Really?! 8(>((I've been and walked the walk.
Maybe I should invite you to come here so you can check with your own two little eyes and walk the walk to really feel the absurdity of some statements that you are taking second or third or whatever hand....
On May, 3 2007 nobody took a child trough a window from the apartment 5A before 22:00 h. That I know a 100%. There are witnesses and if the case ever goes to court they will appear.
That I would love to see. Witnesses to someone not taking a child though a window. I've heard it all now! @)(++(* 8@??)(
I don't understand what you mean
It is perfectly possible for a witness to say something did not happen
Say, for instance, the house opposite me was burgled last night, via the kitchen window
I was sitting in my garden between 9 and 10pm and was looking directly at the house opposite with a clear view of the kitchen window, and if someone had broken in through it I could not have failed to see them
So, as a witness, I can tell the police that the burglary definately did not happen between 9 and 10pm
A witness who can say something definately did NOT occur is valuable
Point is though Icabodcrane, no innocent bystander was sat watching the front bedroom window as it was obscured by trees. In any event if that had ocurred Senor Amaral would have known about it.
This video library on this forum has a link to the Dispatches TV programme
In that programme a number of experts visited the McCann apartment and considered the possibility of someone entering the apartment through the window
They pointed out that the window was overlooked ... and turned to point out the apartment block directly opposite
They concluded that no-one would try to use the window as a consequence of the visibility
It is perfectly possible that someone was sitting on the balcony of one of those apartments on the night Madeleine disappeared
- But who are the witnesses that Luz refers to who can definitely exclude it? I have found no statements to that effect in the files. Indeed, it would have been helpful as it would have excluded the window as a point of entry/exit.
- If "witnesses" had been staring intently at that window for an hour, they should have been thoroughly questioned.
8((()*/
- But who are the witnesses that Luz refers to who can definitely exclude it? I have found no statements to that effect in the files. Indeed, it would have been helpful as it would have excluded the window as a point of entry/exit.
- If "witnesses" had been staring intently at that window for an hour, they should have been thoroughly questioned.
I've been and walked the walk.
Please stop the lies.
This video library on this forum has a link to the Dispatches TV programme
In that programme a number of experts visited the McCann apartment and considered the possibility of someone entering the apartment through the window
They pointed out that the window was overlooked ... and turned to point out the apartment block directly opposite
They concluded that no-one would try to use the window as a consequence of the visibility
It is perfectly possible that someone was sitting on the balcony of one of those apartments on the night Madeleine disappeared
8((()*/
THis thread is not about the window, altho the [ censored word ]s will try to swing it. It is about the FRONT DOOR. Could you see it?
There has to be some reason why the front door is being totally ignored by the [ censored word ]s and why the window is being promoted. All the time they go on about the window.
THat front door was completely hidden, out of sight around the corner in a recess, in a place that nobody walked past and nobody overlooked. NOBODY NOBODY, at all, walked past or overlooked that front door
To remind the [ censored word ]s/sceptics.
In the immediate weeks before the abduction there were at least two burglaies in that block. One in Mrs Fenns, just days before and one in an apartment above Mrs fenns. In both cases entrance was via the front door, without damage to the door.
Back in 2007 the childrens bedroom window could not be seen from across the road because of overhanging tree branches. These trees have since been removed in order to improve security.
PS. Sorry Sadie. I know this thread is about the hidden door but I cannot allow a non truth to go unchallenged re the visibility of the window.
There is also the evidence from the six (?) British families who came forward to the UK police to report sexual assaults on their children in their beds - all whilst they were on holiday and all within a few miles of PdL - where no sign of a break in was evident. Therefore it's not unreasonable to assume that obtaining keys was not a problem for the would-be intruder.
At first Amaral himself listed 'entry via the front door with a stolen key' as a possibility, but then apparently shelved the idea. One can only speculate as to why.
The fool was right the first time but changed the game plan when he thought that the forensics had done for the McCanns.
But John, the Despatches programme was filmed in October 2007, just five months after the disappearance
Have you watched the programme ? ... please do ( it's on page 3 of the video library )
Fast forward to 2.30, and you will see that the front of the McCann's apartment was very visible from the apartment block opposite. That is why the experts in the programme concluded that an intruder would not try to enter that way
I have had a look Icabodcrane and yes the front of apt 5a was visible from street level but the trees would have obscured vision for someone at a higher level.
8((()*/
THis thread is not about the window, altho the [ censored word ]s will try to swing it. It is about the FRONT DOOR. Could you see it?
There has to be some reason why the front door is being totally ignored by the [ censored word ]s and why the window is being promoted. All the time they go on about the window.
THat front door was completely hidden, out of sight around the corner in a recess, in a place that nobody walked past and nobody overlooked. NOBODY NOBODY, at all, walked past or overlooked that front door
To remind the [ censored word ]s/sceptics.
In the immediate weeks before the abduction there were at least two burglaies in that block. One in Mrs Fenns, just days before and one in an apartment above Mrs fenns. In both cases entrance was via the front door, without damage to the door.
There is also the evidence from the six (?) British families who came forward to the UK police to report sexual assaults on their children in their beds - all whilst they were on holiday and all within a few miles of PdL - where no sign of a break in was evident.Here again propagating disinformation, Benice. This is triple hearsay (somebody told a tour operator who told the consul who told Mrs McCann). Without a source this is disinformation. When some guest for a night abuses hospitality, it's rare people admit lack of discernment by calling the police.
Didn't Mrs Fenn catch her burglar climbing through the window ?Yes and I always wondered whether he jumped on the 5A's balcony to flee away.
I have had a look Icabodcrane and yes the front of apt 5a was visible from street level but the trees would have obscured vision for someone at a higher level.Agreed, John, at the car park entrance, but only glimpses otherwise. Twas very gusty (20mph gusts) and the trees would have been waving around quite vigorously
8((()*/
THis thread is not about the window, altho the [ censored word ]s will try to swing it. It is about the FRONT DOOR. Could you see it?
There has to be some reason why the front door is being totally ignored by the [ censored word ]s and why the window is being promoted. All the time they go on about the window.
THat front door was completely hidden, out of sight around the corner in a recess, in a place that nobody walked past and nobody overlooked. NOBODY NOBODY, at all, walked past or overlooked that front door
To remind the [ censored word ]s/sceptics.
In the immediate weeks before the abduction there were at least two burglaies in that block. One in Mrs Fenns, just days before and one in an apartment above Mrs fenns. In both cases entrance was via the front door, without damage to the door.
Didn't Mrs Fenn catch her burglar climbing through the window ?
Yep ... going out and she reputedly helped push hime. He came in via the locked front door
Didn't Mrs Fenn catch her burglar climbing through the window ?
Here again propagating disinformation, Benice. This is triple hearsay (somebody told a tour operator who told the consul who told Mrs McCann). Without a source this is disinformation. When some guest for a night abuses hospitality, it's rare people admit lack of discernment by calling the police.
No Anne the British Consul told Kate about these occurrences which IIRC were discussed at what were regular meetings with tour operators which he attended. There is no way Kate is going to fill pages of her book with downright lies about the British Consul or about the Leicesteshire police - to whom those parents came forward. Neither is she going to lie about the crimes being reported to the GNR - when she would know that if they didn't happen they would be able to prove it.The British consul is no more in charge and why would the GNR officers read "Madeleine" ? Mrs McCann is so vague that denying wouldn't be difficult : Ah, X told me, I thought he meant, etc.
If what she said is not true then she would be exposing herself to the British Consul, the UK Polce and the GNR as a massive liar!! Anyone who thinks she would be so stupid as to do that, in writing in a book, knowing what the consequences to herself would be - is living in cloud cuckoo land.
The British consul is no more in charge and why would the GNR officers read "Madeleine" ? Mrs McCann is so vague that denying wouldn't be difficult : Ah, X told me, I thought he meant, etc.
There's no Portuguese file about this and on this forum we've insisted on the basic necessity to refer to official files.
You can argue that Mrs McCann heard that..., but repeating triple hearsay as if it were a fact isn't acceptable.
I really doubt that the LC would have sent its files to the McCanns.
The British consul is no more in charge and why would the GNR officers read "Madeleine" ? Mrs McCann is so vague that denying wouldn't be difficult : Ah, X told me, I thought he meant, etc.
There's no Portuguese file about this and on this forum we've insisted on the basic necessity to refer to official files.
You can argue that Mrs McCann heard that..., but repeating triple hearsay as if it were a fact isn't acceptable.
I really doubt that the LC would have sent its files to the McCanns.
Kate states in her book that she read these reports of abuse of British childen in the files. If you think she would so publically lie about that knowing it would expose her to the police as a huge liar - then that's your prerogative. However, IMO such a belief can only be sustained if all semblance of common sense, logic and reasoned thought is removed from the equation and we accept that Kate McCann is a brain dead idiot.You don't have to go to these extremities. Kindly don't mention what Mrs McCann's assumes without corroboration as facts, that's all !
She even quotes a short passage from a letter from a distraught parent to the GNR. What did she do, invent it?Ask her !
For the only walk/drive back to 5A or any of the Tapas 9 apartments using the front way in, one had to enter via the car park entrance from the main road as shown in this photo.
This is the view of the front door
(http://www.mccannfiles.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/carpark5A.jpg)
Can you see it? LOOK REALLY HARD
Can you see the front door? it's right in the middle of the photo
No-one can see it; cos it is recessed back completely out of sight for all the walk across the car park, right from the car park entrance to the open end of the walled paths. This is the route that everyone has to take to the centre of the building where starts the end of the paths that radiate out to all the apartments.
This is the view of the front door taken from the very end (dead end) of the walled pathway. As can be seen the front door is very well recessed back and in the dark. In this photograph the door well is slightly illuminated by photographers lights, but the whole area is very dark. Not illuminated, as in Pat Browns photograph. That search light was fitted much later (in time for Pat Browns photograph?) And the surrounding trees cut down to give a clear view (for Pat Browns photograph?)
(http://www.mccannfiles.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/apartment5aexterior.jpg)
One thing that is not universially understood on the forum, is that as these apartments are built in a slope:-
The ground of the walled pathway is at a lower level than the ground in the car park. From memory, by the front door well and bedroom window, the wall is about chest height. Whilst on the car park, ground is higher up that slope, so the wall is about thigh height. Therefore Madeleine would have had to be handed UP to bundleman on the car park side of the wall, rather than down.
This is what the thread is about
BUMPED O.P.
This is what the thread is aboutTo the sceptics:
BUMPED O.P.
To the sceptics:
With the front door being so obviously the best way in for a burglar/abductor
Why do you think that all the attention is being taken away from the front door?
She even quotes a short passage from a letter from a distraught parent to the GNR. What did she do, invent it?
To the sceptics:
With the front door being so obviously the best way in for a burglar/abductor
Why do you think that all the attention is being taken away from the front door?
Is it viable that an abductor would remove a key, get it copied and then put it back? I think that is too risky.
Yes; quite a viable proposition. Happens all the time in burglaries all over the world.
Were any keys reported stolen or missing? Did anyone come forward in PDL to say they had copied a key like this one (which appears to be very distinctive)?
None of us can answer those questions as we were not the police doing the original investigation. As for any locksmith voluntarily coming forward to say he had copied such a key, probably unlikely - we have been led to believe that there is a distinct uneasiness among the Portuguese populace to fully trust the police. Such an attitude is not confined to Portugal, however. Many people don't wish to "become involved with the police." So no - I don't expect anyone to have volunteered that information, but I do wonder if the police even asked the question of the public.
But Portuguese police have always believed any intruder would have used the FRONT DOOR to enter, knowing the McCanns would never use it that night. He could also have escaped through the shuttered front window to the children's bedroom. For this he would have needed a KEY to the front door. The one the McCanns had for the Ocean Club apartment is known in the locksmiths' trade as a "crucifix key"—and is very unusual because it has four sides. Experienced British locksmith John Reeder told us the key used to take us into the flat yesterday is almost certainly a copy. He said: "Most locksmiths would not be able to copy it without great difficulty. The one in the picture is almost certainly not the original."Expert Locksmiths Says That There Would CERTAINLY Be TWO
of These Keys In Existence And That This Key is Almost
CERTAINLY A COPY!
(http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c337/poppyrose/1105_maddie2_05.jpg)
http://justice4mccannfam.5forum.biz/t68-first-photos-and-video-link-from-inside-mccann-s-holiday-apt-5a
But Portuguese police have always believed any intruder would have used the FRONT DOOR to enter, knowing the McCanns would never use it that night. He could also have escaped through the shuttered front window to the children's bedroom. For this he would have needed a KEY to the front door. The one the McCanns had for the Ocean Club apartment is known in the locksmiths' trade as a "crucifix key"—and is very unusual because it has four sides. Experienced British locksmith John Reeder told us the key used to take us into the flat yesterday is almost certainly a copy. He said: "Most locksmiths would not be able to copy it without great difficulty. The one in the picture is almost certainly not the original."Expert Locksmiths Says That There Would CERTAINLY Be TWO
of These Keys In Existence And That This Key is Almost
CERTAINLY A COPY!
(http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c337/poppyrose/1105_maddie2_05.jpg)
http://justice4mccannfam.5forum.biz/t68-first-photos-and-video-link-from-inside-mccann-s-holiday-apt-5a
The way in through the door with a key generates a limited number of suspects whereas the shutters/window way in generates an infinity of suspects.Spot on Anne
Keys are always in restricted number and investigating each key's owner or depositor and Lagos key maker would likely lead to a suspect.
And why is it considered suspicious that the holiday makers would be given a copy key?
Having rented my own house abroad out we had a copy cut for tenants and kept the original. You do not rent out property and only have one key!
In the event of these MW apartments wouldn't it be normal for MW to keep the orignal or indeed for the owner of the apartment to have the original?
All apartments have multiple keys for owners, staff access and possibly cleaners.
I see nothing suspicious in that.
On the other hand had someone actually reported a key lost or stolen then that would be suspicious..
I didn't say it was suspicious that the holiday makers would be given a copy key.
Yes you would think Mark Warner would keep the keys, at reception or in their office, not where any Tom, Dick, or Harry could get access to them.
I didn't say it was suspicious that the holiday makers would be given a copy key.
Yes you would think Mark Warner would keep the keys, at reception or in their office, not where any Tom, Dick, or Harry could get access to them.
No but you posted an article which said that. If you didn't think or say it why post that article?
I repeat again the same question. Did anyone report a key lost, missing or stolen in the 4 days any potential abductor had to get hold of a key?
Yes you would think Mark Warner would keep the keys, at reception or in their office, not where any Tom, Dick, or Harry could get access to them.
Keys were held in special safes so how could any tom dick or harry get them??
Someone could have been working for the OC.
Processos
Volume II
Pages 412 - 414
Miguel Goncalves Da Costa Palma
Date/Time: 2007/05/07 18H40
General Handyman
Portuguese
The keys to the living quarters and apartments that are under the responsibility of the Ocean Club, and are kept inside a safe in the Maintenance Garage, the access code to the safe is known by all maintenance workers.
Processos
Volume II
Pages 412 - 414
Miguel Goncalves Da Costa Palma
Date/Time: 2007/05/07 18H40
General Handyman
Portuguese
The keys to the living quarters and apartments that are under the responsibility of the Ocean Club, and are kept inside a safe in the Maintenance Garage, the access code to the safe is known by all maintenance workers.
Processos
Volume II
Pages 412 - 414
Miguel Goncalves Da Costa Palma
Date/Time: 2007/05/07 18H40
General Handyman
Portuguese
The keys to the living quarters and apartments that are under the responsibility of the Ocean Club, and are kept inside a safe in the Maintenance Garage, the access code to the safe is known by all maintenance workers.
The keys are only taken from the safe when it is necessary to carry out a service, in this case a service request exists, which is registered in the name of the maintenance worker and indicates the time spent and which is given to the Director of Maintenance Services, Mrs. Silvia.
Also Sylvia Baptista's husband
Processos Vol III
Pages 540 – 542
Date: 2007/05/08
Witness Statement
José Carlos Silva Batista
Place of work: OC
Occupation : Head of Maintenance
That to carry out his work he sometimes needs the keys to the apartments and these are always requested from maintenance or from the OC reception. Whenever a key is requested, a register is made of the request.
Now how many maintenance workers are employed at the OC?.
For the keys:
the access code to the safe is known by all maintenance workers.
And I wonder who else?
Someone could have been working for the OC.
Alot of people worked there and couldnt do their job if they werent given a key!none of us suggest that Red
What do you suggest? Every worker be let into flats by some key holding manager? going around the ocean club unlocking doors in case an employee is a potential abductor of children?
ETA Even if NO ONE knew the code to the safe, how does that make anything any better security wise? All they to do is get the key copied as it would have been in their possession.
This whole hypothetical speculative exercise isnt really based on any hard (or half hard) facts.
none of us suggest that Red
But the fact is that if the front door was used, with no damage to it, then it is likely that the abductor or the lifter had something to do with OC ... cos a key or a copy must have been used to enter.
Even if it was only a copy, someone attached to OC had to "borrow" the key to arrange the copy
Too many assumptions and accusations.
No evidence the front door was used in the hypothesis
No evidence there was a lifter and/or an abductor
No evidence a key was copied
no evidence any key was missing
No evidence any employees were criminals or suspected to be by the investigating police
Just speculation
You need to follow evidence to reach the facts, not try and fit non existant evidence into a theory
Did Amaral look at the possibility that a key was used?
Too many assumptions and accusations.
No evidence the front door was used in the hypothesis
No evidence there was a lifter and/or an abductor
No evidence a key was copied
no evidence any key was missing
No evidence any employees were criminals or suspected to be by the investigating police
Just speculation
You need to follow evidence to reach the facts, not try and fit non existant evidence into a theory
Where the evidence for your theory then, Red
Cos you seem to think Madeleine died at her parents hands ?in the apartment
Where is the evidence for your facts?
why are you so against the front door being used? Evidence and facts please
Either Ms Tanner carrier or the Smiths carrier went out through the main door. No key was required to do so. Entrance through the patio door, which wasn't locked. The key copy hypothesis is absurd : why copy a key if one door is always open ?exactly and the patio area was just as dark as the front door side and with a dark lane to go down instead of parading themselves in front of parents and friends! five minutes after their check was done!!! All that watching and planning and dry runs must havebeen for no reason at all!!!! LOL
I dont have a theory,never hadWell why are you so sure of yourself then?
@)(++(*
You consistently either confuse me for someone else, or put words in my mouth, in both, you are 100 per cent wrong
8)--))
Well why are you so sure of yourself then?
Working on myths and feelings?
The open shutters/window aren't a red herring. The statement "the open shutters could be a red herring" is a red herring.
As the speculation about key copy reveals.
This interview was in 2011. 4 years after the scientific police found no evidence of using the window, Mr McCann has still some affection for the ex broken shutters.The patio door went to the bin because it questions their watching it. Doesn't the key lead sound promising ?
G. MCCANN: No. I mean, it's possible they came through the window. They could have come through the patio doors, although that was in sight of where we were dining. So I think that's probably less likely. For all we know, they could have had a key, you know, lots of people stayed in that apartment over years to the front door --
If I can go back to the post for a minute which recalled Rachael's remark claiming that the patio door shutter was down or closed. It is possible the shutter was down which covered the fixed panel adjacent to the patio door. Again I will point out that had the patio door shutter been down the McCanns would not have been able to get into the apartment using the patio door.
The window shutters of the McCann's apartments were closed. The patio door that they used to enter the apartment also had its shutter closed. In order to enter they had to raise the shutter.
Agreed there Anne
And as for the copy key isconcerned, lets not forget gerry mccanns wild claim on cnn in his interview with piers morgan that any number of holidaymakers staying in 5a over many years went back home with the key to 5a
@)(++(*
This interview was in 2011. 4 years after the scientific police found no evidence of using the window, Mr McCann has still some affection for the ex broken shutters.The patio door went to the bin because it questions their watching it. Doesn't the key lead sound promising ?8((()*/
8((()*/
To me it sounds promising too, Anne, in view of how difficult it would have been to enter 5A by any other means than the front door.
With a key, that was so quick and easy ... and safe. Both in and out.
But a safety route out had to be ensured, in case anyone came and blocked his / her exit via the front door. Hence the window and shutters being opened.
I thought we had covered this. The opening of a window and shutter from inside was incredibly risky to the point of being amateurish.
Once inside the apartment, an abductor raising the shutter from inside would have no way of knowing who was walking past when he opened the shutter.
He could have been spotted there and then, for what? An escape route?
That's a huge risk given people were backwards and forwarding all the time across that car park.
Plus of course given the timings he would have had to:
Enter the apartment
• Sedate all three children - in the dark
• Select Madeleine as the victim - in the dark
• Open the shutters and window - if he used the front door to enter
• Pick Madeleine out of her bed - in the dark
• Turn her round so that her head is now to his left, rather than to his right,
which is the way he would have approached her in the bed.
• Exit the apartment, either through the opened window and shutters, or
through the front door, which he must then close silently behind him.
All in the time from gerry leaving the tapas to Jane leaving 5 minutes later.
They don't have had to use a locksmith, to duplicate the keys.
If it is a regular and lucrative business, whats to stop them doing their own. Key Cotters/Duplicators, can be bought, by anyone.
I have read about faster ways to duplicate keys also ... but I won't be posting links for fairly obvious reasons.
I have read about faster ways to duplicate keys also ... but I won't be posting links for fairly obvious reasons.The cheapest and easiest way to duplicate a complex key such as that is to make a simple sand casting of it. Tells you how to do it at home on the internet.
I have read about faster ways to duplicate keys also ... but I won't be posting links for fairly obvious reasons.In order to make a copy, they must first get the original. Not many people would be prepared for all the work involved ... and fewer still would have access to the oriiginals to make the copy from.
Nobody walked past. Was a dead end . Only led to the Mccanns front door. If someone by a great fluke saw the abductor, he could still flee thru the patio door. So a non-runner. Sorry Albertini
Matts door though, is recessed, so I don't think he would see the window, because of the shape of the alleyway, entrance.
(http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/J/staircase1.jpg)
The little window belongs also to Mr Oldfield bedroom.
(http://www.sleuthingforjustice.com/phpBB3/download/file.php?id=6072)
The little window belongs also to Mr Oldfield bedroom.
Exactly, so it stretches the bounds of credibility that Matt would not have looked in that direction when checking his own apartment.
And given we are told everyone was checking, then it's a stretch to think no one walking across the car park entrance didnt look in that direction either.
Why would they? They weren't expecting burglars or kidnappers, they just wanted to make sure that the kids were sleeping.
Easy to think of these things in hindsight...
Some pics ...
Note that from point E the 5A window is very hard to see, and the angles from the path in point A, B, C, D are between 50º and 130º ...
And 50º are just the limit of human binocular vision, although the visual field is uneven, it is not uniform and has its maximum definition in its central part.
If the shutters had been open and a curtain flying and flapping (whooshing !) in the wind, at least one person would have seen or more likely heard. As nobody did, the probability is there was nothing to notice.
But there was a rub ! Mr Oldfield couldn't have seen the shutters either closed (ruining Ms Tanner's sighting) or open (ruining his reputation of responsible person). Mr Oldfield was horribly stuck and the only way out was to enter a flat where he never had been.
Gosh, I pity him when he was asked about the bedroom, he couldn't but describe his own, hoping they were all equal (and showing that he likely never stuck his ear against the unique McCann window.
Of course his complacency and his dignity couldn't go up to saying he hadn't seen Madeleine. So Mr Oldfield had to pretend he had done a visual blind check or rather a check on silence ! The cruel and unexpected detail is there was a bed looking like a battlefield in this bedroom and he couldn't miss it, even if he didn't enter ! The devil was in this bed.
All he was there for was to make sure the children were asleep. He was listening rather than looking.Then why iyo didn't he listen at the window ? Wasn't he in a hurry to eat his food ? What was the point iyo to go inside the flat if listening was enough ?
Then why iyo didn't he listen at the window ? Wasn't he in a hurry to eat his food ? What was the point iyo to go inside the flat if listening was enough ?
There's no logical answer, Benice, don't lose time finding one. And the trouble is this is not the only weird detail of those statements...
Your knowledge about "what the McCann would have done" is a mystery. There's nothing like an inside request in any of the group's statements to the police.
One year later ! Who will believe that ? None of them mentioned it to the PJ in their first and second statements. And :
The "way Mrs McCann would have done" was 1) the shortest way (but for Mr Oldfield the longest) and 2) just listening (which Mr Oldfield did).
No logic in this.
(http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1963.0;attach=2597;image)
Brilliant Heri. 8((()*/
so we only have a field of vision of 120*.
When looking the way we are walking, only 60* visibility on either side.
My screen is extra wide so I cannot accurately measure angles, so I am going to take a print off and get a protractor on that ... measure the angles that way
What would we do without our resident expert? Well done Heri
Are you Mrs McCann, Benice, always sure of what she would think, say, advise, do, hear, etc.
The fact is they used the risky but shorter way to just listen : both McCanns say they had a look thanks to an open door (and in her case thanks to the wind) !
The 9:30 check would seem just highly illogical if it didn't interestingly show how Mr Oldfield was manipulated.
SadieSorry Carana. Been busy and only just picked this up.
Point P is where the steps are to get down to the passage to then get to the main entrance lobby?
An interesting observation Albertini. Question is, when Matt did the first check at 9pm did he walk along the walkway or just listen from the other side of the wall which I suspect is the case?I suspect this as well. After all Mr O'Brian didn't have to stick his ear on the shutter to hear his daughter.
Why did GM feel the need to recheck the children a mere minutes later?
An interesting observation Albertini. Question is, when Matt did the first check at 9pm did he walk along the walkway or just listen from the other side of the wall which I suspect is the case?Because he wasn't happy with just an ear to a shutter. The recognised time tried practice of many hotels and holiday camps was not sufficient for Gerry. He immediately got up from the table and checked properly; he went into the bedroom and made a visual check.
Why did GM feel the need to recheck the children a mere minutes later?
An interesting observation Albertini. Question is, when Matt did the first check at 9pm did he walk along the walkway or just listen from the other side of the wall which I suspect is the case?
Why did GM feel the need to recheck the children a mere minutes later?
He went inside because he had offered to do Kate's check for her and that's how she did her check. It was sorted before he left the table that he would be going inside - in the same way Kate would have done if she had gone. How anyone can read anything weird or strange into something so simple and straightforward is a mystery to me.
Because he wasn't happy with just an ear to a shutter. The recognised time tried practice of many hotels and holiday camps was not sufficient for Gerry. He immediately got up from the table and checked properly; he went into the bedroom and made a visual check.
Matt must have realised this. He may have felt Gerry was not pleased. He may have felt criticized when Gerry immediately got up and rechecked. ... and the next time, he made sure he went in and visually checked .... unhappily not Madeleine.
Because he wasn't happy with just an ear to a shutter. The recognised time tried practice of many hotels and holiday camps was not sufficient for Gerry. He immediately got up from the table and checked properly; he went into the bedroom and made a visual check.
Matt must have realised this. He may have felt Gerry was not pleased. He may have felt criticized when Gerry immediately got up and rechecked. ... and the next time, he made sure he went in and visually checked .... unhappily not Madeleine.
So that there can be NO DOUBT about whether Madeleines window was visible to the tapas 9 walking the walled path back to their apartments, see Gerry walking it.
Starts 6.50, see Matts front door, others are in that lobby too, but do not show in the clip. All the other tapas members peeled off into that lobby. They had NO SIGHT of THE window.
Gerry carried on. He had to walk to the end ~ a dead end where the front door was set back in a deep recess. En route he passed two windows to Matts flat, then Madeleines window, before the front door
So that myth put to bed
Not one of them, apart from Kate and Gerry, was able to see the window, or the door, when walking that walled pathway, in either direction. FACT
So that there can be NO DOUBT about whether Madeleines window was visible to the tapas 9 walking the walled path back to their apartments, see Gerry walking it.
Starts 6.50, see Matts front door, others are in that lobby too, but do not show in the clip. All the other tapas members peeled off into that lobby. They had NO SIGHT of THE window.
Gerry carried on. He had to walk to the end ~ a dead end where the front door was set back in a deep recess. En route he passed two windows to Matts flat, then Madeleines window, before the front door
So that myth put to bed
Not one of them, apart from Kate and Gerry, was able to see the window, or the door, when walking that walled pathway, in either direction. FACT
Because he wasn't happy with just an ear to a shutter. The recognised time tried practice of many hotels and holiday camps was not sufficient for Gerry. He immediately got up from the table and checked properly; he went into the bedroom and made a visual check.First para
Matt must have realised this. He may have felt Gerry was not pleased. He may have felt criticized when Gerry immediately got up and rechecked. ... and the next time, he made sure he went in and visually checked .... unhappily not Madeleine.
An interesting observation Albertini. Question is, when Matt did the first check at 9pm did he walk along the walkway or just listen from the other side of the wall which I suspect is the case?
Why did GM feel the need to recheck the children a mere minutes later?
First para
You are wrong about this as Gerry was not in the habit of visually checking his children. He only did listening checks up until that last night. And the only reason he says he did a visual was because he saw the door a bit more open. This has been posted umpteen times. His wife suggests in the same documentarywhere he made that comment that she did the same.
Second para
Wrong again, if Matt felt bad he would have done a full visual but he didnt, instead he glanced into the room from a few feet away and then wondered where Madeleine slept? Why did he wonder that? Why not look in? he knew where the kids bedroom was. Why go and peruse the parents bedroom to see if she was there? whats all that nonsense about?
Seems to me, Red, that the evidence is in the fact that after Matt did the listening check, Gerry immediately got up and did a visual one. He wasn't happy with Matts check
Be realistic, Red. Matt had gone into the apartment . He could see all three beds thru that partially opened doorway. He saw the twins, but Madeleine was tucked up at the other end of her bed out of sight. He could see from the bottom of her bed that there was no movement and assumed that Madeleine was asleep. The same as all of us would have assumed.
Had he opened the bedroom door properly and gone in, he would have risked waking them with the extra light beaming in. He did what all of us would have done.
Don't you realise yet that Matthews check at the shutters was meaningless as far as the McCanns were concerned. Take off the blindfolds peeps and ask yourself the question as to why did Gerry go to the bother to go up to the apartment so soon afterwards? A trip which resulted in the Tanner sighting!!!!
Tanner was the fly in the ointment!!! @)(++(*
According to his 10th of May statement Gerry wasn't even aware Oldfield had listened at his shutters .You are making an awful lot out of five minutes Faith. As I suspect you know, five minutes in such a relaxed gathering would be very easy to lose or gain. Have you never been with friends and chatting away? do you know exactly what happened ... to the minute?
Another point. In Oldfield's first statement he claims :
' That the last to arrive at the restaurant was the couple David and Fiona. That the latter arrived at the restaurant at around 9pm.
That around 9.05pm, the interviewee went to the area of the apartments.'
So if Oldfield left the tapas bar five minutes after the Payne's arrived how could he have gone to 'chivvy them up' ? No wonder Dianne Webster categorically denied seeing him.
And to render the picture complete Gerry contends that he never saw Tanner. Should that in fact be he didn't want to see her???
He also disputes the version of events as portrayed by both Wilkins and Tanner both of whom had no reason to lie. What dies that tell you???
You are making an awful lot out of five minutes Faith. As I suspect you know, five minutes in such a relaxed gathering would be very easy to lose or gain. Have you never been with friends and chatting away? do you know exactly what happened ... to the minute?
Come on, pull the other leg ! @)(++(*
Gerry thinks he was standing somewhere slightly different to where you saw him,The other side of a two ways street is "slightly" different !
It tells me that this Police Officer inteviewing Jane Tanner, knew what she was talking about:-
Quote
4078 “It’s alright. I can fully understand why you have so much frustration. And, in as much as the part where Gerry thinks he was standing somewhere slightly different to where you saw him, well that, you know, people do see things from different perspectives”.
Reply “Umm”.
4078 “You know, we can take a statement from people, if an incident happened outside and there was a group of people watching it, everybody would have a different take on what they had seen”.
Reply “Umm”.
4078 And that, you know, it doesn’t matter You can only say what you can remember and as far as you can remember it. And if it is different from how it was then things can be explained”.
Had Tanner been on her own then that argument might have held water but she wasn't on her own. Her sighting was corroborated by Wilkins exactly. Maybe you will now tell me that Wilkins got it wrong too?? @)(++(*
The points made by the Police officer to JT re different people having different memories is applicable to everyone.
Jez Wilkins JT and GM all gave their own recollections - and as the Police Officer explained, the fact that they did not all give identical descriptions would be considered normal by the Police.
Had JT said she saw them standing at the top of the road and Gerry had said he was talking to Jez outside the OC entrance - then that would have been suspicious, but a difference of 2/3 metres would not have been considered to be suspect. Even though Jez and Gerry didnt see JT - she could not have known Gerry was talking to Jez and go on to correctly describe the approximate place where they were standing unless she had seen them there.
The same goes for discrepancies in statements. The police would not expect statements from 9 people to all be exactly the same. In fact that would be more likely to arouse suspicion, as it would suggest collusion.
IMO
Madeleine was taken out of the front door but the carrier didn't need a key.
Nonsense again Benice.
If three witness give statements and two of those witnesses say the same thing then the police will, quite rightly, presume those two witnesses to be correct. The curious thing about Loach's 'documentary' was firstly that Jez's testimony with regard to the which side of the road issue was never introduced, which made it look as if it was merely Gerry's word against Tanners, thus obscuring the reality and secondly that Gerry's recollection was used over Tanner/Wilkins.
Gerry knew that it wasn't credible that Tanner could have passed by himself and Wilkins without either of them seeing her so he invited a scenario which was credible.
And to your other point, Tanner had the whole of the night before giving her statement on the 4th to be briefed with regard to the Gerry/Wilkins conversation. It is obvious from the timeline given to the police on the 10th, and which the whole group contributed to, that Gerry, at first, was going to go with he/Tanner/Wilkins all being on the same side of the road. I can only assume that the disbelief expressed by the detectives with regard to this scenario in his 10th May interview made him change his 'recollection'.
Benice, you built up ludicrous scenarios, you attribute them to sceptics and they you ridicule them. This is unfair.
I don't think any of the TP7 intentionally covered anything. You can say untruths without intending to cover something that has nothing to do with you.
Don't you see they believed the shutters/window story ? They believed it as those in the UK believed it.
In their place I would have likely believed it as well. During a certain time. I guess Ms Tanner discovered she had been used, when doing the pseudo reconstruction. She possibly started to wonder why or rather preferred the ostrich-like approach.
No it's not unfair Anne. These are the theories of some sceptics who desperately want people to believe them because they hate the McCanns. That's what isn't fair - and if these scenarios are clearly and obviously impossible - then they need to be rebutted. imo.Please, Benice, cite names and quote individual theories instead of globalizing.
If you or anyone else can give me credible reasons why JT would lie about anything that happened that night - and how you think she really spent her evening - then I would be more than happy to consider them with an open mind.
Please, Benice, cite names and quote individual theories instead of globalizing.Claptrap Anne.
I'm a sceptic and I don't recognize my thoughts in the supposed to be sceptic theories you're making up.
I've nothing against being personally contradicted and criticized, but in general and in the name of impalpable ones I find it unacceptable.
Please, Benice, cite names and quote individual theories instead of globalizing.
I'm a sceptic and I don't recognize my thoughts in the supposed to be sceptic theories you're making up.
I've nothing against being personally contradicted and criticized, but in general and in the name of impalpable ones I find it unacceptable.
Can you show any proof, of this?
Yes the same proof you have that she was abducted.Some indications of an abduction, to remind you:
Some indications of an abduction, to remind you:
1) History: Three abductions of little blond haired girls in just over two and a half years. All within about 18 miles from PdL. Same period of time, same locality
2) A golden witness, Jane Tanner
3) Mrs Caroline Carpenters audio witnessing
4) Lies by Amaral, or his crew, to try and get Gerry to confess
5) The ?deliberate promotion of Eddie and Keela as having proven the case. Totally untrue
6) Previous Fitting up of Leonor and Joao with NO EVIDENCE. Just a story invented by Amaral and Cristovao.
7) History and Character of Gerry and Kate. No lies, very reserved approach. Not like Karen Matthews who was so widely acclaimed by the [ censored word]. Yeah ... RIGHT !
8) 5A = Perfect spot. Totally hidden front door, in darkness with no one passing.
9) watchers in the days before hand
10) Previous very recent burglaries in same block using a key
11) No motive for the Mccanns to do it
12) Very obvious disinformation re Kate and Gerry, put about. Similar to disinformation and lies put about about Leonor Cipriano
13) Means to do it. None. No car.
14) Opportunity to do it . None. Watched all the time ... or presence at relevant time witnessed by others
15) Indications they have done it. None. loving parents
16) A very plausible trail to a certain place and a certain person. Now there is room for errors here, but I dont think so, cos other things which I cannot repeat atm, ex judicy possibly, fit totally.
yep, it was an adbduction, alright ... cos i have a further two reasons that I cannot give (ex judicy) + a most unusual outlining verification via an unexpected source
I understand sadie that you have a desperate need to make yourself seem more important in this case than you actuallyNo @)(++(*
are but it's all getting rather tedious now so with the greatest respect will you either give up or shut up.
Some indications of an abduction, to remind you:
1) History: Three abductions of little blond haired girls in just over two and a half years. All within about 18 miles from PdL. Same period of time, same locality
-------
Sadie remind us who are the three pretty blonde young girls? That were abducted?
Joana cipriano was not a blonde by any stretch of the imagnationI can assure you that by PT standards she was a fair haired girl. Told to me by a PT man with close connections. Perhaps blond was not the correct word. but fair haired was. This man liked blonds/fair haired peeps amongst his younger victims.
Carolina santos...there was no abduction, not even an attempted one
you wil have to provide a source for this assertion, hopefullly not THE SUN
@)(++(*