UK Justice Forum 🇬🇧
Disappeared and Abducted Children and Young Adults => Madeleine McCann (3) disappeared from her parent's holiday apartment at Ocean Club, Praia da Luz, Portugal on 3 May 2007. No trace of her has ever been found. => Topic started by: AnneGuedes on December 12, 2013, 12:58:42 AM
-
I observe that the "(abduction) from bed" is never an issue, as if believing Madeleine was abducted but doubting it was "from bed" meant wondering whether her parents are innocent. There's a reason why, if they aren't involved, ie. if they're innocent, Madeleine's parents would stick to the "abduction from bed". But that reason doesn't exist for posters.
-
I've gone for 'she wasn't abducted' but would like to add that without any evidence, I believe that that is the most likely explanation.
I don't know what happened to her. My option 'B' would've been abducted while looking for her parents.
-
Why isn't there an 'I don't know' option?
-
I've gone for 'she wasn't abducted' but would like to add that without any evidence, I believe that that is the most likely explanation.
I don't know what happened to her. My option 'B' would've been abducted while looking for her parents.
+1
-
Why isn't there an 'I don't know' option?
Agreed. Why aren't people allowed to be interested in the case, and have a definite views on certain aspects, but not have a definite view as to what happened?
-
I have taken your remarks in consideration and added to the tittle of the poll "if Madeleine was abducted". I added also the "without evidence of abduction I don't know", which is neutral and avoids expressing one's opinion. As nobody knows, this "I don't know" option would only be interesting if all posters looking at the poll gave an answer. Let's hope they will !
I'm open to suggestion and the questions can be changed.
I don't know how to change the number (one for now) of possible answers. But there again, for this to work, all posters would have to give two answers. I'm not sure this mecanism exists.
-
Thank you, Anne ?{)(**
-
Abducted could mean more than one thing, but some of the others are definitely libelous so best toi leave them off the poll I think.
-
Without evidence of abduction or a death I don't know
-
I changed again. I suppressed "in search of her parents" and "from her parents' bed" became "from another bed or another part of the flat".
But I didn't add "evidence of death", because the manner of abduction is the issue, not death or life.
"Because she spotted a robber" is a way to suggest that she had woken up and got out of her bed because she heard a noise (as opposed to be out of her bed for some personal reason).
-
There is no substantial evidence to say that there was an abduction , or anything else that may have been responsible for the disappearance of the child
-
We come back to that open window again
It IS evidence, whether or not of an abduction is the question
According to the McCanns the window and shutter was opened, by someone other than them, sometime between 9.10pm and 10pm on the night Madeline was reported missing
If they are telling the truth then the only explanation is that Madeleine was abducted from her bed ... given that someone had been in her bedroom
Had she woke and wondered ( and had been abducted outside the apartment ) then the window and shutter would not have been opened
The open window and shutter was presented, from the very first night, as 'proof' that someone had entered the apartment to take the child from her bed
All it was actually 'proof' of, of course, is that someone opened them for some reason
Whatever the explanation for the open window/shutter it leaves the option of 'abducted outside' null and void
-
We come back to that open window again
It IS evidence, whether or not of an abduction is the question
According to the McCanns the window and shutter was opened, by someone other than them, sometime between 9.10pm and 10pm on the night Madeline was reported missing
If they are telling the truth then the only explanation is that Madeleine was abducted from her bed ... given that someone had been in her bedroom
Had she woke and wondered ( and had been abducted outside the apartment ) then the window and shutter would not have been opened
The open window and shutter was presented, from the very first night, as 'proof' that someone had entered the apartment to take the child from her bed
All it was actually 'proof' of, of course, is that someone opened them for some reason
Whatever the explanation for the open window/shutter it leaves the option of 'abducted outside' null and void
I'd agree with this, Icabodcrane, if the window/shutter had been really found open. But there's no direct evidence of them having been open by anyone at any moment of the day/night.
Just a performative utterance. Still evidence, isn't it ?
If the parents found the door open, as they told in some of their calls, they could only deduce that their daughter had gone and eventually was abducted outside. Their responsibility would be seriously engaged since they had left both doors unlocked.
-
Whatever the explanation for the open window/shutter it leaves the option of 'abducted outside' null and void
Not really. It might have been opened to make it look like there had been less negligence i.e. the abductor had been forced to make an unorthodox entry in order to carry out the deed rather than use the doors (which were left unlocked)
-
Not really. It might have been opened to make it look like there had been less negligence i.e. the abductor had been forced to make an unorthodox entry in order to carry out the deed rather than use the doors (which were left unlocked)
So we would be assuming here that Kate returned to apartment at 10pm to find Madeleine missing, but with the window and shutter properly secured ?
Fearing that that they would be deemed negligent for leaving the patio door unlocked she opens the window and raises the shutter from the inside in order to lessen their culpability. The abductor having determindly made his own way into the apartment by breaking in through the window , the fact that they left the patio door open, thereby, being nothing to do with subsequent events ?
OK, that's a rational explanation
except
Almost as soon as she down at the table that night, before Madeleine went missing, Kate had spoken about her doubts regarding leaving the patio door unlocked. She pondered with her friend Fiona whether it would be better to leave the door unlocked so that if Madeleine woke up again she would be able to come and find them
So then, in accordance with your theory, on returning to the apartment at 10pm, and finding Madeline missing ( but the window and shutter secure ) would she not immediately assume that the very thing she had predictedmight happen, less than two hours before, actually had happened ( that Madeleine had left the apaertment to look for them ) ?
In those circumstances she would expect Madeleine to be found quite quickly
Why stage an abduction that would be disproven when her daughter was found ?
How, for instance, could she have explained the open window/shutter in the event of Madeleine being found at the main reception, where some kindly people had taken her after finding her distressed in the street ... that is what probably would have happened, afterall,
-
She knew Madeleine hadn't left the back way - there were the curtains/patio door plus two gates to open and they were all found closed. Madeleine would be too small to reach the front door lock?
-
So we would be assuming here that Kate returned to apartment at 10pm to find Madeleine missing, but with the window and shutter properly secured ?
Fearing that that they would be deemed negligent for leaving the patio door unlocked she opens the window and raises the shutter from the inside in order to lessen their culpability. The abductor having determindly made his own way into the apartment by breaking in through the window , the fact that they left the patio door open, thereby, being nothing to do with subsequent events ?
Why should she open the window and raise the shutter to close them immediately because of the cold on the twins ? Why isn't it sufficient to say she found them open ?
The gnr report and the statements of the OC staff show they didn't insist at all on the open shutter/window, they insisted more on the abduction.
-
In those circumstances (it happened what she had predicted, Madeleine woke up and went out in search of her) she would expect Madeleine to be found quite quickly
Why stage an abduction that would be disproven when her daughter was found ?
How, for instance, could she have explained the open window/shutter in the event of Madeleine being found at the main reception, where some kindly people had taken her after finding her distressed in the street ... that is what probably would have happened, afterall,
She might have left the flat taking the longest way and looking around. As she couldn't spot Madeleine and as Madeleine couldn't possibly have gone further, she feared in her panic that the worst had happened : they had taken her.
If Madeleine was found al-right quickly, nobody would remember the open window/shutter, a fortiori because nobody saw them open.
-
She knew Madeleine hadn't left the back way - there were the curtains/patio door plus two gates to open and they were all found closed. Madeleine would be too small to reach the front door lock?
I dont see this problem with curtains being there, they are material not concrete.....easily moved through and around. The patio sliding door, you would be amazed at the strength a near four yr old has, again, not exactly the weight of a bank fort knox door. The safety gate, easy to climb over, the other gate was just a latch to open and close. Just saying. And there is only KMs word for all these being closed.
Front door handle is approx half way up the door, approx 1m, not too high at all to be reached by a nr 1m high child.
-
I dont see this problem with curtains being there, they are material not concrete.....easily moved through and around. The patio sliding door, you would be amazed at the strength a near four yr old has, again, not exactly the weight of a bank fort knox door. The safety gate, easy to climb over, the other gate was just a latch to open and close. Just saying. And there is only KMs word for all these being closed.
Front door handle is approx half way up the door, approx 1m, not too high at all to be reached by a nr 1m high child.
The latch at 1m, yes.
But the other way is quite tricky in the dark, even without the security door that I doubt they closed if Madeleine was supposed to wake up etc.
-
If there was a safety gate at the top of the stairs and that small child, climbed over it, I think she would have toppled down the stairs. I don't think her feet would reach the top step.
-
If there was a safety gate at the top of the stairs and that small child, climbed over it, I think she would have toppled down the stairs. I don't think her feet would reach the top step.
Safety for toddlers, fatality for young children who try to pass over them. Especially in concrete steps. Accidents have occurred.
-
The latch at 1m, yes.
But the other way is quite tricky in the dark, even without the security door that I doubt they closed if Madeleine was supposed to wake up etc.
Well thats a good point! But I dont believe they did leave patio open and security baby gate open.....just so that Maddie could get out look for them...and what of the other children, two two yr olds, maybe waking up and getting out too...its all too much a bit, open back doors, unlocked front doors, open baby gates..and all out of ear and eyeshot..but it was so safe!!
If there was a safety gate at the top of the stairs and that small child, climbed over it, I think she would have toppled down the stairs. I don't think her feet would reach the top step.
She was nearly four, you would be surprised what even much younger kids can do, but Anne has a point, if it was pitch dark, it would be more risky and dangerous
(http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/images/baby_gate.jpg)
-
Well thats a good point! But I dont believe they did leave patio open and security baby gate open.....just so that Maddie could get out look for them...and what of the other children, two two yr olds, maybe waking up and getting out too...its all too much a bit, open back doors, unlocked front doors, open baby gates..and all out of ear and eyeshot..but it was so safe!!
8)-)))
When open, in the dark, the base of that security gate is tricky.
-
Hi Red, was there any mention of a security gate (as depicted above) in any of the 'checking' statements i.e. any mention of opening or closing of them, or of their existence, by any persons who claimed to carry out checks on the apartment on any night during the holiday ?
The only person who seems to have thought of it was Mr Payne.
Then 4 years passed before it was mentioned again, except for the forums of course :
We shut behind us both the child safety gate at the top of the short flight of steps and the gate at the bottom, as we always did.
-
We shut behind us both the child safety gate at the top of the short flight of steps and the gate at the bottom, as we always did.
Not really compatible with the sliding one left open for Madeleine... and actually looking like a trap.
One cannot think of everything.
-
We shut behind us both the child safety gate at the top of the short flight of steps and the gate at the bottom, as we always did.
Not really compatible with the sliding one left open for Madeleine... and actually looking like a trap.
One cannot think of everything.
I read at the beginning the gate was shut, I am sure it was in the first statements one of the men mentioned it.
I dont believe the child could have climbed over that gate in the dark or would have wanted to. I believe if she did come out of the apartment she would have stood on the balcony crying for her mum and dad. It was dark and scary with monsters in the shadows. IF she had attempted to climb over it, I would think the chances are she could have easily fallen badly onto the concrete steps.
-
The are two areas of responsibility and accountability.
The first the McCanns were able to circumvent eloquently 'she's been taken' and in the light of day after a few consultations 'within the bounds of responsible parenting' Ask yourself, if you were on the razz and left the kids home alone, would you want to be singing within the bounds of responsible parenting. Thus this all falls into the category, we didn't do it, it was the abductor
The second something happened in the apartment, whatever that something was. Whatever it was, even an accident that might have been preventable or responded to had the parents been present, leads to only one area of responsibility the parents. After all they should be good first aiders. So depending on the response to the situation the 'first' could become and excuse for the latter.
Going with the flow of the first - the web is then weaved of the responsible checking, the famous timeline. Six years+ of it - all happened whilst Mr McCann checked, chatting with JW whilst JT walked by and saw the abduction in progress. REALLY. Really!! No - whoooooooooooooshed it never happened that way. She merely saw a parent with child returning from the sleep in creche. But it filled the gap for six years, even though the parent is apparently walking in the wrong direction, this must be the best piece of police work FULLY UNEXPLAINED by the MET, believe it, 'coz we say so!
So let off the hook of what must have been the blind, deaf and dumb check by MO for six years, the fall-guy. The alleged abduction happened after his check and JUST before Mrs McCanns. If indeed Madeleine was in the arms of a man sighted minutes later by the Smiths. Who we have all known about within weeks of Madeleine's disappearance.
Anything is possible.
-
She merely saw a parent with child returning from the sleep in creche. But it filled the gap for six years, even though the parent is apparently walking in the wrong direction, this must be the best piece of police work FULLY UNEXPLAINED by the MET, believe it, 'coz we say so!
So let off the hook of what must have been the blind, deaf and dumb check by MO for six years, the fall-guy. The alleged abduction happened after his check and JUST before Mrs McCanns. If indeed Madeleine was in the arms of a man sighted minutes later by the Smiths. Who we have all known about within weeks of Madeleine's disappearance.
Anything is possible.
It is understandable why, in spite of DCI Redwood's claim, Madeleine's official site still points to Tannerman, a 6 and a half years collective belief (believe it because we say so)
But who is ready to expect the same from SY ? Believe Tannerman is an innocent father because we say so ?
Anything is possible up to a certain point, which itself is beyond plausibility.
-
It is understandable why, in spite of DCI Redwood's claim, Madeleine's official site still points to Tannerman, a 6 and a half years collective belief (believe it because we say so)
But who is ready to expect the same from SY ? Believe Tannerman is an innocent father because we say so ?
Anything is possible up to a certain point, which itself is beyond plausibility.
Why does the Find Madeleine official site still promote Tannerman as a suspect when clearly he was an innocent parent returning home? Is the site so poorly managed that they just haven't bothered to update it??
-
So we would be assuming here that Kate returned to apartment at 10pm to find Madeleine missing, but with the window and shutter properly secured ?
Fearing that that they would be deemed negligent for leaving the patio door unlocked she opens the window and raises the shutter from the inside in order to lessen their culpability. The abductor having determindly made his own way into the apartment by breaking in through the window , the fact that they left the patio door open, thereby, being nothing to do with subsequent events ?
OK, that's a rational explanation
except
Almost as soon as she down at the table that night, before Madeleine went missing, Kate had spoken about her doubts regarding leaving the patio door unlocked. She pondered with her friend Fiona whether it would be better to leave the door unlocked so that if Madeleine woke up again she would be able to come and find them
So then, in accordance with your theory, on returning to the apartment at 10pm, and finding Madeline missing ( but the window and shutter secure ) would she not immediately assume that the very thing she had predictedmight happen, less than two hours before, actually had happened ( that Madeleine had left the apaertment to look for them ) ?
In those circumstances she would expect Madeleine to be found quite quickly
Why stage an abduction that would be disproven when her daughter was found ?
How, for instance, could she have explained the open window/shutter in the event of Madeleine being found at the main reception, where some kindly people had taken her after finding her distressed in the street ... that is what probably would have happened, afterall,
A couple of really good points icabodcrane. Could it be that Madeleine woke up and not wanting to leave the apartment opened the window and raised the shutter? That would certainly explain why there is no evidence of anyone climbing in but still account for the way Kate found them.
Seeing nobody in the car park she then exits via the unlocked patio door, goes down the steps to the street where she is lifted.
-
when clearly he was an innocent parent returning home
@)(++(*
-
Has anyone seen a reference in the official files to forensics undertaken on that child safety gate?
(http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/44892000/jpg/_44892620_4effdab1-3d1a-4bc5-9161-fdb9b83d1777.jpg)
-
@)(++(*
Why do you mock Anne? Did the colour and description of the clothing not match perfectly??
-
Could it be that Madeleine woke up and not wanting to leave the apartment opened the window and raised the shutter?
No.
-
A couple of really good points icabodcrane. Could it be that Madeleine woke up and not wanting to leave the apartment opened the window and raised the shutter? That would certainly explain why there is no evidence of anyone climbing in but still account for the way Kate found them.
Seeing nobody in the car park she then exits via the unlocked patio door, goes down the steps to the street where she is lifted.
I just find it difficult to believe that an abductor type happened to be around at exactly the same time she might have left flat,
Or that a driver knocked her over then picked her up & took her in the car. In that situation a hit & run seems more likely.
And then add to that Smithman just happens to be a Gerry McCann 60-80% lookalike & his child just so happens to look similar to Madeleine aswell. It's like Kate's book...I won't buy it.
-
Why do you mock Anne? Did the colour and description of the clothing not match perfectly??
Everything (colour, type, state, direction) matched perfectly with the "almost certain" of DCI RW.
-
I just find it difficult to believe that an abductor type happened to be around at exactly the same time she might have left flat,
Or that a driver knocked her over then picked her up & took her in the car. In that situation a hit & run seems more likely.
And then add to that Smithman just happens to be a Gerry McCann 60-80% lookalike & his child just so happens to look similar to Madeleine aswell. It's like Kate's book...I won't buy it.
It wasn't necessarily an abductor she fatally met so no coincidence here.
Imagine a car in the private car park. The driver going backwards without seeing her... (This kind of accident is more frequent than people imagine). He doesn't even notice or doesn't want to face. The parents find the body. How could they not feel atrociously guilty ? solution to "guilt", not to sorrow : blame an abductor.
-
A couple of really good points icabodcrane. Could it be that Madeleine woke up and not wanting to leave the apartment opened the window and raised the shutter? That would certainly explain why there is no evidence of anyone climbing in but still account for the way Kate found them.
Seeing nobody in the car park she then exits via the unlocked patio door, goes down the steps to the street where she is lifted.
I don't know enough about those shutters or window to say whether a three year old could open them ( or even fathom how to open them )
Perhaps members who know more about the mechanisms involved could answer
-
I don't know enough about those shutters or window to say whether a three year old could open them ( or even fathom how to open them )
Perhaps members who know more about the mechanisms involved could answer
A nearly 4 year old could easily slide open the window and pull the shutter strap. A precocious child like Madeleine certainly.
-
It wasn't necessarily an abductor she fatally met so no coincidence here.
Imagine a car in the private car park. The driver going backwards without seeing her... (This kind of accident is more frequent than people imagine). He doesn't even notice or doesn't want to face. The parents find the body. How could they not feel atrociously guilty ? solution to "guilt", not to sorrow : blame an abductor.
The parents had no time to do any concealing, that myth has well and truly been debunked.
Someone mentioned the coincidence and chances of an abductor being around at the same time as Madeleine decided to go walkies. A slim chance but these things happen.
Lady Luck did not shine on Madeleine that night.
-
It's easy for a 3/4 to pull the latch and open the door.
An adult might have preferred a complex way he was not familiar to instead of a simple way he was familiar to.
I don't think that children would. They are more pragmatic.
I do have those shutters, at that age my kids couldn't open them, but they pulled the latch (same locker) easily. The sliding window is easy to slide as long as it isn't blocked (the mecanism is high, only climbing on the bed).
-
The parents had no time to do any concealing, that myth has well and truly been debunked.
By Debunker ?
In less than the time needed to go to the main reception and come back it was possible to dispose of the body.
-
A nearly 4 year old could easily slide open the window and pull the shutter strap. A precocious child like Madeleine certainly.
Have you any idea of the weight of those shutters, Angelo ?
-
Have you any idea of the weight of those shutters, Angelo ?
She only had to pull a little at a time as you know. There is a self locking mechanism which prevents the shutter slipping down again unless the strap is pulled out at a sharp angle (something a 4 year old couldn't do).
-
I personally think abduction by a total stranger is the least likely explanation. That is obviously just my opinion. And don't forget the Portugese police did not believe that Madeleine had been abducted. They would not have reached that opinion on a whim. They would have looked at the evidence, the parents behaviour and so on.
Sometimes the simplest explanations are the best explanations. It is perfectly possible that Madeleine either had an accident in the apartment or reacted to some sort of medication or she could have been ill and chocked on her vomit, for instance, or choked on something else.
All of these are possibilities. IF something like that had happened, one could advance a hypothesis that the parents (and their friends who were also leaving their children unattended) might panic on the basis that there were child protection issues. They might be concerned that their other children would be taken from them if it was judged that they had been negligent in leaving the children unattended.
However, given the behaviour of Kate on the evening that Madeleine was supposed to have disappeared, I think it is likely that the twins, at least, had been sedated. This would account for her putting her finger under their noses to check they were breathing.
And as I have repeatedly stated, if we are to believe the abduction by evil stranger theory, then Kate's behaviour that night does not make sense. You simply would not leave your other children in the room. You would want to be right by them. You would wake them up to check they were ok. You would want them to be medically checked. So many things don't add up.
-
It's easy for a 3/4 to pull the latch and open the door.
An adult might have preferred a complex way he was not familiar to instead of a simple way he was familiar to.
I don't think that children would. They are more pragmatic.
I do have those shutters, at that age my kids couldn't open them, but they pulled the latch (same locker) easily. The sliding window is easy to slide as long as it isn't blocked (the mecanism is high, only climbing on the bed).
I think you are correct, Anne, to point out that it is relevant to consider what a three year old would do when considering what they could do
On Monday night, between 10.30pm and 11.45pm, the upstairs neighbour witnessed hearing a young child crying and becoming increasingly distressed in the McCanns' apartment
Assuming it was Madeleine we are given an indication of how the little girl reacted on waking up to find her parents were not there ... she did not go outside to seek them out ... she did not open windows or shutters ... she just cried and became increasingly distressed
That is normal behaviour for a young infant in those circumstances
However 'precocious' we are told Madeleine was, on that Monday night she behaved in the normal and predictable way most three year olds would ... she just cried and cried becoming increasingly distressed
We don't need to question how Madeleine would react on waking to find her parents not there ... we already KNOW
-
The McCann's have to believe Tannerman is the abductor. That's why that sighting will be kept on their site in case things change for the worse in the future and Smithman is identified and charged. Smithman will never confess (but he may touch his ear a few times) and will say he is certain that the real abductor was Tannerman/Innocentman (the same pyjamas) and will criticize the findings of the new investigation. And he may well have support from Jane Tanner and others in the tapas group in regards to Tannerman being the real abductor.
-
I think you are correct, Anne, to point out that it is relevant to consider what a three year old would do when considering what they could do
On Monday night, between 10.30pm and 11.45pm, the upstairs neighbour witnessed hearing a young child crying and becoming increasingly distressed in the McCanns' apartment
Assuming it was Madeleine we are given an indication of how the little girl reacted on waking up to find her parents were not there ... she did not go outside to seek them out ... she did not open windows or shutters ... she just cried and became increasingly distressed
That is normal behaviour for a young infant in those circumstances
However 'precocious' we are told Madeleine was, on that Monday night she behaved in the normal and predictable way most three year olds would ... she just cried and cried becoming increasingly distressed
We don't need to question how Madeleine would react on waking to find her parents not there ... we already KNOW
This is a good point. However, do we know for certain that neither of the parents were in the apartment for the entire duration of that crying episode? Is that not the evening when the McCanns and their friends were joined by the aerobics teacher at dinner and Kate got upset with Gerry? Was there a suggestion that she went back to the apartment in a strop (she herself says she didn't sleep in the same bed as him that night) and so may have been there for at least some of the crying incident?
Kate very much downplayed the disagreement that she had with Gerry that night, saying she only mentioned it because it was so unusual. But if you look at the behaviour of Gerry in that little video clip where he is on the airport bus, he does not look like a husband and father who is excited about spending a week with his wife and family. In fact, his words are: 'f..k off - I'm not here to enjoy myself'. Said in front of his wife, nearly four year old daughter and other young children.
You could advance a theory that there was some marital strife going on, which would have impacted negatively on the welfare of the children.
The neighbour in the apartment above said in her police statement that the crying stopped when she heard people entering the apartment. Obviously she assumed this was the McCann parents. But she did not see them, merely noted that someone returned to the apartment and the crying stopped.
Can anyone enlighten me on this? Are there independent witnesses stating that both McCann parents were at the dinner table during this crying episode.
In my opinion this is a crucial period of time in this case.
-
Yes she was really pissed with Gerry the night before Madeleine went missing (slept in spare bed) and was annoyed when the others didn't invite her and Madeleine to the beach on the afternoon of 3 May. I don't think Kate was a happy chappy that day.
-
This is a good point. However, do we know for certain that neither of the parents were in the apartment for the entire duration of that crying episode? Is that not the evening when the McCanns and their friends were joined by the aerobics teacher at dinner and Kate got upset with Gerry? Was there a suggestion that she went back to the apartment in a strop (she herself says she didn't sleep in the same bed as him that night) and so may have been there for at least some of the crying incident?
Kate very much downplayed the disagreement that she had with Gerry that night, saying she only mentioned it because it was so unusual. But if you look at the behaviour of Gerry in that little video clip where he is on the airport bus, he does not look like a husband and father who is excited about spending a week with his wife and family. In fact, his words are: 'f..k off - I'm not here to enjoy myself'. Said in front of his wife, nearly four year old daughter and other young children.
You could advance a theory that there was some marital strife going on, which would have impacted negatively on the welfare of the children.
The neighbour in the apartment above said in her police statement that the crying stopped when she heard people entering the apartment. Obviously she assumed this was the McCann parents. But she did not see them, merely noted that someone returned to the apartment and the crying stopped.
Can anyone enlighten me on this? Are there independent witnesses stating that both McCann parents were at the dinner table during this crying episode.
In my opinion this is a crucial period of time in this case.
I agree j rob
I, too, think Monday night ( the night of the quiz, and the night Mrs Fenn heard the crying ) is crucial to events
We should have a thread devoted to it I believe ... the obsfucation and collective amnesia of the tapas group alone, regarding that night, is reason enough to look deeper
-
I think you are correct, Anne, to point out that it is relevant to consider what a three year old would do when considering what they could do
On Monday night, between 10.30pm and 11.45pm, the upstairs neighbour witnessed hearing a young child crying and becoming increasingly distressed in the McCanns' apartment
Assuming it was Madeleine we are given an indication of how the little girl reacted on waking up to find her parents were not there ... she did not go outside to seek them out ... she did not open windows or shutters ... she just cried and became increasingly distressed
That is normal behaviour for a young infant in those circumstances
However 'precocious' we are told Madeleine was, on that Monday night she behaved in the normal and predictable way most three year olds would ... she just cried and cried becoming increasingly distressed
We don't need to question how Madeleine would react on waking to find her parents not there ... we already KNOW
I agree. I think most children would be frightened waking up in a holiday apartment and Mum not coming when she called. I can't really picture a child going out in the dark in a strange place to look for her parents and as Icabod pointe out, that wasn't what Madeleine did previously.....
-
Just to correct that Mrs McCann slept in the spare bed on Wednesday, not on Tuesday, which was the quizz and crying episode day.
-
I agree j rob
I, too, think Monday night ( the night of the quiz, and the night Mrs Fenn heard the crying ) is crucial to events
We should have a thread devoted to it I believe ... the obsfucation and collective amnesia of the tapas group alone, regarding that night, is reason enough to look deeper
There is an old thread about that Tuesday night, Icabodcrane, I remember that you pointed to Mrs McCann making a call, likely in the flat. The quizz lady didn't remember her.
-
We don't need to question how Madeleine would react on waking to find her parents not there ... we already KNOW
Yes, but what if she didn't sleep and heard them leave ?
-
There is an old thread about that Tuesday night, Icabodcrane, I remember that you pointed to Mrs McCann making a call, likely in the flat. The quizz lady didn't remember her.
Thanks for correcting me Anne ... of course it was the Tuesday night
What really troubles me about that night is that none of the Tapas friends can recall who was absent that night ... not even Obrien who remembers spending one night in his apartment ( looking after a sick child ) is able to confirm whether it was Tuesday night or not
We know that someone wasn't at the table for the entire time the aerobics instructor joined them at the table, because she recalls there being an empty place ( that of someone who eaten and left ) ... nor does she remember seeing Kate McCann being there
Kate's whereabouts during the crying episode is not beyond question
-
The McCann's have to believe Tannerman is the abductor. That's why that sighting will be kept on their site in case things change for the worse in the future and Smithman is identified and charged. Smithman will never confess (but he may touch his ear a few times) and will say he is certain that the real abductor was Tannerman/Innocentman (the same pyjamas) and will criticize the findings of the new investigation. And he may well have support from Jane Tanner and others in the tapas group in regards to Tannerman being the real abductor.
Can you elaborate on this, pathfinder? Why do the McCanns have to believe that Tannerman is the abductor?
And how do we know that Smithman will never confess?
And who is Jane Tanner to say who the real abductor is?
-
Can you elaborate on this, pathfinder? Why do the McCanns have to believe that Tannerman is the abductor?
And how do we know that Smithman will never confess?
And who is Jane Tanner to say who the real abductor is?
IMO Jane Tanner would be over the moon to be told that the man she saw was not the abductor. Not only does this exonerate her - as it proves she did not lie about saying she saw a man carrying a child, but even more importantly for her - she can also stop beating herself up by going down the 'If only' road - because she didn't do anything at the time. She has said that apart from Madeleine being found, the best news she could hear was that someone had come forward and had been eliminated.
I too am mystified as to why anyone would think the McCanns have to believe that Tannerman is the abductor?
-
Can you elaborate on this, pathfinder? Why do the McCanns have to believe that Tannerman is the abductor?
And how do we know that Smithman will never confess?
And who is Jane Tanner to say who the real abductor is?
IMO Jane Tanner would be over the moon to be told that the man she saw was not the abductor. Not only does this exonerate her - as it proves she did not lie about saying she saw a man carrying a child, but even more importantly for her - she can also stop beating herself up by going down the 'If only' road - because she didn't do anything at the time. She has said that apart from Madeleine being found, the best news she could hear was that someone had come forward and had been eliminated.
I too am mystified as to why anyone would think the McCanns have to believe that Tannerman is the abductor?
Jane Tanner would be happy if Tannerman is cleared but things may get very interesting if Smithman is identified and charged. IMO Tannerman could become a focus of the defence and the timeline. Matt never saw Madeleine on his check at 9.30pm so this discrepancy could become a part of the defence suggesting that Tannerman (and not Smithman) could have been the abductor with Madeleine (same pyjamas) after Gerry's check who last saw her before she disappeared.
-
Jane Tanner would be happy if Tannerman is cleared but things may get very interesting if Smithman is identified and charged. IMO Tannerman could become a focus of the defence and the timeline. Matt never saw Madeleine on his check at 9.30pm so this discrepancy could become a part of the defence suggesting that Tannerman (and not Smithman) could have been the abductor with Madeleine (same pyjamas) after Gerry's check who last saw her before she disappeared.
Well this was the old timeline, wasn't it?
How would identifying Smithman as a guilty party bring SY back to the timeline they rejected?
-
For me for an abduction to work so well it would need to be an inside job.
IF someone was going to take the child for money say it would take minutes.
Access to front door, into small hallway, turn right into childs bedroom, pick child up take out front door keeping in dark making sure there is no one about (you can easily hear foot steps at night), walk swiftly through the car park, turning left into the dark area of PDL and the old Lagos road to a waiting car.
What five minutes?
Gone Baby Gone.
I just feel for it to work so well there needed to be in sider help or information etc....to make it easy.
As to the child waking well I am female and I would just say to the child i am taking you to see your mummy.......
Done and dusted.
-
Well this was the old timeline, wasn't it?
How would identifying Smithman as a guilty party bring SY back to the timeline they rejected?
The timeline may become important on the actual time of the Smithman sighting. Some of the Smiths said 9.55pm or I've read as early as 9.50pm which is incorrect IMO. Defence could argue on the time of the actual sighting. If it was 9.50pm then it was impossible to be the accused (he was at the Tapas bar). You're looking at a 10pm sighting timeline as Aoife Smith said IMO.
-
This is an interesting photo.
There are chairs and a table on the patio area. If one were exploring the accidental death theory then why does the child gate need to be opened to exit the apartment? The chairs or table if moved closer could be used to climb over either the railing or safety gate.
As far as forensics go - does there have to be blood or other forensic evidence from a resulting accident? It's entirely possible that a bump to the head could cause somebody to swallow their tongue and choke. If the body was then removed this would most likely leave no forensic sign of the accident.
Personally I don't think this is what happened at all but I just wanted to raise the issue of the chairs and table to ask if Madeleine could have left under her own steam this way rather than just dismiss that route as an exit?
For the record, I've seen children do similar things. My son once climbed out of his own cot at less than 2 years of age by standing on his cuddly toy to boost himself over.
It is an interesting photo, Buzz, and I agree that Madeleine would be capable of standing on chairs and tables and falling over the wall down those steps.
In my opinion there are two problems with this, however. Even though she would be well capable of doing it, she also, at her age, may have been capable of working out the safety gate. This would have been a far more obvious means of exit for her.
There is also the fact that she is recorded as having been awake and crying for longer than an hour on the Tuesday night and apparently made no attempt to get up or leave the apartment. So there is no precedent for her trying to do such a thing.
That doesn't mean that she didn't try on this occasion, of course - only that it would seem out of character and therefore be unlikely.
-
I agree. I partly raised the subject because KM would have us believe there is no way Madeleine could have exited past the safety gate. I wanted to show a way that she could. Whether or not she would is a different turn of phrase with a different meaning to the same outcome.
Yes, it was important to consider the possibility.
-
I agree. I partly raised the subject because KM would have us believe there is no way Madeleine could have exited past the safety gate. I wanted to show a way that she could. Whether or not she would is a different turn of phrase with a different meaning to the same outcome.
It would also mean that the chair or table climbed upon was left adjacent to the gate. There seems to be no record of that.
-
There's no mention of the security gate in the statements to the PJ. It's as if it didn't exist or actually was always open.
Why would they open it and close it at night if the kids were sleeping ?
They sometimes are not very easy to open.
-
It would also mean that the chair or table climbed upon was left adjacent to the gate. There seems to be no record of that.
Unless it wasn't present at all at that date, the chair would be fairly easy to move to the wall/gate area.
-
In any case there would have been little likelihood of Madeleine wandering outside of her own accord. Greater minds disagree but there it is.
To begin with she had woken on a previous night and cried at length rather than actively attempting to seek her parents - that being a perfectly normal reaction for a 3-4 year old in the circumstances.
Perhaps if she had been on home ground and knew exactly where to find her parents, she may have attempted to do so. Here things were very different.
It is hard to know exactly what her sense of geography was, but there is nothing to say that she would have had much of an idea of where her parents were in relation to the apartment (if indeed she imagined them to be within walking distance. Who knows where she thought they were).
Even if she knew them to be close by, this was unfamiliar territory, which she covered only a few times. Perhaps a 50 yard journey on home turf, covered regularly, would have been easy to navigate - a school run, for example. But would she ever have traversed the direct route from the apartment to the tapas with her parents during the day? Probably not. So how would she imagine that she could figure it out herself alone in pitch black?
The notion of being drawn to the lights of the restaurant and following her nose shows an adult perception of the situation, not hers.
If she had been sufficiently distressed as to leave the apartment and venture into the night (she wasn't scared of the dark?), she would most probably have been crying as well, and may have been heard.
All in all a most unlikely possibility.
-
I agree with you both.
Eventually, being sure where her parents were and knowing how to go to the Tapas because she did it with her parents once a day (after lunch they used to go to the play ground), she could have risked it, calling. But the Tapas door was closed, would she scream ?
This is why Mrs McCann's comment to Mrs Payne is amazing, as amazing is Mrs Payne not objecting.
-
I was surprised how much Fiona gave away being her good friend not David and his 6.30 visit - I don't know If it was before or after I went back to the tennis courts, I can't remember what Kate was wearing (only a towel according to Kate), don't know what the kids were wearing but I saw them, they had no bag you could hide a tennis racket in etc. DP is a weird one to work out for any detectives on this case. It's as bad as JT walking past Gerry/Jez on the same of the road which did not happen - she walks round the path way to the apartment which is her usual route but on that night of the sighting she changes and walks up to the top of the road and walks past them - I don't think so without either noticing - do they think we were really born yesterday. Fiona talking about how strange it was that she was checking the twins to see if they were still breathing (they never woke up). You only have to watch the sedatives question on youtube. So try and work all that out. You think you've cracked it then you have the others who you think are lying. Not quite as simple as it seems.
-
I was surprised how much Fiona gave away being her good friend not David and his 6.30 visit - I don't know If it was before or after I went back to the tennis courts, I can't remember what Kate was wearing (only a towel according to Kate), don't know what the kids were wearing but I saw them, they had no bag you could hide a tennis racket in etc. David Payne is a weird one to work out for any detectives on this case. It's as bad as Jane Tanner walking past Gerry/Jez on the same of the road which did not happen - she walks round the path way to the apartment which is her usual route but on that night of the sighting she changes and walks up to the top of the road and walks past them - I don't think so without either noticing - do they think we were really born yesterday. Fiona talking about how strange it was that she was checking the twins to see if they were still breathing (they never woke up). You only have to watch the sedatives question on youtube and the nervous twitches and ear pulling. So try and work all that out. You think you've cracked it then you have the others who you think are lying. Not quite as simple as it seems.
Fiona is the best proof that there was no connivance in the group. She observes her friend checking the twins, they don't discuss the issue as doctors, but Fiona reports it to the police.
I don't think the McCanns lie in front of the cameras, they anyhow have a control on the questions, this is likely why they never said much about the sedation issue.
-
In any case there would have been little likelihood of Madeleine wandering outside of her own accord. Greater minds disagree but there it is.
To begin with she had woken on a previous night and cried at length rather than actively attempting to seek her parents - that being a perfectly normal reaction for a 3-4 year old in the circumstances.
Perhaps if she had been on home ground and knew exactly where to find her parents, she may have attempted to do so. Here things were very different.
It is hard to know exactly what her sense of geography was, but there is nothing to say that she would have had much of an idea of where her parents were in relation to the apartment (if indeed she imagined them to be within walking distance. Who knows where she thought they were).
Even if she knew them to be close by, this was unfamiliar territory, which she covered only a few times. Perhaps a 50 yard journey on home turf, covered regularly, would have been easy to navigate - a school run, for example. But would she ever have traversed the direct route from the apartment to the tapas with her parents during the day? Probably not. So how would she imagine that she could figure it out herself alone in pitch black?
The notion of being drawn to the lights of the restaurant and following her nose shows an adult perception of the situation, not hers.
If she had been sufficiently distressed as to leave the apartment and venture into the night (she wasn't scared of the dark?), she would most probably have been crying as well, and may have been heard.
All in all a most unlikely possibility.
I agree although it was the night of the 1st a child was heard crying, then we hear of the 2nd so I wonder if she had been crying BOTH nights.
Perhaps she had just got plain angry on the 3rd? Really angry with her parents, maybe she decided to go out and hide to scare them....who knows what goes into a 4 year old, they are capable of things we can never understand.
Although i dont think this would happen personally but .... she was deemed difficult by her own mothers lips.
I think personally if she came out onto the patio she would have been crying, if the stair gate was open she would have gone down the stairs.....but i dont think this happened.
I think she could have wandered about inside the apartment but not out.
-
I agree although it was the night of the 1st a child was heard crying, then we hear of the 2nd so I wonder if she had been crying BOTH nights.
Perhaps she had just got plain angry on the 3rd? Really angry with her parents, maybe she decided to go out and hide to scare them....who knows what goes into a 4 year old, they are capable of things we can never understand.
Although i dont think this would happen personally but .... she was deemed difficult by her own mothers lips.
I think personally if she came out onto the patio she would have been crying, if the stair gate was open she would have gone down the stairs.....but i dont think this happened.
I think she could have wandered about inside the apartment but not out.
She hardly cry on the 2nd, that's the curious part of the episode told by the McCanns (note that they never said it was on the 2nd, but common sense says it), Mrs Oldfield stayed at home, was on the other side of the bedroom's wall and heard nothing.