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: Redblossom on September 16, 2013, 10:21:58 PM
Title: Was it really just like being in the garden while kids slept upstairs?.
Post by: Redblossom on September 16, 2013, 10:21:58 PM
Soooo blase about three babies out of sight and hearing
8()(((@#
Title: Re: Was it really just like being in the garden while kids slept upstairs?.
Post by: CPN on September 16, 2013, 10:45:54 PM
And abduction is indeed rare, but accidents in the home are not - "According to the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, each year more than 1 million children age under 15 are taken to accident and emergency (A&E) after being injured in or around the home. Many more children are treated at home by their parents, carers or GP." - http://www.nhs.uk/conditions/accidents-to-children-in-the-home/Pages/Introduction.aspx So this totally ignores the far more common possibility of accidents. And I never hear this point put to the McCanns or indeed referred to at all.
Title: Re: Was it really just like being in the garden while kids slept upstairs?.
Post by: Redblossom on September 16, 2013, 11:21:15 PM
Not only that, any wierdo could easily go in and abuse them without abducting them...whilst they were having their tapas and drinks
But it was just like being in yer back garden, happy as larry, no idea whats happening with the kids left the door open anyway kate said in case madeleine woke up again and was able to go out find them...hmmm nice to expect your 3 yr old to go out in dead of night in her jimjams go down 14 stone steps and traverse the street and hopefully end up in tapas bar!!!! Scary and pathetic
enough trash for one day and one night
Gone >>>>
Title: Re: Was it really just like being in the garden while kids slept upstairs?.
Post by: Mr Gray on September 16, 2013, 11:25:02 PM
And abduction is indeed rare, but accidents in the home are not - "According to the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, each year more than 1 million children age under 15 are taken to accident and emergency (A&E) after being injured in or around the home. Many more children are treated at home by their parents, carers or GP." - http://www.nhs.uk/conditions/accidents-to-children-in-the-home/Pages/Introduction.aspx So this totally ignores the far more common possibility of accidents. And I never hear this point put to the McCanns or indeed referred to at all.
Do you have the figures for fatal accidents as that is what we are talking about
Title: Re: Was it really just like being in the garden while kids slept upstairs?.
Post by: CPN on September 16, 2013, 11:32:15 PM
Not only that, any wierdo could easily go in and abuse them without abducting them...whilst they were having their tapas and drinks
True, but highly unlikely whereas accidents in the home (especially on stone floors as there would have been in Portugal) are not rare. With there being 41,349 GPs working in the UK (BMA figures) the chances of Kate McCann having had a child patient taken to hospital for a home accident must be pretty high, so apart from any training she would have had about this, her experience should have told her of the dangers.
Title: Re: Was it really just like being in the garden while kids slept upstairs?.
Post by: CPN on September 16, 2013, 11:34:12 PM
Do you have the figures for fatal accidents as that is what we are talking about
That's an interesting question
I wonder how the statistics for fatal accidents suffered by children in the home compare with the statistics for children abducted from their bed
Title: Re: Was it really just like being in the garden while kids slept upstairs?.
Post by: CPN on September 16, 2013, 11:45:35 PM
It's too late to search for figures now - bed calls - but http://www.rospa.com/homesafety/adviceandinformation/childsafety/accidents-to-children.aspx provides more info
Title: Re: Was it really just like being in the garden while kids slept upstairs?.
Post by: Redblossom on September 17, 2013, 12:00:33 AM
CPN you might agree with this logical man tomorrow, night too Ps ignore the j ourno who is peed off about his 9 yr old, he forgets the argument is about toddlers lol
Title: Re: Was it really just like being in the garden while kids slept upstairs?.
Post by: sadie on September 17, 2013, 11:19:41 PM
Not only that, any wierdo could easily go in and abuse them without abducting themNot true. The children were being visited more often than half hourly, and at not exact intervals. The patio windows and patio area were lit by the street lamp immediately opposite. Even your friend, Amaral, said that no abductor could have entered via the patio doors with the parents and tapas group so close.Would be too risky to abuse them there...whilst they were having their tapasmain meal of the day with normal drinks
But it was just like being in yer back garden, happy as larry, no idea whats happening with the kids left the door that they coiuld see from only 50 metres away openunlocked but closed anyway kate said in case madeleine woke up again and was able to go out find them...hmmm nice to expect your 3 yr old (Madeleine was virtually 4 years old) to go out in dead of nightNot the dead of night at all. Why exagerate? in her jimjams go down 14 stone10 brick steps
and traverse the street. Lies. the street did not have to be traversed at all and hopefully end up in tapas bar!!!! restaurant. Scary and patheticNot scary cos had Madeleine walked thru that patio door, she would have seen her Mum and Dad immediately thru the railings
Mccanns could see the patio windows. They sat just behind the swimming pool, near the middle of the RH "glazed" window Madeleine would have gone straight to those railings cos she could see her Mum and Dad clearly there as has ben proven by photos shown earlier. Those windows had good visabilty thru them.
Yep, I agree. Your post has so many lies in it that it is more than enough trash for one day and one night. enough trash for one day and one night
Gone >>>>
Ten inaccuracies and lies ... in such a short post. Why do you have the need to tell lies Red?
How can we trust what you post with all these lies, inaccuracies and distortions?
Title: Re: Was it really just like being in the garden while kids slept upstairs?.
Post by: Sherlock Holmes on September 18, 2013, 01:43:12 AM
Nice to see you again, Sadie
Wondered if this one would have got you going... 8(0(*
Title: Re: Was it really just like being in the garden while kids slept upstairs?.
Post by: Angelo222 on September 18, 2013, 09:30:43 AM
Gerry still doesn't accept his failure in this horrid affair.
To answer some of Sadie's points. Kate never visited the apartment at all after leaving it around 8.30pm. What does that say for you??
And as for depicting the scene by using daytime photos Sadie?? I have got to laugh.
Title: Re: Was it really just like being in the garden while kids slept upstairs?.
Post by: Mo Stache on September 18, 2013, 10:16:44 AM
Gerry still doesn't accept his failure in this horrid affair.
To answer some of Sadie's points. Kate never visited the apartment at all after leaving it around 8.30pm. What does that say for you??
And as for depicting the scene by using daytime photos Sadie?? I have got to laugh.
It would appear your comment about daytime photos is referring to visibility. Remember it wasn't pitch-dark, but that has very little bearing on why daytime photo's were used to illustrate the possible route taken. Daytime photos are used in that post to illustrate the basic physical layout of the area. Which as far as I know doesn’t change when the sun goes down.
Title: Re: Was it really just like being in the garden while kids slept upstairs?.
Post by: Angelo222 on September 18, 2013, 10:27:45 AM
Bottom line is it was so dark that nobody sitting inside the tapas restaurant could have possibly seen anyone on the patio of 5a and likewise any child standing on the patio wouldn't have known where her parents were let alone seen them.
Its all academic in any event since none of the children went out to the patio.
Title: Re: Was it really just like being in the garden while kids slept upstairs?.
Post by: Joanne on September 18, 2013, 10:31:16 AM
Even if you had an uninteruppted view of the patio door, bearing in mind that according to the interviews (if you believe them) a check was done at 930pm, it would have been dark and if there are a group of people chatting, dining and drinking et al, what are the chances of someone watching the said door every second of every minute? It would take seconds for someone to nip in and out of that door.
Title: Re: Was it really just like being in the garden while kids slept upstairs?.
Post by: south of the river on September 18, 2013, 11:06:56 AM
The argument that the patio door was within visual view of the bar might be factually correct - but as as been stated many times it was dark and it was still a distance to properly make out everything crystal clear
I mean and would be bad guy who was entering the flat form the patio would hardly be striding up the stairs whistling a happy tune and wearing a bright shirt - If you kept your head under the height of the wall and the stair wall then you could easily crawl up the stairs and enter the patio without being visible even from much closer - I mean this was a person who could have crossed the line to commit this crime - they would have been careful I would say not to be seen
Title: Re: Was it really just like being in the garden while kids slept upstairs?.
Post by: Mo Stache on September 18, 2013, 11:23:08 AM
Bottom line is it was so dark that nobody sitting inside the tapas restaurant could have possibly seen anyone on the patio of 5a and likewise any child standing on the patio wouldn't have known where her parents were let alone seen them.
Its all academic in any event since none of the children went out to the patio.
I could stand corrected, but I remember a poster going to PdL at that time of year to determine the light quality (same weather conditions, same time of day/afternoon/evening) and I believe he said it wasn't that dark as first reported.
It may be academic, but it still provides points for consideration/discussion.
Title: Re: Was it really just like being in the garden while kids slept upstairs?.
Post by: sadie on September 18, 2013, 06:44:28 PM
The argument that the patio door was within visual view of the bar might be factually correct - but as as been stated many times it was dark and it was still a distance to properly make out everything crystal clear
I mean and would be bad guy who was entering the flat form the patio would hardly be striding up the stairs whistling a happy tune and wearing a bright shirt - If you kept your head under the height of the wall and the stair wall then you could easily crawl up the stairs and enter the patio without being visible even from much closer - I mean this was a person who could have crossed the line to commit this crime - they would have been careful I would say not to be seen
I understand what you are saying, but at least five facts to consider SOTR:
- The patio was flooded with light from the street light that was positioined immediately across the road. It was not a strong light, but would have showed movement and a mans outline up.
- The sitting room light had been left on, with attempted pulling of curtains across the patio door. The minute those curtains had been pulled back to afford entry, a large chunk of new strong light would appear where there had previously been only pale light. That new light would hav3e been very noticeable. Once bundleman entered the room he would have been bathed in that stronger light.
- Amaral himself said that no abductor would have gone in via the patio door with it overlooked with the parents and the tapas group so close ... and with the light, both on the patio and in the room, no doubt
- The front door was a gift for anyone wanting to get in Completely out odf sight; nobody passing by and in virtually complete darkness. There was no search light a la Pat Brown in those days. That came afterwards.
Even with the new search light and all the beautiful trees stripped out, the front door was in a pool of blackness. You can only see the front edge of the recess, not one iota of anything except the outer edge of the recess. In any case for anyone around, it was around the corner and out of sight.
Please dont forget that the whole of the lower levels of the front would be out of sight to someone walking up from the tapas because of the very high wall.
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-7rJxPNyn7Nk/Tzpy9c91SMI/AAAAAAAAIYs/DVyIMjSLk7o/s640/View+of+Apartment+5A+from+Balcony.jpg) Thanks to Pat brown for photograph
- There had been burglaries via the front doors of two other flats in the preceding weeks. No damage to the doors, so seems a key was used.
Entry and exit were by the front door, almost withgout doubt.
OMO but loads of pointers
Title: Re: Was it really just like being in the garden while kids slept upstairs?.
Post by: Redblossom on September 18, 2013, 07:51:07 PM
Even if you had an uninteruppted view of the patio door, bearing in mind that according to the interviews (if you believe them) a check was done at 930pm, it would have been dark and if there are a group of people chatting, dining and drinking et al, what are the chances of someone watching the said door every second of every minute? It would take seconds for someone to nip in and out of that door.
I have asked this plainly common sense and logical question umpeteen times, strangely enough always ignored, because its plain stupid and in denial to even suggest they did that @)(++(*
Because if they were that worried they never would have left the babies on their own but taken them with them like most families and left them go sleep in their prams when they got tired...laughable at best
Title: Re: Was it really just like being in the garden while kids slept upstairs?.
Post by: AnneGuedes on September 18, 2013, 07:53:59 PM
No chance to spot anything said, among many others, Mr Jo Moura who was there for CBS "undercover".
Title: Re: Was it really just like being in the garden while kids slept upstairs?.
Post by: CPN on September 18, 2013, 08:00:50 PM
And I have pointed out umpteen times that the greatest danger to young children left unsupervised is from accidents, and this also is, strangely enough, always ignored.
As to the question "Was it really just like being in the garden while kids slept upstairs?", of course not. In your own garden, the children are on home ground, they know their way around the house and the garden and so how to find the parents easily. You do not, usually leave the front door unlocked. They do not have to go via a road and swimming pool to find you. They speak the language of the neighbours if they wanted to ask for help, and the neighbours probably know them and would let the parents know if the children were seen out of the house etc etc
Title: Re: Was it really just like being in the garden while kids slept upstairs?.
Post by: icabodcrane on September 18, 2013, 08:06:38 PM
Well if we are going by evidence ( rather than imaginings ) we can all agree that the open window was used as neither entry or exit ( forensic evidence has determined as much )
With regard to the patio doors, it is possible that they were used for entry/exist, based on the evidence that they were left unlocked
There is no evidence at all that a key was used to enter through the front door
Title: Re: Was it really just like being in the garden while kids slept upstairs?.
Post by: Redblossom on September 18, 2013, 08:09:38 PM
I hardly think any consensus has been reached about how any carrier assumng that means an abductor may have entered or exited
But if just for arguments sake, he/she could have entered via the patio doors if they were unlocked and exited through the front door if it was unlocked....and Gerry (in one in police interview)cant remember if he locked it that night, though he remembers previous days when he locked it...and in another police interview says it was locked that night....??.and how would any abductor know if the front door was locked or not?
Perhaps the abductor exited by the patio doors too as well as entering via them
The window imo is definitely not in the picture...no evidence for this and logically seems impossible and cumbersome, again, here, the mccanns didnt know if the window was shut! Thus leaving the idea that the window could easily have been opened
That is all we can surmise from the evidence without getting into groundless speculations about criminally obtained keys etc etc
So yes, a dogs dinner
Title: Re: Was it really just like being in the garden while kids slept upstairs?.
Post by: Redblossom on September 18, 2013, 08:11:31 PM
Well if we are going by evidence ( rather than imaginings ) we can all agree that the open window was used as neither entry or exit ( forensic evidence has determined as much )
With regard to the patio doors, it is possible that they were used for entry/exist, based on the evidence that they were left unlocked
There is no evidence at all that a key was used to enter through the front door
thanks for putting it much simpler...... @)(++(*
Title: Re: Was it really just like being in the garden while kids slept upstairs?.
Post by: AnneGuedes on September 18, 2013, 08:16:36 PM
And I have pointed out umpteen times that the greatest danger to young children left unsupervised is from accidents, and this also is, strangely enough, always ignored.
As to the question "Was it really just like being in the garden while kids slept upstairs?", of course not. In your own garden, the children are on home ground, they know their way around the house and the garden and so how to find the parents easily. You do not, usually leave the front door unlocked. They do not have to go via a road and swimming pool to find you. They speak the language of the neighbours if they wanted to ask for help, and the neighbours probably know them and would let the parents know if the children were seen out of the house etc etc
This is not strange, CPN, domestic accidents very often occur because parents don't figure casually out what is potentially dangerous, they don't put themselves mentally into their kids' shoes. This is why those sites exist, like the one you sent the link of, that list the home dangers in order to make you aware of them. Of course you should at least wonder if you're a responsible parent and consult such a site. Some basic recommendations are to close windows or doors to balconies (somnambulism), to have all cutting elements in the kitchen out of reach, to be especially careful when you're in holidays, in a place your children aren't familiar with, etc.
Title: Re: Was it really just like being in the garden while kids slept upstairs?.
Post by: CPN on September 18, 2013, 08:26:19 PM
This is not strange, CPN, domestic accidents very often occur because parents don't figure casually out what is potentially dangerous, they don't put themselves mentally into their kids' shoes. This is why those sites exist, like the one you sent the link of, that list the home dangers in order to make you aware of them. Of course you should at least wonder if you're a responsible parent and consult such a site. Some basic recommendations are to close windows or doors to balconies (somnambulism), to have all cutting elements in the kitchen out of reach, to be especially careful when you're in holidays, in a place your children aren't familiar with, etc.
Yes, but Anne, as I have also pointed out, a GP above all would have been trained to be aware of these things and to look out for them - and more than likely would have had patients whose child(ren) had had to attend A&E because of a home accident. So a lack of awareness for doctors and a GP in particular is no excuse at all
Title: Re: Was it really just like being in the garden while kids slept upstairs?.
Post by: Rachel Granada on September 18, 2013, 08:32:23 PM
Yes, but Anne, as I have also pointed out, a GP above all would have been trained to be aware of these things and to look out for them - and more than likely would have had patients whose child(ren) had had to attend A&E because of a home accident. So a lack of awareness for doctors and a GP in particular is no excuse at all
Do you think they should have been prosecuted for neglect, CPN?
Title: Re: Was it really just like being in the garden while kids slept upstairs?.
Post by: CPN on September 18, 2013, 08:38:24 PM
Do you think they should have been prosecuted for neglect, CPN?
I think that is a difficult one. There is no doubt in my mind that what happened WAS neglect - however, prosecutions are usually a last resort for Social Services. There are other actions that can be taken such as parenting classes, the Child Protection Register etc. And if you decide to remove children (in this case the twins), that leads to other very difficult decisions - in particular where the child(ren) will be placed, what your aim is in removing the children, how the ongoing contact with parents will be organised etc etc. .
Just to add - I often read that the fact that the parents were not prosecuted means that there was not neglect. This is absolutely not true. As I said, other actions can be taken instead of prosecution which is done very much as a last resort. Incidentally I have sometimes gone over the speed limit but have not been prosecuted!! - does that mean that I was not, in fact speeding?
Title: Re: Was it really just like being in the garden while kids slept upstairs?.
Post by: AnneGuedes on September 18, 2013, 08:54:09 PM
I think that is a difficult one. There is no doubt in my mind that what happened WAS neglect - however, prosecutions are usually a last resort for Social Services. There are other actions that can be taken such as parenting classes, the Child Protection Register etc. And if you decide to remove children (in this case the twins), that leads to other very difficult decisions - in particular where the child(ren) will be placed, what your aim is in removing the children, how the ongoing contact with parents will be organised etc etc. .
It wasn't neglect according to the Portuguese law : they didn't deliberately put their children in danger. I really think they behaved like many people do, they were unlucky. Is it worse because they are doctors ? I don't think so. We all have experiences of doctors who hardly listen to you ! The problem is they didn't tell the truth, up to what point I don't know, but that ridiculous forced shutters/window story kommt mir nicht aus dem Sinn. Who could follow such a red herring ? The PJ, anxious to find the little girl and thinking they had misunderstood about the shutters/window.
Title: Re: Was it really just like being in the garden while kids slept upstairs?.
Post by: Rachel Granada on September 18, 2013, 08:58:36 PM
I think that is a difficult one. There is no doubt in my mind that what happened WAS neglect - however, prosecutions are usually a last resort for Social Services. There are other actions that can be taken such as parenting classes, the Child Protection Register etc. And if you decide to remove children (in this case the twins), that leads to other very difficult decisions - in particular where the child(ren) will be placed, what your aim is in removing the children, how the ongoing contact with parents will be organised etc etc. .
Just to add - I often read that the fact that the parents were not prosecuted means that there was not neglect. This is absolutely not true. As I said, other actions can be taken instead of prosecution which is done very much as a last resort. Incidentally I have sometimes gone over the speed limit but have not been prosecuted!! - does that mean that I was not, in fact speeding?
Thanks for your thoughts, CPN. The PT authorities did not agree, however, that is was neglect.
Title: Re: Was it really just like being in the garden while kids slept upstairs?.
Post by: icabodcrane on September 18, 2013, 09:00:48 PM
I think that is a difficult one. There is no doubt in my mind that what happened WAS neglect - however, prosecutions are usually a last resort for Social Services. There are other actions that can be taken such as parenting classes, the Child Protection Register etc. And if you decide to remove children (in this case the twins), that leads to other very difficult decisions - in particular where the child(ren) will be placed, what your aim is in removing the children, how the ongoing contact with parents will be organised etc etc. .
Just to add - I often read that the fact that the parents were not prosecuted means that there was not neglect. This is absolutely not true. As I said, other actions can be taken instead of prosecution which is done very much as a last resort. Incidentally I have sometimes gone over the speed limit but have not been prosecuted!! - does that mean that I was not, in fact speeding?
What do you think might have happened if the 'consequences' of the McCann's childcare arrangements had been different, do you think ?
If, for instance, Amaral is correct when he says the child died in the apartment from an accident that occured whilst she was alone with her younger siblings
Would the McCanns have been charged with negligence in those circumstances ... or even been charged with negligent homicide ( involuntary manslaughter in British law ) ?
Title: Re: Was it really just like being in the garden while kids slept upstairs?.
Post by: John on September 18, 2013, 09:08:02 PM
It would depend on the autopsy results.
Title: Re: Was it really just like being in the garden while kids slept upstairs?.
Post by: CPN on September 18, 2013, 09:10:57 PM
I am aware that Portuguese and UK law are different - I was answering from the viewpoint of the legislation I worked under which was British. Certainly in the Local Authorities I worked for, if we had heard of children being left in this way, action would have been taken. Indeed, I had 3 sisters in care when I first started who had been removed from their family in very similar circumstances.
I do not agree that being doctors made it no worse for the reasons I have given, which include the training which would have included the NSPCC and government guidelines on leaving children alone, and the fact that there was a very strong likelihood that any GP has had experience of children having accidents in the home. And, to add, that a GP would be expected to report to the authorities here any child(ren) they knew of being left alone in that way
Title: Re: Was it really just like being in the garden while kids slept upstairs?.
Post by: Rachel Granada on September 18, 2013, 09:16:31 PM
I am aware that Portuguese and UK law are different - I was answering from the viewpoint of the legislation I worked under which was British. Certainly in the Local Authorities I worked for, if we had heard of children being left in this way, action would have been taken. Indeed, I had 3 sisters in care when I first started who had been removed from their family in very similar circumstances.
I do not agree that being doctors made it no worse for the reasons I have given, which include the training which would have included the NSPCC and government guidelines on leaving children alone, and the fact that there was a very strong likelihood that any GP has had experience of children having accidents in the home. And, to add, that a GP would be expected to report to the authorities here any child(ren) they knew of being left alone in that way
What do you make of the Pontin's system of leaving children in chalets and a nanny cycling up and down listening for crying? Do you think that these Pontins parents should be vilified?
Title: Re: Was it really just like being in the garden while kids slept upstairs?.
Post by: CPN on September 18, 2013, 09:23:16 PM
What do you make of the Pontin's system of leaving children in chalets and a nanny cycling up and down listening for crying? Do you think that these Pontins parents should be vilified?
Whether that system still exists I do not know. If so, I would have great doubts about it.
I do know that it existed many years ago and can only suggest that less was known about the dangers to children then, as indeed less was known about so many things that we take for granted these days. But anyway, what others decide to do should be irrelevant - we are all responsible for our own children and need to take the decisions that are best for them and in their best interests, taking all factors into account. I certainly never would have and never did leave my son alone like that when he was that age
Title: Re: Was it really just like being in the garden while kids slept upstairs?.
Post by: AnneGuedes on September 18, 2013, 09:24:36 PM
I do not agree that being doctors made it no worse for the reasons I have given, which include the training which would have included the NSPCC and government guidelines on leaving children alone, and the fact that there was a very strong likelihood that any GP has had experience of children having accidents in the home. And, to add, that a GP would be expected to report to the authorities here any child(ren) they knew of being left alone in that way
Do you think the McCanns knew that ? Do you think they really might have been scared to have problems to keep the twins, at least in a sort of probe time ? I find this terrible and I do agree more with the Portuguese law.
Title: Re: Was it really just like being in the garden while kids slept upstairs?.
Post by: Redblossom on September 18, 2013, 09:25:39 PM
No chance to spot anything said, among many others, Mr Jo Moura who was there for CBS "undercover".
Sorry anne missed ths post, yes, no visual whatsoever, and martin brunt proved it when he did his sky documentary too...... But, agan even if there WAS any visual, it is madness to suggest one or some or all of them would have kept their eyes peeled on that flat..in case...id there was the thought of *in case* of anythng they would not have left them unless they took a risk..never heard such nonsense
Even if you had an uninteruppted view of the patio door, bearing in mind that according to the interviews (if you believe them) a check was done at 930pm, it would have been dark and if there are a group of people chatting, dining and drinking et al, what are the chances of someone watching the said door every second of every minute? It would take seconds for someone to nip in and out of that door.
I have asked this plainly common sense and logical question umpeteen times, strangely enough always ignored, because its plain stupid and in denial to even suggest they did that @)(++(*
Because if they were that worried they never would have left the babies on their own but taken them with them like most families and left them go sleep in their prams when they got tired...laughable at best
Title: Re: Was it really just like being in the garden while kids slept upstairs?.
Post by: CPN on September 18, 2013, 09:30:24 PM
Do you think the McCanns knew that ? Do you think they really might have been scared to have problems to keep the twins, at least in a sort of probe time ? I find this terrible and I do agree more with the Portuguese law.
I'm sorry, I do not understand your question (the second one) Re the first one, I have already pointed out that they would know the guidelines from their training and would be expected to report children they knew of in that position - and so yes, of course, I think they knew that. And I do not find it terrible at all - I find the damage that can be done to children by neglect, intentionally or not, far worse.
Title: Re: Was it really just like being in the garden while kids slept upstairs?.
Post by: AnneGuedes on September 18, 2013, 09:33:32 PM
Whether that system still exists I do not know. If so, I would have great doubts about it.
I do know that it existed many years ago and can only suggest that less was known about the dangers to children then, as indeed less was known about so many things that we take for granted these days. But anyway, what others decide to do should be irrelevant - we are all responsible for our own children and need to take the decisions that are best for them and in their best interests, taking all factors into account. I certainly never would have and never did leave my son alone like that when he was that age
That's true. But we, post-modern people, require over security. How do we best protect our children ? Closing the windows or facing them with the danger of an open window ? I suddenly remember my little boy in front of an open window, I handed him a toy and said "throw it out and see what happens". Then we went downstairs..
Title: Re: Was it really just like being in the garden while kids slept upstairs?.
Post by: Redblossom on September 18, 2013, 09:36:29 PM
That's true. But we, post-modern people, require over security. How do we best protect our children ? Closing the windows or facing them with the danger of an open window ? I suddenly remember my little boy in front of an open window, I handed him a toy and said "throw it out and see what happens". Then we went downstairs..
Well if you are WITH them when the windows are open its a bit different to leaving them alone with a window open to where there is access to a balcony to fall over etc etc etc
or deciding to leave a window/patio door open so your three yr old can go out in the night to LOOK for you if she finds youre not there if she wakes up....awful....unless Maddie knew where they would be? but still, at the dead of night? No, computer says no
Title: Re: Was it really just like being in the garden while kids slept upstairs?.
Post by: AnneGuedes on September 18, 2013, 09:46:24 PM
I'm sorry, I do not understand your question (the second one) Re the first one, I have already pointed out that they would know the guidelines from their training and would be expected to report children they knew of in that position - and so yes, of course, I think they knew that. And I do not find it terrible at all - I find the damage that can be done to children by neglect, intentionally or not, far worse.
It is yes terrible, CPN, have you had 3 little children trying to get your attention in the same moment ? The McCanns love their children, there's no doubt about that, they have no imagination, there's no doubt about that as well. Second question : I was wondering whether the idea they could have problems about the twins with the social services had determined them to pretend Madeleine was abducted.
Title: Re: Was it really just like being in the garden while kids slept upstairs?.
Post by: CPN on September 18, 2013, 09:55:31 PM
It is yes terrible, CPN, have you had 3 little children trying to get your attention in the same moment ? The McCanns love their children, there's no doubt about that, they have no imagination, there's no doubt about that as well. Second question : I was wondering whether the idea they could have problems about the twins with the social services had determined them to pretend Madeleine was abducted.
Actually, I was a teacher also, including a nursery teacher, so I have had many more that 3 young children trying to get my attention at the same moment!! I'm not sure how relevant that is, however.
RE the second question, well, I do not know of course. The abduction scenario was put forward while the McCanns were in Portugal, of course, so any possible action by the UK Social Services was still only a theory at that point
Title: Re: Was it really just like being in the garden while kids slept upstairs?.
Post by: AnneGuedes on September 18, 2013, 10:25:13 PM
The abduction scenario was put forward while the McCanns were in Portugal, of course, so any possible action by the UK Social Services was still only a theory at that point
If they were aware, as you suggest, of the consequences in the UK of leaving 3 little ones alone, then they could fear the Portuguese law was alike.
Title: Re: Was it really just like being in the garden while kids slept upstairs?.
Post by: CPN on September 18, 2013, 10:35:53 PM
If they were aware, as you suggest, of the consequences in the UK of leaving 3 little ones alone, then they could fear the Portuguese law was alike.
True - and much of the action immediately after the disappearance of Madeleine strikes me as efforts to make the best of a bad situation. But I don't know, any more that you or anyone else does.
Incidentally, I have no particular theory as to what happened to Madeleine - I am very much a "don't know"er. My main concern about the case is the neglect, as I see it, and the lack of acknowledgement of the McCanns that they did anything wrong in leaving the children as they did, instead making excuses, which I find very dangerous.
Title: Re: Was it really just like being in the garden while kids slept upstairs?.
Post by: AnneGuedes on September 18, 2013, 11:28:53 PM
Sure. Living the kids alone is one thing, blaming everybody but themselves is another.
Title: Re: Was it really just like being in the garden while kids slept upstairs?.
Post by: Redblossom on September 18, 2013, 11:42:19 PM
Sure. Living the kids alone is one thing, blaming everybody but themselves is another.
Not to mention her denigrating them
Even her own past patients as a gp, one reason she said she didnt go back to work was because she would be annoyed at peoples sob health stories when she had been through so much worse! Or words to that effect havent got the EXACT quote
Title: Re: Was it really just like being in the garden while kids slept upstairs?.
Post by: icabodcrane on September 18, 2013, 11:42:54 PM
But sadie, you did not present 'facts' ... you presented 'presumtions' ( as you frequently do )
I won't deconstruct your post in a piecemeal way, out of kindness, but just to make the point, you suggest that any abductor who entered through the unlocked patio doors would have been 'bathed in light' given that a living room light was on
In 'fact' it was a lamp that stood just outside the children's bedroom
You will recall that as Kate stood at the open bedroom door on her 10pm check she spoke about having to 'look and look' at Madeleine's bed, unable to see whether she was there or not ... and adds that she did not want to turn on the bedroom light for fear of waking the children
You see, this lamp ( that outside the room ) was so dim that it did not even illuminate the room sufficiently to make out whether a child was in the bed or not
You really should not present imaginings as 'fact' and then take other posters to task for not 'disproving' them.
Title: Re: Was it really just like being in the garden while kids slept upstairs?.
Post by: Lyall on September 18, 2013, 11:47:27 PM
Lyall, I have been and eaten at that Tapas restaurant. What they and I could see depended on whether the bushes had just been cut back ... or whether they had grown long and bushy. Greenery grows amazingly fast in PT. There are contemporary photos that show the bushes had just been clipped back at the time of the abduction
Others who say they couldn't see, either went at a time when the bushes were overgrown or viewed the appartment from completely the wrong place.
Virtually all the photographs shown on Mccannfiles etc are taken from a very different viewpoint to that of the actual Mccann and tapas group position. These photographs should be removed as they are disinformation and destructive to sensible debate.
This one photograph says it all. The photograph is taken from in front of the patio windows and where Gerry and Kate and the tapas group sat is clearly visible. If people refuse to accept what this photograph shows, then they are closing their minds
Where we sat we could see virtually the whole of the patio windows. The Mccanns view was not as good as ours, because they were a coupla metres further away, but they could still see most of the patio windows
... and Madeleine could see them in a lit outdoor room * IF * she had exited the apartment. She could see straight thru those railings to the tapas restaurant and the windows were huge . It was well lit. She would immediately see her mum and dad and their friends
The railings were too high for her to fall over, or climb over
Sadie it's not me you have a disagreement with, it's the McCanns.
K McCann writes in her book she believes the abductor could have entered and left via the patio doors.
Do you disagree?
Title: Re: Was it really just like being in the garden while kids slept upstairs?.
Post by: sadie on September 18, 2013, 11:49:45 PM
But sadie, you did not present 'facts' ... you presented 'presumtions' ( as you frequently do )
I won't deconstruct your post in a piecemeal way, out of kindness, but just to make the point, you suggest that any abductor who entered through the unlocked patio doors would have been 'bathed in light' given that a living room light was on
In 'fact' it was a lamp that stood just outside the children's bedroom
You will recall that as Kate stood at the open bedroom door on her 10pm check she spoke about having to 'look and look' at Madeleine's bed, unable to see whether she was there or not ... and adds that she did not want to turn on the bedroom light for fear of waking the children
You see, this lamp ( that outside the room ) was so dim that it did not even illuminate the room sufficiently to make out whether a child was in the bed or not
You really should not present imaginings as 'fact' and then take other posters to task for not 'disproving' them
No Icabod , you are wrong.
I presented facts
Open your mind please and re-read.
Title: Re: Was it really just like being in the garden while kids slept upstairs?.
Post by: icabodcrane on September 18, 2013, 11:54:59 PM
You said that any abductor who entered through the patio doors would have been 'bathed' in the strong light of the living room
That is not a 'fact' that you possibly know ... although you are certainly ignoring the 'fact' that the apartment was so dimly lit Kate could not even make out whether Madeleine was in her bed or not
Title: Re: Was it really just like being in the garden while kids slept upstairs?.
Post by: AnneGuedes on September 19, 2013, 12:09:33 AM
In 'fact' it was a lamp that stood just outside the children's bedroom
That lamp (right corner when entering) was on a low table opposite to the TV set (left corner when entering)
Title: Re: Was it really just like being in the garden while kids slept upstairs?.
Post by: Redblossom on September 19, 2013, 12:32:23 AM
It is absolutely pathetic and ridiculous to the extreme to suggest the mccanns could see their patio , even if they ever looked,let alone in any detail or Madeleine see her parents from there, laughable , and two professionals have proved this too, nite 8-)(--)
Title: Re: Was it really just like being in the garden while kids slept upstairs?.
Post by: sadie on September 19, 2013, 12:34:00 AM
quote author=icabodcrane link=topic=2275.msg74880#msg74880 date=1379544899] [You said that any abductor who entered through the patio doors would have been 'bathed' in the strong light of the living room
Please quote me correctly. In comparison to the less strong light of the street lamp I said it was stronger
That is not a 'fact' that you possibly know I am not stupid Icabod. If he had gone in via that patio door his movement and silhouette would have shown dramatically. The very fact that he had to draw the curtain back in order to enter would have shown dramatically a new oblong of light.. Why would a man risk entering into a lit room where he had to move curtains especially, when he could go in via a door on the front which was not overlooked, totally hidden and in the almost pitch black. You are not stupid either. why are you saying these things? .
... although you are certainly ignoring the 'fact' that the apartment was so dimly lit Kate could not even make out whether Madeleine was in her bed or not. Kate had gone from a lit room into a dark room. Her eyes had to adust ... and as you well know Madeleine was around the corner away from direct light. Kate could see well enough to not understand the change in Madeleines bed.
Try reading Matts statement, Icabod. He had a quick look thru the books on the bookshelf when he checked .... so the light was pretty bright][/quote]
Title: Re: Was it really just like being in the garden while kids slept upstairs?.
Post by: icabodcrane on September 19, 2013, 12:45:23 AM
quote author=icabodcrane link=topic=2275.msg74880#msg74880 date=1379544899] [You said that any abductor who entered through the patio doors would have been 'bathed' in the strong light of the living room
Please quote me correctly. In comparison to the less strong light of the street lamp I said it was stronger
That is not a 'fact' that you possibly know I am not stupid Icabod. If he had gone in via that patio door his movement and silhouette would have shown dramatically. The very fact that he had to draw the curtain back in order to enter would have shown dramatically a new oblong of light.. Why would a man risk entering into a lit room where he had to move curtains especially, when he could go in via a door on the front which was not overlooked, totally hidden and in the almost pitch black. You are not stupid either. why are you saying these things? .
... although you are certainly ignoring the 'fact' that the apartment was so dimly lit Kate could not even make out whether Madeleine was in her bed or not. Kate had gone from a lit room into a dark room. Her eyes had to adust ... and as you well know Madeleine was around the corner away from direct light. Kate could see well enough to not understand the change in Madeleines bed.
Try reading Matts statement, Icabod. He had a quick look thru the books on the bookshelf when he checked .... so the light was pretty bright]
There is no evidence of a 'duplicate key' being used to enter through the front door ... no evidence at all
If you are presenting that as a theory then you must acknowledge that it is not supported by evidence and is based entirely on imagination
Title: Re: Was it really just like being in the garden while kids slept upstairs?.
Post by: sadie on September 19, 2013, 01:01:35 AM
It is absolutely pathetic and ridiculous to the extreme to suggest the mccanns could see their patio , even if they ever looked,let alone in any detail or Madeleine see her parents from there, laughable , and two professionals have proved this too, nite 8-)(--)
Dogs do not understand that what can be seen one way can be seen the other way, but you astound me, Red , that you cant understand that.
I thought that you were quite intelligent, yet when you see from a photograph that Madeleine standing in front of tyhe patio windows could see where Gerry and Kate sat, you cannot understand that The Mccanns could also see Madeleine and the patio windows behind
it is quite laughable that you dont see that. I am sure that any readers will understand, even if you cant.
and btw, please stop using the "loony" and "stupid" sign 8-)(--) ... cos that is what it clearly is. Despite what wec are told, undecided people do NOT have there tongues hanging out the side of their mouths and neither do people do that with their index finger except when insulting. Plaese stop it. It is a sure sign that you have lost the argument ... as readers will understand
Sheer abuse
Title: Re: Was it really just like being in the garden while kids slept upstairs?.
Post by: sadie on September 19, 2013, 01:04:52 AM
There is no evidence of a 'duplicate key' being used to enter through the front door ... no evidence at all
If you are presenting that as a theory then you must acknowledge that it is not supported by evidence and is based entirely on imagination
Two burglaries in the immediately preceeding weeks in OC including the flat immediately above. Entrance was via the front door in each case, with no damage done. A key was used.
Any more indicators needed?
Many people at OC had access to the keys.
Title: Re: Was it really just like being in the garden while kids slept upstairs?.
Post by: John on September 19, 2013, 11:06:51 AM
Having considered the opening post I think Gerry might have got away with drawing a comparison had it been daylight but to attempt to make a comparison for something which occurred in the dark just doesn't cut it.
I do agree with Sadie however that the tapas restaurant can be seen from the balcony of 5a and vice versa but unless you had binoculars it is impossible to pick out any people. It goes without saying that in the dark very little would be visible.
Title: Re: Was it really just like being in the garden while kids slept upstairs?.
Post by: Luz on September 19, 2013, 11:50:05 AM
It wasn't neglect according to the Portuguese law : they didn't deliberately put their children in danger. I really think they behaved like many people do, they were unlucky. Is it worse because they are doctors ? I don't think so. We all have experiences of doctors who hardly listen to you ! The problem is they didn't tell the truth, up to what point I don't know, but that ridiculous forced shutters/window story kommt mir nicht aus dem Sinn. Who could follow such a red herring ? The PJ, anxious to find the little girl and thinking they had misunderstood about the shutters/window.
I'm sorry to disagree with you Anne. It is neglect according to the law - as you know, there are several degrees of neglect - even if a simple neglect. The Attorney General made an elegant excuse to avoid that matter by mentioning that they maintained regular checks, which were never totally proved since the depositions were so contradictory. Some time ago, around the time Madeleine disappeared, a single capverdian mother was summoned to be at Sintra Court for a matter regarding the guard of her children, and as she didn't have anyone to leave her 4 children with she left them at home - the youngest was 7 and the oldest 11 or 12 y.o. Meanwhile a neighbor called the police because the children were making noise. The children were taken from home and put in an institution. The mother was prosecuted and condemned for neglect - sentenced to 18 months suspended imprisonment. (Note: before you ask for doc, I can say there was news in the papers but I am using direct information)
Title: Re: Was it really just like being in the garden while kids slept upstairs?.
Post by: Lyall on September 19, 2013, 12:15:12 PM
Having considered the opening post I think Gerry might have got away with drawing a comparison had it been daylight but to attempt to make a comparison for something which occurred in the dark just doesn't cut it.
I do agree with Sadie however that the tapas restaurant can be seen from the balcony of 5a and vice versa but unless you had binoculars it is impossible to pick out any people. It goes without saying that in the dark very little would be visible.
I agree, and evidence for this is that nobody says they saw Oldfield either going in or coming out through the patio doors. Sadie previously said nobody mentioned seeing him because they didn't think it that important, but his check could hardly be more crucial - and everybody there that night knew it.
Title: Re: Was it really just like being in the garden while kids slept upstairs?.
Post by: Angelo222 on September 19, 2013, 03:34:30 PM
And can I add that the street light didn't illuminate all the steps as it was slightly offset. If I remember correctly we have already seen a photo taken at the time showing that only the first three or four steps at the bottom were lit by the streetlight. I do agree that it is more than likely that the front door was used though. The carrier walked out of it carrying Madeleine horizontally in his arms so who closed it or did he do that trick with his foot? Remember that nobody else was lurking about as Tanner would have seen them.
Title: Re: Was it really just like being in the garden while kids slept upstairs?.
Post by: sadie on September 19, 2013, 06:15:42 PM
Sadie it's not me you have a disagreement with, it's the McCanns.
K McCann writes in her book she believes the abductor could have entered and left via the patio doors.
Do you disagree?
What Kate thinks is irrelevant in this instant. She has been influenced by gossip and deliberate disinformation.
FGS, she even said in the book that the tapas was over a 100 yards away from 5A. We all know that is incorrerct and the distance she gave is well over twice the actual distance, which is a little over 50 metres..
Once again she was influenced by disinformation ... and being such an honest woman, unaware that she could measure the actual distance using Google earth, she accepted the lies she was being told as the truth.
I work things out for myself ... and logically .... using facts
I know that i could be wrong at times ... and am always prepared to change direction if someone presents information that shows me wrong
I stand by what I said about the patio doors being the way was unlikely I stand by what i said about nobody passing thru the bedroom window
I stand by the fact that the Front door, being totally out of view, with no-one passing by and in almost complete darkness ... also having been used for entry in two recent burglaries in OC, using a key, is the most likely way in and out.
Please prove me wrong !
The abduction itself would have taken less than a minute
Title: Re: Was it really just like being in the garden while kids slept upstairs?.
Post by: Lyall on September 19, 2013, 06:32:31 PM
No need to prove anything. The statements from 2007 are evidence enough that you're wrong. It's one thing to say that by 2011 somebody's memory may have been influenced, but of course that doesn't apply to the statements given at the time to the police.
Can you find anything in those statements that will support your claim about how much those nine people could see?
Title: Re: Was it really just like being in the garden while kids slept upstairs?.
Post by: icabodcrane on September 19, 2013, 06:38:22 PM
What Kate thinks is irrelevant in this instant. She has been influenced by gossip and deliberate disinformation.
What gossip and deliberate disinformation lead Kate to think ( wrongly, you suggest ) that the unlocked patio doors may have been used by the abductor ?
In what way was she misinformed and by whom ?
Title: Re: Was it really just like being in the garden while kids slept upstairs?.
Post by: sadie on September 20, 2013, 12:45:00 AM
No need to prove anything. The statements from 2007 are evidence enough that you're wrong. It's one thing to say that by 2011 somebody's memory may have been influenced, but of course that doesn't apply to the statements given at the time to the police.
Can you find anything in those statements that will support your claim about how much those nine people could see?
Please identify the statements that provide evidence that I am wrong.
As for seeing, I was there in 2010 eating at the very same tapas restaurant ... and i KNOW what was visible.
I also am aware of all the disinformation given out in the form of photographs taken from entirely the WRONG place .... in addition to growth on the bushes being entirely ignored. I cannot re-iterate enough, how important it is to consider how the rapid growth of bushes caused clear lines of sight to become blocked.
Title: Re: Was it really just like being in the garden while kids slept upstairs?.
Post by: icabodcrane on September 20, 2013, 12:50:44 AM
Please identify the statements that provide evidence that I am wrong.
As for seeing, I was there in 2010 eating at the very same tapas restaurant ... and i KNOW what was visible.
I also am aware of all the disinformation given out in the form of photographs taken from entirely the WRONG place .... in addition to growth on the bushes being entirely ignored. I cannot re-iterate enough, how important it is to consider how the rapid growth of bushes caused clear lines of sight to become blocked.
But sadie ... you were not there in 2007
You have no idea what condition the foliage was in, or what the lighting was like, or what was visible at that point in time and what was not
You can 'imagine' that everything was exactly as your theory demands ... but you do not know
Title: Re: Was it really just like being in the garden while kids slept upstairs?.
Post by: Lyall on September 20, 2013, 12:57:27 AM
Please identify the statements that provide evidence that I am wrong.
As for seeing, I was there in 2010 eating at the very same tapas restaurant ... and i KNOW what was visible.
I also am aware of all the disinformation given out in the form of photographs taken from entirely the WRONG place .... in addition to growth on the bushes being entirely ignored. I cannot re-iterate enough, how important it is to consider how the rapid growth of bushes caused clear lines of sight to become blocked.
In their statements (the May 2007 ones) do any of the nine mention how much of that apartment they could see from the restaurant? Do any of them mention having seen Oldfield going in through or coming out from the patio doors?
Title: Re: Was it really just like being in the garden while kids slept upstairs?.
Post by: sadie on September 20, 2013, 01:41:13 AM
In their statements (the May 2007 ones) do any of the nine mention how much of that apartment they could see from the restaurant? Do any of them mention having seen Oldfield going in through or coming out from the patio doors?
I asked you to provide evidence that I am wrong. Please do that.
You stated that I was wrong ... and by implication a liar.
Have you been there when the bushes were newly cut ... and sat and looked hard to see what you could see of the patio windows?
Title: Re: Was it really just like being in the garden while kids slept upstairs?.
Post by: icabodcrane on September 20, 2013, 01:46:07 AM
You have no idea what condition the foliage was in, or what the lighting was like, or what was visible at that point in time and what was not
As I have shown several times before with contemporary photographs, the bushes had JUST been clipped back.
I know exactly where the lighting was and where it shone. I know that new lighting has been fitted which is more powerful ... but I do know that the patio area was bathed in light and much of the steps up also illuminated.
I also know that the sitting room was quite well lit, because Matt stopped to look at the books on the book ?shelves Sorry am unable to remember if they were on the shelves, or on a table, but that is not important. What is important is that the light was good enough for him to notice them and to stop and look at what they were about.
As the curtains were moved back, if bundleman had entered that way, a huge new rectangle of light would have shone out ... and he would have been silhouetted
As I have shown several times before with contemporaray photographs, the bushes had JUST been clipped back.
I know exactly where the lighting was and where it shone. I know that new lighting has been fitted which is more powerful ... but I do know that the patio area was bathed in light and much of the steps up also illuminated.
I also know that the sitting room was quite well lit, because Matt stopped to look at the books on the book ?shelves Sorry am unable to remember if they were on the shelves or on a table, but that is not important. What is important is that the light was good enough for him to notice them and to stop and look at what they were about.
As the curtains were moved back, if bundleman had entered that way a huge new rectangle of light would have shone out ... and he would have been silhouttted
Icabod, of course I dont KNOW for sure, but everything fits .... everything.
Can you supply na theory where everything fits?
oh for heaven's sake sadie !
I could sit here and 'make up a story' where everything 'fitted' ( that no-one could disprove ) ... it would still just be a made up story though, wouldn't it ?
I am sorry, I don't mean to be unkind ( I really don't ) but I feel that indulging your imaginings is not doing you justice and is frankly, rather cruel
Title: Re: Was it really just like being in the garden while kids slept upstairs?.
Post by: sadie on September 20, 2013, 02:26:01 AM
I could sit here and 'make up a story' where everything 'fitted' ( that no-one could disprove ) ... it would still just be a made up story though, wouldn't it ?
I am sorry, I don't mean to be unkind ( I really don't ) but I feel that indulging your imaginings is not doing you justice and is frankly, rather cruel
Please explain the cruelty bit.
Have NEVER been called cruel before
Oh and are you saying that I cannot express the things that I have noticed that lead me to think that the front door was used rather than the patio door.
Why does it matter so very much to you that the patio door wasn't used? There has to be a reason !
Title: Re: Was it really just like being in the garden while kids slept upstairs?.
Post by: icabodcrane on September 20, 2013, 02:31:04 AM
Oh and are you saying that I cannot express the things that I have noticed that lead me to think that the front door was used rather than the patio door.
Why does it matter so very much to you that the patio door wasn't used? There has to be a reason !
oh no no ... you misunderstand
I feel it would be cruel of me to indulge your imaginings as though they were valid
Title: Re: Was it really just like being in the garden while kids slept upstairs?.
Post by: sadie on September 20, 2013, 02:45:50 AM
I feel it would be cruel of me to indulge your imaginings as though they were valid
All my so-called "imaginings" are based on fact .... something that there is a shortage of, on the sceptic/anti side They are based on fact that can be checked. Please invalidate them logically, if you are able.
Dont worry Icabod. I dont need your "indulgence". @)(++(*
Why is it so important to you that the way in could only be via the patio door? There has to be a reason.
Can we have that reason please?
Title: Re: Was it really just like being in the garden while kids slept upstairs?.
Post by: icabodcrane on September 20, 2013, 02:51:41 AM
All my so-called "imaginings" are based on fact .... something that there is a shortage of, on the sceptic/anti side They are based on fact that can be checked. Please invalidate them logically, if you are able.
Dont worry Icabod. I dont need your "indulgence". @)(++(*
Why is it so important to you that the way in could only be via the patio door? There has to be a reason.
Can we have that reason please?
What do you think the reason is sadie ?
Do you think it is because I am afraid you are 'on to something' ? ... something that I want to keep secret, because I am 'in on it' in some way and want to cover up whatever awful fate befell that poor little girl ?
Is that what you think ?
Title: Re: Was it really just like being in the garden while kids slept upstairs?.
Post by: sadie on September 20, 2013, 03:33:05 AM
Do you think it is because I am afraid you are 'on to something' ? ... something that I want to keep secret, because I am 'in on it' in some way and want to cover up whatever awful fate befell that poor little girl ?
Is that what you think ?
I have asked you twice for your reasons for being so keen that the patio door was the way in ... and why you think that I am wrong about the front door. You have to have a reason to be so determined about it. That reason is all I am asking.
Please your considered response ... not asking me again.
Your reasons are what would be interesting now. Surely that is not asking too much?
Title: Re: Was it really just like being in the garden while kids slept upstairs?.
Post by: icabodcrane on September 20, 2013, 03:44:15 AM
I have asked you twice for your reasons for being so keen that the patio door was the way in ... and why you think that I am wrong about the front door. You have to have a reason to be so determined about it. That reason is all I am asking.
Please your considered response ... not asking me again.
Your reasons are what would be interesting now. Surely that is not asking too much?
It's very late and I've had a few beers
There is every chance that I will be a bit too frank with you, and in the morning I will read back and think, "oh Icabod, why were you so mean ?"
So I'll logout instead
goodnight sadie ... sleep well
Title: Re: Was it really just like being in the garden while kids slept upstairs?.
Post by: Lyall on September 20, 2013, 10:57:42 AM
I asked you to provide evidence that I am wrong. Please do that.
You stated that I was wrong ... and by implication a liar.
Have you been there when the bushes were newly cut ... and sat and looked hard to see what you could see of the patio windows?
You being absurd Sadie, and stubborn. Of course nobody would sit with a group of friends and instead of interacting stare at a distant point all night.
But of course you know best. Better than the witnesses from the night. Better than the police.
Title: Re: Was it really just like being in the garden while kids slept upstairs?.
Post by: Lyall on September 20, 2013, 11:05:28 AM
You said it yourself, you "sat and looked hard". You really think they'd be doing that for a solid hour?
I was assessing exactly what I could see, to remember it accurately. I was also noticing the rest of the Tapas restaurant
Of course they didn't sit and stare for an hour.
However, had a new oblong of light shown at the Mccanns patio door, or movement happened on the street light flooded patio, there was a very good chance one of these alert people would have noticed.
Why are you so keen that the only way in was via the patio door, when the front door is so obvious? There has to be a reason.
Title: Re: Was it really just like being in the garden while kids slept upstairs?.
Post by: icabodcrane on September 20, 2013, 09:19:54 PM
I was assessing exactly what I could see, to remember it accurately. I was also noticing the rest of the Tapas restaurant
Of course they didn't sit and stare for an hour.
However, had a new oblong of light shown at the Mccanns patio door, or movement happened on the street light flooded patio, there was a very good chance one of these alert people would have noticed.
Why are you so keen that the only way in was via the patio door, when the front door is so obvious? There has to be a reason.
There is evidence that the patio doors may have been used ... that evidence is the McCanns saying they were left unlocked ( so no break-in or forced entry necessary )
There is no evidence at all that a front door key was used
You may imagine that a key was used ... but there is simply no physical evidence to support it
Title: Re: Was it really just like being in the garden while kids slept upstairs?.
Post by: LagosBen on September 20, 2013, 09:27:52 PM
There is evidence that the patio doors may have been used ... that evidence is the McCanns saying they were left unlocked ( so no break-in or forced entry necessary )
There is no evidence at all that a front door key was used
You may imagine that a key was used ... but there is simply no physical evidence to support it
The door was faulty read the statements of the occupants a couple of weeks prior to the McCanns. The area was hidden and dark.The front door would seem the obvious entry and exit point -hence the window opened to check movements outside imo.
Title: Re: Was it really just like being in the garden while kids slept upstairs?.
Post by: sadie on September 20, 2013, 09:31:12 PM
There is every chance that I will be a bit too frank with you, and in the morning I will read back and think, "oh Icabod, why were you so mean ?"
So I'll logout instead
goodnight sadie ... sleep well
Thankyou Icabod. Went to bed at almost 4am and up at 8am as always to inject. Had three bouts of cramp in what was left of the night. Otherwise pretty good @)(++(*. Have caught up a bit now tho.
And you? Bet you slept like a log after beers? Hope so
This is the fourth time of asking. Would you be so kind as to give me your reasons for being so keen that the patio door was the way in ... and why you think that I am wrong about the front door. You have to have a reason to be so determined about it. That reason is all I am asking.
Please your considered response ... not asking me again.
Your reasons are what would be interesting now. I think you will agree that I have done my part ... and you have promised.
Look forward to your response
sadie x
ETA: Just read your very recent post.
Are you honestly telling me that the reason you have given is the reason you are SO convinced?
That you cant consider a bit further?
How's about the two burglaries in the immediately preceding weeks via the front door? No damage to the doors, so a key obvioosly used.
What about the lighting illuminatiing the patio and the new oblong of quite strong light had the patio door been entered and the curtain pulled back
How about Amaral stating that no abductor would have entered via the front door as it was too close to the group, and overlooked, at only 50 metres?
What you have said is, sorry to say, really weak. Something more robust if you dont mind Icabod.
Either that, or please refrain from undermining my thoughts and observations ... that have far more strength .... and likelyhood
Title: Re: Was it really just like being in the garden while kids slept upstairs?.
Post by: icabodcrane on September 20, 2013, 09:36:10 PM
The door was faulty read the statements of the occupants a couple of weeks prior to the McCanns. The area was hidden and dark.The front door would seem the obvious entry and exit point -hence the window opened to check movements outside imo.
It does not matter how 'obvious' the front door may appear to some to be the point of entry ( using a key ) ... there is simply no evidence to support the suggestion
The evidence we DO have is that the window was opened and the shutter raised, and if it were not for the fact that forensic examination rules the window out as point of entry it would certainly be the most 'obvious'
The only other evidence is that the patio doors had been left unlocked
Title: Re: Was it really just like being in the garden while kids slept upstairs?.
Post by: LagosBen on September 20, 2013, 09:39:53 PM
It does not matter how 'obvious' the front door may appear to some to be the point of entry ( using a key ) ... there is simply no evidence to support the suggestion
The evidence we DO have is that the window was opened and the shutter raised, and if it were not for the fact that forensic examination rules the window out as point of entry it would certainly be the most 'obvious'
The only other evidence is that the patio doors had been left unlocked
Has Amaral ever commented on the fact that the front door could be opened by the cleaners easily, even though the previous occupants said they had locked it from the inside. In fact apart from a video showing one guy with a credit card at the front door, was much in the way of forensics actually carried out on that front door?
Title: Re: Was it really just like being in the garden while kids slept upstairs?.
Post by: icabodcrane on September 20, 2013, 09:41:52 PM
Thankyou Icabod. Went to bed at almost 4am and up at 8am as always to inject. Had three bouts of cramp in what was left of the night. Otherwise pretty good @)(++(*. Have caught up a bit now tho.
And you? Bet you slept like a log after beers? Hope so
This is the fourth time of asking. Would you be so kind as to give me your reasons for being so keen that the patio door was the way in ... and why you think that I am wrong about the front door. You have to have a reason to be so determined about it. That reason is all I am asking.
Please your considered response ... not asking me again.
Your reasons are what would be interesting now. I think you will agree that I have done my part ... and you have promised.
Look forward to your response
sadie x
ETA: Just read your very recent post.
Are you honestly telling me that the reason you have given is the reason you are SO convinced?
That you cant consider a bit further?
How's about the two burglaries in the immediately preceding weeks via the front door? No damage to the doors, so a key obvioosly used.
What about the lighting illuminatiing the patio and the new oblong of quite strong light had the patio door been entered and the curtain pulled back
How about Amaral stating that no abductor would have entered via the front door as it was too close to the group, and overlooked, at only 50 metres?
What you have said is, sorry to say, really weak. Something more robust if you dont mind Icabod.
Either that, or please refrain from undermining my thoughts and observations ... that have far more strength .... and likelyhood
oh I am far from convinced that an abductor entered through the patio doors ... or by any other way
If there were an abductor though, then I would say the patio doors, which presented no obstacle, having been left unlocked, is the most obvious choice
As to those burglaries you mention ( where front door keys were used ) where did you get that information ?
Are the police reports available to read somewhere ?
Title: Re: Was it really just like being in the garden while kids slept upstairs?.
Post by: sadie on September 20, 2013, 09:48:00 PM
The door was faulty read the statements of the occupants a couple of weeks prior to the McCanns. The area was hidden and dark.The front door would seem the obvious entry and exit point -hence the window opened to check movements outside imo.
I have read that. But the door could be locked so that no-body could get in without a key. The maids had a key, as in all hotels / serviced apartments. They were at fault in not knocking. I am wondering if the occupants had never stayed in a serviced appartment/ hotel room before? Bad that the maids did not knock first tho
You are right, the front door is a burglars paradise, especially with a key. Tucked away out of sight, nobody passing, and very very dark. And also behind a wall that must , from memory, be at least chest height.
So easy to bob down or drift into the recess if anyone approached.
Another interesting thing is that if anyone looked as tho they were coming into that long curved walkway at the middle of the building, the curve of that walled pathway meant that any burgalr could vault the chest high wall out of sight of the approaching person. The approaching person wouldn't even be aware that anyone had been there
If the worst happened then a fit man could vault the wall into the street Jane walked up. Quite a drop tho.
Title: Re: Was it really just like being in the garden while kids slept upstairs?.
Post by: Benita on September 20, 2013, 09:57:58 PM
The door was faulty the window was faulty ? how safe was anyone who stayed in those apartments ?
Title: Re: Was it really just like being in the garden while kids slept upstairs?.
Post by: Lyall on September 20, 2013, 09:59:47 PM
I was assessing exactly what I could see, to remember it accurately. I was also noticing the rest of the Tapas restaurant
Of course they didn't sit and stare for an hour.
However, had a new oblong of light shown at the Mccanns patio door, or movement happened on the street light flooded patio, there was a very good chance one of these alert people would have noticed.
Why are you so keen that the only way in was via the patio door, when the front door is so obvious? There has to be a reason.
Accuracy of the picture, that's the only reason. It's important not to minimise the truth about how much of them could be seen from the Tapas. That's the point, and it's one K McCann doesn't deny in the book. You're not helping her by disputing what she says herself (which is also what every other source says, apart from yourself).
Title: Re: Was it really just like being in the garden while kids slept upstairs?.
Post by: sadie on September 20, 2013, 10:12:38 PM
Accuracy of the picture, that's the only reason. It's important not to minimise the truth about how much of them could be seen from the Tapas. That's the point, and it's one K McCann doesn't deny in the book. You're not helping her by disputing what she says herself (which is also what every other source says, apart from yourself).
Sorry you are taking this approach. Have you been there when the bushes were freshly cut back and looked?
Why does it worry you so much that the patio door would have ben used rather than the front door?
Pls can I have your reason?
Title: Re: Was it really just like being in the garden while kids slept upstairs?.
Post by: icabodcrane on September 20, 2013, 10:19:18 PM
Sorry you are taking this approach. Have you been there when the bushes were freshly cut back and looked?
Why does it worry you so much that the patio door would have ben used rather than the front door?
Pls can I have your reason?
You pose that same question over and over sadie
Do you realise it is not a question of 'choosing' between the patio door and the front door, as if it merely a matter of preference ... it is about evidence
The patio doors were left unlocked. An intruder could have walked in with ease ... and we don't have to invent duplicate keys
Title: Re: Was it really just like being in the garden while kids slept upstairs?.
Post by: Lyall on September 20, 2013, 10:39:37 PM
Sorry you are taking this approach. Have you been there when the bushes were freshly cut back and looked?
Why does it worry you so much that the patio door would have ben used rather than the front door?
Pls can I have your reason?
I just gave it. Accuracy.
You've agreed diners wouldn't keep their eyes on the apartment during that hour. K McCann doesn't deny somebody other than Oldfield could have entered via the patio doors without being noticed (as it appears Oldfield himself wasn't - you dodged that fact). You are the only person who does deny it.
Can you point to anyone else who says the same thing? An awful lot of people have studied this case as we know - professionals, former policemen, experienced journalists etc. Can you point to any who agree with you?
Title: Re: Was it really just like being in the garden while kids slept upstairs?.
Post by: sadie on September 21, 2013, 12:03:30 AM
You've agreed diners wouldn't keep their eyes on the apartment during that hour. K McCann doesn't deny somebody other than Oldfield could have entered via the patio doors without being noticed (as it appears Oldfield himself wasn't - you dodged that fact). You are the only person who does deny it.
Can you point to anyone else who says the same thing? An awful lot of people have studied this case as we know - professionals, former policemen, experienced journalists etc. Can you point to any who agree with you?
you are twisting my words yet again. Please do not twist them. It is dishonest.
What I actually said was
Quote
Of course they didn't sit and stare for an hour.
However, had a new oblong of light shown at the Mccanns patio door, or movement happened on the street light flooded patio, there was a very good chance one of these alert people would have noticed.
I am an independant thinker Lyall and i explore avenues others dont think to explore.
For instance despite great ridicule, I was the first to use modern technology, it seems. Google earth presented lots of new perspectives. I was the first to be able to measure distances, the first to link places to their correct locations, the first to regress images to see what was before.
Nobody knew where Campanha was, nor Masserelos, nor Porto das Grutas etc. etc.
G Earth opened lots of doors for me, linking things that others had no idea about. A brilliant tool. I also used Google and that revealed things others never knew.
Then I went out to PT looking. I went particularly because I noticed anomolies in Processos and also in Pamalam translations. One translation changed as I watched it. In only a minor way, but it changed and I have copies of both versions. Their meanings are subtly different.
I am not prepared to reveal other things that I found, but they were very revealing and original to my research That unusual research led me to things that mean that I think I know who did it ... or should I say who was behind this abduction.
But they are private to me and SY ... and i always know that i could be wrong. I am not set like some of you; I hone my theories and thoughts as i go along.
I am still waiting for one of you to come up with something solid and based on fact, instead of all these baseless suspicions and accusations made against The Mccanns.
Anything sensible and i will listen ... and if it has sufficient substance, I will take it to SY for you.
Title: Re: Was it really just like being in the garden while kids slept upstairs?.
Post by: Lyall on September 21, 2013, 12:58:21 AM
It will have to wait until after the trial Sadie, or we'll be evidence and front page news too. But there are more theories than you seem to be considering. 8(0(*
Title: Re: Was it really just like being in the garden while kids slept upstairs?.
Post by: Lyall on September 21, 2013, 01:02:05 AM
But you are still sidestepping how Oldfield used the patio doors unnoticed when, according to you, it would have been so noticeable to the diners.
Title: Re: Was it really just like being in the garden while kids slept upstairs?.
Post by: Redblossom on September 21, 2013, 01:05:14 AM
The window was faulty? how? In any case does it matter if they purposely left the patio doors to the flat OPEN?
Youre havin a laugh trying to blame the resort @)(++(*
sorry I should of said the shutters not the window ..it was supposed to of been repaired 2 days before madeleine went missing ..there no need for you to be rude and cheeky
Title: Re: Was it really just like being in the garden while kids slept upstairs?.
Post by: Redblossom on September 21, 2013, 01:20:59 AM
sorry I should of said the shutters not the window ..it was supposed to of been repaired 2 days before madeleine went missing ..there no need for you to be rude and cheeky
I suggest you read the police files yourself instead of repeating utter rubbish
the shutters WERE repaired in flat 5a on tuesday may 1st and they were the shutters on the parents bedroom not the kids bedroom, so? people staying there BROKE THEM
Title: Re: Was it really just like being in the garden while kids slept upstairs?.
Post by: sadie on September 21, 2013, 01:28:53 AM
But you are still sidestepping how Oldfield used the patio doors unnoticed when, according to you, it would have been so noticeable to the diners.
What your lack of comprehension of hiuman behaviour is missing is that people do not mention everything. Cos it wasn't said (I am taking your word and I am not sure I should) doesn't mean it didn't happen.
You do realse that everyone was expecting Matt to open that sliding door and go thru. It wasn't something unusual. It probably didn;t even register because it was expected. even if it did register, why had anyone any need to mention it?
Now had a lighted rectangle suddenly appearing when no-body was visiting, that almost certainly would have registereed and caused concern
Thinking cap on pls, Lyall. You have made thius mistake before, I think. Commonplace or expected things just DO NOT register. The unexpected does,
Title: Re: Was it really just like being in the garden while kids slept upstairs?.
Post by: Redblossom on September 21, 2013, 01:29:47 AM
your not worth my energy you should be reported for the rubbish you utter insulting little b*tch
Oh right so you bring up the shutters and some story and i correct you but now im insulting for doing so? THis IS a debate board you know LoooooL if you dont like facts then just dont debate any of them simples, oooh at insulting little bitch nerves hit for some reason lool sad
Title: Re: Was it really just like being in the garden while kids slept upstairs?.
Post by: icabodcrane on September 21, 2013, 01:31:13 AM
Gerry broke the shutters in his and Kate's bedroom ( due to his heavy-handedness according to Kate )
The shutters were repaired whilst Kate was in the apartment ( she was shown how to operate the washing machine at the same time )
Thank you Icab, far cry from the insinuated mark warner renting out unsafe flats!!! Sigh, reminds me of a complaint in kate mccanns book, so many flats had iron railings all over the windows for safety ours didnt LooooL couldnt make it up could you
Nite nite @)(++(*
Title: Re: Was it really just like being in the garden while kids slept upstairs?.
Post by: sadie on September 21, 2013, 01:35:25 AM
What your lack of comprehension of hiuman behaviour is missing is that people do not mention everything. Cos it wasn't said (I am taking your word and I am not sure I should) doesn't mean it didn't happen.
You do realse that everyone was expecting Matt to open that sliding door and go thru. It wasn't something unusual. It probably didn;t even register because it was expected. even if it did register, why had anyone any need to mention it?
Now had a lighted rectangle suddenly appearing when no-body was visiting, that almost certainly would have registereed and caused concern
Thinking cap on pls, Lyall. You have made thius mistake before, I think. Commonplace or expected things just DO NOT register. The unexpected does,
Such a crucial event and nobody mentions seeing it? Nah. Far, far more likely they didn't mention seeing it (assuming it did actually take place) because they simply couldn't.
Title: Re: Was it really just like being in the garden while kids slept upstairs?.
Post by: Benita on September 21, 2013, 01:39:28 AM
The patio doors were left CLOSED ... but unlocked ... totally different scenario ... more myth and mischief making.
FGS tell the truth, Red.
That's right sadie ... the patio doors were left unlocked
Off Kate and Gerry went down the road that night, to meet their mates ... leaving behind them three infants under the age of four in an 'unlocked' apartment
That is the scenario we are discussing
Title: Re: Was it really just like being in the garden while kids slept upstairs?.
Post by: sadie on September 21, 2013, 01:51:37 AM
Such a crucial event and nobody mentions seeing it? Nah. Far, far more likely they didn't mention seeing it (assuming it did actually take place) because they simply couldn't.
Rubbish.
Go there and check, but make it is just after the bushes have been trimmed. And make sure that you look from the right spot.
Not like most of the photos in Mccannfiles; they are pure disinformation and propaganda. Photos take from all the wrong places giving a completely false image.
I think you have been wumming so much that it is time to repost the photograph from outside the patio windows which PROVES what The Mccanns could see ... and that you are WRONG
Taken from outside the patio window. The Mccanns and friends sat immediately behind the pool in the RH picture window.
This image unfortunately was taken when the shrubs needed cutting back. From contemporary photos, it can be seen that the shrubs had just been cut back at the time of the abduction, so the visibility of the patio was noticeably greater
Title: Re: Was it really just like being in the garden while kids slept upstairs?.
Post by: Redblossom on September 21, 2013, 01:52:33 AM
That's right sadie ... the patio doors were left unlocked
Off Kate and Gerry went down the road that night, to meet their mates ... leaving behind them three infants under the age of four in an 'unlocked' apartment
That is the scenario we are discussing
Those are the FACTS, and also in a situation where they couldnt see or hear them, but alledgedly played musical chairs all night checking, and according to gerry he made NO VISUAL CHECKS ever apart from his last night 9 pm or so check, so anything could have happend to them and theyd be none the wiser
Kate Mccann suggests she did the same, if there was no crying, she wouldnt bother look in, sad
Title: Re: Was it really just like being in the garden while kids slept upstairs?.
Post by: Lyall on September 21, 2013, 01:57:06 AM
That's deflection, Sadie. The 9.30 check (assuming it did actually occur) is so crucial to what they told the police, their families and rest of the world yet nobody mentions seeing it in their statements.
That's evidence we are correct, and you are wrong.
Title: Re: Was it really just like being in the garden while kids slept upstairs?.
Post by: sadie on September 21, 2013, 02:00:54 AM
That's right sadie ... the patio doors were left unlocked
Off Kate and Gerry went down the road that night, to meet their mates ... leaving behind them three infants under the age of four in an 'unlocked' apartment
That is the scenario we are discussing
Just 50 metres away with a lit area immediately outside and a curtain that had to be drawn back revealing a well lit room, so that anyone going in would not only create a big rectangle of moving light, but also be silhouetted. With frequent checks better than most hotels and holiday camps.
Even Amaral said they were too close at 50 metres for anyone to risk going in that way.
I repeat that
Even Amaral, your GOD, said that Kate and Gerry and group were so close that no-body would risk going in that way
Why are you disbelieving your superhuman GOD, Icabod?
is it because you are finally acknowledging that he tells lies?
Title: Re: Was it really just like being in the garden while kids slept upstairs?.
Post by: Lyall on September 21, 2013, 02:02:20 AM
You didn't provide evidence of where he said that when previously asked Sadie, not when asked by me anyway.
Title: Re: Was it really just like being in the garden while kids slept upstairs?.
Post by: Lyall on September 21, 2013, 02:05:11 AM
As you said yourself you had to be looking hard to see, but when people weren't paying attention it was likely not as easy for movement to be detected as you want to think.
Title: Re: Was it really just like being in the garden while kids slept upstairs?.
Post by: Redblossom on September 21, 2013, 02:11:10 AM
As you said yourself you had to be looking hard to see, but when people weren't paying attention it was likely not as easy for movement to be detected as you want to think.
The argument is ridiculous in its base, if any parent was looking at their apartment in case their kids got out would have taken them with them in the first bkeedin place and let them sleep in their prams or just not go out, sheesh...and yes they would NEVER sit there eyes glued tothe place every second dear god hilarious and stupid
Enough delirious rubbish for one day
Title: Re: Was it really just like being in the garden while kids slept upstairs?.
Post by: sadie on September 21, 2013, 02:13:32 AM
Those are the FACTS, and also in a situation where they couldnt see or hear them, but alledgedly played musical chairs all night checking, and according to gerry he made NO VISUAL CHECKS ever apart from his last night 9 pm or so check, so anything could have happend to them and theyd be none the wiser
Stupid comment Red
They only arrived at the restaurant at about 8.30-8.35. He made his check at about 9.05 and visually checked. Matt visually checked, (but didn't enter the room so missed Madeleine,) at about 9.30, having made a listening check at 9pm. Kate made a visual check at !0.00pm to find Madeleine gone
Why are you wumming, over and over the same stuff.
The checks were made at better than half hour intervals and were much better than the then commonplace listening checks made by strangers at hotels all around the world.
Since Madeleine went missing, hotels generally are no longer offering this service, but millions of people must have availed themselves of such service for deecades, probably centuries ... and all over the world
Title: Re: Was it really just like being in the garden while kids slept upstairs?.
Post by: sadie on September 21, 2013, 02:15:12 AM
As you said yourself you had to be looking hard to see, but when people weren't paying attention it was likely not as easy for movement to be detected as you want to think.
I have answered this three or four times already on this thread. Just stop the wumming
Large rectangles of ight suddenly appearing would attract attention
Just stop the time wasting.
Title: Re: Was it really just like being in the garden while kids slept upstairs?.
Post by: John on September 21, 2013, 02:24:56 AM
A minor point here but I have always wondered why Kate never once went to check on the kids after they arrived at the tapas at around 8.30pm? An hour and a half seems a bit excessive in any circumstances for a mother. Could be she blames herself for the events.
Title: Re: Was it really just like being in the garden while kids slept upstairs?.
Post by: icabodcrane on September 21, 2013, 02:25:45 AM
Nor was I given an answer when I asked sadie where the information about burglaries using front door keys came from
Have you no reasoning skills, Icabod?
Entry to an upstairs flat, necessarily via the front door cos the windows were inaccessible. The door was undamaged. Do you think the burglars were wizards, or something? Out of Harry potter?
How the hell do you think they got in via a locked door with no damage to the door? Either keys or a skilled lock picker .... abit risking to be in a block of flats picking locks, dont you think? Especially as in holiday flats the pickings were likely to be poor.
Use that brain of yours. You are no idiot, but seems you like to appear one.
Title: Re: Was it really just like being in the garden while kids slept upstairs?.
Post by: sadie on September 21, 2013, 02:33:43 AM
A minor point here but I have always wondered why Kate never once went to check on the kids after they arrived at the tapas at around 8.30pm? An hour and a half seems a bit excessive in any circumstances for a mother. Could be she blames herself for the events.
Oh, John ... How sexist.
Didn't expect that of you.
Title: Re: Was it really just like being in the garden while kids slept upstairs?.
Post by: John on September 21, 2013, 02:37:16 AM
How is it sexist Sadie? It is a factual comment followed by a speculation.
Title: Re: Was it really just like being in the garden while kids slept upstairs?.
Post by: icabodcrane on September 21, 2013, 02:37:46 AM
Entry to an upstairs flat, necessarily via the front door cos the windows were inaccessible. The door was undamaged. Do you think the burglars were wizards, or something? Out of Harry potter?
How the hell do you think they got in via a locked door with no damage to the door? Either keys or a skilled lock picker .... abit risking to be in a block of flats picking locks, dont you think? Especially as in holiday flats the pickings were likely to be poor.
Use that brain of yours. You are no idiot, but seems you like to appear one.
ahh, I see
There IS no actual evidence that front door keys were used in burglaries in the resort .... that is just something else you 'imagine' happened
Which is fine sadie ... you are free to imagine anything you like, but you really shouldn't present it as though it were something that has been established as fact
Title: Re: Was it really just like being in the garden while kids slept upstairs?.
Post by: sadie on September 21, 2013, 02:48:07 AM
There IS no actual evidence that front door keys were used in burglaries in the resort .... that is just something else you 'imagine' happened
Which is fine sadie ... you are free to imagine anything you like, but you really shouldn't present it as though it were something that has been established as fact
Time to use your brains, Icabod.
Have realised that you dont have much logic, but now you are being silly.
Nit picking ... very silly.
Somebody picking locks in a block of flats with little to gain? Potentially trapped on an upper floor, whilst you are trying to pick those locks? You have seen the keys?
Would be rather tricky, dont you think, with all those levers around the central shaft. Use those brains, Icabod.
Why is it that you are so keen that the front door wasn't used? You haven't properly explained that ... you have just waffled.
Some sound reason please Icabod.
Title: Re: Was it really just like being in the garden while kids slept upstairs?.
Post by: John on September 21, 2013, 03:03:02 AM
Please behave girls...some of us are trying to sleep!!!! (http://images.zaazu.com/img/sleep-anim-male-sleep-sleeping-smiley-emoticon-000368-medium.gif)
Title: Re: Was it really just like being in the garden while kids slept upstairs?.
Post by: icabodcrane on September 21, 2013, 03:15:28 AM
Have realised that you dont have much logic, but now you are being silly.
Nit picking ... very silly.
Somebody picking locks in a block of flats with little to gain? Potentially trapped on an upper floor, whilst you are trying to pick those locks? You have seen the keys?
Please behave girls...some of us are trying to sleep!!!! (http://images.zaazu.com/img/sleep-anim-male-sleep-sleeping-smiley-emoticon-000368-medium.gif)
Get your head down John ... you deserve some kip after all the work you've been doing with Anne's reports
very grateful here 8@??)(
Title: Re: Was it really just like being in the garden while kids slept upstairs?.
Post by: Lyall on September 21, 2013, 10:56:10 AM
I have answered this three or four times already on this thread. Just stop the wumming
Large rectangles of ight suddenly appearing would attract attention
Just stop the time wasting.
As I have explained evidence (i.e. police statements, all of them) suggest this isn't true, because nobody saw Oldfield using the patio doors.
Your claims about 'rectangles of light' isn't evidence, it's just your opinion, and an opinion shared by nobody else - including the McCanns themselves.
Give it up Sadie. 8(0(* Go back to your other magic bullet theory about how an observer could see G McCann coming down the stairs from the apartment, but couldn't see him talking to JW a few feet away. Or hear him.
Title: Re: Was it really just like being in the garden while kids slept upstairs?.
Post by: sadie on September 21, 2013, 07:10:24 PM
I am not 'keen' that the front door wasn't used ... I am simply pointing out that there is not a shred of evidence that proves it was
You just 'imagine' it was ... that is all
Nobody is talking about actual evidence, but there are loads of pointers that the front door is far more likely than the patio doors. Yet you guys keep on, and on, about the Patio doors and ignore the likely
It is silly to talk about evidence per se, because if there was any solid evidence then the Police would have found their job much more easy.
One has to analyse the pros and cons for each entrance and when the pointers stack up in favour of the front door and the cons stack up against the patio door, one has to take notice ... or just back off. That is if one is interested.
You purport to be interested, yet won't make the necessary effort to analyse ... or listen ... and take pointers on board.
I cant understand why you dont make the effort. Maybe all you want to do is pull me down and waste my time ... just as a silly exercise?
Title: Re: Was it really just like being in the garden while kids slept upstairs?.
Post by: C.Edwards on September 21, 2013, 07:15:07 PM
Nobody is talking about actual evidence, but there are loads of pointers that the front door is far more likely than the patio doors. Yet you guys keep on, and on, about the Patio doors and ignore the likely
It is silly to talk about evidence per se, because if there was any solid evidence then the Police would have found their job much more easy.
One has to analyse the pros and cons for each entrance and when the pointers stack up in favour of the front door and the cons stack up against the patio door, one has to take notice ... or just back off. That is if one is interested.
You purport to be interested, yet won't make the necessary effort to analyse ... or listen ... and take pointers on board.
I cant understand why you dont make the effort. Maybe all you want to do is pull me down and waste my time ... just as a silly exercise?
No, it's because you have pet theories that you like to present as facts because they fit your agenda. No-one else has to find your "most likely" (and unevidenced) theories to be the most likely to them. If you could just accept this (you've been doing this ever since I was first on here and show no signs of stopping) you'd get embroiled in far less knicker twisting.
Title: Re: Was it really just like being in the garden while kids slept upstairs?.
Post by: sadie on September 21, 2013, 07:19:53 PM
Even Amaral, your GOD, said that Kate and Gerry and group were so close that no-body would risk going in that way
You've been asked to provide evidence he said this, but you haven't. >@@(*&)
I am not going to waste the time to search. It was on record, many people saw it. It's up to you whether you believe it or not.
Others who have seen it will know it is true.
As a clue if you wish to see it, it was at the time when Amaral suddenly said nobody could have got into apartment 5A, therefore Madeleine must have died in there ... and all sorts of silly twaddle like that.
This was immediately after he had been "shouting from the rooftops" that Jane Tanner didn't see bundleman cos the abductor went off in a westerly direction.
Eyes roll !
Jeez! Amaral was a genius at changing facts to suit his latest theory
Either he left
Title: Re: Was it really just like being in the garden while kids slept upstairs?.
Post by: sadie on September 21, 2013, 07:25:18 PM
No, it's because you have pet theories that you like to present as facts because they fit your agenda. No-one else has to find your "most likely" (and unevidenced) theories to be the most likely to them. If you could just accept this (you've been doing this ever since I was first on here and show no signs of stopping) you'd get embroiled in far less knicker twisting.
Nice one Ced ... knicker twisting ... gutter language
Everything I say, has facts behind it.
Am I to sit her day in and day out reading lies from a group whose seemingly only concern is to put me down? To destroy hard facts and pointers that emolate from them? So that they can flood the internet with more lies and myths?
Still I remember you from before
Title: Re: Was it really just like being in the garden while kids slept upstairs?.
Post by: Lyall on September 21, 2013, 07:28:24 PM
I am not going to waste the time to search. It was on record, many people saw it. It's up to you whether you believe it or not.
Others who have seen it will know it is true.
As a clue if you wish to see it, it was at the time when Amaral suddenly said nobody could have got into apartment 5A, therefore Madeleine must have died in there ... and all sorts of silly twaddle like that.
This was immediately after he had been "shouting from the rooftops" that Jane Tanner didn't see bundleman cos the abductor went off in a westerly direction.
Eyes roll !
Jeez! Amaral was a genius at changing facts to suit his latest theory
Either he left
You need this information at your fingertips, Sadie ?>)()<
Title: Re: Was it really just like being in the garden while kids slept upstairs?.
Post by: icabodcrane on September 21, 2013, 07:32:23 PM
Nobody is talking about actual evidence, but there are loads of pointers that the front door is far more likely than the patio doors. Yet you guys keep on, and on, about the Patio doors and ignore the likely
It is silly to talk about evidence per se, because if there was any solid evidence then the Police would have found their job much more easy.
One has to analyse the pros and cons for each entrance and when the pointers stack up in favour of the front door and the cons stack up against the patio door, one has to take notice ... or just back off. That is if one is interested.
You purport to be interested, yet won't make the necessary effort to analyse ... or listen ... and take pointers on board.
I cant understand why you dont make the effort. Maybe all you want to do is pull me down and waste my time ... just as a silly exercise?
But sadie, if you are going to take that approach ( that 'pointers' rather than 'actual evidence' are relevant ), then we must acknowledge that the cadaver dog's alerts probably 'pointed' to a dead body having been in the apartment ( and just ignore the fact there is no 'actual evidence' to support it )
You cannot cherry-pick which 'pointers' to accept and which to reject