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: John on July 23, 2013, 02:49:46 PM
-
Let's assume for a minute that there was an abduction.
Gerry is adamant that when he checked the three children at around 9.10pm that he had sight of Madeleine. Taking this at face value then we must accept that she was still in the apartment at that time.
If Jane Tanner is correct and she actually had a visual with the abductor at 9.15pm and while Gerry McCann was still stood on the street just below the patio gate then the window of opportunity was really tight.
This leads me to believe that the apartment and the parents movements were being monitored. When Matt did the first check he simply walked to a point in the car park where he could listen at the shutter. I have a feeling that this wasn't picked up by the abductors and that they were monitoring the movements up to and from the patio door. When they saw Gerry go in at about 9.12pm to do the check they would have been ready to pounce. When he came out the go ahead was given and the abductor made for the front of the apartment assuming the coast was then clear and that Gerry had returned to the tapas. We know of course that the coast was not clear, not only had Gerry stopped on the pavement but Jane Tanner was on her way to her own apartment to see Russell.
Matt did a further check after 9.30pm and talks of the room being lighter as he actually entered the apartment this time. But how could he have known this as he hadn't been in previously?
-
He compared it to his own bedroom.
-
Let's assume for a minute that there was an abduction.
Gerry is adamant that when he checked the three children at around 9.10pm that he had sight of Madeleine. Taking this at face value then we must accept that she was still in the apartment at that time.
If Jane Tanner is correct and she actually had a visual with the abductor at 9.15pm and while Gerry McCann was still stood on the street just below the patio gate then the window of opportunity was really tight.
This leads me to believe that the apartment and the parents movements were being monitored. When Matt did the first check he simply walked to a point in the car park where he could listen at the shutter. I have a feeling that this wasn't picked up by the abductors and that they were monitoring the movements up to and from the patio door. When they saw Gerry go in at about 9.12pm to do the check they would have been ready to pounce. When he came out the go ahead was given and the abductor made for the front of the apartment assuming the coast was then clear and that Gerry had returned to the tapas. We know of course that the coast was not clear. not only had Gerry stopped on the pavement but Jane Tanner was on her way to her own apartment to see Russell.
Matt did a further check after 9.30pm and talks of the room being lighter as he actually entered the apartment this time. But how could he have known this as he hadn't been in previously?
John, Where does Matt talks of the room being lighter? I can only find where he say's light!
-
1st statement
it seemed to him that the shutters of the bedroom window were open without knowing if the window was also open.
2nd statement
Concerning the external blinds he clarifies that he did not see if it was closed or open. He recalls having thought that in that bedroom there was more brightness than there was in his daughter's room (where the external blinds were always fully closed), adding to have had the feeling that that light was coming from the outside – making the point that both were turned in the same direction.
Consequently, he admits the possibility of the light he was perceiving was owing to the blinds being raised, denying however that he was capable of assessing the height at which it may have been.
___________
Between the first and the second, he realized the logical consequence of what he said and tried to attenuate it. But everybody will deduce the person who claimed the blinds were closed at 9, sees them lifted at 9:30 and nevertheless declares everything's ok is nothing more than irresponsible.
Why didn't the McCanns protest ? Because in fact Mr McCann showed a similar foolishness when he didn't investigate why the bedroom door was too much open ?
-
1st statement.
Correct wording
That it seemed to him that the shutters of the parents' bedroom window were open without knowing if the window was also open.
-
The gist of Oldfields statements, is that the room seemed to have more light in it that he expected it to have,based on nothing expect that his own daughters bedroom with the shutters down and door closed was in pitchblack
He did not really know why there was some light around so he could see in the Mccanns kids bedroom, he said there were various possibilities, one the shutter being slightly up, thinking it was down on his 9pm check and since his kids room is dark with the shutter down so should his room, two the moon, three a source inside the apartment behind him
If the source was from the shutters being open, would the light have come through seeing as the thicker curtains were closed? No wind, no curtains flapping, no cold felt, no slamming doors. The simplest explanation is the light source was coming through the kitchen window whose blinds were up, and where across the street to them was a street lamp. Something which he wouldnt have seen in his own flat as his kids bedroom was on the opposite side of the light source.
Relevant parts of statements here
Sorry, dont have time to edit the rogatory part
4th may statement
At around 9.25pm, the interviewee went into his apartment and Madeleine's apartment to check on the children. He states that the door of the bedroom that was occupied by Madeleine and the twins, was open and that there was enough light in the bedroom for him to see the twins in their cots. That he couldn't see the bed occupied by Madeleine, but as it was all quiet, he deduced that she was sleeping. That the light was not from an artificial source inside the apartment, but perhaps something coming from outside through the bedroom window. That it seemed to him that the shutters of the parents' bedroom window were open without knowing if the window was also open.
10th may statement
That he did not enter the bedroom where MBM and the twins were sleeping. He recalls that the bedroom door was half open, making an angle of 50 degrees. He does not know how far away he was from the bedroom door. He recalls having the perception that the window curtains - green in colour - were drawn closed but could not determine if the window was closed or open. Concerning the external blinds he clarifies that he did not see if it was closed or open. He recalls having thought that in that bedroom there was more brightness than there was in his daughter's room (where the external blinds were always fully closed), adding to have had the feeling that that light was coming from the outside - making the point that both were turned in the same direction.
Consequently, he admits the possibility of the light he was perceiving was owing to the blinds being raised, denying however that he was capable of assessing the height at which it may have been.
The question asked, he was sure that, at the time of his first being in the vicinity of MBM's bedroom, reported as 21h05 in the course of which he had approached the the window of that bedroom from the outside for the purpose of an auditory check, the blinds were, in his view, fully closed.
Consequently, he is convinced that at the time of the second check the blinds were more open than on the first check, given that he considers that the light inside the bedroom, undoubtedly coming from the outside, could not have been coming through it [the blinds] if they had been fully closed.
Rogatory interview april 08
Reply "Erm, so I went to check on G**** and I stood up and Russell stood up and said he was going to go and check as well and Kate stood up and I said, you know, do you want us to go and check on, erm, do you want me to go and check on your kids, erm, and she said yes. And I think I offered at that point just because we had been together all week and we had similar routines and it just kind of seemed like a nice thing to do that would save her a journey back up and, you know, it may or it may not have been different. But, erm, I said that and she said yeah fine and she said that the patio door was open and go in through there. And there was me and Russell as well, so, erm, you know, it seemed, at the time, a very reasonable thing to do, even though it was the first time that we'd certainly done it. Also, having somebody else there with me, it sort of felt sort of more, more sort of natural and normal. So we went out and we debated about whether we'd go in first or go in later, but Russell wanted to get back because E*** had been a little bit unsettled and so we went back first and he went in and I went in to check on G**** and actually went in through the door, unlocked the door, looked in, into her room, all fine, came back out, shut the door, erm, went over to his apartment and he said that E*** had been sick so he was staying back with her. So I went back and did the check on five 'A', on Madeleine and the kids, erm, and went back through the patio entrance, so through the gate, through the patio doors, erm, there was, it was light enough to see through the apartment and there sort of a little table light on the right at the end of the sofa and when you walk into the room, you could see straight into it, because the door was open. Erm, I've spent a lot of time debating how far the door was open, from previous questioning, and, you know, it wasn't flat back against the wall, because that would have looked odd, it was just sort of halfway open, so it seemed slightly unusual that it should be so wide open, because you could see straight into the middle of the room from the angle that you approach it, because the, you've got sofas here and you've got a bookcase here and you have to come out, you've got sort of the wall of the bedroom and then it goes back where the bathroom is and then comes out again, so you've got to come out round this wall to sort of, not out round this wall, but you come in and the doorway is sort of recessed, so you can see pretty much straight into the room from the doorway back or certainly as soon as you get past that final wall. So it seemed odd to have that door open, it's certainly not something that, you know, G**** has it completely pitch black, because it seems to me that she sleeps a bit longer, erm, but some people do leave the door open and I know Russell and Jane, for E***, and L*** subsequent, also has the door slightly open, you know, they have light and they prefer that, but we've never done that with G****, so it seemed a little bit odd, but not without the realm of possibility. So I approached the room but I didn't actually go in because you could see the twins in the cots and one of the, you could see the twins in the cots because they're in with, sort of the cots were in the middle of the room with sort of a gap of about sort of maybe a foot between the two, the cots had sort of got that fabric end and sort of a mesh side, so you could see the sides and you could see them, erm, see them breathing and there were two there and it was all completely quiet. And the other things you could see in the room, there was a, there was another bed at the back underneath the window at the far side and you could see the end of the bed, another bed here. And because I was looking for, you know, well people say, well why didn't you go in the room, why didn't you check on Madeleine, you were, you said you'd go and check, but it was just that, we were just satisfying ourselves that nobody was upset and awake and crying, we didn't expect that if I checked each three beds somebody, it just wasn’t sort of something that you thought about, you just thought, you know, is somebody, you know, upset, do they want their mum or something, you can say, you know, somebody might have vomited and you wouldn't know about it, but there was, you know, nobody was awake, you thought, if something, just one, it'd be, it'd sort of feel a bit odd, you know, from the draughts, you know, when Kate went in something about the door shutting, there was, I presume, a through draught. So I just sort of went towards the doorway, I didn't step over the threshold, I didn't see Madeleine and I didn't check, I turned round and came back out, said all was quiet when I got back to the table and then we went on with food. Now the room was, we talked also in the interviews about how light the room was and whether I could see the shutters, and I can't see the shutters because the curtains were shut and, they're similar curtains to the ones you've got in there, and you just get an impression of just like green and yellow, but they were closed, they weren't sort of blowing about, because I'm sure I'd have noticed if there was sort of movement like that. But the room seemed light, and we spent a lot of time talking about this, whether it could be light coming in from the street outside, but there was a light behind us in the room and for some reason I thought, I got the impression of light coming through the doorway from behind me, which is why I said that I thought perhaps the moon was out, erm, but there as no sort of, you know, it's a question of whether, there was no sort of slats of light coming through the back that particularly caught my eye. So I didn't specifically see the shutters and I couldn't say that they were definitely open, but certainly the curtains were shut and everything was quiet".
-
1st statement.
Correct wording
That it seemed to him that the shutters of the parents' bedroom window were open without knowing if the window was also open.
What was he doing in the parents bedroom? Looking to see if Madeleine slept there according to his wife, as he wonderes where she slept! So why did he look in THERE and not the kids bedroom?
-
1st statement.
Correct wording
That it seemed to him that the shutters of the parents' bedroom window were open without knowing if the window was also open.
Actually I didn't remember I was the one who corrected this translation. But now, reading it again, I see it doesn't make sense.
The original doesn't say "parents' bedroom", but bedroom "for a couple". Both bedrooms had two beds, none had a couple or double bed, so no room was predestined to be a couple bedroom.
Why would Matthew, who doesn't make two or three steps to check whether Madeleine is really sleeping or just faking it, would open the McCanns' door to snoop the state of their shutters ?
-
If Jane Tanner is correct and she actually had a visual with the abductor at 9.15pm and while Gerry McCann was still stood on the street just below the patio gate then the window of opportunity was really tight.
-----
Operative word being IF, there is nothing to prove she saw Madeleine, and if these pros were watching and staking out they would not have taken so many risks, thats the point of watching and staking, you go in when its least likely you will be caught, seems for some they went in at the most dangerous time!
-
Actually I didn't remember I was the one who corrected this translation. But now, reading it again, I see it doesn't make sense.
The original doesn't say "parents' bedroom", but bedroom "for a couple". Both bedrooms had two beds, none had a couple or double bed, so no room was predestined to be a couple bedroom.
Why would Matthew, who doesn't make two or three steps to check whether Madeleine is really sleeping or just faking it, would open the McCanns' door to snoop the state of their shutters ?
The original says
Cerca das 21H25, o depoente dirigiu-se ao interior do seu apartamento e do apartamento da
MADELEINE para verificar novamente as crianças. Esclarece que, a porta do quarto ocupado pela
MADELEINE e seus irmãos estava aberta e havia alguma claridade no quarto, na medida em que
conseguiu ver que os gémeos ocupavam os seus berços. Que de onde estava não via a cama
ocupada pela MADELEINE, mas que como estava silêncio, deduziu que esta estivesse lá a dormir.
Que essa claridade não era de luz artificial do interior do apartamento, mas talvez alguma
proveniente do exterior através da janela do quarto. Que, nessa altura pareceu-lhe que a persiana da
janela do quarto de casal estava aberta, desconhecendo se a janela estava aberta. ......................
O apartamento é composto por dois quartos, uma sala, uma kitchnet e um WC. O quarto do casal.(The double bedroom)
tem uma janela, a qual é visível do Restaurante. As janelas do quarto das crianças dão ambas
acesso ao corredor exterior do complexo turístico, ..........................................................
Seguidamente voltou para o Restaurante. .....................................................................
Google translation
At about 21:25, the witness went to the interior of your apartment and the apartment MADELEINE to recheck children. Clarifies that the door of the room occupied by Madeleine and her siblings was open and there was some light in the room, in that could see that the twins occupied their berths. That was where he saw the bed
occupied by MADELEINE, but as silence was deduced that this was there to sleep.
Clarity that this was not artificial light inside the apartment, but perhaps some from the outside through the bedroom window. That at that time it seemed that the blind of double bedroom window was open, not knowing if the window was open. ......................
The apartment consists of two bedrooms, a living room, a kitchenette and a bathroom. The double bedroom
has a window, which is visible from the restaurant. The bedroom windows of children give both access to the hallway outside of the resort.
Then returned to the restaurant. .................................................. ...................
-
google translate? dci you trust a machine over people? LOL, get the dvd files translated by google then, then you can stop complaining its wrongly translated? ok heard enough for one night, bye
-
google translate? dci you trust a machine over people? LOL, get the dvd files translated by google then, then you can stop complaining its wrongly translated? ok heard enough for one night, bye
No need LOL.
Whoever translates it, O quarto do casal means The double bedroom.
I think Google would have translated ALL the files better than, the "translators" have done 8-)(--)
-
Some google translator's users aren't even capable to copy correctly the original text ! The quarto do casal isn't the same as the quarto de casal ! And there was no double bed in the 5A. Mr Oldfield didn't know that, because he never went in.
-
Some google translator's users aren't even capable to copy correctly the original text ! The quarto do casal isn't the same as the quarto de casal ! And there was no double bed in the 5A. Mr Oldfield didn't know that, because he never went in.
quarto de casal = double room
quarto do casal = The double bedroom.
What is the difference?
Matt Oldfield would know if the children were in one room, then the parents would be in the other, and would class it as a double room!
-
quarto de casal = double room
quarto do casal = The double bedroom.
What is the difference?
Matt Oldfield would know if the children were in one room, then the parents would be in the other, and would class it as a double room!
The difference is huge and your translations erroneous. One is a type of bedroom (and in the case of the 5A qualifies both bedrooms), the other is the referent's bedroom.
-
If Jane Tanner is correct and she actually had a visual with the abductor at 9.15pm and while Gerry McCann was still stood on the street just below the patio gate then the window of opportunity was really tight.
-----
Operative word being IF, there is nothing to prove she saw Madeleine, and if these pros were watching and staking out they would not have taken so many risks, thats the point of watching and staking, you go in when its least likely you will be caught, seems for some they went in at the most dangerous time!
But that's the whole point. The abductor and/or his accomplice were not to know that Gerry McCann would pause outside the apartment to chat or that Jane Tanner would choose that moment to visit her own apartment. Sorry about the pun but the window of opportunity was never going to be ideal thus why they decided to go for it the moment Gerry left the apartment.
The alternative scenario of course is that the abductor was already in the apartment when Gerry arrived at about 9.12pm having chosen to make his move after observing Matthew do his rounds at 9pm. Support for this comes in the form of the opened bedroom door which Gerry closed to within 10cm before leaving the apartment.
So the bottom line is this, if the opened bedroom door signified the presence of an intruder and Gerry actually saw Madeleine in her bed then the abductor must have been there hiding.
-
In both cases there's no time for a sedation (Madeleine) that would last for more than a few minutes.
-
If she was sedated this could have taken place BEFORE Gerry made his check (if the abductor was already in the apartment).
-
Let's assume for a minute that there was an abduction.
Gerry is adamant that when he checked the three children at around 9.10pm that he had sight of Madeleine. Taking this at face value then we must accept that she was still in the apartment at that time.
If Jane Tanner is correct and she actually had a visual with the abductor at 9.15pm and while Gerry McCann was still stood on the street just below the patio gate then the window of opportunity was really tight.
This leads me to believe that the apartment and the parents movements were being monitored. When Matt did the first check he simply walked to a point in the car park where he could listen at the shutter. I have a feeling that this wasn't picked up by the abductors and that they were monitoring the movements up to and from the patio door. When they saw Gerry go in at about 9.12pm to do the check they would have been ready to pounce. When he came out the go ahead was given and the abductor made for the front of the apartment assuming the coast was then clear and that Gerry had returned to the tapas. We know of course that the coast was not clear, not only had Gerry stopped on the pavement but Jane Tanner was on her way to her own apartment to see Russell.
Matt did a further check after 9.30pm and talks of the room being lighter as he actually entered the apartment this time. But how could he have known this as he hadn't been in previously?
No ... that doesn't work John
When Gerry went into the apartment to do his check ( and no-one else had done an inside check beford him, remember ) he said that the first thing he noticed was that the door to the children's bedroom was opened further than they had left it
So the 'abductor' had already entered hadn't he ? .... how else can we explain the children's bedroom door being opened too wide ?
-
But that's the whole point. The abductor and/or his accomplice were not to know that Gerry McCann would pause outside the apartment to chat or that Jane Tanner would choose that moment to visit her own apartment. Sorry about the pun but the window of opportunity was never going to be ideal thus why they decided to go for it the moment Gerry left the apartment.
The alternative scenario of course is that the abductor was already in the apartment when Gerry arrived at about 9.12pm having chosen to make his move after observing Matthew do his rounds at 9pm. Support for this comes in the form of the opened bedroom door which Gerry closed to within 10cm before leaving the apartment.
So the bottom line is this, if the opened bedroom door signified the presence of an intruder and Gerry actually saw Madeleine in her bed then the abductor must have been there hiding.
hmm
What you are doing there is posing two entirely contradictory theories
Either the apartment was being 'monitored' ( as you suggested in your opening post ...in which case the 'abductor' would have chosen the most opportune time to enter ) or the the apartment was NOT being 'monitored' and the 'abductor' found himself there at the worse time possible ( and having to hide whilst the father of the child he intended to snatch stood gazing at her lovingly )
You can't have it both ways
-
Working purely from the statements of Gerry McCann, Jeremy Wilkins, and Jane Tanner,and adding the time as we proceed we can estimate the following -
Gerry McCann left the Tapas bar 9:05 pm
Arrived at gate at bottom of stairs 9:06
Climbed stairs, entered apartment and went to bedroom 9:06.30s
Looked at children and had “proud father” moment 9:07
Used toilet 9:08
Left apartment, closing doors, went down stairs, met Jez Wilkins 9:09
Talked to Jez Wilkins 9:09 - 9:13 pm
Jane Tanner left Tapas bar 9:10 pm
JT arrived bottom of stairs, saw and passed the two men 9:11
JT saw abductor carrying child across top of road 9:11.05s
There is therefore, on their own timings, just two minutes and five seconds for the intruder to get in, seize Madeleine, get out again, and make his way round to the top of the road. To walk from the front door or window of the apartment to the left behind the low wall, then across the car park, then right to the corner of the street takes around 45 seconds. and a further 5 seconds to cross the street.
He has therefore around one minute and twenty seconds to enter, commit the crime, and exit. This is an important point for the understanding of what happened.
Let it be stated once again.
If the man seen by Jane Tanner was the “abductor’ and was carrying Madeleine, as the McCanns insist, he had available to him the time from Gerry McCann’s leaving the apartment to the sighting by Jane Tanner. And no more.
In this time the intruder has 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.
• Walk to the left along the path in front of the apartment, walk straight ahead
across the car park, and then walk to the right along the road, and cross the
street in front of Jane Tanner, the father of the very child he had just abducted, and
another man who has his own child in a buggy.
Taking into account the travelling time, he has around one minute and twenty seconds in which to achieve the first seven items on the list.
-
Working purely from the statements of Gerry McCann, Jeremy Wilkins, and Jane Tanner,and adding the time as we proceed we can estimate the following -
Gerry McCann left the Tapas bar 9:05 pm
Arrived at gate at bottom of stairs 9:06
Climbed stairs, entered apartment and went to bedroom 9:06.30s
Looked at children and had “proud father” moment 9:07
Used toilet 9:08
Left apartment, closing doors, went down stairs, met Jez Wilkins 9:09
Talked to Jez Wilkins 9:09 - 9:13 pm
Jane Tanner left Tapas bar 9:10 pm
JT arrived bottom of stairs, saw and passed the two men 9:11
JT saw abductor carrying child across top of road 9:11.05s
There is therefore, on their own timings, just two minutes and five seconds for the intruder to get in, seize Madeleine, get out again, and make his way round to the top of the road. To walk from the front door or window of the apartment to the left behind the low wall, then across the car park, then right to the corner of the street takes around 45 seconds. and a further 5 seconds to cross the street.
He has therefore around one minute and twenty seconds to enter, commit the crime, and exit. This is an important point for the understanding of what happened.
Let it be stated once again.
If the man seen by Jane Tanner was the “abductor’ and was carrying Madeleine, as the McCanns insist, he had available to him the time from Gerry McCann’s leaving the apartment to the sighting by Jane Tanner. And no more.
In this time the intruder has 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.
• Walk to the left along the path in front of the apartment, walk straight ahead
across the car park, and then walk to the right along the road, and cross the
street in front of Jane Tanner, the father of the very child he had just abducted, and
another man who has his own child in a buggy.
Taking into account the travelling time, he has around one minute and twenty seconds in which to achieve the first seven items on the list.
Don't mean to be pedantic, but when Gerry went into the apartment through the patio doors that night ( according to his ammended statement ) he says that he immediately saw that the door to the children's bedroom was opened wider than he had left it ... so ... 'assuming' that Madeleine had woken and opened the door herself, his first port of call that night was his and Kate's bedroom ( on the off-chance that Madeleine had wondered in there )
It was only after he had checked their own bedroom, and confirmed that the reason for the children's bedroom door being open too wide was not because Madeleine had opened it to go into mum and dad's bed ... did he actually go into the children's room ... at which point, for some unexplained reason, he stopped worrying at all about the door being open too wide
Just to be clear
-
Don't mean to be pedantic, but when Gerry went into the apartment through the patio doors that night ( according to his ammended statement ) he says that he immediately saw that the door to the children's bedroom was opened wider than he had left it ... so ... 'assuming' that Madeleine had woken and opened the door herself, his first port of call that night was his and Kate's bedroom ( on the off-chance that Madeleine had wondered in there )
It was only after he had checked their own bedroom, and confirmed that the reason for the children's bedroom door being open too wide was not because Madeleine had opened it to go into mum and dad's bed ... did he actually go into the children's room ... at which point, for some unexplained reason, he stopped worrying at all about the door being open too wide
Just to be clear
This has always been a bugbear for me. If Gerry knew that Madeleine or the twins hadn't opened the door who exactly did he think had ?
-
Working purely from the statements of Gerry McCann, Jeremy Wilkins, and Jane Tanner,and adding the time as we proceed we can estimate the following -
Gerry McCann left the Tapas bar 9:05 pm
Arrived at gate at bottom of stairs 9:06
Climbed stairs, entered apartment and went to bedroom 9:06.30s
Looked at children and had “proud father” moment 9:07
Used toilet 9:08
Left apartment, closing doors, went down stairs, met Jez Wilkins 9:09
Talked to Jez Wilkins 9:09 - 9:13 pm
Jane Tanner left Tapas bar 9:10 pm
JT arrived bottom of stairs, saw and passed the two men 9:11
JT saw abductor carrying child across top of road 9:11.05s
There is therefore, on their own timings, just two minutes and five seconds for the intruder to get in, seize Madeleine, get out again, and make his way round to the top of the road. To walk from the front door or window of the apartment to the left behind the low wall, then across the car park, then right to the corner of the street takes around 45 seconds. and a further 5 seconds to cross the street.
He has therefore around one minute and twenty seconds to enter, commit the crime, and exit. This is an important point for the understanding of what happened.
Let it be stated once again.
If the man seen by Jane Tanner was the “abductor’ and was carrying Madeleine, as the McCanns insist, he had available to him the time from Gerry McCann’s leaving the apartment to the sighting by Jane Tanner. And no more.
In this time the intruder has 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.
• Walk to the left along the path in front of the apartment, walk straight ahead
across the car park, and then walk to the right along the road, and cross the
street in front of Jane Tanner, the father of the very child he had just abducted, and
another man who has his own child in a buggy.
Taking into account the travelling time, he has around one minute and twenty seconds in which to achieve the first seven items on the list.
If Gerry and Jez were were talking for 5 minutes, and Jane Tanner passed them after they had been there say for 4.1/2 minutes, then that would have given the abductor around 4 minutes. That's a long time.
IMO even a couple of minutes would be enough time, especially if Madeleine was passed over the wall in front of the door and handed to someone else. That person would be able to walk straight to the entrance of the carpark - and cut out having to first walk along the path in front of the apartments.
Apart from Gerry's definite time of 9.05 - all the other times are best estimates - and so to it's not possible to quote accurate times as you appear to have done.
This is one of the major problems that would arise in a reconstruction. The number of different variations that are possible because people could not give accurate times are enormous.
-
If Gerry and Jez were were talking for 5 minutes, and Jane Tanner passed them after they had been there say for 4.1/2 minutes, then that would have given the abductor around 4 minutes. That's a long time.
IMO even a couple of minutes would be enough time, especially if Madeleine was passed over the wall in front of the door and handed to someone else. That person would be able to walk straight to the entrance of the carpark - and cut out having to first walk along the path in front of the apartments.
Apart from Gerry's definite time of 9.05 - all the other times are best estimates - and so to it's not possible to quote accurate times as you appear to have done.
This is one of the major problems that would arise in a reconstruction. The number of different variations that are possible because people could not give accurate times are enormous.
Well Jane says in her first statement she left 5 minutes after Gerry. That then fixes the time that Jane walked past Gerry & Jez:
She remembers that at about 21h10 Gerald left the restaurant to go to the apartment to check on the children. Five minutes later, the witness left, to go to her apartment to see whether her daughters were OK. At this moment she saw Gerry talking to an Englishman called Jez whom they had got to know during the holidays. They played tennis with him.
She passed by them, having set off 5 minutes after Gerry left, knowing that Gerry had already been in the apartment to check his children and do his other stuff and then talk to Jez.
-
Well Jane says in her first statement she left 5 minutes after Gerry. That then fixes the time that Jane walked past Gerry & Jez:
She says 5 to 10 mins in her rog statement. And let's not forget that she was still at the table when they were discussing why Gerry was taking so long. IMO it would be a while after 5 mins before people noticed that he hadn't come back and began commenting on it - as 5 mins would not be an unusually long time.
-
She says 5 to 10 mins in her rog statement. And let's not forget that she was still at the table when they were discussing why Gerry was taking so long. IMO it would be a while after 5 mins before people noticed that he hadn't come back and began commenting on it - as 5 mins would not be an unusually long time.
Ooh yes i forgot the newly discovered McCann Miracle Memory Improvement Syndrome.
What is it Laurie Levenson, a Law professor says:
"Never trust an eyewitness whose memory gets better over time"
-
Ooh yes i forgot the newly discovered McCann Miracle Memory Improvement Syndrome.
What is it Laurie Levenson, a Law professor says:
"Never trust an eyewitness whose memory gets better over time"
She also says 5 to 10 mins in her statement of 10th May.
Quote
They ordered dinner and waited for the starters when, about 21h10, Gerald McCann left the restaurant having gone to the apartment to see his children. Five or ten minutes later the deponent left, having gone to her apartment to check that all was well with her girls. At that time she observed Gerald McCann talking to an English citizen called Jez that they had met on these holidays. He played tennis with them. She doesn't know if they saw her giving the assurance that, on her part, she did not start a conversation with either of them.
Unquote
I take it you've never heard anyone say ' ...you mentioning that just jogged my memory.....'' or ''....What you just said brought something back to me that I'd completely forgotten about''... etc etc. ?
That's normal human behaviour, but once again I see the McCanns and their friends are denied the same human behaviours that everyone else is allowed to have without question.
-
If she was sedated this could have taken place BEFORE Gerry made his check (if the abductor was already in the apartment).
Possibly, if Mr McCann pretended he looked into the bedroom when in fact he just went to the bathroom.
Nevertheless a sedation lasting at least one hour needs some equipment.
-
once again I see the McCanns and their friends are denied the same human behaviours that everyone else is allowed to have without question.
Very true, Benice, but this is your work : in 805 posts there's not one in which you don't turn their behaviours superhuman ! You've convinced us..
-
Very true, Benice, but this is your work : in 805 posts there's not one in which you don't turn their behaviours superhuman ! You've convinced us..
Well Gerry certainly must be superhuman - after all he is able to be in two places at once!
-
Very true, Benice, but this is your work : in 805 posts there's not one in which you don't turn their behaviours superhuman ! You've convinced us..
So what's superhuman about people later remembering something which they hadn't recalled when they were first asked about it? Have you never said anything like ..''Oh yes I do remember that now you come to mention it''.
All I'm asking is that the McCanns and their friends are allowed to be as human as the rest of us. Something which I have noticed the Sceptics are very loath to do.
-
But that's the whole point. The abductor and/or his accomplice were not to know that Gerry McCann would pause outside the apartment to chat or that Jane Tanner would choose that moment to visit her own apartment. Sorry about the pun but the window of opportunity was never going to be ideal thus why they decided to go for it the moment Gerry left the apartment.
The alternative scenario of course is that the abductor was already in the apartment when Gerry arrived at about 9.12pm having chosen to make his move after observing Matthew do his rounds at 9pm. Support for this comes in the form of the opened bedroom door which Gerry closed to within 10cm before leaving the apartment.
So the bottom line is this, if the opened bedroom door signified the presence of an intruder and Gerry actually saw Madeleine in her bed then the abductor must have been there hiding.
But wouldn't the abductor have heard Gerry & Jez talking in the street? It would have been silent in the apartment.
Then when he got out of the apartment and heard voices on the road why did he decide to walk across the very road he would have heard the child's father talking on?
That makes no sense as the risk is massive to the abductor.
He'd have surely heard the talking and bailed the other way across the complex and behind the complex wall.
Also if he could get in and out so quick why would he need to get out within minutes of Gerry leaving? If they were being watched he would know the checks were being done every 20-30 minutes, he could have waited 10 minutes and then make a break for it.
It doesn't make sense that he set off whilst he heard people talking on the street and it makes no sense to walk across that very street and potentially be exposed to the child's father seeing him.
Unless of course, which makes more sense, given both Gerry and Jez are adamant they saw no one, and Jane said she walked past both men who were in fact on the other side of the road, there was no man walking across the road.
-
She also says 5 to 10 mins in her statement of 10th May.
Quote
They ordered dinner and waited for the starters when, about 21h10, Gerald McCann left the restaurant having gone to the apartment to see his children. Five or ten minutes later the deponent left, having gone to her apartment to check that all was well with her girls. At that time she observed Gerald McCann talking to an English citizen called Jez that they had met on these holidays. He played tennis with them. She doesn't know if they saw her giving the assurance that, on her part, she did not start a conversation with either of them.
Unquote
I take it you've never heard anyone say ' ...you mentioning that just jogged my memory.....'' or ''....What you just said brought something back to me that I'd completely forgotten about''... etc etc. ?
That's normal human behaviour, but once again I see the McCanns and their friends are denied the same human behaviours that everyone else is allowed to have without question.
First statements are always the best for describing actions and you cannot unremember an event.
We also can add's Russell's first statement which says:
He is no longer sure who went out first, but five minutes later, Gerry McCann and his own partner, Jane, went out, almost at the same time, to check the children. He thinks that Gerry must have gone out first because Jane saw him chatting with a person on holiday at the complex, a certain Jez. He thinks that Jane only checked their apartment, being worried about E**e.
It is a fact memories deteriorate over time certainly when describing actions.
So i take it you have never heard of witnesses colluding after the event to polish their statements?
Because it's either a medical miracle that their memories of what they did that night have got better over time or they have colluded together to make their statements come together in as polished a fashion as they could.
-
I have never understood why the Mccanns pushed Jane Tanners sighting as evidence de facto that that is when Madeleine was abducted, and given the high risk and the time limit involved, an abduction planned for days and meticulously and highly professional ala Don McIntyre, only to end up with bungleman walking across the road with a stolen child, unwrapped, visible to people and then alledgedly back across that road 40 minutes later with child still in arms, in order to get to where the Smiths saw him. Not counting all the other square pegs that dont fit in the round hole with this.
Computer says no.
-
Well Gerry certainly must be superhuman - after all he is able to be in two places at once!
Was Superman in two places at once ? I must have missed that part. Superman, for me, is the guy who managed to force time to go backwards in order to save the woman he loves.
Anyhow, Rachel, I see that Mr McCann is in your dreams...
-
Was Superman in two places at once ? I must have missed that part. Superman, for me, is the guy who managed to force time to go backwards in order to save the woman he loves.
Anyhow, Rachel, I see that Mr McCann is in your dreams...
Is Amaral in yours Anne?
-
I have never understood why the Mccanns pushed Jane Tanners sighting as evidence de facto that that is when Madeleine was abducted, and given the high risk and the time limit involved, an abduction planned for days and meticulously and highly professional ala Don McIntyre, only to end up with bungleman walking across the road with a stolen child, unwrapped, visible to people and then alledgedly back across that road 40 minutes later with child still in arms, in order to get to where the Smiths saw him. Not counting all the other square pegs that dont fit in the round hole with this.
Computer says no.
You're forgetting the rehearsal, the most surrealistic hypothesis in this case ! Actually no, there's as surrealistic as the rehearsal, the errant body in quest of sepulchre.
-
Is Amaral in yours Anne?
He's certainly in your nightmares, DCI, my dreams are far away !
-
Was Superman in two places at once ? I must have missed that part. Superman, for me, is the guy who managed to force time to go backwards in order to save the woman he loves.
Anyhow, Rachel, I see that Mr McCann is in your dreams...
Gerry must be superhuman Anne. After all, he managed to be both in the Tapas bar AND the man in the Smith sighting!
-
that would have given the abductor around 4 minutes. That's a long time.
4 minutes, a long time ! Explain us, Benice, how he managed to sedate 3 kids, or even only Madeleine, in order to have her quiet during at least one hour ! This is a crucial detail, the kind Lucifer etc.
-
Gerry must be superhuman Anne. After all, he managed to be both in the Tapas bar AND the man in the Smith sighting!
Dans vos rêves, Rachel, dans vos rêves !
-
Dans vos rêves, Rachel, dans vos rêves !
Non, non, non!!
-
First statements are always the best for describing actions and you cannot unremember an event.
We also can add's Russell's first statement which says:
He is no longer sure who went out first, but five minutes later, Gerry McCann and his own partner, Jane, went out, almost at the same time, to check the children. He thinks that Gerry must have gone out first because Jane saw him chatting with a person on holiday at the complex, a certain Jez. He thinks that Jane only checked their apartment, being worried about E**e.
It is a fact memories deteriorate over time certainly when describing actions.
So i take it you have never heard of witnesses colluding after the event to polish their statements?
Because it's either a medical miracle that their memories of what they did that night have got better over time or they have colluded together to make their statements come together in as polished a fashion as they could.
They had no reason to collude - they'd done nothing wrong.
Their very first statements were given while they were all in shock. And it's not unusual for things to come back to people a while after a traumatic event had happened - when they've calmed down slightly and have time to really put their minds to thinking back and going over what happened.
I thought one of Amarals reasons for suspicion was because in his opinion there were too many discrepancies in their statements. That doesn't sound like any 'polishing' had been done to me.
It's also a fact that people do not all remember the same events exactly the same as one-another as different people have vastly different powers of recall and also of assessing times and distances. Russell's statement confirms that - because if Jane and Gerry had left 'almost at the same time' she would not have still been at the table, when they started wondering where he'd got to because he'd been gone much longer than usual. But she was.
-
Non, non, non!!
Mais il n'est pas si mal que ça !
-
They had no reason to collude - they'd done nothing wrong.
Their very first statements were given while they were all in shock. And it's not unusual for things to come back to people a while after a traumatic event had happened - when they've calmed down slightly and have time to really put their minds to thinking back and going over what happened.
I thought one of Amarals reasons for suspicion was because in his opinion there were too many discrepancies in their statements. That doesn't sound like any 'polishing' had been done to me.
It's also a fact that people do not all remember the same events exactly the same as one-another as different people have vastly different powers of recall and also of assessing times and distances. Russell's statement confirms that - because if Jane and Gerry had left 'almost at the same time' she would not have still been at the table, when they started wondering where he'd got to because he'd been gone much longer than usual. But she was.
Just as well the McCanns were never charged. Any defence lawyer worth his salt would have ripped their and their friend's statements to shreds.
-
Russell's statement confirms that - because if Jane and Gerry had left 'almost at the same time' she would not have still been at the table, when they started wondering where he'd got to because he'd been gone much longer than usual. But she was.
This is not a fact !
Though they were in shock, they thought of contacting media, closing borders, etc.
And I think it's fine ! But don't argue they said bullshit because they were in a state of shock.
-
This is not a fact !
Though they were in shock, they thought of contacting media, closing borders, etc.
And I think it's fine ! But don't argue they said bullshit because they were in a state of shock.
Of course they would be in shock. Wouldn't any human being? Oh I keep forgetting, the McCanns and their friends are not allowed to be affected by trauma like the rest of the human race
If Jane left at almost the same time as Gerry, then how did she know about Kate's comment that he had probably turned the TV on to see the football - which she thought could be the reason why he'd been gone so long. JT would not have known about any of the comments that the group made about where he'd got to. But she did which proves she could not have left at the same time as Gerry, and that meant Russell was mistaken.
He wasn't lying - that is what he first thought had happened. But if he spoke to Jane about it IMO she would say ''No - we didn't leave almost at the same time, because if you remember I was still there when we were wondering where Gerry had got to.'' And Russell would accept that.
There is nothing odd about that - it happens all the time when more than one person are trying to remember back - especially to something which was not important at the time and so they had no need to make a point of remembering it while it was happening.
-
Of course they would be in shock. Wouldn't any human being? Oh I keep forgetting, the McCanns and their friends are not allowed to be affected by trauma like the rest of the human race
If Jane left at almost the same time as Gerry, then how did she know about Kate's comment that he had probably turned the TV on to see the football - which she thought could be the reason why he'd been gone so long. JT would not have known about any of the comments that the group made about where he'd got to. But she did which proves she could not have left at the same time as Gerry, and that meant Russell was mistaken.
He wasn't lying - that is what he first thought had happened. But if he spoke to Jane about it IMO she would say ''No - we didn't leave almost at the same time, because if you remember I was still there when we were wondering where Gerry had got to.'' And Russell would accept that.
There is nothing odd about that - it happens all the time when more than one person are trying to remember back - especially to something which was not important at the time and so they had no need to make a point of remembering it while it was happening.
But at what point do you judge witness contradictions or, as Menezez says, "lies" to be suspicious?
At what point do you accept that collusion and the describing of other people's actions as witness malpractice which harms the truth from coming out and makes the search for a missing child more difficult, and at what point do you regard that as suspicious?
Becuase the way you seem to be able to try and explain all of these contradictions makes the use of witness statements in an investigation, any investigation, completely worthless.
A point has to be reached where the weight of contradictions and lies leads investigators to be suspicious of the testimony given and the witnesses giving them.
But apparently not to you.
-
hmm
What you are doing there is posing two entirely contradictory theories
Either the apartment was being 'monitored' ( as you suggested in your opening post ...in which case the 'abductor' would have chosen the most opportune time to enter ) or the the apartment was NOT being 'monitored' and the 'abductor' found himself there at the worse time possible ( and having to hide whilst the father of the child he intended to snatch stood gazing at her lovingly )
You can't have it both ways
Oh but I can. The apartment could still have been monitored and the abductor could still have found himself there at the worst possible time. Unless he had a time machine he was not to know that Gerry McCann would carry out a proper check immediately after Matthew had listened at the shutter. There was always going to be an inherent risk whatever time he or they chose as the movements of the checkers were so irregular.
-
But wouldn't the abductor have heard Gerry & Jez talking in the street? It would have been silent in the apartment.
Then when he got out of the apartment and heard voices on the road why did he decide to walk across the very road he would have heard the child's father talking on?
That makes no sense as the risk is massive to the abductor.
He'd have surely heard the talking and bailed the other way across the complex and behind the complex wall.
Also if he could get in and out so quick why would he need to get out within minutes of Gerry leaving? If they were being watched he would know the checks were being done every 20-30 minutes, he could have waited 10 minutes and then make a break for it.
It doesn't make sense that he set off whilst he heard people talking on the street and it makes no sense to walk across that very street and potentially be exposed to the child's father seeing him.
Unless of course, which makes more sense, given both Gerry and Jez are adamant they saw no one, and Jane said she walked past both men who were in fact on the other side of the road, there was no man walking across the road.
No, he wouldn't have heard them speak in the street through a closed double glazed patio door and in any event even if he had done he was not to know who it was.
When he emerged from the front door carrying Madeleine he again would not have heard the chatting Gerry and Jez or seen the approaching Jane.
The coast was clear after Gerry left the apartment thus the ideal time to make a break for it. He or they were not to know that another member of the group was on her way up the road towards them at the very moment the carrier exited the car park. A chance encounter which luckily for them did not result in the alarm being raised.
-
There was always going to be an inherent risk whatever time he or they chose as the movements of the checkers were so irregular.
What justified taking this risk and besides not minimizing it as it could have been ?
-
No, he wouldn't have heard them speak in the street through a closed double glazed patio door and in any event even if he had done he was not to know who it was.
I've never read they were "double glazed". Even slightly open (3cm at least), the sound goes through (experiment !).
-
he again would not have heard the chatting Gerry and Jez or seen the approaching Jane.
Do you cross streets like the carrier, John ? Never looking left and right even if you hear no car?
-
You're forgetting the rehearsal, the most surrealistic hypothesis in this case ! Actually no, there's as surrealistic as the rehearsal, the errant body in quest of sepulchre.
I cant imagine someone practising an abduction.....let alone several times as per Donal McIntyre
8-)(--)
-
I cant imagine someone practising an abduction.....let alone several times as per Donal McIntyre
8-)(--)
I agree, they knew their target and which apartment to monitor, they knew the general movements and they pounced when they thought the coast was clear. They were nearly caught.
-
I agree, they knew their target and which apartment to monitor, they knew the general movements and they pounced when they thought the coast was clear. They were nearly caught.
A thin door separating the father from the abductor, the first not hearing the beating heart of the second, not smelling his sweat.. doesn't it sound Enid Blyton?
-
I agree, they knew their target and which apartment to monitor, they knew the general movements and they pounced when they thought the coast was clear. They were nearly caught.
How were they nearly caught? Jane Tanner saw a pair of feet and the bottom of pyjamas, which at the time she would have had no knowledge of (ie MMs exact ones) to raise any suspicion, plus she had just passed Gerry after his check
She could never have seen the childs face or hair from the time she first spotted the man when she half way from the gate to the top of the road, to when she was at the top of the road as he finished crossing the junction
?
And Gerry and Jez can be discounted here
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P1/01_VOLUME_Ia_Page_50.jpg
3 4 5 8
-
plus she had just passed Gerry after his check
The mysterious feeling she had that Mr McCann had done his check
-
The mysterious feeling she had that Mr McCann had done his check
Ok thats a fair point
She couldnt have known, for all she knew Gerry was en route when he stopped to have the chat with Jez
-
A thin door separating the father from the abductor, the first not hearing the beating heart of the second, not smelling his sweat.. doesn't it sound Enid Blyton?
Fiction or true life, these things do happen. Even Gerry in the reconstruction admits that he might well have disturbed the abductor while he was actually in the apartment.
-
Ok thats a fair point
She couldnt have known, for all she knew Gerry was en route when he stopped to have the chat with Jez
A very valid point. Jane was not to know when she saw and passed Gerry and Jez whether the former had been to the apartment by that stage.
She was also not to know that neither of them failed to spot bundleman.
-
Fiction or true life, these things do happen. Even Gerry in the reconstruction admits that he might well have disturbed the abductor while he was actually in the apartment.
I dont remember that bit
-
A very valid point. Jane was not to know when she saw and passed Gerry and Jez whether the former had been to the apartment by that stage.
She was also not to know that neither of them failed to spot bundleman.
Yes, but how does any of that matter? As to the abductor nearly being caught?
-
An abduction at around 9.15pm is the only possible scenario which fits with the known facts and indeed, evidence.
Gerry actually saw Madeleine when he did the check at 9.10pm so that is our starting point. Matthew did a later check at 9.30pm but did not have sight with Madeleine. When Kate did the next check at 10.05pm Madeleine was gone. It is interesting to note that had it not been for the slamming door or the waving curtains that Madeleine's disappearance might not have been detected until even much later.
Gerry's observation that the bedroom door was open much further than he had left it alerted him to something strange which in turn made him check that the children were actually in their beds. He found all three of them asleep which must have in itself assured him that all was well. Never in his wildest imaginings did he think that there was a stranger in the apartment who had simply walked in the front door.
-
An abduction at around 9.15pm is the only possible scenario which fits with the known facts and indeed, evidence.
Gerry actually saw Madeleine when he did the check at 9.10pm so that is our starting point. Matthew did a later check at 9.30pm but did not have sight with Madeleine. When Kate did the next check at 10.05pm Madeleine was gone. It is interesting to note that had it not been for the slamming door or the waving curtains that Madeleine's disappearance might not have been detected until even much later.
So why didnt the curtains wave and the door slam at 9.30 when Matt was there? And why didnt he feel the cold if the shutter and window were open? Indeed why didnt Kate Mccann feel it too 45 mins later?
and the reason Matt didnt have sight of Madeleine at 9.30 is because he didnt LOOK, not that she wasnt there
-
Gerry's observation that the bedroom door was open much further than he had left it alerted him to something strange which in turn made him check that the children were actually in their beds. He found all three of them asleep which must have in itself assured him that all was well. Never in his wildest imaginings did he think that there was a stranger in the apartment who had simply walked in the front door.
Was that an answer to my question? About how the abductor was nearly caught? That he was inside the apartment but Gerry never noticed?
-
Related and very interesting article on the Mccanns noticing the kids door more open
http://l-azzeri-lies-in-the-sun.com/Key_Problems_2.html
-
Fiction or true life, these things do happen. Even Gerry in the reconstruction admits that he might well have disturbed the abductor while he was actually in the apartment.
Don't neglect a little devilish detail, John, Mr McCann said he looked for Madeleine only because the door was more opened than they left it. He looked first for her in his bedroom, then seeing her in her own bed he forgot about the door.
So it seems actually it wasn't Mr McCann who disturbed the abductor, but the abductor who disturbed Mr McCann, his 6th sense at least.
-
So why didnt the curtains wave and the door slam at 9.30 when Matt was there? And why didnt he feel the cold if the shutter and window were open? Indeed why didnt Kate Mccann feel it too 45 mins later?
and the reason Matt didnt have sight of Madeleine at 9.30 is because he didnt LOOK, not that she wasnt there
Many reasons. Maybe Matt closed the patio door completely when he entered whereas Kate left it slightly open. A gust of wind at the opportune time?
It is also quite possible that the wind speed and/or direction changed between Matts visit at 9.30pm and Kates after 10pm.
-
Many reasons. Maybe Matt closed the patio door completely when he entered whereas Kate left it slightly open. A gust of wind at the opportune time?
It is also quite possible that the wind speed and/or direction changed between Matts visit at 9.30pm and Kates after 10pm.
Yes, maybe though Kate says she closed the door behind her and looked back to check and it wasnt that!
Anyway, you say the known facts and evidence point to an abduction at 9.15
What are the known facts and evidence that make a later abduction improbable or impossible, ie any time from Gerrys check to 10 pm
-
He looked first for her in his bedroom, then seeing her in her own bed he forgot about the door.
Anne, when did Gerry say he looked in his bedroom? For Madeleine? Icab said this the other day too.
-
It is interesting to note that had it not been for the slamming door or the waving curtains that Madeleine's disappearance might not have been detected until even much later.
In the first statement there's no way Madeleine's disappearance might not have been detected : no slamming door leading to looking inside and no curtains whooshing revealing Madeleine isn't in her bed, but an immediate discovery of open shutters, window, curtains.
-
Quote from: John on Today at 02:35:26 PM
It is interesting to note that had it not been for the slamming door or the waving curtains that Madeleine's disappearance might not have been detected until even much later.
---
Yes, had the door not slammed Kate wouldnt have physically checked on her kids, she saw the door more open and just went to close it again, before it slammed, thats the only reason she looked in
!
Thats all in her own account btw
Ps she only saw the flapping self opening curtains after she looked in, alledgedly that is as there are three different versions of that story, two versions from the files, and an extra version couple years later in their *documentary*
And you need to read this
http://l-azzeri-lies-in-the-sun.com/Key_Problems_2.html
-
Maybe Matt closed the patio door completely when he entered whereas Kate left it slightly open.
I don't think Mr Oldfield, who spared two or three steps that would have allowed him to make sure Madeleine was in her bed and not out, as the undone bed under the window seemed to point to, would have opened the patio door, then closed it behind him to open it again 5 seconds later in order to get out and finally used his hands as a kind of suction pad to force the next one to do the same.
If Mr Oldfield really did the inside check, the abduction at 9:15 leaving everything open is highly improbable (12°C, chilly wind).
-
Quote from: John on Today at 02:35:26 PM
It is interesting to note that had it not been for the slamming door or the waving curtains that Madeleine's disappearance might not have been detected until even much later.
---
Yes, had the door not slammed Kate wouldnt have physically checked on her kids, she saw the door more open and just went to close it again, before it slammed, thats the only reason she looked in
!
Thats all in her own account
Their behaviours are very similar, like in an old couple ! Both look for Madeleine because of an open door (they don't even imagine Madeleine could have gone to the bathroom, kids don't shut doors, it's well known). Sounds a bit too much for a coincidence in that particular context.
-
Their behaviours are very similar, like in an old couple ! Both look for Madeleine because of an open door (they don't even imagine Madeleine could have gone to the bathroom, kids don't shut doors, it's well known). Sounds a bit too much for a coincidence in that particular context.
The tales are very convoluted. Kate Mccann speaking to the British public in her documentary Madeleine was Here, said, on her check at 10 the door was more open than we had left it, well, hang on, did she mean how they had left it at 8.30? at 9 after Gerrys check? Or how Matt left it? Matt never touched the wide open door,neither did he tell Kate after his 9.30 check anything about the door angle, so how could she say it was more open than she/GM had left it! If she didnt know if Matt had left it like that?
@)(++(*
-
Oh but I can. The apartment could still have been monitored and the abductor could still have found himself there at the worst possible time. Unless he had a time machine he was not to know that Gerry McCann would carry out a proper check immediately after Matthew had listened at the shutter. There was always going to be an inherent risk whatever time he or they chose as the movements of the checkers were so irregular.
A good point John. If they had been monitoring the McCanns and knew they checked approx ever 30mins then it's highly likely they thought that Matthew was doing the 30 min check for the McCanns - at their request.
They would not know that Matt's check was a spontaneous one which he only decided to do when he went off to hurry the Paynes up - and decided that as he was half way to his apartment anyway - he might as well carry on and do his own check, and while he was there he decided to check the McCann's as well.
If the abductors thought that was an arranged check they would assume that after Matt left they had 30 mins before the next check and so went in soon after Matt went back to the Tapas. The last thing they would be expecting was that Gerry would turn up within 10 mins.
IMO it's not completely out of the question that Madeleine could have already been sedated when Gerry last saw her and the abductor was hiding in the apartment. Then whilst giving Gerry a couple of mins to get off the road and back into the OC - he opened the window to check that the coast was clear at the front of the building and left via the front door with Madeleine.
-
Anne, when did Gerry say he looked in his bedroom? For Madeleine? Icab said this the other day too.
He didn't, unless Anne can give us a link to where he say's that, its just another bit of disimformation.
-
He didn't, unless Anne can give us a link to where he say's that, its just another bit of disimformation.
Ok, I know he wondered about it but never seen anything to say that he actually did this, ie look, but I may have missed it
the only one I know of that wondered if Madeleine was sleeping in her parents room was Matt Oldfield and he went to look!! Instead of looking in the kids actual bloody room for her
8-)(--)
>@@(*&)
Any idea what that was all about?
-
Anne, when did Gerry say he looked in his bedroom? For Madeleine? Icab said this the other day too.
In fact Mr McCann doesn't, you're right, at least in his statements. He first thinks Madeleine might be in his bedroom, before entering Madeleine's bedroom.
Perhaps a confusion with Mrs McCann who does first go to her bedroom in one of her discovery reports.
-
In fact Mr McCann doesn't, you're right, at least in his statements. He first thinks Madeleine might be in his bedroom, before entering Madeleine's bedroom.
Perhaps a confusion with Mrs McCann who does first go to her bedroom in one of her discovery reports.
Ok, no problem Anne, I will try find her testimony on that
Eta, yes, it was Kate who said in a couple documentaries she went looking in her bedroom after not seeing Madeleine in bed
-
IMO it's not completely out of the question that Madeleine could have already been sedated when Gerry last saw her and the abductor was hiding in the apartment.
How ? Have you any idea ? Because this is very simple to say, much more difficult to do.
-
How ? Have you any idea ? Because this is very simple to say, much more difficult to do.
I don't know enough about sedatives to say Anne. Except that unless it has been proved to be irrefutably impossible, then it follows that it is possible.
-
In fact Mr McCann doesn't, you're right, at least in his statements. He first thinks Madeleine might be in his bedroom, before entering Madeleine's bedroom.
Perhaps a confusion with Mrs McCann who does first go to her bedroom in one of her discovery reports.
Who's confusion? You can't use stuff, you say Gerry said, thats not in the files. Are we supposed to take your word? Dream on!
Don't neglect a little devilish detail, John, Mr McCann said he looked for Madeleine only because the door was more opened than they left it. He looked first for her in his bedroom, then seeing her in her own bed he forgot about the door.So it seems actually it wasn't Mr McCann who disturbed the abductor, but the abductor who disturbed Mr McCann, his 6th sense at least.
-
I don't know enough about sedatives to say Anne. Except that unless it has been proved to be irrefutably impossible, then it follows that it is possible.
A sedation lasting for at least one hour requires equipment (ask a doctor!) and takes some time to administer, at least a few minutes. The carrier had no bag and no device was left behind. So sedation isn't possible at 9:15. Later you'd have to imagine an accomplice who'd take the equipment away whereas the abductor walks with Madeleine.
And we're left with the state of the twins unexplained (no reason to sedate sleeping kids).
-
unless it has been proved to be irrefutably impossible, then it follows that it is possible.
So finally you agree that a reconstruction was imperative !
-
A sedation lasting for at least one hour requires equipment (ask a doctor!) and takes some time to administer, at least a few minutes. The carrier had no bag and no device was left behind. So sedation isn't possible at 9:15. Later you'd have to imagine an accomplice who'd take the equipment away whereas the abductor walks with Madeleine.
And we're left with the state of the twins unexplained (no reason to sedate sleeping kids).
Are you an expert on sedatives Anne?
If there were two of them one could go off with Madeleine and the other go off with the 'equipment'.
As I say, I know next to nothing about sedatives - but what about an injection? Is that impossible?
-
Are you an expert on sedatives Anne?
If there were two of them one could go off with Madeleine and the other go off with the 'equipment'.
As I say, I know next to nothing about sedatives - but what about an injection? Is that impossible?
Obviously not an expert, or anything near one!
Equipment?
Would he have bought an entire operating theatre? @)(++(* @)(++(*
How big is a syringe, and didn't he have pockets?
-
An abduction at around 9.15pm is the only possible scenario which fits with the known facts and indeed, evidence.
Only if those facts, which are solely derived from the witness statements of the parents and their friends (the ones whose statements contain contradictions and lies, and who stopped the investigation by refusing to recreate those facts from their statements), are true.
And that is a big assumption given in Kate McCann's own words"they had no choice but to lie".
-
He didn't, unless Anne can give us a link to where he say's that, its just another bit of disimformation.
Kate says it in Madeleine :
'After ordering his food, Gerry left to do the first check just before 9.05 by his watch. He entered the apartment via the patio doors and noticed almost immediately that the children’s bedroom door was further ajar than it had been. He glanced into our room to make sure Madeleine hadn’t wandered in there, as she was prone to do if ever she woke in the small hours. Seeing no little body curled up in our bed, he went over to look in on the children.
Madeleine was lying there, on her left-hand side, her legs under the covers, in exactly the same position as we’d left her. For Gerry, this became one of those images I described earlier, pictures that fix themselves indelibly, almost photographically, in the memory. He paused for a couple of seconds to look at Madeleine and thought to himself, She’s so beautiful. After pulling the bedroom door to, restoring it to its original angle, he went to the bathroom before leaving the apartment.'
I think you owe Anne an apology DCI.
-
The tales are very convoluted. Kate Mccann speaking to the British public in her documentary Madeleine was Here, said, on her check at 10 the door was more open than we had left it, well, hang on, did she mean how they had left it at 8.30? at 9 after Gerrys check? Or how Matt left it? Matt never touched the wide open door,neither did he tell Kate after his 9.30 check anything about the door angle, so how could she say it was more open than she/GM had left it! If she didnt know if Matt had left it like that?
Yes, this is why, thanks to forums I suppose, in a later version of the discovery she introduces the idea that Mr Oldfield could have left that door open...
This is like story tellers, they need a responsive audience to go on with their story.
-
Kate says it in Madeleine :
'After ordering his food, Gerry left to do the first check just before 9.05 by his watch. He entered the apartment via the patio doors and noticed almost immediately that the children’s bedroom door was further ajar than it had been. He glanced into our room to make sure Madeleine hadn’t wandered in there, as she was prone to do if ever she woke in the small hours. Seeing no little body curled up in our bed, he went over to look in on the children.
Madeleine was lying there, on her left-hand side, her legs under the covers, in exactly the same position as we’d left her. For Gerry, this became one of those images I described earlier, pictures that fix themselves indelibly, almost photographically, in the memory. He paused for a couple of seconds to look at Madeleine and thought to himself, She’s so beautiful. After pulling the bedroom door to, restoring it to its original angle, he went to the bathroom before leaving the apartment.'
I think you owe Anne an apology DCI.
For what?
Anne didn't say it was Kate. Or mention Kates book!
Don't neglect a little devilish detail, John, Mr McCann said he looked for Madeleine only because the door was more opened than they left it. He looked first for her in his bedroom, then seeing her in her own bed he forgot about the door.
So it seems actually it wasn't Mr McCann who disturbed the abductor, but the abductor who disturbed Mr McCann, his 6th sense at least.
-
Yes, this is why, thanks to forums I suppose, in a later version of the discovery she introduces the idea that Mr Oldfield could have left that door open...
This is like story tellers, they need a responsive audience to go on with their story.
It is amazing how their memory has got better over time so that Kate says in her book several years later something that Gerry did not say in his witness statement the day after!
"Never trust an eyewitness whose memory gets better over time, especially when (s)he has a book to sell," - Laurie Levenson, a professor at the Loyola Law School in Los Angeles.
-
Kate says it in Madeleine :
'After ordering his food, Gerry left to do the first check just before 9.05 by his watch. He entered the apartment via the patio doors and noticed almost immediately that the children’s bedroom door was further ajar than it had been. He glanced into our room to make sure Madeleine hadn’t wandered in there, as she was prone to do if ever she woke in the small hours. Seeing no little body curled up in our bed, he went over to look in on the children.
Madeleine was lying there, on her left-hand side, her legs under the covers, in exactly the same position as we’d left her. For Gerry, this became one of those images I described earlier, pictures that fix themselves indelibly, almost photographically, in the memory. He paused for a couple of seconds to look at Madeleine and thought to himself, She’s so beautiful. After pulling the bedroom door to, restoring it to its original angle, he went to the bathroom before leaving the apartment.'
I think you owe Anne an apology DCI.
Many thanks Faithlilly, I spent three hours doubting of my memory ! I looked in all statements and in some documentaries, I was so sure I had read that somewhere and Icabodcrane had mentioned it recently...
-
For what?
Anne didn't say it was Kate. Or mention Kates book!
Gerry went to his and Kate's room to look for Madeleine, that is the point, a point already made by Anne.
-
Many thanks Faithlilly, I spent three hours doubting of my memory ! I looked in all statements and in some documentaries, I was so sure I had read that somewhere and Icabodcrane had mentioned it recently...
As usual, move the goal posts, to suit @)(++(*
So now what Kate said in her book can be used, but not what Amaral say's in his.
Here's me thinking we were discussing Statements, from where you said Gerry went in the bedroom.
Where did Kate say Gerry went in to their bedroom?
-
Like this point, already made by Anne.
In fact Mr McCann doesn't, you're right, at least in his statements. He first thinks Madeleine might be in his bedroom, before entering Madeleine's bedroom.
Perhaps a confusion with Mrs McCann who does first go to her bedroom in one of her discovery reports.
-
Are you an expert on sedatives Anne?
If there were two of them one could go off with Madeleine and the other go off with the 'equipment'.
As I say, I know next to nothing about sedatives - but what about an injection? Is that impossible?
An injection is possible, but only the intravenous one would start to act after 3 minutes. And apnoea can occur. I don't think it's used on a child (intra rectal is the most efficient and quick), veins are very small. Was the abductor a nurse ?
-
As usual, move the goal posts, to suit @)(++(*
So now what Kate said in her book can be used, but not what Amaral say's in his.
Here's me thinking we were discussing Statements, from where you said Gerry went in the bedroom.
Where did Kate say Gerry went in to their bedroom?
According to you Amaral is a liar and perjurer and his words should be approached with caution, whereas Kate is truth incarnate and her every utterance should be believed, so what are you griping about ?
Surely you don't think Kate has been less than truthful in her book !
-
According to you Amaral is a liar and perjurer and his words should be approached with caution, whereas Kate is truth incarnate and her every utterance should be believed, so what are you griping about ?
Surely you don't think Kate has been less than truthful in her book !
Errm no - according to the Portuguese courts Amaral is a liar and perjurer.
One thing we can be sure of with Kate's book is that it will have been scrutinised by lawyers before it was published to make sure there was nothing in it that Kate was claiming to be a fact, which could be proved not to be. Also to ensure that there was nothing that could be construed as libellous.
IMO That is why it is such a reliable reference source - as well as being a best seller in it's own right and also of course - why Amaral cannot sue her for libel.
-
Errm no - according to the Portuguese courts Amaral is a liar and perjurer.
One thing we can be sure of with Kate's book is that it will have been scrutinised by lawyers before it was published to make sure there was nothing in it that Kate was claiming to be a fact, which could be proved not to be. Also to ensure that there was nothing that could be construed as libellous.
IMO That is why it is such a reliable reference source - as well as being a best seller in it's own right and also of course - why Amaral cannot sue her for libel.
Kate claimed as fact that cadaver odour lasts no more than thirty days, a blatant untruth and one that seems to have slipped by the censors.
As to Amaral not being able to sue Kate that's because, as you yourself have pointed out, lawyers had gone though it with a fine toothed comb before publication and anything libellous would have been taken out. Also you seem to be confusing truthful with non-libellous. They are not the same thing.
Can I also point out that Amaral's book was also a best seller all over Europe, even before the ban, outselling Madeleine in several countries , and quite possibly would have been a best seller here too.
-
quite possibly would have been a best seller here too.
Likely, but the climate of terror prevailed !
-
One thing we can be sure of with Kate's book is that it will have been scrutinised by lawyers before it was published to make sure there was nothing in it that Kate was claiming to be a fact, which could be proved not to be. Also to ensure that there was nothing that could be construed as libellous.
IMO That is why it is such a reliable reference source - as well as being a best seller in it's own right and also of course - why Amaral cannot sue her for libel.
LOL, even if lawyers DID check it before publication, do you know that they did? There is no way in a month of Sundays that they would check if everything she wrote was factual!!Hello? How would they bloody know unless they spent thousands on thousands of hours poring over every single bit of the case ? Do you know that would cost millions and millions? It is a fact that not everying she wrote was factual or truthful. The only thing they conceivably may have done is check for libel. Thats it. And she sailed close to the boat on that one too.
Oh and ps that her book was a best seller is no testament or evidence to it being truthful!
@)(++(*
get a grip
-
according to the Portuguese courts Amaral is a liar and perjurer.
You make an unacceptable confusion between what somebody is and what somebody does, Benice. You certainly already lied once or thrice or more, everybody does, does that make you a liar ? No, but in this or that situation what you said was a lie.
-
It is a fact that not everything she wrote was factual or truthful.
It would take time, but it's possible, to compare, concerning the same event, the evolution of Mrs McCann's sayings. The conclusion is : where does she say the truth ? If she does..
-
You make an unacceptable confusion between what somebody is and what somebody does, Benice. You certainly already lied once or thrice or more, everybody does, does that make you a liar ? No, but in this or that situation what you said was a lie.
Its really interesting how some quote the courts and say its definite proof of something, then disregard the courts when theyrule on something which is not in their interest, its called
Cherrypicking
@)(++(*
-
It would take time, but it's possible, to compare, concerning the same event, the evolution of Mrs McCann's sayings. The conclusion is : where does she say the truth ? If she does..
Only reliable source is if it is backed up by anyone,her word cant be taken as gospel for many obvious reasons, and one of those plain reasons is she is a proven liar
-
Its really interesting how some quote the courts and say its definite proof of something, then disregard the courts when theyrule on something which is not in their interest, its called
Cherrypicking
@)(++(*
I think it's worse than that and this sempiternal and reductive verdict reminds times when the guilty one had to wear a scarlet letter as a sign of shame.
Judges, in our democratic societies, rely upon an imaginative vision of human beings.
-
Kate claimed as fact that cadaver odour lasts no more than thirty days, a blatant untruth and one that seems to have slipped by the censors.
As to Amaral not being able to sue Kate that's because, as you yourself have pointed out, lawyers had gone though it with a fine toothed comb before publication and anything libellous would have been taken out. Also you seem to be confusing truthful with non-libellous. They are not the same thing.
Can I also point out that Amaral's book was also a best seller all over Europe, even before the ban, outselling Madeleine in several countries , and quite possibly would have been a best seller here too.
It was not Kate's opinion that cadaverscent lasts only 30 days, it was information she was given by an expert in the field. There is a vast difference.
I'm not surprised Amaral's book was a success, especially in Portugal after the vicious smear campaign he conducted against the McCanns and the way he whipped up the idea that it was a case of the nasty big UK bullying poor little Portugal - but I wonder how many people who read Amarals's book realised from it that he had never met or spoken to the McCanns in his life. I would imagine that little revelation would come as quite a nasty surprise to many - who when they found out, would no doubt be shocked at such dishonesty.
Unless the book on the internet is full of mis-translations, there are claims in there that are untrue and are not confirmed by the PJ files as he claims.
-
It was not Kate's opinion that cadaverscent lasts only 30 days, it was information she was given by an expert in the field. There is a vast difference.
Which expert in the field ? Mrs McCann, though she's expected to be rigorous, as a doctor, doesn't mention any and we know, through scientific articles, not tabloids's news, that this scent, which is by the way much more complex than just cadaverine and putrescence, lasts much much longer.
-
I'm not surprised Amaral's book was a success, especially in Portugal after the vicious smear campaign he conducted against the McCanns and the way he whipped up the idea that it was a case of the nasty big UK bullying poor little Portugal - but I wonder how many people who read Amarals's book realised from it that he had never met or spoken to the McCanns in his life.
Mrs McCann, at least, had a very strong reason to lie and f..king toss a police officer she thought trusted her but who, through evidence, stopped believing her 100%.
The trouble with you, Benice, is that you don't have..
-
It was not Kate's opinion that cadaverscent lasts only 30 days, it was information she was given by an expert in the field. There is a vast difference.
I'm not surprised Amaral's book was a success, especially in Portugal after the vicious smear campaign he conducted against the McCanns and the way he whipped up the idea that it was a case of the nasty big UK bullying poor little Portugal - but I wonder how many people who read Amarals's book realised from it that he had never met or spoken to the McCanns in his life. I would imagine that little revelation would come as quite a nasty surprise to many - who when they found out, would no doubt be shocked at such dishonesty.
Unless the book on the internet is full of mis-translations, there are claims in there that are untrue and are not confirmed by the PJ files as he claims.
That any expert worth his salt would suggest that cadaver sent lasts a mere 30 days is absolute nonsense and Gerry, who we are told, researched cadaver dogs in depth knew this, or if he didn't he should have.
As to Amaral's book, it was a bestseller all over Europe, not just in Portugal and to be honest I really don't see the relevance of whether he met the McCanns in person or not.
-
That any expert worth his salt would suggest that cadaver sent lasts a mere 30 days is absolute nonsense and Gerry, who we are told, researched cadaver dogs in depth knew this, or if he didn't he should have.
As to Amaral's book, it was a bestseller all over Europe, not just in Portugal and to be honest I really don't see the relevance of whether he met the McCanns in person or not.
It makes no difference what the expert said - Kate had no reason to disbelieve him. If you research Sniffer Dogs on the internet you will find loads of conflicting views - it is not a black and white subject.
Amaral never met the McCanns but it is obvious that he wanted readers of his book to think that he did. Why was that do you think?
-
If Mrs McCann produced no expert's name, it's most doubtful an expert informed her at all.
It is dishonest to state things you haven't experienced yourself without giving a reference, unless you write fiction.
-
If Mrs McCann produced no expert's name, it's most doubtful an expert informed her at all.
It is dishonest to state things you haven't experienced yourself without giving a reference, unless you write fiction.
So you think Kate was so unintelligent and thick that she decided it would be a good idea to make up a story about cadaverscent and put it in her book? IIRC the expert was an ex dog handler, but as I can't recall the details I can't vouch for that.
-
LOL, even if lawyers DID check it before publication, do you know that they did? There is no way in a month of Sundays that they would check if everything she wrote was factual!!Hello? How would they bloody know unless they spent thousands on thousands of hours poring over every single bit of the case ? Do you know that would cost millions and millions? It is a fact that not everying she wrote was factual or truthful. The only thing they conceivably may have done is check for libel. Thats it. And she sailed close to the boat on that one too.
Oh and ps that her book was a best seller is no testament or evidence to it being truthful!
@)(++(*
get a grip
The lawyers would read her book at regular stages and every time she quoted something as a' fact 'they would ask her about it - and check with her that it could not be disproved. She would then show them the evidence. It's not rocket science.
Much of her book is about her family, her personal feelings and her experiences - so would not need verification.
-
You make an unacceptable confusion between what somebody is and what somebody does, Benice. You certainly already lied once or thrice or more, everybody does, does that make you a liar ? No, but in this or that situation what you said was a lie.
I have never lied in a post on any forum. If the day ever comes when I feel the need to lie to prove a point - that will be the time to walk away.
Some people don't seem to know the difference between an opinion and a lie, or the difference between an opinion and a fact.
-
The lawyers would read her book at regular stages and every time she quoted something as a' fact 'they would ask her about it - and check with her that it could not be disproved. She would then show them the evidence.
If lawyers had checked every technical detail, this would be stated and signed at the end of the book. It isn't. You're just propagating another myth. Do the McCanns need it ?
-
I have never lied in a post on any forum. If the day ever comes when I feel the need to lie to prove a point - that will be the time to walk away.
Some people don't seem to know the difference between an opinion and a lie, or the difference between an opinion and a fact.
I didn't think of this forum, but in "real" life.
Anyhow you have a tendency to propagate myths, and this is dangerous.
-
So you think Kate was so unintelligent and thick that she decided it would be a good idea to make up a story about cadaverscent and put it in her book? IIRC the expert was an ex dog handler, but as I can't recall the details I can't vouch for that.
No, I think it was clever to fake she knew about cadaver scent. Do you want a proof ? See your post.
-
If lawyers had checked every technical detail, this would be stated and signed at the end of the book. It isn't. You're just propagating another myth. Do the McCanns need it ?
If you accusiing me of propagating myths then you'd better come up with the evidence to prove it.
One of the major reasons why I post is because of the myths, lies, and disinformation which have pervaded this case - initially spawned by the smear campaign of vicious lies printed in the Portuguese Press - with the blessing of certain elements of the PJ and then picked up and repeated in the UK press - for no other reason than for financial profit - and with a complete disregard for the truth or the effect they had on the parents of an abducted child. Mud sticks - and since then all manner of wild accusations and downright lies have been spread about the McCanns and others and still are.
To suggest that I am deliberately creating myths is untrue and grossly offensive. I await your response.
-
8@??)( 8@??)( 8@??)(
-
If you accusiing me of propagating myths then you'd better come up with the evidence to prove it.
One of the major reasons why I post is because of the myths, lies, and disinformation which have pervaded this case - initially spawned by the smear campaign of vicious lies printed in the Portuguese Press - with the blessing of certain elements of the PJ and then picked up and repeated in the UK press - for no other reason than for financial profit - and with a complete disregard for the truth or the effect they had on the parents of an abducted child. Mud sticks - and since then all manner of wild accusations and downright lies have been spread about the McCanns and others and still are.
To suggest that I am deliberately creating myths is untrue and grossly offensive. I await your response.
Well, if your agenda is to hunt myths and destroy them, it's a noble task, Benice, but you haven't yet shown it was.
When I read your audacious and nauseous comments about the Joana case based on google translating and tendentious articles, I'm perplex.
When I read you believe whatever Mrs McCann proclaims without the tiniest evidence, I'm perplex.
When I read you suspect Mr Grime of unconsciously cueing a dog the alerts of whom you don't agree with, I'm perplex.
Your idea of getting rid of myths is certainly not mine !
-
Well, if your agenda is to hunt myths and destroy them, it's a noble task, Benice, but you haven't yet shown it was.
When I read your audacious and nauseous comments about the Joana case based on google translating and tendentious articles, I'm perplex.
When I read you believe whatever Mrs McCann proclaims without the tiniest evidence, I'm perplex.
When I read you suspect Mr Grime of unconsciously cueing a dog the alerts of whom you don't agree with, I'm perplex.
Your idea of getting rid of myths is certainly not mine !
So my opinions based on statements, evidence and the professional opinions of experts in their various fields are to be considered as creating myths? Please quote from my posts where I have claimed untrue facts to be true - or where I have deliberately set out to create a myth.
-
So my opinions based on statements, evidence and the professional opinions of experts in their various fields are to be considered as creating myths? Please quote from my posts where I have claimed untrue facts to be true - or where I have deliberately set out to create a myth.
You're evidently entitled to have opinions and the right/duty to share them, Benice, but you can't post them as facts.
You reported as if it were a fact that cadaver scent doesn't last more than a month, your source being Mrs McCann who consulted an expert ! I by chance know this is not true because I read a lot (scientific papers) on that topic. Instead of admitting that it's only a statement of Mrs McCann, and not a fact, you insist arguing she's not stupid and has lawyers to check her technical points, etc.
The best would be to find a very credible expert confirming what Mrs McCann pretends to have been told. But it could be a waste of time, since you surely realize that Prof Harrison MBE wouldn't have advised to call the dogs if this was true.
-
You're evidently entitled to have opinions and the right/duty to share them, Benice, but you can't post them as facts.
You reported as if it were a fact that cadaver scent doesn't last more than a month, your source being Mrs McCann who consulted an expert ! I by chance know this is not true because I read a lot (scientific papers) on that topic. Instead of admitting that it's only a statement of Mrs McCann, and not a fact, you insist arguing she's not stupid and has lawyers to check her technical points, etc.
The best would be to find a very credible expert confirming what Mrs McCann pretends to have been told. But it could be a waste of time, since you surely realize that Prof Harrison MBE wouldn't have advised to call the dogs if this was true.
8@??)(
-
You're evidently entitled to have opinions and the right/duty to share them, Benice, but you can't post them as facts.
You reported as if it were a fact that cadaver scent doesn't last more than a month, your source being Mrs McCann who consulted an expert ! I by chance know this is not true because I read a lot (scientific papers) on that topic. Instead of admitting that it's only a statement of Mrs McCann, and not a fact, you insist arguing she's not stupid and has lawyers to check her technical points, etc.
The best would be to find a very credible expert confirming what Mrs McCann pretends to have been told. But it could be a waste of time, since you surely realize that Prof Harrison MBE wouldn't have advised to call the dogs if this was true.
This is completely untrue, I have never claimed that cadaver odour lasts only one month - in fact quite the opposite. What I did claim is that if Kate McCann received that information from an expert in the field then SHE - not I, having no reason to disbelieve that information, was justified in quoting it in her book.
Next?
-
This is completely untrue, I have never claimed that cadaver odour lasts only one month - in fact quite the opposite. What I did claim is that if Kate McCann received that information from an expert in the field then SHE - not I, having no reason to disbelieve that information, was justified in quoting it in her book.
Next?
Don't escape !
What do you consider the opposite of one month ?
If you don't agree with Mrs McCann why don't you say she was badly informed (if she was informed at all, a detail you ignore) instead of finding supreendently justified her giving false informations (that serve her abduction doxa, a detail you don't ignore) in her book ?
-
Kate claimed as fact that cadaver odour lasts no more than thirty days, a blatant untruth and one that seems to have slipped by the censors.
As to Amaral not being able to sue Kate that's because, as you yourself have pointed out, lawyers had gone though it with a fine toothed comb before publication and anything libellous would have been taken out. Also you seem to be confusing truthful with non-libellous. They are not the same thing.
Can I also point out that Amaral's book was also a best seller all over Europe, even before the ban, outselling Madeleine in several countries , and quite possibly would have been a best seller here too.
Can you tell us what page she makes that claim, please faith. I would like to see the context.
Thanks in anticipation
-
Can you tell us what page she makes that claim, please faith. I would like to see the context.
Thanks in anticipation
Here you go sadie.
'At that point Gerry began to feel a lot better. He realized that no one could have planted forensic evidence to implicate us because – despite what we had been led to believe by the PJ and the newspaper headlines – there wasn’t any such evidence. They had no proof that Madeleine was dead. All they actually had was the signal of a dog trying to please its instructor in an apartment from which Madeleine had been taken three months earlier. As we now know, the chemicals believed to create the ‘odour of death’, putrescence and cadaverine, last no longer than thirty days. There were no decaying body parts for the dog to find. It was simply wrong.'
She also said Gerry had researched the sniffer dogs. I certainly wouldn't like to be a heart patient of his if that is the calibre of his research.
-
Here you go sadie.
'At that point Gerry began to feel a lot better. He realized that no one could have planted forensic evidence to implicate us because – despite what we had been led to believe by the PJ and the newspaper headlines – there wasn’t any such evidence. They had no proof that Madeleine was dead. All they actually had was the signal of a dog trying to please its instructor in an apartment from which Madeleine had been taken three months earlier. As we now know, the chemicals believed to create the ‘odour of death’, putrescence and cadaverine, last no longer than thirty days. There were no decaying body parts for the dog to find. It was simply wrong.'
She also said Gerry had researched the sniffer dogs. I certainly wouldn't like to be a heart patient of his if that is the calibre of his research.
Thank you Faith
Is anything left out or added in? Cos it seems with the telephone calls from OC to the GNR, whole wedges were omitted. Dozens of calls going out from OC on the second line, yet at the pertinent time no calls at all from that line. Over two hours with no calls out ..... Jeez that doesn't ring true to me.
-
Don't escape !
What do you consider the opposite of one month ?
If you don't agree with Mrs McCann why don't you say she was badly informed (if she was informed at all, a detail you ignore) instead of finding supreendently justified her giving false informations (that serve her abduction doxa, a detail you don't ignore) in her book ?
I have posted several times that Eddie was capable of detecting scent from decades ago. This is one of the FACTS I have put forward to explain why (without corroborating evidence) - no-one knows whether the scent was recent or ancient or whether it was related to Madeleine or not.
You said about me:
''You reported as if it were a fact that cadaver scent doesn't last more than a month''
That is clearly not true and you should acknowledge that fact.
-
I have posted several times that Eddie was capable of detecting scent from decades ago. This is one of the FACTS I have put forward to explain why (without corroborating evidence) - no-one knows whether the scent was recent or ancient or whether it was related to Madeleine or not.
You said about me:
''You reported as if it were a fact that cadaver scent doesn't last more than a month''
That is clearly not true and you should acknowledge that fact.
I acknowledge that you, Benice, don't claim a cadaver scent without palpable remains lasts less than a month, though Mrs McCann presented it as a fact in her book.
Obviously if Eddie and other cadaver dogs were proved to be capable to detect very old cadaver scent, it implies some palpable remains were found.
-
I acknowledge that you, Benice, don't claim a cadaver scent without palpable remains lasts less than a month, though Mrs McCann presented it as a fact in her book.
Obviously if Eddie and other cadaver dogs were proved to be capable to detect very old cadaver scent, it implies some palpable remains were found.
Thank you for your acknowledgement that I did not lie.
Kate McCann posted the results of their research. She had no reason to believe that it could be incorrect. To say she lied is unfair.
The whole subject of Sniffer dog is not the exact science some sceptics try to present it as. There are varying opinions about it. Also just like humans some dogs are better at their job than others and some handlers are better at their job than others. They are not infallible. Tests have confirmed that to be a fact.
-
I think its fair to say there is no science behind the dogs.
if you google "dna" or "fingerprints" you will get literally hundreds of thousands of scientific articles to support them.
re the dogs and cadaver scent, probably little or nothing in any reputable scirntific journal. The dogs are used to find physical evidence, they didn't find any. if the dogs responses are so reliable why are SY saying Maddie may still be alive.
-
Thank you for your acknowledgement that I did not lie.
Kate McCann posted the results of their research. She had no reason to believe that it could be incorrect. To say she lied is unfair.
The whole subject of Sniffer dog is not the exact science some sceptics try to present it as. There are varying opinions about it. Also just like humans some dogs are better at their job than others and some handlers are better at their job than others. They are not infallible. Tests have confirmed that to be a fact.
His reports inspired me respect for Prof Harrison, I must say, and this is why I think Eddie's alerts are at least intelligence.
I totally refute your defence of Mrs McCann. Having had a scientific formation she's not expected to state what isn't true (you admit it) but serves extremely well her agenda. The fact she doesn't cite her source speaks volumes.
-
I think its fair to say there is no science behind the dogs.
if you google "dna" or "fingerprints" you will get literally hundreds of thousands of scientific articles to support them.
re the dogs and cadaver scent, probably little or nothing in any reputable scirntific journal. The dogs are used to find physical evidence, they didn't find any. if the dogs responses are so reliable why are SY saying Maddie may still be alive.
And if the cadaver dogs are so unreliable why have we seen the perpetrator in murder cases where the dogs have alerted but no body been found declared guilty in case upon case ?
-
And if the cadaver dogs are so unreliable why have we seen the perpetrator in murder cases where the dogs have alerted but no body been found declared guilty in case upon case ?
Well some countries are bad on Justice, but good on fitting people up, aren't they?
-
And if the cadaver dogs are so unreliable why have we seen the perpetrator in murder cases where the dogs have alerted but no body been found declared guilty in case upon case ?
I'm not sure people are saying that they're unreliable per se, it's just that there was nothing found to back them up. I think that in the D'Andre Lane case there was other evidence too?
-
Well some countries are bad on Justice, but good on fitting people up, aren't they?
So you include the UK on that list ?
-
I think its fair to say there is no science behind the dogs.
if you google "dna" or "fingerprints" you will get literally hundreds of thousands of scientific articles to support them.
re the dogs and cadaver scent, probably little or nothing in any reputable scirntific journal. The dogs are used to find physical evidence, they didn't find any. if the dogs responses are so reliable why are SY saying Maddie may still be alive.
DNA and fingerprints have been around for donkeys years, cadaver dogs have not. There are scientific papers in *reputable* journals and there are other studies by police dog divisions which show their reliability in detecting remnant scent. Cadaver dogs are not * just*used to find physical remains. They are also used to find remnant scent. If what you say were true they would never have been deployed by Harrison in PDL in the first place.
Science in a general cant back up cadaver dog alerts as there is no instrument or test to do so, thats why the dogs acute natural abilities are used.
The dog alert did not prove in any way that Madeleines body was in that apartment. It is a circumstantial possibility. That is why SY have said there is no* clear definitive proof* she is dead, ie via the dog indication or a body being found, so obviously he is going to say there is a possibility she is alive.
-
And if the cadaver dogs are so unreliable why have we seen the perpetrator in murder cases where the dogs have alerted but no body been found declared guilty in case upon case ?
quite simply because there has been other , more reliable evidence to prove the case.
-
DNA and fingerprints have been around for donkeys years, cadaver dogs have not. There are scientific papers in *reputable* journals and there are other studies by police dog divisions which show their reliability in detecting remnant scent. Cadaver dogs are not * just*used to find physical remains. They are also used to find remnant scent. If what you say were true they would never have been deployed by Harrison in PDL in the first place.
Science in a general cant back up cadaver dog alerts as there is no instrument or test to do so, thats why the dogs acute natural abilities are used.
The dog alert did not prove in any way that Madeleines body was in that apartment. It is a circumstantial possibility. That is why SY have said there is no* clear definitive proof* she is dead, ie via the dog indication or a body being found, so obviously he is going to say there is a possibility she is alive.
that is absolutely correct but so many posters believe that the dogs reactions are proof.
-
Eddie's alerts don't prove Madeleine's body had stayed in the G5A, just show that a body had been there, particularly in the corner of the south bedroom, on the balcony and (slight alert only) in the flowerbed (behind the sofa could have been blood detected by Keela ?).
-
Eddie's alerts don't prove Madeleine's body had stayed in the G5A, just show that a body had been there, particularly in the corner of the south bedroom, on the balcony and (slight alert only) in the flowerbed (behind the sofa could have been blood detected by Keela ?).
To be any real likelyhood that a daed body had been in that apartment, then only Eddie should have alerted and Keela not alerted at the same spot. If both dogs alerted it was not a dead body at all, but some dried blood residue from a cut or graze. We know that one of the peeps who rented the apartment after Madeleine was abducted, cut himself very badly shaving. that he walked around as he was bleeding.
I think my understanding is right, but pls tell me if I have it wrong.
-
To be any real likelyhood that a daed body had been in that apartment, then only Eddie should have alerted and Keela not alerted at the same spot. If both dogs alerted it was not a dead body at all, but some dried blood residue from a cut or graze. We know that one of the peeps who rented the apartment after Madeleine was abducted, cut himself very badly shaving. that he walked around as he was bleeding.
I think my understanding is right, but pls tell me if I have it wrong.
What abduction ?
You stated it as fact again.
It isn't.
-
What abduction ?
You stated it as fact again.
It isn't.
Sorry, but I have worked out things that you dont know about.
I will leave it at that
-
Sorry, but I have worked out things that you dont know about.
I will leave it at that
Of course you have. 8(>(( >@@(*&)
-
Sorry, but I have worked out things that you dont know about.
I will leave it at that
So have I Sadie and it ain't looking good. A question for you? Why did Gerry McCann feel it necessary to revisit the apartment just minutes after Matthew had already done a listening test?
-
So have I Sadie and it ain't looking good. A question for you? Why did Gerry McCann feel it necessary to revisit the apartment just minutes after Matthew had already done a listening test?
simples
Cos a listening test wasn't good enough for him and kate. Neither would it have been for me.
-
To be any real likelyhood that a daed body had been in that apartment, then only Eddie should have alerted and Keela not alerted at the same spot. If both dogs alerted it was not a dead body at all, but some dried blood residue from a cut or graze. We know that one of the peeps who rented the apartment after Madeleine was abducted, cut himself very badly shaving. that he walked around as he was bleeding.
I think my understanding is right, but pls tell me if I have it wrong.
Eddie alerts to cadaver scent and blood
Keela alerts to blood
If both alert at a similar spot then it can be a) just blood or b) a combination of cadaver scent and blood
And yes Eddie alerted several times to areas/things which Keela did not ie parents bedroom and Mccanns clothes
He alerted also to the verandah of the apartment, strong signal, and in the flower bed in the garden under, weaker signal, there is no mention in the files if Keela was taken there, so as regards those alerts we dont know
-
simples
Cos a listening test wasn't good enough for him and kate. Neither would it have been for me.
It had been the rest of the week, or so Gerry admitted in Madeleine Was Here.
-
It had been the rest of the week, or so Gerry admitted in Madeleine Was Here.
Exactly, he admitted that he NEVER made any visual checks, and Kate intimated the same at the beginning
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhACS6ck-Dw&feature=youtube_gdata_player
-
Back to the cadaver dogs again
-
Back to the cadaver dogs again
-
Back to the cadaver dogs again
Quite
WUMMING again.
-
Back to the cadaver dogs again
Why not back to the sniffer dogs first ?
Won't you, Holmes, rather have Toby’s help than that of the whole detective force of London?