UK Justice Forum 🇬🇧
Disappeared and Abducted Children and Young Adults => Madeleine McCann (3) disappeared from her parent's holiday apartment at Ocean Club, Praia da Luz, Portugal on 3 May 2007. No trace of her has ever been found. => Topic started by: Heriberto Janosch on July 03, 2013, 06:44:27 PM
-
If the abductor opened the 5a apartment door, why did he close it?
-
If the abductor opened a 5A door, why did he close it?
How do you know the door was closed ?
-
How do you know the door was closed ?
Would it matter one way or the other?
-
If the abductor opened a 5A door, why did he close it?
How were doors left in the various burglaries in the area?
-
If the abductor opened a 5A door, why did he close it?
Left open, would have left the risk of it being noticed sooner.
-
Left open, would have left the risk of it being noticed sooner.
And the full open window was not a risk?
Walking with Madeleine by the Rua da Escola Primaria was not a risk?
Kate found the window open, but the back door closed (not locked), and the front door closed.
Heri.
-
And the full open window was not a risk?
Walking with Madeleine by the Rua da Escola Primaria was not a risk?
Heri.
The window wouldn't have been as noticeable.
Of course it was a risk, but he/she/they, managed it. And got away with it.
-
And the full open window was not a risk?
Walking with Madeleine by the Rua da Escola Primaria was not a risk?
Kate found the window open, but the back door closed (not locked), and the front door closed.
Heri.
Sorry, but you do not know that she found the window open. Merely because she said that, does not make it true.
-
The window wouldn't have been as noticeable.
Of course it was a risk, but he/she/they, managed it. And got away with it.
Thanks ... ?{)(**
-
Thanks ... ?{)(**
Thanks for what exactly ?
-
By the time that The Abductor had gotten out of the door with Madeleine then he would not have cared of how the door was found.
You think he was thinking, "Oh my God, I must close the door?" What door? Was the door even left open? All of these doors can be opened from inside. Who cares if he closed it behind him? He certainly didn't.
-
The window wouldn't have been as noticeable.
Of course it was a risk, but he/she/they, managed it. And got away with it.
The window would have been MORE noticeable being in a nearer line of sight to the door in a darker corner to the left, and, of course, with flapping curtains abounding in that awful gusty wind that night
-
Oh my God, we have now got the abductor caring about what anyone thought about open doors or windows.
He is hot footing down the road with an abducted child in his arms, and he is supposed to have worried about closing a door when he would have been hard pushed to even open a door, let alone close it.
Don't ask. It is all much too simple for a thinking brain.
-
Oh my God, we have now got the abductor caring about what anyone thought about open doors or windows.
He is hot footing down the road with an abducted child in his arms, and he is supposed to have worried about closing a door when he would have been hard pushed to even open a door, let alone close it.
Don't ask. It is all much too simple for a thinking brain.
Well kate herself says they may have opened the window to create a red herring so obviously according to HER they cared about something
@)(++(*
-
Well kate herself says they may have opened the window to create a red herring so obviously according to HER they cared about something
@)(++(*
"May have", you silly girl. Kate McCann could only speculate, like the rest of us.
But do let me know when Kate gets arrested.
-
Mr McCann certainly tampered the best evidence ever of an abduction. The issue is was he aware of that or not.
-
Would it matter one way or the other?
By Amaral and co
There has been such very pointed ignoring of the front door as the way in ... when it is the most obvious way in using a key
There has been so much pointing to the window as the entrance and exit .... when it is obvious that no-one went in or out that way
That it has raised my antennae.
It seems a double red herring.
To make it look as tho the window was used
.... then via Pat Browns shenanaigans and nonsense prove that no abductor could have sensibly done it that way ... .cos (trees cut down) it was thoroughly overlooked and (new searchlight fitted) too well lit
Therefore via fase means "prove" that kate and Gerry dunit and were trying to put the blame on someone else?
Too much time, effort and money were spent getting the "illustrious" Pat Brown to push Amarals / her phoney theory. The very spending of all that time, money and effort is VERY suspicious. As is the way that Amaral and Tony Bennett were feteing her.and publicizing her "fame"
And someone took that brilliant photo of 5A for her. It wasn't by Pat Brown. Her photos are quite ordinary and inferior.
So were the trees chopped down, the searchlight fitted and the photograph taken even before Pat arrived?.
All this in an effort to discredit the hypothesis that Bundleman could have used the window? Amaral had already discounted the front door and virtually removed it from the equation by never referring to it in any way as a possibility.
Imo, originally the plan was for bundleman / the lifter to use the front door and close it afterwards, but leave the window open to give the impression that Madeleine had wandered ... or the Mccanns had done it ... a theory that, it seems, Amaral was pushing.
Later with the advent of people analysing that and pointing out its weaknesses? ... also with Bennett and Amarals libellous goings on about Madeleine dying in the apartment? ... and both facing libel charges? ... was the emphasis changed to trying to prove that no abductor would have gone in that way cos it was too overlooked?
Hence trees cut down, searchlight fitted and a professional photo taken? The place was set up and Pat Brown was bought in? To save their skins?
I wonder who paid for her flights?
Could this whole Pat Brown fiasco be about Amaral and Bennett trying to save their skins? I prefer that thought to the alternative.
The alternative being that someone was being covered for by .............?
All the above is only my ponderings and thoughts. I realse I could be wrong.
But if I am , what the hell was Pat Brown doing there and why were those beautiful trees cut down and a new vulgar search light fitted?
-
Mr McCann certainly tampered the best evidence ever of an abduction. The issue is was he aware of that or not.
"Tampered with evidence" is not the phrase rational people would use for a father looking and trying desperately to find his missing daughter
I am sorry, Anne, it is the language of the bigot
Of course, I had forgotten. Seems that you are not a mother, so possibly could not understand the desperation and despair of a father whose daughter has been taken
-
The essential is always threatened by the insignificant (René Char)
-
The essential is always threatened by the insignificant (René Char)
Oh, do give over.
-
The essential is always threatened by the insignificant (René Char)
Once you are off your pretentious high horse
.... Tell us what the essential is .... and who the insignificant are .... in your opinion
-
"Tampered with evidence" is not the phrase rational people would use for a father looking and trying desperately to find his missing daughter
I am sorry, Anne, it is the language of the bigot
Totally agree Sadie. No father who had just discovered his little daughter had disappeared would have the words 'evidence' or 'crime scene' even entering his head in those first few panic stricken moments. He would be too shocked to think straight. I'm amazed at the number of sceptics who think he should have coolly and calmly assessed the situation and behaved like a policeman instead of a distraught parent. They must be devoid of any understanding of how normal people would react to such horror.
-
Good heavens. That I should ever choose to be so, erm, honest?
8@??)(
I think you are rather like me Eleanor.
honesty over pretention and dignity every time 8((()*/
-
The essential is always threatened by the insignificant (René Char)
Taumatawhakatangihangakoayauo-
Tamateaturipukakapikimaungahoro-
Nukypokaiwhenuakitanatahu
(Quantum Jump)
-
By Amaral and co
There has been such very pointed ignoring of the front door as the way in ... when it is the most obvious way in using a key
There has been so much pointing to the window as the entrance and exit .... when it is obvious that no-one went in or out that way
That it has raised my antennae.
It seems a double red herring.
To make it look as tho the window was used
.... then via Pat Browns shenanaigans and nonsense prove that no abductor could have sensibly done it that way ... .cos (trees cut down) it was thoroughly overlooked and (new searchlight fitted) too well lit
Therefore via fase means "prove" that kate and Gerry dunit and were trying to put the blame on someone else?
Too much time, effort and money were spent getting the "illustrious" Pat Brown to push Amarals / her phoney theory. The very spending of all that time, money and effort is VERY suspicious. As is the way that Amaral and Tony Bennett were feteing her.and publicizing her "fame"
And someone took that brilliant photo of 5A for her. It wasn't by Pat Brown. Her photos are quite ordinary and inferior.
So were the trees chopped down, the searchlight fitted and the photograph taken even before Pat arrived?.
All this in an effort to discredit the hypothesis that Bundleman could have used the window? Amaral had already discounted the front door and virtually removed it from the equation by never referring to it in any way as a possibility.
Imo, originally the plan was for bundleman / the lifter to use the front door and close it afterwards, but leave the window open to give the impression that Madeleine had wandered ... or the Mccanns had done it ... a theory that, it seems, Amaral was pushing.
Later with the advent of people analysing that and pointing out its weaknesses? ... also with Bennett and Amarals libellous goings on about Madeleine dying in the apartment? ... and both facing libel charges? ... was the emphasis changed to trying to prove that no abductor would have gone in that way cos it was too overlooked?
Hence trees cut down, searchlight fitted and a professional photo taken? The place was set up and Pat Brown was bought in? To save their skins?
I wonder who paid for her flights?
Could this whole Pat Brown fiasco be about Amaral and Bennett trying to save their skins? I prefer that thought to the alternative.
The alternative being that someone was being covered for by .............?
All the above is only my ponderings and thoughts. I realse I could be wrong.
But if I am , what the hell was Pat Brown doing there and why were those beautiful trees cut down and a new vulgar search light fitted?
Quote from: AnneGuedes on July 03, 2013, 10:38:41 PM
Mr McCann certainly tampered the best evidence ever of an abduction.
What Pat Brown did was tampering with the evidence. Trying to change the situation as to whether the window was seriously overlooked or virtually hiddden.
The question is "Did she know what she was doing". Was she part of the arrangement, right from the beginning knowing that the trees had been deliberately cut down and a searchlight fitted to try and change the evidence to get Bennett and Amaral off the hook?
Or .... Was she set up?
I rather fancy she knew all along, but am willing to be proven wrong.
-
If the abductor opened the 5a apartment door, why did he close it?
Could you add a little more meat to the bones of this question please Heri. Are you suggesting that the abductor entered by the window and simply left by the front door?
Does anyone else think that the open window was a red herring intended solely to put investigators off the scent?
-
what a bloody load of utter nonsense, what parent would, instead of prioritising a search, would go and find out if and why and how a potential abductor,could have entered or left the apartment, I know, he was proactive, doing the polices work for them before he even called them! pffft
8-)(--)
and yes, tampering with potential evidence. WHY would GM have the NEED to find out thisinformation for himself so early on? What did it matter how someone got in? I mean, as if the open patio door wasnt opportunity enough!
-
what a bloody load of utter nonsense, what parent would, instead of prioritising a search, would go and find out if and why and how a potential abductor,could have entered or left the apartment, I know, he was proactive, doing the polices work for them before he even called them! pffft
8-)(--)
and yes, tampering with potential evidence. WHY would GM have the NEED to find out this information for himself so early on? What did it matter how someone got in? I mean, as if the open patio door wasn't opportunity enough!
I have some sympathy with that view Redblossom. Why indeed spend crucial minutes foutering with a shutter when it was obvious that his daughter had been abducted?
-
Yes John, I will be interested to see the apologists explanations for that crucial piece of vital work he and others were doing and how it would have helped find Madeleine, tomorrow
8)--))
Off now
-
Yes John, I will be interested to see the apologists explanations for that crucial piece of vital work he and others were doing and how it would have helped find Madeleine, tomorrow
8)--))
Off now
Why would anyone need to explain it? Were the Portugese police aware of it? They didn't use it to arrest him for the murder of his child? Must be "irrelevant" then.
-
I have some sympathy with that view Redblossom. Why indeed spend crucial minutes foutering with a shutter when it was obvious that his daughter had been abducted?
Who knows what was racing round his mind at that moment John. In the first minutes I would imagine he was still in a state of denial almost - that his daughter could possibly have been taken by a stranger. He desperately didn't want that to be true. Remember his first words of ''She can't be gone!' when Kate raised the alarm.? As far as he knew the shutters could only be opened from the inside - and if that was the case then maybe Madeleine had managed to open them herself? Once he found they could actually be raised from the outside - then that little grain of hope would be gone.
But to expect him to behave logically and even think in terms of 'evidence' at that point is unfair IMO. When Kate found her daughter missing she ran round every room searching the whole place - and may well have destroyed evidence while she did that - but would any normal mother do any different? I don't think so.
-
What Pat Brown did was tampering with the evidence. Trying to change the situation as to whether the window was seriously overlooked or virtually hiddden.
The question is "Did she know what she was doing". Was she part of the arrangement, right from the beginning knowing that the trees had been deliberately cut down and a searchlight fitted to try and change the evidence to get Bennett and Amaral off the hook?
Or .... Was she set up?
I rather fancy she knew all along, but am willing to be proven wrong.
IMO Sadie, Pat Brown was just another 'Wannabee,' who saw an opportunity for fame and fortune - and in her indecent haste to make money off Madeleine's back didn't do any proper research via the files but instead used all the misinformation which was readily available and eagerly offered to her by some sceptics.
Unsurprisingly her resulting book(let) was full of libellous claims and statements - which even some [ censored word] criticised.
As you probably know, there is an excellent rebuttal of her claims on StopTheMyths.
I dont think she cared at all about Amaral or Bennett. IMO she was just another greedy, self-serving non-entity who tried to use Madeleine's abduction to her own personal advantage - and failed dismally.
However, we do have one thing to thank her for - and that is for providing the video proof - with the aid of another sceptic - that the shutters to 5A could be opened from the outside - thus dispelling once and for all the previous oft repeated claim that Gerry had lied when he said that was the case.
-
Could you add a little more meat to the bones of this question please Heri. Are you suggesting that the abductor entered by the window and simply left by the front door?
Does anyone else think that the open window was a red herring intended solely to put investigators off the scent?
Whether that was the sole reason or not, I find that quite likely. It seemed to have worked as no one really investigated the possibility of a key.
-
Whether that was the sole reason or not, I find that quite likely. It seemed to have worked as no one really investigated the possibility of a key.
I agree. It could well have been to deflect attention away from the fact that a key had been obtained from someone - and to deter any detailed investigations into whom that person might be.
-
oft repeated claim that Gerry had lied when he said that was the case.
This is not true. Nobody said Mr McCann had lied when he said he managed to lift the shutters from the outside, only that he omitted to say the shutters, not being properly rolled this way, would fall without arms' support.
What people observed is that experimenting with shutters he had in another occasion broken (according to Mrs McCann), instead of calling the police for instance, Mr McCann altered the crime scene.
-
IMO Sadie, Pat Brown was just another 'Wannabee,' who saw an opportunity for fame and
Could you please correct the quote : I never posted that, Sadie did.
-
IMO Sadie, Pat Brown was just another 'Wannabee,' who saw an opportunity for fame and fortune - and in her indecent haste to make money off Madeleine's back didn't do any proper research via the files but instead used all the misinformation which was readily available and eagerly offered to her by some sceptics.
Unsurprisingly her resulting book(let) was full of libellous claims and statements - which even some [ censored word] criticised.
As you probably know, there is an excellent rebuttal of her claims on StopTheMyths.
I don't think she cared at all about Amaral or Bennett. IMO she was just another greedy, self-serving non-entity who tried to use Madeleine's abduction to her own personal advantage - and failed dismally.
However, we do have one thing to thank her for - and that is for providing the video proof - with the aid of another sceptic - that the shutters to 5A could be opened from the outside - thus dispelling once and for all the previous oft repeated claim that Gerry had lied when he said that was the case.
I could agree with you wholeheartedly if it weren't for the fact that a long row of beautiful trees were cut down and a mighty vulgar searchlight fitted where there had been no light fitted before. Light wasn't there when I visited. Trees were very beautiful when I visited, yet all cleared out ... for Pat Brown?
To falsely "prove" prove Amarals libellous theory and Bennetts libel too?
Then the professional quality photograph.
Jeez it stinks
Several pointers ... altho, I accept I could be wrong
-
Who knows what was racing round his mind at that moment John. In the first minutes I would imagine he was still in a state of denial almost - that his daughter could possibly have been taken by a stranger. He desperately didn't want that to be true. Remember his first words of ''She can't be gone!' when Kate raised the alarm.? As far as he knew the shutters could only be opened from the inside - and if that was the case then maybe Madeleine had managed to open them herself? Once he found they could actually be raised from the outside - then that little grain of hope would be gone.
But to expect him to behave logically and even think in terms of 'evidence' at that point is unfair IMO. When Kate found her daughter missing she ran round every room searching the whole place - and may well have destroyed evidence while she did that - but would any normal mother do any different? I don't think so.
That would be a compelling argument Benice IF he hadn't already known the unlocked patio doors was the most obvious entry point.
-
That would be a compelling argument Benice IF he hadn't already known the unlocked patio doors was the most obvious entry point.
In a state of denial the real is denied, especially the most obvious.
Remember go, go, go said the bird, etc.
-
I agree. It could well have been to deflect attention away from the fact that a key had been obtained from someone - and to deter any detailed investigations into whom that person might be.
The absence of any marks on the outer or inner sills of the childrens bedroom window is highly relevant. As has been seen from the various videos and photos it is nigh impossible to get through the window without standing on the sill unless one goes with the theory that someone was lifted in?
-
The absence of any marks on the outer or inner sills of the childrens bedroom window is highly relevant. As has been seen from the various videos and photos it is nigh impossible to get through the window without standing on the sill unless one goes with the theory that someone was lifted in?
But do we know there was an absence of any marks on the outer or inner sills of the childrens bedroom window?
Going by the lack of care taken, on forensic gathering and thier forensic knowledge, did they miss vital evidence.
-
But do we know there was an absence of any marks on the outer or inner sills of the childrens bedroom window?
Going by the lack of care taken, on forensic gathering and their forensic knowledge, did they miss vital evidence.
I believe even the most inexperienced scene of crimes or SCI operative would not have failed to notice footprints on the sills. In fact Gerry probably had a look for himself in the daylight and would have seen for himself had there been any.
-
I believe even the most inexperienced scene of crimes or SCI operative would not have failed to notice footprints on the sills. In fact Gerry probably had a look for himself in the daylight and would have seen for himself had there been any.
I'm not so sure, Mr Moderator.
I presume Gerry wouldn't have been allowed near 5A , after they moved to the other apartment. Not if things were done correctly, by the SCI operative!
-
Could you please correct the quote : I never posted that, Sadie did.
Corrected. Sorry for that oversight Anne.
-
That would be a compelling argument Benice IF he hadn't already known the unlocked patio doors was the most obvious entry point.
Gerry knew that Faith, but he had no way of knowing whether the abductor did. All he knew at that moment was that the window was open and his daughter was gone. His only thought imo, (as with Kate), would be that someone had got in through that window and abducted her. At that early stage he would not be considering alternatives, - that came later - when they were told there was no evidence that a break in had occurred via the window and when they began to think it was not an opportunist crime, but a pre-planned one.
-
Gerry knew that Faith, but he had no way of knowing whether the abductor did. All he knew at that moment was that the window was open and his daughter was gone. His only thought imo, (as with Kate), would be that someone had got in through that window and abducted her. At that early stage he would not be considering alternatives, - that came later - when they were told there was no evidence that a break in had occurred via the window and when they began to think it was not an opportunist crime, but a pre-planned one.
No of course neither considered alternatives to *abduction*, such as asking jane tanner if she had heard crying and had taken madeleine to her flat to comfort her, and of course the *obvious* alternative, that the door *they* left open was the entry point
-
No of course neither considered alternatives to *abduction*, such as asking jane tanner if she had heard crying and had taken madeleine to her flat to comfort her, and of course the *obvious* alternative, that the door *they* left open was the entry point
They did later consider that the patio door could have been the entry point, also the front door, but in the first minutes after her abduction they thought that because the window was open - that was how the perpetrator had got in - which is what any normal person would think IMO.
Sorry but I have no idea what you are talking about re Jane Tanner.
-
They did later consider that the patio door could have been the entry point, also the front door, but in the first minutes after her abduction they thought that because the window was open - that was how the perpetrator had got in - which is what any normal person would think IMO.
Sorry but I have no idea what you are talking about re Jane Tanner.
kate mccnn knew tanner was in her flat at the time, she may have heard madeleine crying and upset and taken her to her own place to comfort her, she couldnt leave her own kids alone, the window may have been opened by her for x y z reasons, normally people thnk of a likely reason to be investigated rather than jumping to the extreme conclusion she was abducted, and having decided that, or still wondering, doesnt run to her neighbour friend or anyone else for help or shout out, after all was very quiet and anyone would have heard her and came, but LEAVES her other two kids on their own withthe window open and runs to the restaurant, as if she KNEW there was no possibility anyabductor/s were still crawling around/hiding, ready to take the rest of them,come on!
She also left her three toddlers on their own with an open patio door any of them could have opened and gone out of when she said she had her shower that evening and fall to their deaths! over the stair gate or the balcony,just remembered that bit. So much for never taking a risk! Pah
-
She also left her three toddlers on their own with an open patio door any of them could have opened and gone out of when she said she had her shower that evening and fall to their deaths! over the stair gate or the balcony,just remembered that bit. So much for never taking a risk! Pah
Yes, and we know through Mr Payne (who doesn't remember what Mrs McCann had on) that the patio door was open.
-
Yes, and we know through Mr Payne (who doesn't remember what Mrs McCann had on) that the patio door was open.
Yup and mrs mccann in her book who said he popped his head through the patio doors as she went to answer the call, ooops that one slipped right by her
Ps of course he didnt remember that a half naked woman in a towel answered the door, anne youhave a dirty mind, shame on you
@)(++(*
oh btw she said he was there for seconds outside, he said he went inside for three to five minutes having a conversation and observing the angel looking happy kids even if heir dad wasnt there, odd
>@@(*&)
-
Ps of course he didnt remember that a half naked woman in a towel answered the door, anne youhave a dirty mind, shame on you
@)(++(*
Shame on Mr Payne not to remember a beautiful woman getting out of a shower !
-
Shame on Mr Payne not to remember a beautiful woman getting out of a shower !
No comment!
-
I could agree with you wholeheartedly if it weren't for the fact that a long row of beautiful trees were cut down and a mighty vulgar searchlight fitted where there had been no light fitted before. Light wasn't there when I visited. Trees were very beautiful when I visited, yet all cleared out ... for Pat Brown?
To falsely "prove" prove Amarals libellous theory and Bennetts libel too?
Then the professional quality photograph.
Jeez it stinks
Several pointers ... altho, I accept I could be wrong
Sadie I really don't think the trees being cut down and the improved lighting had anything to do with Pat Brown, but was a decision taken by MW once it had been drawn to their attention that those trees and the lack of adequate lighting made apartment 5A very attractive to anyone who wanted to break in. It was because of Pat Brown's lack of research that she had no idea evem that these improvements had been made - and consequently made such a fool of herself.
-
It was because of Pat Brown's lack of research that she had no idea evem that these improvements had been made - and consequently made such a fool of herself.
This "improvement" is pure slaughter. Do you know, Benice, which kind of trees were there ?
-
kate mccnn knew tanner was in her flat at the time, she may have heard madeleine crying and upset and taken her to her own place to comfort her, she couldnt leave her own kids alone, the window may have been opened by her for x y z reasons, normally people thnk of a likely reason to be investigated rather than jumping to the extreme conclusion she was abducted, and having decided that, or still wondering, doesnt run to her neighbour friend or anyone else for help or shout out, after all was very quiet and anyone would have heard her and came, but LEAVES her other two kids on their own withthe window open and runs to the restaurant, as if she KNEW there was no possibility anyabductor/s were still crawling around/hiding, ready to take the rest of them,come on!
She also left her three toddlers on their own with an open patio door any of them could have opened and gone out of when she said she had her shower that evening and fall to their deaths! over the stair gate or the balcony,just remembered that bit. So much for never taking a risk! Pah
To begin with Red, I do not believe that JT would have removed ANY child belonging to someone else from their bed and taken them back to her apartment unless she was able to simultaneously let the parents know what she had done.
So according to you when Kate found Madeleine missing and the windows open, she should have thought that Jayne Tanner had heard Madeleine crying and had left her own apartment, walked across the carpark, rounded the corner and walked down to the side gate - and THEN instead of making a quick 20 second dash to the Restaurant to tell Kate her daughter was crying, she decided to go through the gate, up the steps, and enter the apartment.
Then having opened the window she left the twins to the mercy of the elements for some reason, and then walked/carried Madeleine back up the road, round the corner, across the car park back to her own apartment, knowing full well that she could not let her parents know what she had done, and also knowing that one of them was shortly going to make a check and find their daughter missing and the window open, but apparently should not have been at all alarmed by that discovery - but should have realised that Madeleine was probably with Jayne.
With respect Red - I think you might need to rethink that theory.
-
To begin with Red, I do not believe that JT would have removed ANY child belonging to someone else from their bed and taken them back to her apartment unless she was able to simultaneously let the parents know what she had done.
So according to you when Kate found Madeleine missing and the windows open, she should have thought that Jayne Tanner had heard Madeleine crying and had left her own apartment, walked across the carpark, rounded the corner and walked down to the side gate - and THEN instead of making a quick 20 second dash to the Restaurant to tell Kate her daughter was crying, she decided to go through the gate, up the steps, and enter the apartment.
Then having opened the window she left the twins to the mercy of the elements for some reason, and then walked/carried Madeleine back up the road, round the corner, across the car park back to her own apartment, knowing full well that she could not let her parents know what she had done, and also knowing that one of them was shortly going to make a check and find their daughter missing and the window open, but apparently should not have been at all alarmed by that discovery - but should have realised that Madeleine was probably with Jayne.
With respect Red - I think you might need to rethink that theory.
No use of all this ! Madeleine was perfectly capable to open the main door and start running in the corridor ! Besides this is the trail the sniffer dogs followed..
-
No use of all this ! Madeleine was perfectly capable to open the main door and start running in the corridor ! Besides this is the trail the sniffer dogs followed..
Your post has absolutely nothing to do with mine. Do you accept Red's assertion that Kate should have thought that Madeleine was probably with Jane Tanner before thinking that she had been abducted?
-
Your post has absolutely nothing to do with mine. Do you accept Red's assertion that Kate should have thought that Madeleine was probably with Jane Tanner before thinking that she had been abducted?
Actually I don't know. Madeleine knew where the Payne's flat was and might have know, because of the noise, where the Oldfield's flat was. But The Tanner's flat ?
-
Actually I don't know. Madeleine knew where the Payne's flat was and might have know, because of the noise, where the Oldfield's flat was. But The Tanner's flat ?
That's not what I asked you Anne. Do you think that Jane Tanner would take Madeleine from apartment 5A and keep her in her own apartment without telling anyone?
-
If a parent heard crying coming from another apartment they had a responsibility to alert the parents rather than interfere with that child in any way. If they did not know the parents or where they were all they had to do was to alert reception.
Common sense really.
-
That's not what I asked you Anne. Do you think that Jane Tanner would take Madeleine from apartment 5A and keep her in her own apartment without telling anyone?
I don't think that Mrs Tanner, had she heard crying in the corridor and realized the crying came from the McCann window, would have left her children to cross the parking, turn the corner, push the gate etc., I think she would have used her cellphone.
But I think that if, by chance, Mrs Tanner, hearing cries and opening her door, had seen Madeleine in the corridor, she wouldn't have left her there, got inside and made a call, but would have first taken her inside and have comforted her before making a call on her cellphone.
-
If a parent heard crying coming from another apartment they had a responsibility to alert the parents rather than interfere with that child in any way. If they did not know the parents or where they were all they had to do was to alert reception.
Common sense really.
Exactly, John. Thats why I don't believe, for one minute, Mrs Fenn would sit and listen to a child crying for so long.
Translation error, perhaps?
-
Your post has absolutely nothing to do with mine. Do you accept Red's assertion that Kate should have thought that Madeleine was probably with Jane Tanner before thinking that she had been abducted?
I think a mother would consider all non sinister scenarios in their panic, however nonsensical, before having to accept the inevitable.
-
If the abductor opened the 5a apartment door, why did he close it?
What abductor???????????????????
So far there is no evidence that there ever was one or more...
-
What abductor???????????????????
So far there is no evidence that there ever was one or more...
Repeating the same hypothesis, they end up convincing themselves it is reality. That's how collective beliefs are born.
-
Heri.
I exist therefore I am. 8)--)) 8)--)) 8)--))
As to SY ? 8)-))) 8-)(--)
-
To begin with Red, I do not believe that JT would have removed ANY child belonging to someone else from their bed and taken them back to her apartment unless she was able to simultaneously let the parents know what she had done.
So according to you when Kate found Madeleine missing and the windows open, she should have thought that Jayne Tanner had heard Madeleine crying and had left her own apartment, walked across the carpark, rounded the corner and walked down to the side gate - and THEN instead of making a quick 20 second dash to the Restaurant to tell Kate her daughter was crying, she decided to go through the gate, up the steps, and enter the apartment.
Then having opened the window she left the twins to the mercy of the elements for some reason, and then walked/carried Madeleine back up the road, round the corner, across the car park back to her own apartment, knowing full well that she could not let her parents know what she had done, and also knowing that one of them was shortly going to make a check and find their daughter missing and the window open, but apparently should not have been at all alarmed by that discovery - but should have realised that Madeleine was probably with Jayne.
With respect Red - I think you might need to rethink that theory.
It wasnt a theory, or a belief, it was a random idea of what may have happened for any reason(perhaps Madeleine was cryng because it was too hot or too dark so window was opened), an idea which may have crossed KMs mind instead of *instantly knowing* she was abducted. And btw Jane Tanner *may have done this* very near to 10pm or around 9.40 when she was on her way back, though I agree she would have called soon either way,and no, she wouldnt have had to go all around the block, it would only have taken her a minute to go out of her own patio doors, down the alley to two flats. I tend to agree JT wouldnt have done this, but it remains a possibility.The pertinent fact remains, that KM *knew* Madeleine was snatched but *left* her other kids, bizarre at best, instead of crying out for help from where she stood, which would have been heard. Do Benice, tell me, how did she *know* her remaining kids would be safe from said abductor? To be OK leaving them? In fact dont bother.
Something else to thnk about: If the abductor struck at 9.10 or so and left the window and shutter open, and it was such a cold and windy night,why did neither Oldfield or Kate notice the cold in the room?
-
It wasnt a theory, or a belief, it was a random idea of what may have happened for any reason(perhaps Madeleine was cryng because it was too hot or too dark so window was opened), an idea which may have crossed KMs mind instead of *instantly knowing* she was abducted. And btw Jane Tanner *may have done this* very near to 10pm or around 9.40 when she was on her way back, though I agree she would have called soon either way,and no, she wouldnt have had to go all around the block, it would only have taken her a minute to go out of her own patio doors, down the alley to two flats. I tend to agree JT wouldnt have done this, but it remains a possibility.The pertinent fact remains, that KM *knew* Madeleine was snatched but *left* her other kids, bizarre at best, instead of crying out for help from where she stood, which would have been heard. Do Benice, tell me, how did she *know* her remaining kids would be safe from said abductor? To be OK leaving them? In fact dont bother.
Something else to thnk about: If the abductor struck at 9.10 or so and left the window and shutter open, and it was such a cold and windy night,why did neither Oldfield or Kate notice the cold in the room?
Easy, Redblossom, as Icabodcrane noted, the "all open" of her PJ statement that alerted Mrs McCann before she realised Madeleine wasn't there changed into "all shut" in the 10th May timeline. The curtains, shut, were hiding the open window and shutters. This way Mr Oldfield didn't feel the cold and Mrs McCann herself was even about to leave thinking all was quiet when... when she noticed the bedroom's door was more open than it should.
The abductor had apparently a problem with doors : at 9h05, and though he was hiding behind, he left it open, risking Mr McCann had a look because this was abnormal ; after striking, he left it open again, luckily Mr Oldfield didn't know it shouldn't have been ; finally, as it was windy, the abductor was lucky the door stayed open for 45 minutes without a draught slamming it. If so, Mr Oldfield would have opened the door to check the kids and had discovered Madeleine was missing. By that time half an hour was left to cross the carrier rua da Escola Primaria.
-
Indeed Anne,the devil is in the detail as they say!
And the details are telling.
-
Heri.
I exist therefore I am. 8)--)) 8)--)) 8)--))
As to SY ? 8)-))) 8-)(--)
We all know you are.... 8)-)))