evidence to show the front door was made so that it could not just be slammed shut, It had to be shut using a key from the outside or the lever from the inside. There is a video of people using this type of lock.
The front door closes when pulled shut, you don't need a key. Evidenced by the fact that the McCanns left the key on the kitchen worktop when they went out to the tapas since they didn't need it to get back in again.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: John on June 08, 2019, 04:52:33 PM
No you don't, it's a snib lock, you just pull the door behind you as you leave. You need a key to open it again from the outside however you don't need a key to open it from the inside as such would constitute a fire safety issue.
So as a hotel apartment, with the front door having 2 locks, the keys will both be on the same fob, but really, you only need to pull the door to?
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: barrier on June 08, 2019, 04:52:50 PM
Think of the logistics of the situation as far as your criminal contacts might have viewed them.
Once the intruder had passed the child to an accomplice ... all s/he had to do was to slip out unencumbered ... easily done by all accounts. Only Jane Tanner saw anything ... but not until she heard that Madeleine was missing did she realise the significance.
Redwood was almost certain it wasn't significant.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: barrier on June 08, 2019, 04:56:23 PM
The front door closes when pulled shut, you don't need a key. Evidenced by the fact that the McCanns left the key on the kitchen worktop when they went out to the tapas since they didn't need it to get back in again.
There was evidence to show the front door was made so that it could not just be slammed shut, It had to be shut using a key from the outside or the lever from the inside. There is a video of people using this type of lock.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: The General on June 08, 2019, 04:58:04 PM
For your common or garden, simple abduction there's absolutely no need to pass the child through the window. What for? You've got two very simple means of access and egress, one of which is on the same elevation as the front door. I can imagine the conservation as Jimmy starts messing about with the window - ...'dude, just open the door FFS, what are you even doing?' What are we saying if that's the case, there's now 3 dudes in on it?
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: barrier on June 08, 2019, 04:58:52 PM
No ... DCI Redwood was of the opinion Dr Totman was "almost certainly" the man seen by Jane Tanner ... which imo was a highly significant thing to say.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: barrier on June 08, 2019, 05:01:54 PM
For your common or garden, simple abduction there's absolutely no need to pass the child through the window. What for? You've got two very simple means of access and egress, one of which is on the same elevation as the front door. I can imagine the conservation as Jimmy starts messing about with the window - ...'dude, just open the door FFS, what are you even doing?' What are we saying if that's the case, there's now 3 dudes in on it?
Why use the easy option,when theres a difficult window and shutter to navigate.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: barrier on June 08, 2019, 05:02:33 PM
No ... DCI Redwood was of the opinion Dr Totman was "almost certainly" the man seen by Jane Tanner ... which imo was a highly significant thing to say.
No,DCI Redwood never mentioned any one by name.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: John on June 08, 2019, 05:02:42 PM
John is familiar with the type of shutter used in 5A ... he is also familiar with the type of lock there too. Rob is familiar with neither. So forgive me if my money is on what John has posted ... which should be kept in mind for future reference ... particularly as I am almost certain he has posted the information before.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: John on June 08, 2019, 05:07:07 PM
So as a hotel apartment, with the front door having 2 locks, the keys will both be on the same fob, but really, you only need to pull the door to?
Absolutely. If the patio door was locked and you walked out the front door pulling it closed behind you, then you are effectively locked out if you left the key inside.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Brietta on June 08, 2019, 05:08:19 PM
Absolutely. If the patio door was locked and you walked out the front door pulling it closed behind you, then you are effectively locked out if you left the key inside.
It's an important fact. We have to assume that it wasn't deadlocked i.e. the mortice lock wasn't also locked. Hence it was determined that they would leave the patio door open as it was simply closer. Jimmy the abductor didn't need to open any window in any of this.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: barrier on June 08, 2019, 05:30:15 PM
If you want a woke and wandered, the front door was left open by a burglar after disturbing Madeleine,she followed,the door then slammed shut just like the bedroom door did with Kate,simples.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Eleanor on June 08, 2019, 05:43:07 PM
There was a perfectly good car park right outside Madeleine's window ... why not use that? Of course the fact it might have led to discovery either before or after the abduction is neither here nor there.
Parking further away or heading to nearby cover surely cuts the risk of a vehicle being noticed rather than parking right on top of the scene of the crime.
Park in the well lit, communal car park, walk in through the front door without a key.....or somehow, for reasons only known to themselves, pry the window. Or.......park adjacent to the gate, by a dimly lit passage that is shrouded in foliage and is kerb side to the gate, pointing down hill, right next to the only unlocked access in the gaff.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: The General on June 08, 2019, 05:47:55 PM
Park in the well lit, communal car park, walk in through the front door without a key.....or somehow, for reasons only known to themselves, pry the window. Or.......park adjacent to the gate, by a dimly lit passage that is shrouded in foliage and is kerb side to the gate, pointing down hill.
Out of the two,the second is most plausible imo.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: John on June 08, 2019, 05:49:45 PM
Hardly. There was no crying or disturbance. What was he supposed to be looking for?
I always wondered about this 9.30pm alleged listening at the children's bedroom window. IMO had there been someone lurking about intent upon mischief they would have been scared off by all these movements of the various members of the tapas group.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Eleanor on June 08, 2019, 05:50:32 PM
Park in the well lit, communal car park, walk in through the front door without a key.....or somehow, for reasons only known to themselves, pry the window. Or.......park adjacent to the gate, by a dimly lit passage that is shrouded in foliage and is kerb side to the gate, pointing down hill.
The car park wasn't well lit at the time, and covered in trees. The front door is in a hidden recess.
The lighting was added much later.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: The General on June 08, 2019, 05:51:37 PM
Well I would have thought so. But because this doesn't chime with the window nonsense, it sort of hamstrings the whole abduction theory. This apparently well organised, well equipped abduction team decide to use the most convoluted method of extraction going.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: The General on June 08, 2019, 05:53:09 PM
I always wondered about this 9.30pm alleged listening at the children's bedroom window. IMO had there been someone lurking about intent upon mischief they would have been scared off by all these movements of the various members of the tapas group.
Indeed. They would have been deterred by this robust checking process, undoubtedly. They'd have seen all sorts of characters coming and going and called the thing off.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: barrier on June 08, 2019, 05:53:33 PM
The car park wasn't well lit at the time, and covered in trees. The front door is in a hidden recess.
The lighting was added much later.
Let's factor that in. Even with these dimly lit conditions, is it more secluded and dimly lit than the back passage (oo err). Then consider the LOCKED front door, as opposed to the very UNLOCKED back door. Not even a fully subscribed idiot would pull a car up to the front door and either reverse in or reverse out....that would be insane. Sidle up to the side entrance though.......
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on June 08, 2019, 06:02:16 PM
Let's pack it all in then and post about the texture of the scones in the cafe at M&S. You might have 'done all this before', but I haven't.
I will labour the point one more time, though. Why would Jimmy pass her through a window when he could just walk out of the door? What's the point? The window is 2 feet from the door on the same elevation.
Perhaps the abductor didn’t want to risk bumping into anyone coming in via the patio doors and felt safer using the window in the room.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on June 08, 2019, 06:04:40 PM
Indeed. They would have been deterred by this robust checking process, undoubtedly. They'd have seen all sorts of characters coming and going and called the thing off.
Not if they had been observing the pattern all week.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: barrier on June 08, 2019, 06:05:12 PM
Let's pack it all in then and post about the texture of the scones in the cafe at M&S. You might have 'done all this before', but I haven't.
I will labour the point one more time, though. Why would Jimmy pass her through a window when he could just walk out of the door? What's the point? The window is 2 feet from the door on the same elevation.
Yeah, so like I said coming out of the bedroom into the hall and you may risk coming face to face with a parent entering via the patio doors on their way to check on the kids.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: The General on June 08, 2019, 06:14:04 PM
Perhaps the abductor didn’t want to risk bumping into anyone coming in via the patio doors and felt safer using the window in the room.
....but risk being extremely conspicuous by passing a child out of the window? In terms of risk reduction, surely using the conventional methods of egress would be less conspicuous, as an abductor? And as I've said, if we assume they are not 3 parts mad to get to this point, who would choose to not simply walk out of either door, at least one of which is super secluded?
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: The General on June 08, 2019, 06:15:19 PM
Yeah, so like I said coming out of the bedroom into the hall and you may risk coming face to face with a parent entering via the patio doors on their way to check on the kids.
So why not lock it then from the inside then? It would really encumber someone for about 30 seconds.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on June 08, 2019, 06:16:18 PM
....but risk being extremely conspicuous by passing a child out of the window? In terms of risk reduction, surely using the conventional methods of egress would be less conspicuous, as an abductor? And as I've said, if we assume they are not 3 parts mad to get to this point, who would choose to not simply walk out of either door, at least one of which is super secluded?
Would passing the child out of the window have been more conspicuous than leaving the apartment from either door carrying the child? I don’t see why. The window was shielded from view by foliage and not lit.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: The General on June 08, 2019, 06:17:08 PM
Would passing the child out of the window have been more conspicuous than leaving the apartment from either door carrying the child? I don’t see why. The window was shielded from view by foliage and not lit.
I see why. It's totally unnatural. Walking out of the door is totally natural, that's what they're designed for. An imbecile might, but according to the abduction narrative, ours were slick.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: barrier on June 08, 2019, 06:19:30 PM
If this checking was as described they would have gone elsewhere. Too many eyes, too many variables.
No. The parents claimed they checked on the kids every 30 minutes, that’s plenty of time. Once you see an adult leaving the apartment at 9pm you know it’s unlikely anyone will be back until 9.30pm. In like Flynn.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: barrier on June 08, 2019, 06:21:57 PM
No. The parents claimed they checked on the kids every 30 minutes, that’s plenty of time. Once you see an adult leaving the apartment at 9pm you know it’s unlikely anyone will be back until 9.30pm. In like Flynn.
GM never left the apartment at 9pm though,so the time becomes even narrower.Circa 9-10 I believe.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on June 08, 2019, 06:22:53 PM
I see why. It's totally unnatural. Walking out of the door is totally natural, that's what they're designed for. An imbecile might, but according to the abduction narrative, ours were slick.
Are you suggesting burglars never leave buildings via windows but will always exit via doors if possible? Is this set in stone?
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: The General on June 08, 2019, 06:22:58 PM
Lock what? The patio doors? Wouldn’t that immediately alert the parent to the fact that something was amiss?
So what at this point? Who cares when you're in the apartment? You're committed. As I mentioned earlier, you can put barriers in the way (the shovel on the stairs). Locking the patio door buys valuable seconds to foxtrot oscar. I would even abandon the child and get on my toes.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: The General on June 08, 2019, 06:26:08 PM
Are you suggesting burglars never leave buildings via windows but will always exit via doors if possible? Is this set in stone?
But there's an uncompromised, open patio door and a simply opened front door. If your burglar was out of options he would probably launch himself through an upstairs window if he had to. But it's the easiest means possible first.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on June 08, 2019, 06:26:29 PM
When? Madeleine was there when Gerry checked,gone when Kate checked.
I think you misunderstood. I mean that as soon as a parent tried to open the patio door and found it locked (when they knew it had been left unlocked) they would know something was amiss. So if an abductor locked the patio door after entering to prevent anyone else getting in while he was in there, then the person trying to open the door would be immediately alerted.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: barrier on June 08, 2019, 06:26:37 PM
I see why. It's totally unnatural. Walking out of the door is totally natural, that's what they're designed for. An imbecile might, but according to the abduction narrative, ours were slick.
There's no evidence of any one climbing out the window,if handing the child out to an accomplish the one inside must have left through either the front door or patio door,if doing that, take the child the same way,most plausible isn't it? Thats in the unlikely scenario of at least two jimmy abductors.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: barrier on June 08, 2019, 06:28:15 PM
I think you misunderstood. I mean that as soon as a parent tried to open the patio door and found it locked (when they knew it had been left unlocked) they would know something was amiss. So if an abductor locked the patio door after entering to prevent anyone else getting in while he was in there, then the person trying to open the door would be immediately alerted.
Kate knew something was amiss with in seconds of entering so a few seconds earlier would not have made an iota imo.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on June 08, 2019, 06:29:34 PM
But there's an uncompromised, open patio door and a simply opened front door. If your burglar was out of options he would probably launch himself through an upstairs window if he had to. But it's the easiest means possible first.
I’ve suggested a reason why, maybe there are others. I don’t think walking back through the apartment, through the sliding doors, down the steps and round the corner bumping into who knows whom is a very sensible move.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on June 08, 2019, 06:31:17 PM
Kate knew something was amiss with in seconds of entering so a few seconds earlier would not have made an iota imo.
An abductor is not to know that. Frankly I’ve never heard of a burglar or abductor locking themselves into a house they’re burgling, that seems most unlikely to me.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: faithlilly on June 08, 2019, 06:44:38 PM
An abductor is not to know that. Frankly I’ve never heard of a burglar or abductor locking themselves into a house they’re burgling, that seems most unlikely to me.
I understand. But if, as you have suggested, the main access / egress point is the patio doors, and they're being routinely used for a checking process to allow access for a few different people, and you suss that - and you know it's left open - you would be remiss not to use it. Locking it behind you and walking out of the front door with your abductee would encumber someone popping in. Yes, the alarm bells would go off, but there's no real difference in finding something not being right - maybe 30 seconds, but it could be crucial. That's not how I think it went down, I'm just trying to think like our Jimmy and his oppos.
Actually, just realised, I didn't answer the previous point. If you know it can't be opened from the outside, you should lock it. Means they've got to go round.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on June 08, 2019, 07:09:12 PM
I understand. But if, as you have suggested, the main access / egress point is the patio doors, and they're being routinely used for a checking process to allow access for a few different people, and you suss that - and you know it's left open - you would be remiss not to use it. Locking it behind you and walking out of the front door with your abductee would encumber someone popping in. Yes, the alarm bells would go off, but there's no real difference in finding something not being right - maybe 30 seconds, but it could be crucial. That's not how I think it went down, I'm just trying to think like our Jimmy and his oppos.
As am I. But the thing is, if you believe the parents are responsible for opening the window (and I’m not saying you do, necessarily) there isn’t a logical explanation for why they would do that and then close them before the police got there either. So whoever you hold responsible for doing it, holes can be picked in the motives.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: The General on June 08, 2019, 07:14:58 PM
As am I. But the thing is, if you believe the parents are responsible for opening the window (and I’m not saying you do, necessarily) there isn’t a logical explanation for why they would do that and then close them before the police got there either. So whoever you hold responsible for doing it, holes can be picked in the motives.
Indeed. Apart from supporting the abduction 'blind', if you'll pardon the pun, then the only other explanation would be that they were never open. No, hang on, we have 3 alternatives - they were never opened, they were opened and used by Jimmy, then closed by Gerry as proof of concept? they were alluded to by Gerry upon realising an incongruence in statements.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: G-Unit on June 08, 2019, 07:19:33 PM
As am I. But the thing is, if you believe the parents are responsible for opening the window (and I’m not saying you do, necessarily) there isn’t a logical explanation for why they would do that and then close them before the police got there either. So whoever you hold responsible for doing it, holes can be picked in the motives.
Something which seems illogical to you may make perfect sense when you learn the reason.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on June 08, 2019, 07:25:44 PM
Would an abductor know the front door can't be closed behind them? Why would they even care?
If we assume Jimmy now knows that the patio door is open, he wouldn't care. He would only care how he gets if it goes noisy. The window doesn't even register for our Jimmy in my opinion, if Jimmy exists, obviously.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Robittybob1 on June 08, 2019, 08:26:46 PM
No, maybe I wasn't clear. Nobody is using the front door (not even Gerry because he couldn't be arsed walking round, hence why he left the patio door open). The door may have been opened by this abductor as a secondary means of escape. Nobody in their right mind would walk out of the front door not knowing what's going on out there, when you have a perfectly reasonable mode of egress through the way you came.
OK I might have it a bit wrong, but I find you are making a couple of assumptions you can't make.
1. That Madeleine was in her bed asleep. 2. That you entering in via the patio door wasn't enough to make Madeleine escape by the front door.
"Thank you. So you have a perfect scenario for your abductor: illumination, an open back door, using the most secluded and gloomy access point with a simply opened front door, nobody home. Rush in through the patio door, maybe listen for a few seconds, walk straight to the front door (or not), put it on the snip or open it, take the wee an, straight back down through the way you came, in to the car - whoosh! Gone. Takes literally seconds. So why the window?"
So you have failed to abduct her if she escaped, so why the window? Well here is a possibility, you make it look like the window was the entry point,and you close the front door again, and quietly exit via the patio door closing it all behind you. Making it look like someone else.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Brietta on June 08, 2019, 08:29:09 PM
Would an abductor know the front door can't be closed behind them? Why would they even care?
The longer the interval between Madeleine's disappearance being discovered the more space an abductor would have to get clear before the alarm was raised.
No point in leaving the red flag of an open door to advertise their presence unnecessarily. With any luck Madeleine might not have been discovered missing until the morning giving more time and distance. In the event, they did it as successfully as they did everything else within close margins. IMO
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Robittybob1 on June 08, 2019, 08:34:12 PM
The longer the interval between Madeleine's disappearance being discovered the more space an abductor would have to get clear before the alarm was raised.
No point in leaving the red flag of an open door to advertise their presence unnecessarily. With any luck Madeleine might not have been discovered missing until the morning giving more time and distance. In the event, they did it as successfully as they did everything else within close margins. IMO
I get the feeling you haven't had to do burglaries or associated with burglars in you younger days.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: The General on June 08, 2019, 08:34:27 PM
OK I might have it a bit wrong, but I find you are making a couple of assumptions you can't make.
1. That Madeleine was in her bed asleep. 2. That you entering in via the patio door wasn't enough to make Madeleine escape by the front door.
"Thank you. So you have a perfect scenario for your abductor: illumination, an open back door, using the most secluded and gloomy access point with a simply opened front door, nobody home. Rush in through the patio door, maybe listen for a few seconds, walk straight to the front door (or not), put it on the snip or open it, take the wee an, straight back down through the way you came, in to the car - whoosh! Gone. Takes literally seconds. So why the window?"
So you have failed to abduct her if she escaped, so why the window? Well here is a possibility, you make it look like the window was the entry point,and you close the front door again, and quietly exit via the patio door closing it all behind you.
I'll address your final point first. If you're an abductor and you miserably fail to abduct anyone, due to the fact that the target left of her own accord, why would you then go on to make it look like she escaped? Why not just walk out the way you came, walk down the road and go for a pint?
As for if Jimmy disturbs her and she's swift enough to escape. You get on your toes and go to ground. Or you lift her kicking and screaming if you have the means of escape.
Finally, if she isn't asleep and is wandering around, and I think that is very likely, then a grown ass man would simply subdue her I'm afraid.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: The General on June 08, 2019, 08:38:19 PM
The longer the interval between Madeleine's disappearance being discovered the more space an abductor would have to get clear before the alarm was raised.
No point in leaving the red flag of an open door to advertise their presence unnecessarily. With any luck Madeleine might not have been discovered missing until the morning giving more time and distance. In the event, they did it as successfully as they did everything else within close margins. IMO
I agree with attempting to leave no red flags, but our Jimmy and his accomplices have the checking regime down remember. They will have an idea of the time scales. If Jimmy exists.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: The General on June 08, 2019, 08:46:58 PM
Would an abductor know the front door can't be closed behind them? Why would they even care?
Quite agree, getting in was easy(patio door),so go out the easy way,unlocked patio door simples.Or as I ventured Madeleine left of her own accord after a burglar left the front door open.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: barrier on June 08, 2019, 09:03:37 PM
The longer the interval between Madeleine's disappearance being discovered the more space an abductor would have to get clear before the alarm was raised.
No point in leaving the red flag of an open door to advertise their presence unnecessarily. With any luck Madeleine might not have been discovered missing until the morning giving more time and distance. In the event, they did it as successfully as they did everything else within close margins. IMO
There was supposed to be a red flag of a window open,a open door would be the same,if one is viable both are,if one is not viable then neither are.Imo and all that jazz.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Brietta on June 08, 2019, 09:14:20 PM
I agree with attempting to leave no red flags, but our Jimmy and his accomplices have the checking regime down remember. They will have an idea of the time scales. If Jimmy exists.
The time scales were on a knife edge.
My impression is that Kate and Gerry's visits were at regular timed intervals and therefore easy for Jimmy the Abductor to factor in to his or her plan. But Jimmy the Abductor would have noticed the more erratic movements of the other two couples with no precise measurement of timings between visits. That irregularity was no doubt factored into Jimmy the Abductor's strategy, because it was a very high risk strategy.
For example ... had Jes not stopped to speak with Gerry ... there is a high probability he would have had a face to face encounter with Jimmy the Abductor leaving 5A grounds. Subsequently in combination with Jane's description ... that might have been enough to lead directly to him and to Madeleine.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Brietta on June 08, 2019, 09:24:40 PM
There was supposed to be a red flag of a window open,a open door would be the same,if one is viable both are,if one is not viable then neither are.Imo and all that jazz.
In my opinion ... not at all.
It is entirely possible that the open window could have been missed if the same conditions had not been in place that were there when Kate was alerted by the curtains whooshing
But paramount is that no-one who was not Jimmy the Abductor knows exactly what went on that night. Which if either door was entered or exited through. Or why the window was open and the shutter up ... ingress or egress ... and why it was left up. From inside it would have taken seconds to sort it ... maybe not so easy from outside though.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Robittybob1 on June 08, 2019, 09:28:40 PM
Quite agree, getting in was easy(patio door),so go out the easy way,unlocked patio door simples.Or as I ventured Madeleine left of her own accord after a burglar left the front door open.
Madeleine is just as capable of opening the front door as any burglar might. So how does your "burglar" get in? Through the window or the patio door. He seems to take nothing.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Robittybob1 on June 08, 2019, 09:30:23 PM
There was supposed to be a red flag of a window open,a open door would be the same,if one is viable both are,if one is not viable then neither are.Imo and all that jazz.
They are not the same Madeleine is capable of opening doors but not the window and the shutter IMO.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: faithlilly on June 08, 2019, 09:30:53 PM
My impression is that Kate and Gerry's visits were at regular timed intervals and therefore easy for Jimmy the Abductor to factor in to his or her plan. But Jimmy the Abductor would have noticed the more erratic movements of the other two couples with no precise measurement of timings between visits. That irregularity was no doubt factored into Jimmy the Abductor's strategy, because it was a very high risk strategy.
For example ... had Jes not stopped to speak with Gerry ... there is a high probability he would have had a face to face encounter with Jimmy the Abductor leaving 5A grounds. Subsequently in combination with Jane's description ... that might have been enough to lead directly to him and to Madeleine.
But on the 3rd Gerry didn’t come back to approx 9.15 and Kate got up to check at 9.30. That’s not very regular if the rest of the nights they’d been checking every half hour.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Robittybob1 on June 08, 2019, 09:33:31 PM
My impression is that Kate and Gerry's visits were at regular timed intervals and therefore easy for Jimmy the Abductor to factor in to his or her plan. But Jimmy the Abductor would have noticed the more erratic movements of the other two couples with no precise measurement of timings between visits. That irregularity was no doubt factored into Jimmy the Abductor's strategy, because it was a very high risk strategy.
For example ... had Jes not stopped to speak with Gerry ... there is a high probability he would have had a face to face encounter with Jimmy the Abductor leaving 5A grounds. Subsequently in combination with Jane's description ... that might have been enough to lead directly to him and to Madeleine.
So how long does he need to look to establish they were regular intervals. When did the observations start?
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: pathfinder73 on June 08, 2019, 09:38:07 PM
IMO an abductor would not have raised those noisy shutters. On a quiet night with regular checks and sleeping children it was extremely high risk and would have wasted precious time they did not have!
Dianne Webster found the shutters down 5 minutes after the alarm was raised. She was the one who tried to raise them and got them stuck as seen in crime scene photos. They usually fall straight back down unless they got twisted and stuck!
So how long does he need to look to establish they were regular intervals. When did the observations start?
I do not have a firm opinion on that ... I have seen some say they think it could have been on booking arrangements being made ... others on arrival. I think the location might have been the initial focal point ... and the opportunity taken when it arose.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Brietta on June 08, 2019, 09:43:01 PM
IMO an abductor would not have raised those noisy shutters. On a quiet night with regular checks and sleeping children it was extremely high risk and would have wasted precious time they did not have!
Dianne Webster found the shutters down 5 minutes after the alarm was raised. She was the one who tried to raise them and got them stuck as seen in crime scene photos. They usually fall straight back down unless they got twisted and stuck!
What would have been unusual about shutter noise in a village of properties where all the windows are covered with shutters?
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Robittybob1 on June 08, 2019, 09:44:44 PM
IMO an abductor would not have raised those noisy shutters. On a quiet night with regular checks and sleeping children it was extremely high risk and would have wasted precious time they did not have!
Dianne Webster found the shutters down 5 minutes after the alarm was raised. She was the one who tried to raise them and got them stuck as seen in crime scene photos. They usually fall straight back down unless they got twisted and stuck!
What would have been unusual about shutter noise in a village of properties where all the windows are covered with shutters?
True, nothing. But opening them from the outside would be odd. Plus Jimmy would surely be trying to mitigate noise. Why raise the shutters when he could silently slide an unlocked patio door to one side?
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Robittybob1 on June 08, 2019, 10:09:19 PM
True, nothing. But opening them from the outside would be odd. Plus Jimmy would surely be trying to mitigate noise. Why raise the shutters when he could silently slide an unlocked patio door to one side?
Try and keep to the topic - woke and wandered. Whatever happened end up with a woke and wandered outcome.
Well sliding doors I know off rumble when they are slid across. "Why raise the shutters when he could silently slide an unlocked patio door to one side?"
Not always silent and if Madeleine is exiting the front door and he is 15 meters away at the patio door she has the 15 m head start.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: The General on June 08, 2019, 10:15:16 PM
Try and keep to the topic - woke and wandered. Whatever happened end up with a woke and wandered outcome.
Well sliding doors I know off rumble when they are slid across. "Why raise the shutters when he could silently slide an unlocked patio door to one side?"
Not always silent and if Madeleine is exiting the front door and he is 15 meters away at thew patio door she has the head start.
What's the odds? Just as our crack abduction crew of Jimmy et al enter through the patio door (or window), Maddie is slipping out the front. And I'll be honest, even a 3 year old would be very reluctant to leave her siblings alone IMO. She would at the very least attempt to wake them. She was apparently very tenacious.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Robittybob1 on June 08, 2019, 10:31:36 PM
What's the odds? Just as our crack abduction crew of Jimmy et al enter through the patio door (or window), Maddie is slipping out the front. And I'll be honest, even a 3 year old would be very reluctant to leave her siblings alone IMO. She would at the very least attempt to wake them. She was apparently very tenacious.
Do you know the story? Matt went there around 9:30 to check on the kids but he didn't see or hear Madeleine. So where was she? I tend to think she was hiding somewhere in the apartment.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: The General on June 08, 2019, 10:37:08 PM
Do you know the story? Matt went there around 9:30 to check on the kids but he didn't see or hear Madeleine. So where was she? I tend to think she was hiding somewhere in the apartment.
But he didn't think her missing at that point, otherwise he would surely have looked, then raised the alarm.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Robittybob1 on June 08, 2019, 10:43:31 PM
But he didn't think her missing at that point, otherwise he would surely have looked, then raised the alarm.
But why not? What did he really think? It isn't easy to figure out but I thought he had the feeling she was asleep in the bed on the far side of the kids room. There were the two cots and a bed with rumpled up bed clothes beyond that.. He was mistaken IMO.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on June 08, 2019, 11:45:55 PM
What's the odds? Just as our crack abduction crew of Jimmy et al enter through the patio door (or window), Maddie is slipping out the front. And I'll be honest, even a 3 year old would be very reluctant to leave her siblings alone IMO. She would at the very least attempt to wake them. She was apparently very tenacious.
Do you have children? I take issue with your last statment. My elder child couldn’t stand the younger child and most certainly would not have any trouble whatsoever leaving him alone, nor would she attempt to wake him unless it was to really piss him off.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Robittybob1 on June 09, 2019, 03:06:42 AM
What's the odds? Just as our crack abduction crew of Jimmy et al enter through the patio door (or window), Maddie is slipping out the front. And I'll be honest, even a 3 year old would be very reluctant to leave her siblings alone IMO. She would at the very least attempt to wake them. She was apparently very tenacious.
How could Madeleine nearly 4 handle two crying toddlers just over 2 years of age? No the best thing she could do was to go get help.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: barrier on June 09, 2019, 06:32:02 AM
Madeleine is just as capable of opening the front door as any burglar might. So how does your "burglar" get in? Through the window or the patio door. He seems to take nothing.
Well it was said nothing of value was taken.Also you're showing how the conundrum surrounding Jimmy getting in is a puzzle let alone leaving,so to that end,is it easier for Madeleine to wake and wander above abduction,
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: barrier on June 09, 2019, 06:57:25 AM
Why? place yourself in Jimmy's shoes,enter the bedroom, choice,over to the window and open it and shutters,snatch the girl and away,or enter the bedroom snatch the girl over to the window,put girl down open window and shutters and away,or snatch girl, off out the door,simples really.
So why would a woke and wandered be any more of a scenario than the above.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on June 09, 2019, 10:33:37 AM
Why? place yourself in Jimmy's shoes,enter the bedroom, choice,over to the window and open it and shutters,snatch the girl and away,or enter the bedroom snatch the girl over to the window,put girl down open window and shutters and away,or snatch girl, off out the door,simples really.
So why would a woke and wandered be any more of a scenario than the above.
How about enter the bedroom, open window and shutter first before picking up the girl? Opening the shutter also allows a little bit of light into the room so you can see exactly where she is and how to pick her up. Then do so and leave, perhaps with an accomplice on the other side of the window?
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Robittybob1 on June 09, 2019, 11:41:40 AM
Why? place yourself in Jimmy's shoes,enter the bedroom, choice,over to the window and open it and shutters,snatch the girl and away,or enter the bedroom snatch the girl over to the window,put girl down open window and shutters and away,or snatch girl, off out the door,simples really.
So why would a woke and wandered be any more of a scenario than the above.
There are more logical sequences than what you describe IMO.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: barrier on June 09, 2019, 11:43:21 AM
How about enter the bedroom, open window and shutter first before picking up the girl? Opening the shutter also allows a little bit of light into the room so you can see exactly where she is and how to pick her up. Then do so and leave, perhaps with an accomplice on the other side of the window?
Exactly- Jimmy might open the shutters and find that Madeleine wasn't even in the room. She had woke and wandered!
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: G-Unit on June 09, 2019, 12:36:02 PM
How about enter the bedroom, open window and shutter first before picking up the girl? Opening the shutter also allows a little bit of light into the room so you can see exactly where she is and how to pick her up. Then do so and leave, perhaps with an accomplice on the other side of the window?
Raising the shutters was noisy. It would attract the attention of anyone nearby who was out of sight of Jimmy and his mate, not to mention the risk of wakening three children.
It was the previous occupant of G5A, Paul Gordon, who mentioned the noisy shutters. # https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/PAUL_GORDON.htm
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Robittybob1 on June 09, 2019, 12:37:55 PM
Raising the shutters was noisy. It would attract the attention of anyone nearby who was out of sight of Jimmy and his mate, not to mention the risk of wakening three children.
It was the previous occupant of G5A, Paul Gordon, who mentioned the noisy shutters. # https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/PAUL_GORDON.htm
So could we surmise that whoever opened the shutters woke Madeleine up.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: barrier on June 09, 2019, 01:00:09 PM
Raising the shutters was noisy. It would attract the attention of anyone nearby who was out of sight of Jimmy and his mate, not to mention the risk of wakening three children.
It was the previous occupant of G5A, Paul Gordon, who mentioned the noisy shutters. # https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/PAUL_GORDON.htm
How noisy is noisy? Noisy inside the room or noisy outside the room? Can the amount of noise be lessened by opening them more slowly and carefully? Is the noise of opening shutters in Pdl likely to attract attention or is it a fairly commonplace sound like the passing of a car? Did anyone notice the noise of Kate allegedly opening the shutters? So what if the three kids awakened? The abductor wouldn’t have been planning to stick around for long. In any case they ddn’t wake up when their parents “tampered” with the shutters so does that mean they only said the window and shutters had been opened but they never bothered to actually open them?
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: G-Unit on June 09, 2019, 02:56:54 PM
So could we surmise that whoever opened the shutters woke Madeleine up.
No, because they were later closed, then raised again twice and the twins slept on. Abductors wouldn't have expected shildren to do that though., so imo it was a risk they wouldn't have taken.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on June 09, 2019, 04:06:27 PM
No, because they were later closed, then raised again twice and the twins slept on. Abductors wouldn't have expected shildren to do that though., so imo it was a risk they wouldn't have taken.
You really cannot decide what a child abductor would and wouldn't do, IMO.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Angelo222 on June 09, 2019, 04:17:26 PM
You really cannot decide what a child abductor would and wouldn't do, IMO.
IMO, a child abductor would never contemplate abducting a child from a bedroom containing two other children given that they would probably scream the place down thus attracting attention. Better the lone child, much easier to control the situation.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Brietta on June 09, 2019, 04:23:32 PM
So opening a window and then the shutter would draw more attention than peaking out the door,glad that's sorted.
The door is in a recess ... so not as simple as peeking out really cos all you would be looking at is a blank wall obscuring your vision. Whereas peeking out of the window affords a view of the street entrance to the apartments and anyone coming or going.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: barrier on June 09, 2019, 04:52:20 PM
The door is in a recess ... so not as simple as peeking out really cos all you would be looking at is a blank wall obscuring your vision. Whereas peeking out of the window affords a view of the street entrance to the apartments and anyone coming or going.
Far better to duck back in a recess than make a noise with a shutter. Which would be the more obvious,shutter and window open,enabling some one to stick their head out,or sneak out the door and peak around the recess. Pictures 1&2. https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/5A_PHOTO_REPORT.htm
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on June 09, 2019, 04:57:32 PM
IMO, a child abductor would never contemplate abducting a child from a bedroom containing two other children given that they would probably scream the place down thus attracting attention. Better the lone child, much easier to control the situation.
I really think this is poor logic, sorry.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on June 09, 2019, 05:08:07 PM
Raising the shutters was noisy. It would attract the attention of anyone nearby who was out of sight of Jimmy and his mate, not to mention the risk of wakening three children.
It was the previous occupant of G5A, Paul Gordon, who mentioned the noisy shutters. # https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/PAUL_GORDON.htm
No it wouldn't ... Gerry did it and no-one heard. A retired policeman was filmed doing it ... didn't see anyone rushing to intervene. A security guard saw it had been interfered with during his rounds ... but neither saw or heard anything.
Snip - Back at 5A of the Ocean Club, on 26 September someone forced up the external blinds of the front bedroom to an oblique angle. There appeared to be no attempt to force open the window. The security guard stated between 21:00 and 21:05 he had done the 'rounds' of the block, then walked down to the supermarket and back again whereupon he found the damage which he called in immediately. https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/DCCB_LETTER.htm
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on June 09, 2019, 05:17:56 PM
I know you don’t, you try your best avoid the juicy stuff.
There is nothing tedious about Gerry’s two versions of the last time he claims to have seen his child alive, IMO. You’re just going to have to get used to me harping on about it until they get their hands on Jimmy I’m afraid.
Not planning on leaving any time soon then.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on June 09, 2019, 05:42:45 PM
I know you don’t, you try your best avoid the juicy stuff.
There is nothing tedious about Gerry’s two versions of the last time he claims to have seen his child alive, IMO. You’re just going to have to get used to me harping on about it until they get their hands on Jimmy I’m afraid.
It’s very silly IMO. Nobody else does it, so why do you have to? Do you think you’re the only person who’s noticed the discrepancy?
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: The General on June 09, 2019, 05:47:18 PM
So expanding upon this decision to apparently leave the patio door open; I wonder if Kate knew. Did Gerry make that decision to save his legs? What mother would concur with that decision? I don't know of any. Unless it never happened, of course.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on June 09, 2019, 05:52:48 PM
It looks like I’m the only one prepared to harp on day after day about its importance to the story we have been fed about Madeleine’s disappearance. Gerry didn’t tell crime-watch viewers about that, did he? And Kate forgot to clear it up in her book, didn’t she?
That just leaves me.
Good luck to you but please be aware that every time you reply to one of my posts by bringing it up again Iwill yawn.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Robittybob1 on June 09, 2019, 07:07:59 PM
No, because they were later closed, then raised again twice and the twins slept on. Abductors wouldn't have expected shildren to do that though., so imo it was a risk they wouldn't have taken.
One minute there are claims the shutters are noisy then there are claims the twins slept through them being raised twice. Well maybe the twins were sedated but Madeleine was not. Whatever happened to the twins is no certainty the same happened to Madeleine.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Robittybob1 on June 09, 2019, 07:12:46 PM
The door is in a recess ... so not as simple as peeking out really cos all you would be looking at is a blank wall obscuring your vision. Whereas peeking out of the window affords a view of the street entrance to the apartments and anyone coming or going.
Are we talking about the view from the window in the kids room? I doubt that it allowed such an over all view. Have you seen a photo taken from within the room to demonstrate that view?
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Robittybob1 on June 09, 2019, 07:20:01 PM
So expanding upon this decision to apparently leave the patio door open; I wonder if Kate knew. Did Gerry make that decision to save his legs? What mother would concur with that decision? I don't know of any. Unless it never happened, of course.
Wait wait, where does all this come from? AFAIK Kate knew all along. Gerry and Kate left by the patio door.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: G-Unit on June 09, 2019, 07:21:43 PM
True, true. That's why you're here. Grazie mille They both knew they were leaving the kids and leaving the door unlocked.
That is how I understand it too so where does all this other post come from? Quote: "So expanding upon this decision to apparently leave the patio door open; I wonder if Kate knew. Did Gerry make that decision to save his legs? What mother would concur with that decision? I don't know of any. Unless it never happened, of course."
"What mother would concur with that decision?" Kate McCann.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: barrier on June 09, 2019, 07:35:28 PM
That is how I understand it too so where does all this other post come from? Quote: "So expanding upon this decision to apparently leave the patio door open; I wonder if Kate knew. Did Gerry make that decision to save his legs? What mother would concur with that decision? I don't know of any. Unless it never happened, of course."
"What mother would concur with that decision?" Kate McCann.
Because I forgot that most fundamental of facts, hence I thanked you in Italian.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Brietta on June 09, 2019, 07:46:04 PM
Are we talking about the view from the window in the kids room? I doubt that it allowed such an over all view. Have you seen a photo taken from within the room to demonstrate that view?
You think a person putting their head outside the window of the children's bedroom would have had no view of the car park directly outside and anyone approaching from the entrance ... ???
What can one say to that ?
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Robittybob1 on June 09, 2019, 08:05:36 PM
You think a person putting their head outside the window of the children's bedroom would have had no view of the car park directly outside and anyone approaching from the entrance ... ???
What can one say to that ?
I am open to being educated on this. I had the notion they would raise the shutters to look out. A better view would be if they climbed onto the bed by the window. Was there a photo?
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: barrier on June 09, 2019, 08:17:03 PM
I am open to being educated on this. I had the notion they would raise the shutters to look out. A better view would be if they climbed onto the bed by the window. Was there a photo?
Photo 3 Rob,what would the advantage be to stand on a bed,the wall opposite the window is not high.
No it wouldn't ... Gerry did it and no-one heard. A retired policeman was filmed doing it ... didn't see anyone rushing to intervene. A security guard saw it had been interfered with during his rounds ... but neither saw or heard anything.
Snip - Back at 5A of the Ocean Club, on 26 September someone forced up the external blinds of the front bedroom to an oblique angle. There appeared to be no attempt to force open the window. The security guard stated between 21:00 and 21:05 he had done the 'rounds' of the block, then walked down to the supermarket and back again whereupon he found the damage which he called in immediately. https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/DCCB_LETTER.htm
There is no evidence of anybody passing through the window so raising the shutter makes no sense. It wastes time they wouldn't have and is too risky with sleeping children feet from it.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Robittybob1 on June 09, 2019, 09:11:15 PM
There is no evidence of anybody passing through the window so raising the shutter makes no sense. It wastes time they wouldn't have and is too risky with sleeping children feet from it.
All in your opinion.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: barrier on June 10, 2019, 06:17:18 AM
The no evidence of leaving through the window is not opinion though is it? along with no evidence of any one leaving by any of the doors in the process of half inching the girl away.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Robittybob1 on June 10, 2019, 10:23:23 AM
The no evidence of leaving through the window is not opinion though is it? along with no evidence of any one leaving by any of the doors in the process of half inching the girl away.
It was in the opinion of the PJ no one went through the window (either way). We then discuss that opinion as a fact. Only the patio door was checked for finger prints. Maybe it seemed a waste of time checking the front door by the time the PJ had arrived.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Miss Taken Identity on June 10, 2019, 10:57:13 AM
I know you don’t, you try your best avoid the juicy stuff.
There is nothing tedious about Gerry’s two versions of the last time he claims to have seen his child alive, IMO. You’re just going to have to get used to me harping on about it until they get their hands on Jimmy I’m afraid.
That YAWN response is the one that tells you, they have no argument to offer- no explanation. Just like the parents. it is only their mantra that get pushed out front by supporters. AND when they get really stuck they offer up an opinion to challenge what the parents were thinking ,or translation errors OR memory loss OR witness fatigue hahahahahaha
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Eleanor on June 10, 2019, 11:00:00 AM
That YAWN response is the one that tells you, they have no argument to offer- no explanation. Just like the parents. it is only their mantra that get pushed out front by supporters. AND when they get really stuck they offer up an opinion to challenge what the parents were thinking ,or translation errors OR memory loss OR witness fatigue hahahahahaha
Meanwhile, you offer absolutely nothing at all.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Miss Taken Identity on June 10, 2019, 11:03:58 AM
It was in the opinion of the PJ no one went through the window (either way). We then discuss that opinion as a fact. Only the patio door was checked for finger prints. Maybe it seemed a waste of time checking the front door by the time the PJ had arrived.
They looked for evidence on and near the shutters/ the window and that area.
There was no stranger fingerprints- or scuffmarks on the outside ,none on the outside of the window that had to be opened from the outside. Just fingerprints on the inside from the sole witness who made the claim of a window entry /exit with child...
Let us just be reminded - they went into the room- an alleged crime scene by a stranger- all ? what ?looking for what an abductor in the bedroom hiding under a cot? and then Gerry went and did his own investigaiton about the shutter...
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Miss Taken Identity on June 10, 2019, 11:06:33 AM
With The evidence presented in its entirety. The real reason the supporters and the Parents of the left alone every night children and babies, is; they would have been charged, which they should have been anyway. They would have been public hate figures for being cruel selfish parents, they would have received zero sympathy -and all that JAZZ that they so enjoyed while their child allegedly suffered at the hands of a ‘suspected paedo gang’ would NOT have been afforded to them. It was only after the initial ‘discussion’ with the press that the real version of what happened and could not have happened came to light. They never mentioned unlocked doors or leaving the children alone every night or that was the decision made BEFORE they even left the UK. The parents turned the attention from them -onto the lazy lousy PJ. Greattttttt PR… Poor Maddie collateral damage?
It would be very interesting if the police do actually find someone to testify MBM was abducted from the street- How will the parents deal with THAT publicity I wonder.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: G-Unit on June 10, 2019, 11:44:40 AM
With The evidence presented in its entirety. The real reason the supporters and the Parents of the left alone every night children and babies, is; they would have been charged, which they should have been anyway. They would have been public hate figures for being cruel selfish parents, they would have received zero sympathy -and all that JAZZ that they so enjoyed while their child allegedly suffered at the hands of a ‘suspected paedo gang’ would NOT have been afforded to them. It was only after the initial ‘discussion’ with the press that the real version of what happened and could not have happened came to light. They never mentioned unlocked doors or leaving the children alone every night or that was the decision made BEFORE they even left the UK. The parents turned the attention from them -onto the lazy lousy PJ. Greattttttt PR… Poor Maddie collateral damage?
It would be very interesting if the police do actually find someone to testify MBM was abducted from the street- How will the parents deal with THAT publicity I wonder.
Perhaps Kate will have to admit that she did indeed make a mistake,
"... I'm sure people will learn from our mistake, if you want to call it that." https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1559517/Madeleine-McCanns-mother-recalls-last-chat.html
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: ShiningInLuz on June 10, 2019, 11:48:37 AM
With The evidence presented in its entirety. The real reason the supporters and the Parents of the left alone every night children and babies, is; they would have been charged, which they should have been anyway. They would have been public hate figures for being cruel selfish parents, they would have received zero sympathy -and all that JAZZ that they so enjoyed while their child allegedly suffered at the hands of a ‘suspected paedo gang’ would NOT have been afforded to them. It was only after the initial ‘discussion’ with the press that the real version of what happened and could not have happened came to light. They never mentioned unlocked doors or leaving the children alone every night or that was the decision made BEFORE they even left the UK. The parents turned the attention from them -onto the lazy lousy PJ. Greattttttt PR… Poor Maddie collateral damage?
It would be very interesting if the police do actually find someone to testify MBM was abducted from the street- How will the parents deal with THAT publicity I wonder.
https://youtu.be/epZEpwVXgyw You may wish to check this out - The McCanns Versus The Media - broadcast on the first anniversary. This slice is only 15mins long, but it gives an interesting insight into the media from several viewpoints, including the Portuguese one.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Miss Taken Identity on June 10, 2019, 12:01:00 PM
Perhaps Kate will have to admit that she did indeed make a mistake,
"... I'm sure people will learn from our mistake, if you want to call it that." https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1559517/Madeleine-McCanns-mother-recalls-last-chat.html
What would supporters call it now that even Kate can't be sure?
"People have said we are the unluckiest couple in the world and we are. That night runs over and over in my mind and I'm sure people will learn from our mistake, if you want to call it that."
There is no evidence of anybody passing through the window so raising the shutter makes no sense. It wastes time they wouldn't have and is too risky with sleeping children feet from it.
Further if the abductor had been watching the group, as is postulated by the supporters, they would know that the group passed the window to get to their own apartments. Would they take the chance of one of the group seeing the window open and raising the alarm ?
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: jassi on June 10, 2019, 01:58:03 PM
Further if the abductor had been watching the group, as is postulated by the supporters, they would know that the group passed the window to get to their own apartments. Would they take the chance of one of the group seeing the window open and raising the alarm ?
Not only that, but Jimmy would have observed that parents were going up to the window to listen, so opening it would have been a big no no - IMO
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: pathfinder73 on June 10, 2019, 02:00:02 PM
Further if the abductor had been watching the group, as is postulated by the supporters, they would know that the group passed the window to get to their own apartments. Would they take the chance of one of the group seeing the window open and raising the alarm ?
Whichever way you look at it no normal abductor would raise them. [Rest off topic]
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: sadie on June 10, 2019, 10:38:39 PM
Further if the abductor had been watching the group, as is postulated by the supporters, they would know that the group passed the window to get to their own apartments. Would they take the chance of one of the group seeing the window open and raising the alarm ?
That is not strictly correct, Faith and I suspect that after all the photos on here you must know this. You have also visited the scene, haven't you? Please try and not muddy the waters with incorrect statements
All the Tapas group members have to use the communal walkway. Then apart from flat 5A, they have to turn off right into a communal hallway before reaching the window. Furthermore the building wall has an angle in it, meaning that no-one (all the other Tapas members) entering that communal hallway would see Madeleines bedroom window.
Not a single soul had reason to walk past Madeleines bedroom nor the FRONT DOOR. It was the end of the cul de sac., totally isolated
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Robittybob1 on June 10, 2019, 11:12:54 PM
That is not strictly correct, Faith and I suspect that after all the photos on here you must know this. You have also visited the scene, haven't you? Please try and not muddy the waters with incorrect statements
All the Tapas group members have to use the communal walkway then apart from flat 5A, they have to turn off right into a communal hallway before reaching the window. Furthermore the building wall has an angle in it, meaning that no-one (all the other Tapas members) entering that communal hallway would see Madeleines bedroom window.
Not a single soul had reason to walk past Madeleines bedroom nor the FRONT DOOR. It was the end of the cul de sac., totally isolated
Have you seen a photo of this communal walkway?
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on June 10, 2019, 11:41:28 PM
With The evidence presented in its entirety. The real reason the supporters and the Parents of the left alone every night children and babies, is; they would have been charged, which they should have been anyway. They would have been public hate figures for being cruel selfish parents, they would have received zero sympathy -and all that JAZZ that they so enjoyed while their child allegedly suffered at the hands of a ‘suspected paedo gang’ would NOT have been afforded to them. It was only after the initial ‘discussion’ with the press that the real version of what happened and could not have happened came to light. They never mentioned unlocked doors or leaving the children alone every night or that was the decision made BEFORE they even left the UK. The parents turned the attention from them -onto the lazy lousy PJ. Greattttttt PR… Poor Maddie collateral damage?
It would be very interesting if the police do actually find someone to testify MBM was abducted from the street- How will the parents deal with THAT publicity I wonder.
This is such arrant nonsense. Parents of children abducted and murdered by paedos do not get charged and do not get hated by the public at large, only by idiot trolls with zero empathy and a penchant for inflicting hurt and pain on the grieving.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Robittybob1 on June 10, 2019, 11:51:58 PM
With The evidence presented in its entirety. The real reason the supporters and the Parents of the left alone every night children and babies, is; they would have been charged, which they should have been anyway. They would have been public hate figures for being cruel selfish parents, they would have received zero sympathy -and all that JAZZ that they so enjoyed while their child allegedly suffered at the hands of a ‘suspected paedo gang’ would NOT have been afforded to them. It was only after the initial ‘discussion’ with the press that the real version of what happened and could not have happened came to light. They never mentioned unlocked doors or leaving the children alone every night or that was the decision made BEFORE they even left the UK. The parents turned the attention from them -onto the lazy lousy PJ. Greattttttt PR… Poor Maddie collateral damage?
It would be very interesting if the police do actually find someone to testify MBM was abducted from the street- How will the parents deal with THAT publicity I wonder.
That would a great start to unravelling the case if that happened.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: John on June 11, 2019, 09:41:57 AM
WARNING!
Some of the language that has been used recently towards members and moderators is totally unacceptable and has resulted in at least one temporary ban. Regular posters are very well aware of the forum rules so I shouldn't need to have to keep reminding of them. Everyone is entitled to voice their opinion here but it must be done respectfully, there can be no exceptions.
A challenge, let's try and get through today without the need for any moderation. TY
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: sadie on June 11, 2019, 11:49:43 AM
I walked the communal walled walkway right to the front door of 5A. 5A is the last door on that pathway. Nobody goes past unless they wanted to make a sudden escape over the wall onto the street below. A drop of maybe 12 feet but as a youngster i used to jump that easily enough.
I passed Madeleines window. I touched nothing. I looked into, but did not go into the building.
But I went into that walled communal walkway with an enquiring mind and noticed things.
Yes Rob, I have seen lots of photos, got some of my own somewhere, but there is nothing like testing things in real life.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Robittybob1 on June 11, 2019, 12:45:38 PM
I walked the communal walled walkway right to the front door of 5A. 5A is the last door on that pathway. Nobody goes past unless they wanted to make a sudden escape over the wall onto the street below. A drop of maybe 12 feet but as a youngster i used to jump that easily enough.
I passed Madeleines window. I touched nothing. I looked into, but did not go into the building.
But I went into that walled communal walkway with an enquiring mind and noticed things.
Yes Rob, I have seen lots of photos, got some of my own somewhere, but there is nothing like testing things in real life.
OK you called it a "communal walkway" I hadn't read anyone else calling a walkway that so I wanted to know what you were referring to.
Matt Oldfield is in the apartment next door (5B) but do you see a photo showing his front door? When he checked his child he had to go to his front door to get in, so how far was this from Madeleine's window?
You said "All the Tapas group members have to use the communal walkway then apart from flat 5A, they have to turn off right into a communal hallway before reaching the window. Furthermore the building wall has an angle in it, meaning that no-one (all the other Tapas members) entering that communal hallway would see Madeleines bedroom window.
Not a single soul had reason to walk past Madeleines bedroom nor the FRONT DOOR. It was the end of the cul de sac., totally isolated"
I'd like to see a photo showing the layout you describe. Does anyone have that?
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: sadie on June 11, 2019, 04:00:47 PM
OK you called it a "communal walkway" I hadn't read anyone else calling a walkway that so I wanted to know what you were referring to.
Matt Oldfield is in the apartment next door (5B) but do you see a photo showing his front door? When he checked his child he had to go to his front door to get in, so how far was this from Madeleine's window?
You said "All the Tapas group members have to use the communal walkway then apart from flat 5A, they have to turn off right into a communal hallway before reaching the window. Furthermore the building wall has an angle in it, meaning that no-one (all the other Tapas members) entering that communal hallway would see Madeleines bedroom window.
Not a single soul had reason to walk past Madeleines bedroom nor the FRONT DOOR. It was the end of the cul de sac., totally isolated"
I'd like to see a photo showing the layout you describe. Does anyone have that?
Rob,
I used the word communal to stress that it was the walkway that they all had to walk at least the first part of if they wished to go to the front door of their flats. All the front doors there opened onto this large hallway directly off the communal hallway. There were stairs within the hallway so that who ever was upstairs could carry on within the building to their falt. Have forgotten who was upstairs.
Kate and Gerry had to walk the whole length of the walkway to their flat and nobody could see them from their Hallway end of the walkway unless they went and stood by the walkway containing wall.
An abductor could be abducting with a watcher outside on thta pathway and any one coming from that hallway onto the walkway would not even see them! The way building walls and the pathway change direction is only a few degrees, but it is sufficient to hide someone a few yards along the pathway from the viewer coming from, or to, the hallway.
Rob, I am too tired to look things up ande I know that you are a whizz kid at finding photos etc.
There is a very good illustration of the path with Gerry walking along it, then showing the very wide entrance to the communal hallway enrance on the right then Gerry going around the bend in the pathway. It is on one of the videos produced by various parties presenting the scenario independently of which side of the discussion they are.
My memory has been affected by my accident, or maybe by an unnoticed mini stroke. I am sorry, but you will have to find it yourself, or maybe someone will kindly help you.
Then I would be grateful if you would post the video snip to remind, or inform others.
PS, I think that the buildings change in direction can be discerned from GEarth, but that needs checking.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: barrier on June 11, 2019, 04:14:01 PM
That is not strictly correct, Faith and I suspect that after all the photos on here you must know this. You have also visited the scene, haven't you? Please try and not muddy the waters with incorrect statements
All the Tapas group members have to use the communal walkway. Then apart from flat 5A, they have to turn off right into a communal hallway before reaching the window. Furthermore the building wall has an angle in it, meaning that no-one (all the other Tapas members) entering that communal hallway would see Madeleines bedroom window.
Not a single soul had reason to walk past Madeleines bedroom nor the FRONT DOOR. It was the end of the cul de sac., totally isolated
Even less of a reason to choose this apartment,only one way out if some one came along.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Eleanor on June 11, 2019, 04:15:54 PM
Sadie is correct, and anyone who has been at this for any length of time knows what The Walkway looks like.
5a is not immediately obvious to anyone walking across the car park.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on June 11, 2019, 05:42:08 PM
Sadie is correct, and anyone who has been at this for any length of time knows what The Walkway looks like.
5a is not immediately obvious to anyone walking across the car park.
I know what the walkway outside the McCann's apartment looks like, but I have yet to see a photo showing the position of the entrance to 5B in relation to that walkway. Where is the door that Matt entered to check his apartment? Maybe it is on the dog video!
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Wonderfulspam on June 11, 2019, 05:54:02 PM
Perhaps he didn't do the check, but went for a wazz in the bushes, so as not to wake the kids. He could've listened at the window at the same time.
Whatever, he would still have been observed listening at the window, the abductor would know the next check would be in another half an hour so good time to take Madeleine IMO
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Lace on June 11, 2019, 07:30:46 PM
It was a general question, asked of Pathfinder who claims to know how normal abductors behave.
IMO a normal abductor would NOT attract attention or waste precious time so to raise that noisy shutter is suicide. They pass through the car park to check so who in their right mind would leave a window open and a raised shutter for them to see? Did they want to be caught? Criminals also wear gloves and no marks were found. My conclusion - bring the village idiot in for questioning!
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on June 11, 2019, 08:34:10 PM
IMO a normal abductor would NOT attract attention or waste precious time so to raise that noisy shutter is suicide. They pass through the car park to check so who in their right mind would leave a window open and a raised shutter for them to see? Did they want to be caught? Criminals also wear gloves and no marks were found. My conclusion - bring the village idiot in for questioning!
And yet you have no trouble whatsoever believing that the perpetrator carried a dead child uncovered through the busiest part of town. Did he want to be caught??! Who in their right mind would do this? Not a normal body occulter that’s for sure!
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: jassi on June 11, 2019, 08:38:36 PM
Somebody desperate to distance a body from 5A, whatever the risk, perhaps
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on June 11, 2019, 09:01:50 PM
Even less of a reason to choose this apartment,only one way out if some one came along.
No, There is a drop over the end wall into the street below. This is the street that Jane walked up and Gerry and Jez chatted in. Quite a drop, which some people would blanch at the thought of doing, but a younger fit man could do it fairly easily. As a kid I was almost fearless and I could have done it.
Also there is the escape thru 5A and exit via the patio doors on the pool side.
And then a fit younger man would easily scramble over the pathway main wall and be out of sight because of the buildings and be out of sight of anyone coming along the other end of the path or exiting thei tapases communal Hall. This is because of the bend in the building wall blocking the view.
Absolutely perfect place to make an entry via that deeply recessed very very dark front door, which no one passes. With the added advantage that there were escape routes galore.
Oh and lets not forget that the front door light was broken. Pitch black, hidden away, no-ne passed and easy escape if needed. Trees to hide in adjacent. Poor street lighting, low output, with the lamps actually hidden in the heads of the trees.
The front door was used and a key was the method of entry imo
IMO, the emphasis has been ?deliberately taken away from an abductor via the front door, because it points to someone with OC connections. Staff? ... or ? Is someone being protected? If so, by whom ?
But perhaps I am wrong?
All in my opinion
Now I have to go. Soz
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: sadie on June 12, 2019, 01:03:38 PM
I know what the walkway outside the McCann's apartment looks like, but I have yet to see a photo showing the position of the entrance to 5B in relation to that walkway. Where is the door that Matt entered to check his apartment? Maybe it is on the dog video!
It comes from within the communal hallway that I described, Rob. All the tapas front doors appear to come from here or the first floor flat comes vis the staircase which starts in the Communal Hall downstairs.
I have not personally checked the doorways but common sense tells me that. There are images on the internet showing some of the doors, I believe, but I'm sorry, I am not searching.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Robittybob1 on June 12, 2019, 01:23:13 PM
It comes from within the communal hallway that I described, Rob. All the tapas front doors appear to come from here or the first floor flat comes vis the staircase which starts in the Communal Hall downstairs.
I have not personally checked the doorways but common sense tells me that. There are images on the internet showing some of the doors, I believe, but I'm sorry, I am not searching.
I hope that one day I'll go there and see for myself.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: sadie on June 12, 2019, 01:31:41 PM
Would this vantage point give views of both doors simultaneously ?
The Balcony opposite is the likely watching spot imo.
YES THIS BALCONY HAS VIEWS OF ANYONE IMMEDIATELY IN FRONT OF BOTH of the DOORS
The balcony with the fag ends on it has view points of anyone going in or out of 5A.
It also looks straight into the main living room of 5A, from which both front door and back (poolside ) patio door open.
It has an amazing view point in other ways too.
And fabulous facility to exit via the back gate straight into the little car park (Opposite Tapas Reception) where I believe the get away vehicle was parked.
Yet because of a wing of the block in his building sticking out and blocking his view, a watcher there couldn't see Gerry and Jez chatting.
All this is fact and has been thoroughly gone over before.
It is my opinion that the front door of 5A was unlocked using a key and Madeleine exited in her abductors arms via that same front door.
Everything points to that method imo. But who supplied the key ? Or how was a key obtained? Was someone at OC involved? Is someone hiding that person?
WHO ?
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: sadie on June 12, 2019, 03:32:24 PM
I hope that one day I'll go there and see for myself.
I hope so too, Rob
i hope that everyone that has spent so many hours on this case gets the opportunity to go and see for themselves. You all deserve it (the genuine ones of whichever side)
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: sadie on June 13, 2019, 01:06:35 PM
No, There is a drop over the end wall into the street below. This is the street that Jane walked up and Gerry and Jez chatted in. Quite a drop, which some people would blanch at the thought of doing, but a younger fit man could do it fairly easily. As a kid I was almost fearless and I could have done it.
Also there is the escape thru 5A and exit via the patio doors on the pool side.
And then a fit younger man would easily scramble over the pathway main wall and be out of sight because of the buildings and be out of sight of anyone coming along the other end of the path or exiting thei tapases communal Hall. This is because of the bend in the building wall blocking the view.
Absolutely perfect place to make an entry via that deeply recessed very very dark front door, which no one passes. With the added advantage that there were escape routes galore.
Oh and lets not forget that the front door light was broken. Pitch black, hidden away, no-ne passed and easy escape if needed. Trees to hide in adjacent. Poor street lighting, low output, with the lamps actually hidden in the heads of the trees.
The front door was used and a key was the method of entry imo
IMO, the emphasis has been ?deliberately taken away from an abductor via the front door, because it points to someone with OC connections. Staff? ... or ? Is someone being protected? If so, by whom ?
But perhaps I am wrong?
All in my opinion
Now I have to go. Soz
Why no interest in my description, Barrier?. I have put in a lot of work for you and others ignorant of the FACTS.
Do you still think that no abductor would use the Front door?
Please put your case if you think that.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: G-Unit on June 13, 2019, 01:30:32 PM
Why no interest in my description, Barrier?. I have put in a lot of work for you and others ignorant of the FACTS.
Do you still think that no abductor would use the Front door?
Please put your case if you think that.
I wasn't aware every post as to be answered,you have an opinion of what happened and describe the environment in your theory which could make it possible,thats it.If and its a big big if an abductor were to be the outcome,the logical way would be a door,why use a window and a shutter, thats two things to be opened when a single perfectly operational door is available which opens into a well hidden recess,the one you surmise was used to gain entry.Just as easily Madeleine could have walked out the same door all on her lonesome.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: The General on June 13, 2019, 07:57:28 PM
Why no interest in my description, Barrier?. I have put in a lot of work for you and others ignorant of the FACTS.
Do you still think that no abductor would use the Front door?
Please put your case if you think that.
A key? Why would this 'fit young man' need to use the front door when the back door was open? Rule 1 of housebreaking - check the frickin door isn't already open.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Erngath on June 13, 2019, 08:02:41 PM
A key? Why would this 'fit young man' need to use the front door when the back door was open? Rule 1 of housebreaking - check the frickin door isn't already open.
According to Sadie those dim, low output street lights became much brighter round the corner. The one opposite the gate to 5A bathed the balcony in light. Coupled with the 'fact' that the balcony could be seen from the Tapas restaurant the abductor(s) decided to stay away from that route.
Rachael and Matthew, of couse, said they couldn't see the balcony, as did Joseph Moura. The bright street light seemed to have dimmed sigificantly by the time the PJ got there too.
According to Sadie those dim, low output street lights became much brighter round the corner. The one opposite the gate to 5A bathed the balcony in light. Coupled with the 'fact' that the balcony could be seen from the Tapas restaurant the abductor(s) decided to stay away from that route.
Rachael and Matthew, of couse, said they couldn't see the balcony, as did Joseph Moura. The bright street light seemed to have dimmed sigificantly by the time the PJ got there too.
I've said it before, irrespective of, you know, getting a free pass at the patio door, this is the optimal route for Jimmy. Any Jimmy / burglar operating with even elementary faculties would use this route. Any burglar in the history of domesticity would try the back passage as a rule.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Wonderfulspam on June 13, 2019, 08:53:02 PM
I've said it before, irrespective of, you know, getting a free pass at the patio door, this is the optimal route for Jimmy. Any Jimmy / burglar operating with even elementary faculties would use this route. Any burglar in the history of domesticity would try the back passage as a rule.
Jimmy took care to close the gate, child gate, door & curtain behind him. He was a fastidious man, our Jimmy.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Wonderfulspam on June 13, 2019, 08:58:01 PM
Jimmy took care to close the gate, child gate, door & curtain behind him. He was a fastidious man, our Jimmy.
Suffice to say, this wasn't Jimmy's first rodeo. He was clearly a master of his trade. Special Forces trained, no doubt; Spetsnaz, Delta, SAS probably. Deffo wasn't working the checkout at Baptista.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Holly Goodhead on June 13, 2019, 09:00:18 PM
Just Googled 'Toddler wandered off and found barefoot' which throws up numerous cases. It would seem this is far more common that stranger abduction.
I can't think of another British child abducted by a stranger/long-term missing from a holiday resort other than Ben Needham.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Holly Goodhead on June 13, 2019, 09:13:00 PM
As I understand it KM dismisses the idea MM woke and wandered as MM did not take her blanket and Cuddle Cat. Also she said she found the patio door and curtain closed which she thought MM would not do. How can she be so sure?
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: jassi on June 13, 2019, 09:15:34 PM
She can only be sure if she knows what happened. IMO
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Wonderfulspam on June 13, 2019, 09:22:18 PM
As I understand it KM dismisses the idea MM woke and wandered as MM did not take her blanket and Cuddle Cat. Also she said she found the patio door and curtain closed which she thought MM would not do. How can she be so sure?
The McCanns dismiss woke and wandered because the window & shutter were open, according to Kate.
Also, the back patio door had a child gate at the top of the stairs.
I'll let Kate explain.....
@22.50
https://youtu.be/WLvnfcl-Zkg?t=1370
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Erngath on June 13, 2019, 09:22:44 PM
In the front door, into bedroom, pick Maddie up, back out the front door with her. About 15 seconds I recon.
Children can sleep very deeply so I guess its possible she didn't wake and allowed a stranger to carry her out.
According to KM the patio door was closed and the curtain pulled. If this is accurate the abductor would need to hold MM whilst he/she pulled the curtain and slid the door closed before negotiating what appears to me to be a narrow set of steep stairs.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: The General on June 13, 2019, 09:30:07 PM
As I understand it KM dismisses the idea MM woke and wandered as MM did not take her blanket and Cuddle Cat. Also she said she found the patio door and curtain closed which she thought MM would not do. How can she be so sure?
There's a lot of store put in to Cuddle Cat and it's importance was pushed by Kate. Did the twins have a comfort item? Did anyone see MM with it at any point, certainly not clambering up the steps of the plane or on the bus.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Wonderfulspam on June 13, 2019, 09:31:00 PM
Children can sleep very deeply so I guess its possible she didn't wake and allowed a stranger to carry her out.
According to KM the patio door was closed and the curtain pulled. If this is accurate the abductor would need to hold MM whilst he/she pulled the curtain and slid the door closed before negotiating what appears to me to be a narrow set of steep stairs.
Yes, closing the child gate & gate at the bottom of the stairs in the process, as all were found closed when Kate went to do her 10pm check.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Erngath on June 13, 2019, 09:31:53 PM
Children can sleep very deeply so I guess its possible she didn't wake and allowed a stranger to carry her out.
According to KM the patio door was closed and the curtain pulled. If this is accurate the abductor would need to hold MM whilst he/she pulled the curtain and slid the door closed before negotiating what appears to me to be a narrow set of steep stairs.
The dreadfully sad case of little Alesha McPhail shows all of this is possible. Taken from her bed and removed from her grandparents home.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Erngath on June 13, 2019, 09:35:57 PM
There's a lot of store put in to Cuddle Cat and it's importance was pushed by Kate. Did the twins have a comfort item? Did anyone see MM with it at any point, certainly not clambering up the steps of the pane or on the bus.
Good Heavens any parent knows that a comfort item for sleeping or at a moment when the comfort is required will never be jeopardized in any journey when it could be lost.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Holly Goodhead on June 13, 2019, 09:36:16 PM
She can only be sure if she knows what happened. IMO
I don't find the parents reliable witnesses. If they are not directly responsible for MM's disappearance they will surely feel indirectly responsible for leaving their children unsupervised and want to believe they will be reunited with MM.
Believing MM was abducted is imo shifting the blame ie someone came in and took MM as opposed to MM woke and wandered.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Erngath on June 13, 2019, 09:39:10 PM
I don't find the parents reliable witnesses. If they are not directly responsible for MM's disappearance they will surely feel indirectly responsible for leaving their children unsupervised and want to believe they will be reunited with MM.
Believing MM was abducted is imo shifting the blame ie someone came in and took MM as opposed to MM woke and wandered.
I'm sure they do feel indirectly responsible. Much as I do think most parents of children who have been abducted, murdered and missing feel indirectly responsible.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: The General on June 13, 2019, 09:42:50 PM
Good Heavens any parent knows that a comfort item for sleeping or at a moment when the comfort is required will never be jeopardized in any journey when it could be lost.
I'm any parent. That's not my experience. In fact quite the opposite. A 3 year old getting on a plane......
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Erngath on June 13, 2019, 09:43:24 PM
The dreadfully sad case of little Alesha McPhail shows all of this is possible. Taken from her bed and removed from her grandparents home.
Yes I think its safe to say almost anything is possible but in this case I believe the perp knew the victim and her family? The perp had been at the victims house earlier on so not an actual stranger abduction? I guess the equivalent would be a member of the Tapas crowd responsible for MM's disappearance.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Erngath on June 13, 2019, 09:54:14 PM
A child may want their comfort item during travel to another country. That opposite.
Yes, they might but most parents would keep said item in their hand luggage and make sure their child can have access to it when required. Not allow said comfort item to be in full custody of the child especially in an airport and definitely not climbing the stairs to an aeroplane.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: The General on June 13, 2019, 09:58:45 PM
Yes, they might but most parents would keep said item in their hand luggage and make sure their child can have access to it when required. Not allow said comfort item to be in full custody of the child especially in an airport and definitely not climbing the stairs to an aeroplane.
You keep saying 'most parents'. You mean your perspective. My son recently flatly refused to travel to New York without his Action Man. I wouldn't mind, but he's 38 for god's sake! (couldn't resist)
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on June 13, 2019, 10:00:25 PM
Yes I think its safe to say almost anything is possible but in this case I believe the perp knew the victim and her family? The perp had been at the victims house earlier on so not an actual stranger abduction? I guess the equivalent would be a member of the Tapas crowd responsible for MM's disappearance.
I don’t think that’s been proven actually.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Erngath on June 13, 2019, 10:11:04 PM
You keep saying 'most parents'. You mean your perspective. My son recently flatly refused to travel to New York without his Action Man. I wouldn't mind, but he's 38 for god's sake! (couldn't resist)
That's a wee bit worrying. In my perspective.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Holly Goodhead on June 13, 2019, 10:31:52 PM
The McCanns dismiss woke and wandered because the window & shutter were open, according to Kate.
Also, the back patio door had a child gate at the top of the stairs.
I'll let Kate explain.....
@22.50
https://youtu.be/WLvnfcl-Zkg?t=1370
Thanks. I thought PJ and SY confirmed shutters were down and no evidence they had been tampered with?
What were the entry and exit points? Patio doors and front door to the actual apartment along with 2 gates leading in/out of the grounds: 1 to the road and the other to the alley?
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: sadie on June 13, 2019, 10:45:09 PM
I wasn't aware every post as to be answered,you have an opinion of what happened and describe the environment in your theory which could make it possible,thats it.If and its a big big if an abductor were to be the outcome,the logical way would be a door,why use a window and a shutter, thats two things to be opened when a single perfectly operational door is available which opens into a well hidden recess,the one you surmise was used to gain entry.Just as easily Madeleine could have walked out the same door all on her lonesome.
When you have more or less requested something as you did, and the person replies very fully, as I did, then I would have thought that it would have been a common courtesy to acknowledge that.
Are you able to accept that all the things I have mentioned as fact, are indeed fact? I would like to make it clear that I do have an opinion of how an abduction may have quite quickly achieved ... and almost certainly, imo. via the front door .... but I am open to suggestions.
However if there are real reasons why others ideas are non runners, imo, I will voice them.
Is that OK with you?
By the way, the window and shutter being open business, is most likely for other reasons than passing Madeleine thru or for Madeleine to have climbed thru.
I have listed about 7 or 8 reasons several times on forum
And NO Madeleine forensics there anyway.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: G-Unit on June 13, 2019, 11:08:53 PM
Thanks. I thought PJ and SY confirmed shutters were down and no evidence they had been tampered with?
What were the entry and exit points? Patio doors and front door to the actual apartment along with 2 gates leading in/out of the grounds: 1 to the road and the other to the alley?
There were no gates into the alley. There was a 'garden' gate leading to the garden and the steps up to the balcony. At the top of the steps was a child gate.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Brietta on June 14, 2019, 03:59:46 AM
Yes I think its safe to say almost anything is possible but in this case I believe the perp knew the victim and her family? The perp had been at the victims house earlier on so not an actual stranger abduction? I guess the equivalent would be a member of the Tapas crowd responsible for MM's disappearance.
Alesha's father admitted selling cannabis to the perpetrator, but not for months after being warned not to ... "The court heard the deals usually took place at a bus shelter across from his own mother’s house in Ardbeg Road, ..." https://www.scotsman.com/news-2-15012/alesha-macphail-s-father-sold-cannabis-to-accused-1-4872046 No evidence was presented that any dealing took place from his mother's house or that the psychopath who killed Alesha knew her at all. I would not have called him a family friend by any stretch of the imagination.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Carana on June 14, 2019, 06:05:00 AM
Thanks. I thought PJ and SY confirmed shutters were down and no evidence they had been tampered with?
What were the entry and exit points? Patio doors and front door to the actual apartment along with 2 gates leading in/out of the grounds: 1 to the road and the other to the alley?
Not sure what you mean. There were 2 gates leading from the balcony (pool-side) to the road. One was a baby gate at the top of the steps, and the other was a normal gate at the end of the property (a bit beyond the bottom of the steps).
There weren't any gates, IIRC, on the parking-lot side.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Vertigo Swirl on June 14, 2019, 07:07:48 AM
There were no gates into the alley. There was a 'garden' gate leading to the garden and the steps up to the balcony. At the top of the steps was a child gare.
Thanks. I think I get the picture now but would like to see a layout that depicts all of this and haven't been able to find anything that's clear.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Holly Goodhead on June 14, 2019, 08:08:14 AM
Alesha's father admitted selling cannabis to the perpetrator, but not for months after being warned not to ... "The court heard the deals usually took place at a bus shelter across from his own mother’s house in Ardbeg Road, ..." https://www.scotsman.com/news-2-15012/alesha-macphail-s-father-sold-cannabis-to-accused-1-4872046 No evidence was presented that any dealing took place from his mother's house or that the psychopath who killed Alesha knew her at all. I would not have called him a family friend by any stretch of the imagination.
Thanks. My impression was that the perp had been at the house for some sort of social, returned later and abducted Alesha, but I can see this is all wrong.
Alesha was some 2 years older than MM so possible that someone abducted MM similarly ie simply entered and carried her out sleeping.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: G-Unit on June 14, 2019, 08:18:58 AM
google 'madeleine mccann apartment' then click on images,
I have but can't find anything that detailed!
Also the drop from the shutters, MM's bedroom, looks pretty deep to the pavement? Measurements of drop? KM seemed adamant that the shutters had been interfered with. Is she suggesting a perp entered or exited or both via the shutters? Or someone handed MM to a.n. other via the shutters? What is she claiming with the shutters?
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: barrier on June 14, 2019, 12:31:49 PM
Also the drop from the shutters, MM's bedroom, looks pretty deep to the pavement? Measurements of drop? KM seemed adamant that the shutters had been interfered with. Is she suggesting a perp entered or exited or both via the shutters? Or someone handed MM to a.n. other via the shutters? What is she claiming with the shutters?
Mitchell on behalf of the Mccanns.
"I'm not going into the detail, but I can say that Kate and Gerry are firmly of the view that somebody got into the apartment and took Madeleine out the window as their means of escape, and to do that they did not necessarily have to tamper with anything. They got out of the window fairly easily."
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: barrier on June 14, 2019, 12:33:48 PM
Also the drop from the shutters, MM's bedroom, looks pretty deep to the pavement? Measurements of drop? KM seemed adamant that the shutters had been interfered with. Is she suggesting a perp entered or exited or both via the shutters? Or someone handed MM to a.n. other via the shutters? What is she claiming with the shutters?
Not too much of a drop.
https://youtu.be/IeuMzyaCnnY
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: G-Unit on June 14, 2019, 01:00:42 PM
Also the drop from the shutters, MM's bedroom, looks pretty deep to the pavement? Measurements of drop? KM seemed adamant that the shutters had been interfered with. Is she suggesting a perp entered or exited or both via the shutters? Or someone handed MM to a.n. other via the shutters? What is she claiming with the shutters?
If you watch all five parts of this video it might help.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhACS6ck-Dw
Interbally it was 91cms from the floor to the window sill.
KMc made various claims about the window/shutters. Initially she used them to explain how she knew immediately that Madeleine had been taken.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Robittybob1 on June 14, 2019, 01:12:09 PM
"I'm not going into the detail, but I can say that Kate and Gerry are firmly of the view that somebody got into the apartment and took Madeleine out the window as their means of escape, and to do that they did not necessarily have to tamper with anything. They got out of the window fairly easily."
Just clarifying which window? MM's bedroom?
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Holly Goodhead on June 14, 2019, 01:44:27 PM
I was under the impression from layout diagrams that MM's bedroom run alongside the Rua Jose Ribeiro Lopes with the window effectively looking down on the pavement but this is wrong? The window actually runs along the back of the car park?
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: Eleanor on June 14, 2019, 01:47:24 PM
I was under the impression from layout diagrams that MM's bedroom run alongside the Rua Jose Ribeiro Lopes with the window effectively looking down on the pavement but this is wrong? The window actually runs along the back of the car park?
Yes, but over in the left hand corner.
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: pathfinder73 on June 14, 2019, 01:57:56 PM
"I'm not going into the detail, but I can say that Kate and Gerry are firmly of the view that somebody got into the apartment and took Madeleine out the window as their means of escape, and to do that they did not necessarily have to tamper with anything. They got out of the window fairly easily."
Some people will believe anything @)(++(*
Title: Re: Seems woke and wandered back in favour again.
Post by: sadie on June 14, 2019, 05:43:01 PM
I was under the impression from layout diagrams that MM's bedroom run alongside the Rua Jose Ribeiro Lopes with the window effectively looking down on the pavement but this is wrong? The window actually runs along the back of the car park?
Wrong place Holly. May I suggest that you use Google Earth and place both roads on the map.
5A is about a third of a mile, crow flies, SW of Rua Jose Ribeiro Lopes in an altogether different Ocean Club compound. This compound is where The Millenium Restaurant is and there is a third Reception there too
5A faces onto R Dr Agostinho da Silva but there is a car park between Madeleines indow and the road. It is set a little over 10 mettres back from the road and adjaent to the window wall of 5A is a pathway with a wall. From memory that wall would be way over Madeleines head from the building side. As the block was built into very slopeing ground the land on the car park side meeta the wall part way up the wall. In other words the wall looks lower when viewd from the car park or the road.
The pathhway wall is quite high from the bedroom side. Madeleine would not have been able to see over it. It would be very dark there too.