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: pegasus on July 02, 2015, 12:09:45 AM
-
4 pieces of hard evidence from early photos of the top gate:
It did not lock by itself when it was closed.
It opened the wrong way.
It had a trip bar.
It was designed to stop kids only up to 24 months.
11
-
4 pieces of hard evidence from early photos of the top gate:
It did not lock by itself when it was closed.
It opened the wrong way.
It had a trip bar.
It was designed to stop kids only up to 24 months.
I believe, Pegasus,that if it was approached by the stairs, the hinge was on the left and opened onto the balcony is that correct?
-
I believe, Pegasus,that if it was approached by the stairs, the hinge was on the left and opened onto the balcony is that correct?
No. Imagine you are a checker going up the outdoor steps. The hinges of the top gate are on your right, and the blue lever is on your left. After you have raised the blue lever, the gate opens towards you, it opens over the steps. (Whether it can also open the other way I am not sure yet, probably not).
-
No. Imagine you are a checker going up the outdoor steps. The hinges of the top gate are on your right, and the blue lever is on your left. After you have raised the blue lever, the gate opens towards you, it opens over the steps. (Whether it can also open the other way I am not sure yet, probably not).
From my experience, child gates open forwards and backwards
-
No. Imagine you are a checker going up the outdoor steps. The hinges of the top gate are on your right, and the blue lever is on your left. After you have raised the blue lever, the gate opens towards you, it opens over the steps. (Whether it can also open the other way I am not sure yet, probably not).
Thanks pegasus. Its the other way around to how mine's was. I guess they can be fitted to suit the situation.
-
From my experience, child gates open forwards and backwards
This gate opened over the steps, there is a photo (hard evidence) to prove it.
ETA http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/08/04/article-1041216-022B25CB00000578-796_468x286.jpg
-
This gate opened over the steps, there is a photo (hard evidence) to prove it.
So?
-
So?
Whether it also opened the other way, I don't know yet.
The point is, it is dangerous for a gate at the top of steps to open over the steps.
This gate did - the PJ photo taken that night is hard evidence that it did.
-
Whether it also opened the other way, I don't know yet.
The point is, it is dangerous for a gate at the top of steps to open over the steps.
This gate did - the PJ photo taken that night is hard evidence that it did.
What would be the point of a gate that only opened one way? once they are open they are open. no safeguard once opened in other words. but maybe your questioning is about who found what when and how, soz
-
More hard evidence, this metal flange means the only way the gate can open is outwards over the steps IMO.
-
More hard evidence, this metal flange means the only way the gate can open is outwards over the steps IMO.
You are correct that the child gate opened outwards over the stairs: an awkward, memorable obstacle for people using that entrance.
If the question had been asked ... and perhaps it was at some time ... we would have known for sure.
However, had the child climbed and fallen to her death as a result ... it is amazing she managed to do so without leaving a body behind or even a drop of blood.
Have just read back to see you have already posted that picture. I don't know if the hinges allow it to swing inwards too ... but quite frankly I don't see the relevance to Madeleine's disappearance.
I think if this was taken at the time and before the tape went up, the gate is in that position to avoid obstructing the investigators in the apartment.
-
For info: A new thread.
-
What would be the point of a gate that only opened one way? once they are open they are open. no safeguard once opened in other words. but maybe your questioning is about who found what when and how, soz
A gate that opens out over the steps is dangerous.
Because if someone is on the balcony and leans on the gate when it is unlocked or while they unlock it, they fall.
-
The fitting instructions state "children up to 24 months".
It opens both ways.
The flange at the bottom of gate is inverted u.
You have to lift a few mm.
-
The fitting instructions state "children up to 24 months".
It opens both ways.
The flange at the bottom of gate is inverted u.
You have to lift a few mm.
So it's a "lift & lock/unlock"? What is the point of the flange, then?
-
So it's a "lift & lock/unlock"? What is the point of the flange, then?
To close fully you have to lift gate a little to make the inverted-U flange sit on the bottom bar.
To open you have to lift gate a little to lift the inverted-U flange off of the bottom bar.
To lock/unlock is seperate operation you press button and lower/raise blue handle it pushes a pressure pad against the wall.
-
To close fully you have to lift gate a little to make the inverted-U flange sit on the bottom bar.
To open you have to lift gate a little to lift the inverted-U flange off of the bottom bar.
To lock/unlock is seperate operation you press button and lower/raise blue handle it pushes a pressure pad against the wall.
So, in effect, the gate is safer than it looks & a little more difficult for a child to open.
-
So, in effect, the gate is safer than it looks & a little more difficult for a child to open.
It is safe only for 6 to 24 months Misty that is what the instructions clearly say.
It is not designed for 47 months.
Also because you have to manually lock and unlock it people would remember if they did so.
Was it there in this photo (29 Oct 2007) or had it been already removed?
http://www.mccannfiles.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/zzrebelo4d.jpg
-
It is safe only for 6 to 24 months Misty that is what the instructions clearly say.
It is not designed for 47 months.
Also because you have to manually lock and unlock it people would remember if they did so.
Was it there in this photo (29 Oct 2007) or had it been already removed?
http://www.mccannfiles.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/zzrebelo4d.jpg
The gate wasn't suitable for any of the three children staying in the apartment then, except as a reminder if they went near the steps. Not that they ever played there as far as I know.
-
So, in effect, the gate is safer than it looks & a little more difficult for a child to open.
It is safe as long as a child does not manage to climb over it. Youtube is full of videos of two year toddlers climbing over them (with ease). It would be a doddle for a four year old.
-
It is safe as long as a child does not manage to climb over it. Youtube is full of videos of two year toddlers climbing over them (with ease). It would be a doddle for a four year old.
If I was investigator today I would ask all three checkers these questions:
"When you arrived to do the check did you press the blue button and raise the blue lever to unlock the stairgate?"
"When you left after the check did you lower the blue lever to lock the stairgate?"
If all relevant answers are "definitely yes" then the "wandered outside" hypothesis can probably be ruled out.
This is exact science, based on how the mechanism works.
Asking "was it closed?" is not good enough.
-
If I was investigator today I would ask all three checkers these questions:
"When you arrived to do the check did you press the blue button and raise the blue lever to unlock the stairgate?"
"When you left after the check did you lower the blue lever to lock the stairgate?"
If all relevant answers are "definitely yes" then the "wandered outside" hypothesis can probably be ruled out.
This is exact science, based on how the mechanism works.
Asking "was it closed?" is not good enough.
I'd love to hear the answers. The day after Madeleine's disappearance Gerald McCann couldn't remember which door he used to enter the apartment and Matthew Oldfield thought there were two windows in the children's bedroom.
-
If I was investigator today I would ask all three checkers these questions:
"When you arrived to do the check did you press the blue button and raise the blue lever to unlock the stairgate?"
"When you left after the check did you lower the blue lever to lock the stairgate?"
If all relevant answers are "definitely yes" then the "wandered outside" hypothesis can probably be ruled out.
This is exact science, based on how the mechanism works.
Asking "was it closed?" is not good enough.
It would be a logical question to ask particularly as the police took the woke and wandered scenario very seriously indeed.
-
I'd love to hear the answers. The day after Madeleine's disappearance Gerald McCann couldn't remember which door he used to enter the apartment and Matthew Oldfield thought there were two windows in the children's bedroom.
Using science to formulate the correct detailed questions is important. IMO each checker if asked today would remember whether or not they operated the blue lever on the stairgate.
-
If I was investigator today I would ask all three checkers these questions:
"When you arrived to do the check did you press the blue button and raise the blue lever to unlock the stairgate?"
"When you left after the check did you lower the blue lever to lock the stairgate?"
If all relevant answers are "definitely yes" then the "wandered outside" hypothesis can probably be ruled out.
This is exact science, based on how the mechanism works.
Asking "was it closed?" is not good enough.
Why is it so important? If the thoery is that Madeleine walked out of the flat, whether she opened it or climbed over is irrelevant, and we have established toddlers can climb over gates they cant open.
-
The gate wasn't suitable for any of the three children staying in the apartment then, except as a reminder if they went near the steps. Not that they ever played there as far as I know.
It was suitable in that it was a barrier, if locked, which prevented a child from unnecessarily falling down the stairs when playing on the balcony. The safety sticker on the patio door was the primary warning to any person unlocking/opening it.
Misuse of safety equipment could result in accidents, as described in other posts.
-
Why is it so important? If the thoery is that Madeleine walked out of the flat, whether she opened it or climbed over is irrelevant, and we have established toddlers can climb over gates they cant open.
IMO its essential to know at the start and end of each check whether the stairgate was locked (blue lever pushed down) or not. Small details can be important, and it's information that would be easy to acquire even now.
For example if one checker did push the blue lever down to lock it after their check, and if the next checker on arrival found the blue lever up, that might be useful to know?
-
IMO its essential to know at the start and end of each check whether the stairgate was locked (blue lever pushed down) or not. Small details can be important, and it's information that would be easy to acquire even now.
For example if one checker did push the blue lever down to lock it after their check, and if the next checker on arrival found the blue lever up, that might be useful to know?
useful to know? Not as far as if a child escaped from there it isnt as a child can escape easily without opening it, so might be useful to know for another reason? Or not at all?
-
It was suitable in that it was a barrier, if locked, which prevented a child from unnecessarily falling down the stairs when playing on the balcony. The safety sticker on the patio door was the primary warning to any person unlocking/opening it.
Misuse of safety equipment could result in accidents, as described in other posts.
Yes if it's closed and locked then it's a psychological barrier even for a child twice the design age.
-
useful to know? Not as far as if a child escaped from there it isnt as a child can escape easily without opening it, so might be useful to know for another reason? Or not at all?
For example if police do ask and discover that one checker did push the blue lever down to lock it after their check and the next checker on arrival found the blue lever up, that would prove that some other person unlocked the gate in between checks.
-
For example if police do ask and discover that one checker did push the blue lever down to lock it after their check and the next checker on arrival found the blue lever up, that would prove that some other person unlocked the gate in between checks.
that could have been the child
and if it wasnt there will never be any way of knowing if it was a checker or stranger.All these witnesses were proved to be not very reliable as go facts, not two days or ten days later or a year later, I think you might be clutching at straws pegasus
on this issue I found certain members "not bothered" at all in their Uk interviews, take that as you will
-
that could have been the child
and if it wasnt there will never be any way of knowing if it was a checker or stranger.All these witnesses were proved to be not very reliable as go facts, not two days or ten days later or a year later, I think you might be clutching at straws pegasus
on this issue I found certain members "not bothered" at all in their Uk interviews, take that as you will
IMO if people were asked now they would remember the blue lever and whether they operated it.
I would have an identical gate in interview room to educate interviewer.
If it was always locked we can probably rule out wandering.
-
Deleted as irrelevant.
-
Using science to formulate the correct detailed questions is important. IMO each checker if asked today would remember whether or not they operated the blue lever on the stairgate.
I don't believe they would. As I said, they couldn't give sensible answers just the day after. If Gerald McCann thought he went in and out via the front door there's no chance of him knowing what he did with the stair gate.
-
I don't believe they would. As I said, they couldn't give sensible answers just the day after. If Gerald McCann thought he went in and out via the front door there's no chance of him knowing what he did with the stair gate.
still getting your "facts" from the mistranslated files...no wonder your conclusions are wrong
-
I don't believe they would. As I said, they couldn't give sensible answers just the day after. If Gerald McCann thought he went in and out via the front door there's no chance of him knowing what he did with the stair gate.
The question of which door he said he used has been discussed here at length previously.
As remembering which door he used that night is something he was not likely to forget then common sense dictates that a misunderstanding between the interpreter, the police officer and Gerry took place during that very first interview - which was corrected at the next interview. Confusion arose because some people called the patio door the front door and others called the carpark door the front door.
There is no credible reason IMO why Gerry would have decided to walk past the unlocked Patio door a few yards away from him to enter 5A - and take the much longer route round to the other door- especially if he needed the loo.
If a verbatim version of what was said at the first interview was available to us - then I think it would be clear how and when the misunderstanding came about.
-
The question of which door he said he used has been discussed here at length previously.
As remembering which door he used that night is something he was not likely to forget then common sense dictates that a misunderstanding between the interpreter, the police officer and Gerry took place during that very first interview - which was corrected at the next interview. Confusion arose because some people called the patio door the front door and others called the carpark door the front door.
There is no credible reason IMO why Gerry would have decided to walk past the unlocked Patio door a few yards away from him to enter 5A - and take the much longer route round to the other door- especially if he needed the loo.
If a verbatim version of what was said at the first interview was available to us - then I think it would be clear how and when the misunderstanding came about.
I seem to remember a post saying that kate did complain about some of the translations at the time but was basically told to shut up
-
still getting your "facts" from the mistranslated files...no wonder your conclusions are wrong
To suggest that the translator got the statement below wrong is 'ludicrous'. Why would Gerald McCann correct himself a week later if he never said initially that they used the locked front door?
In this way, at about 21.05 the witness came to the Club, entered the room using his respective key, the door being locked,
At about 21.30 his friend Matt (member of the group) went to the apartment, where his children were and on his way went to the witness' apartment, entering by means of a glass sliding door that was always unlocked and was located laterally to the building
At about 22.00 it was his wife Kate who went to check on the children. She entered the apartment by the door using the key
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN.htm
Despite what he said in his previous statements, he states now and with certainty, that he left with KATE by the rear door which he consequently closed but did not lock given that that is only possible from the inside. Referring to the front door, while he is certain that it was closed it is unlikely that it was locked as [because] they had left by the rear door.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN-10MAY.htm
-
I seem to remember a post saying that kate did complain about some of the translations at the time but was basically told to shut up
Can you provide the evidence for any of that ?
-
The question of which door he said he used has been discussed here at length previously.
As remembering which door he used that night is something he was not likely to forget then common sense dictates that a misunderstanding between the interpreter, the police officer and Gerry took place during that very first interview - which was corrected at the next interview. Confusion arose because some people called the patio door the front door and others called the carpark door the front door.
There is no credible reason IMO why Gerry would have decided to walk past the unlocked Patio door a few yards away from him to enter 5A - and take the much longer route round to the other door- especially if he needed the loo.
If a verbatim version of what was said at the first interview was available to us - then I think it would be clear how and when the misunderstanding came about.
If you look at what was said he describes opening the locked front door with the key. There was no lock and key on the patio door, so speculating about a mistake regarding 'front' and 'back' doors has no relevance .
-
If you look at what was said he describes opening the locked front door with the key. There was no lock and key on the patio door, so speculating about a mistake regarding 'front' and 'back' doors has no relevance .
none of Gerry's statements are verbatim and have been translated twice..if that's what you rely on to draw your conclusions then it is no wonder your conclusions are wrong
-
none of Gerry's statements are verbatim and have been translated twice..if that's what you rely on to draw your conclusions then it is no wonder your conclusions are wrong
What evidence is there of incorrect translations ?
-
none of Gerry's statements are verbatim and have been translated twice..if that's what you rely on to draw your conclusions then it is no wonder your conclusions are wrong
Unlike some I prefer to argue using the evidence available. If you discount all the PJ Files what are you basing your arguments on? Oh yes; a child disappeared therefore she was abducted. Nice and simple but with nothing to sustain it.
-
Unlike some I prefer to argue using the evidence available. If you discount all the PJ Files what are you basing your arguments on? Oh yes; a child disappeared therefore she was abducted. Nice and simple but with nothing to sustain it.
do you realise that most of the "evidence" you rely on would be accepted in court as evidence...that puts your conclusions into perspective
-
To suggest that the translator got the statement below wrong is 'ludicrous'. Why would Gerald McCann correct himself a week later if he never said initially that they used the locked front door?
In this way, at about 21.05 the witness came to the Club, entered the room using his respective key, the door being locked,
At about 21.30 his friend Matt (member of the group) went to the apartment, where his children were and on his way went to the witness' apartment, entering by means of a glass sliding door that was always unlocked and was located laterally to the building
At about 22.00 it was his wife Kate who went to check on the children. She entered the apartment by the door using the key
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN.htm
Despite what he said in his previous statements, he states now and with certainty, that he left with KATE by the rear door which he consequently closed but did not lock given that that is only possible from the inside. Referring to the front door, while he is certain that it was closed it is unlikely that it was locked as [because] they had left by the rear door.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN-10MAY.htm
IMO the first interview was rife for misunderstandings. Gerry had had no sleep and was still in massive shock. Any idea that he was cool calm and collected is absurd IMO. There would be delays because of the necessity for translations -- and IIRC his replies were then typed out by the Police officer at the time. AT that early point and in those circumstances then IMO Gerry would find concentration very difficult and he would still be hoping and praying that news that Madeleine had been found would come at any minute.
There is no credible reason that I can think of why anyone would lie about which doors they used. What would they have to gain by doing that?
On the other hand we know for definite that different people had different opinions on which door constituted the front door and which door they regarded as the back door. It seem obvious to me that until they sorted that out then major confusion was inevitable during interviews.
IMO that was sorted out at Gerry's second interview.
-
Using science to formulate the correct detailed questions is important. IMO each checker if asked today would remember whether or not they operated the blue lever on the stairgate.
I would not rely on such a specific memory many years after the event.
Different if it had been asked at the time and refreshed later that is different ... and who knows it may well have been if statements were written down as is police practice even when not in formal interview ... not everything is documented in the files.
-
If you look at what was said he describes opening the locked front door with the key. There was no lock and key on the patio door, so speculating about a mistake regarding 'front' and 'back' doors has no relevance .
The officer writing the summary describes what he believed Gerry had said. It is not verbatim.
Gerry had already said that Matt had used the patio door.
So in view of that - why didn't the police officer ask Gerry the very obvious question: i.e.
'' Why did you decide to go all the way round to the front door when access via the patio door was only a couple of yards away from you?''
-
The officer writing the summary describes what he believed Gerry had said. It is not verbatim.
Gerry had already said that Matt had used the patio door.
So in view of that - why didn't the police officer ask Gerry the very obvious question: i.e.
'' Why did you decide to go all the way round to the front door when access via the patio door was only a couple of yards away from you?''
So now it's not a mix-up between which door was the 'front' door, it's a policeman writing it down wrong? Gerald McCann signed every page of his statements so if they're incorrect he should have said so at the time.
-
So now it's not a mix-up between which door was the 'front' door, it's a policeman writing it down wrong? Gerald McCann signed every page of his statements so if they're incorrect he should have said so at the time.
they were in Portuguese......he had no idea if they were correct
-
they were in Portuguese......he had no idea if they were correct
They would have been read back to him of course. No intelligent educated professional signs something unless it's checked surely?
-
They would have been read back to him of course. No intelligent educated professional signs something unless it's checked surely?
They were read back in English...he had no idea what was written down.....he would have assumed they were correct.....what options did he have but to sign...
-
They were read back in English...he had no idea what was written down.....he would have assumed they were correct.....what options did he have but to sign...
They were correct. if you think differently then prove it.
-
The McCanns paid 100K to have them translated but haven't released them. If there were translation errors you bet we would know about it.
-
IMO the first interview was rife for misunderstandings. Gerry had had no sleep and was still in massive shock. Any idea that he was cool calm and collected is absurd IMO. There would be delays because of the necessity for translations -- and IIRC his replies were then typed out by the Police officer at the time. AT that early point and in those circumstances then IMO Gerry would find concentration very difficult and he would still be hoping and praying that news that Madeleine had been found would come at any minute.
There is no credible reason that I can think of why anyone would lie about which doors they used. What would they have to gain by doing that?
On the other hand we know for definite that different people had different opinions on which door constituted the front door and which door they regarded as the back door. It seem obvious to me that until they sorted that out then major confusion was inevitable during interviews.
IMO that was sorted out at Gerry's second interview.
First statement by Gerry is that he used a key. Then he asserted that Kate used a key. The guests were given but one key per couple, so said key had to pass from Gerry to Kate, somehow. Unless, of course, Kate did not use a key, or Gerry did not use a key or neither used a key. Confused?
First statement by Gerry also says Matthew went via the open patio doors. It seems the McCanns avoided the short route of the open patio doors and went the long route and used a key.
In Gerry's second statement he confirmed that his first statement was accurate. Then he changed the account to everyone going in through open patio doors, no key required.
I believe he did a video about a year after the incident, in which he returned to 5A. And in which the key was on a table in the apartment and the reason for using the patio doors had become 'the noise of the front door might wake the children'. Not so the other 2 couples on the ground floor.
I am neither pro-McCann or anti-McCann, but Gerry's first statement has hallmarks of someone trying to cover over a pile of poo, and doing a very bad job of it.
There is a credible reason why this might have arisen. It has nothing to do with fatigue, stress or disorientation. And no, I do NOT know this credible reason is what actually was the driver.
-
The McCanns paid 100K to have them translated but haven't released them. If there were translation errors you bet we would know about it.
We sure would. If only to show that the 'vile trolls' are reading files full of errors.
-
So we can assume that they are accurate - good.
-
They were correct. if you think differently then prove it.
what a pathetic response...your idea of evidence is laughable making your conclusions laughable...you have no idea how accurate those police statements are but you state they are correct....pathetic
-
First statement by Gerry is that he used a key. Then he asserted that Kate used a key. The guests were given but one key per couple, so said key had to pass from Gerry to Kate, somehow. Unless, of course, Kate did not use a key, or Gerry did not use a key or neither used a key. Confused?
First statement by Gerry also says Matthew went via the open patio doors. It seems the McCanns avoided the short route of the open patio doors and went the long route and used a key.
In Gerry's second statement he confirmed that his first statement was accurate. Then he changed the account to everyone going in through open patio doors, no key required.
I believe he did a video about a year after the incident, in which he returned to 5A. And in which the key was on a table in the apartment and the reason for using the patio doors had become 'the noise of the front door might wake the children'. Not so the other 2 couples on the ground floor.
I am neither pro-McCann or anti-McCann, but Gerry's first statement has hallmarks of someone trying to cover over a pile of poo, and doing a very bad job of it.
There is a credible reason why this might have arisen. It has nothing to do with fatigue, stress or disorientation. And no, I do NOT know this credible reason is what actually was the driver.
A schoolboy error...neither statement is made by Gerry...they are not verbatim...they are made by the translator...
-
We sure would. If only to show that the 'vile trolls' are reading files full of errors.
you made a post from the archiving report containing the phrase "prove their innocence". The archiving report does not say that ..it is a poor translation
-
Of course it is, Davel, of course it is @)(++(*
-
First statement by Gerry is that he used a key. Then he asserted that Kate used a key. The guests were given but one key per couple, so said key had to pass from Gerry to Kate, somehow. Unless, of course, Kate did not use a key, or Gerry did not use a key or neither used a key. Confused?
First statement by Gerry also says Matthew went via the open patio doors. It seems the McCanns avoided the short route of the open patio doors and went the long route and used a key.
In Gerry's second statement he confirmed that his first statement was accurate. Then he changed the account to everyone going in through open patio doors, no key required.
I believe he did a video about a year after the incident, in which he returned to 5A. And in which the key was on a table in the apartment and the reason for using the patio doors had become 'the noise of the front door might wake the children'. Not so the other 2 couples on the ground floor.
I am neither pro-McCann or anti-McCann, but Gerry's first statement has hallmarks of someone trying to cover over a pile of poo, and doing a very bad job of it.
There is a credible reason why this might have arisen. It has nothing to do with fatigue, stress or disorientation. And no, I do NOT know this credible reason is what actually was the driver.
Consistently throughout the statements those who were entering the apartment via the unlocked patio doors are recorded as saying they were entering though the unlocked patio doors.
Just as Dr McCann stated, not that Madeleine would have been unable to open the doors, (I fell for that one) but that Madeleine would not have closed the patio doors behind her ... or the closed the child gate behind her ... or closed the outer gate behind her.
Apparently both inaccuracies have been promulgated by Pat Brown's profile which may be the 'driver' you seek.
There is a more concise rebuttal here ...
http://madeleinemythsexposed.pbworks.com/w/page/41720163/Analysis%20and%20Rebuttal%20of%20Pat%20Brown's%20ebook%20%22Profile%20of%20the%20Disappearance%20of%20Madeleine%20McCann%20(UPDATE
-
Of course it is, Davel, of course it is @)(++(*
when I pointed out the error it was confirmed by Anne Gueddes......by all means stay ignorant and don't accept facts that contradict your opinion
-
First statement by Gerry is that he used a key. Then he asserted that Kate used a key. The guests were given but one key per couple, so said key had to pass from Gerry to Kate, somehow. Unless, of course, Kate did not use a key, or Gerry did not use a key or neither used a key. Confused?
First statement by Gerry also says Matthew went via the open patio doors. It seems the McCanns avoided the short route of the open patio doors and went the long route and used a key.
In Gerry's second statement he confirmed that his first statement was accurate. Then he changed the account to everyone going in through open patio doors, no key required.
I believe he did a video about a year after the incident, in which he returned to 5A. And in which the key was on a table in the apartment and the reason for using the patio doors had become 'the noise of the front door might wake the children'. Not so the other 2 couples on the ground floor.
I am neither pro-McCann or anti-McCann, but Gerry's first statement has hallmarks of someone trying to cover over a pile of poo, and doing a very bad job of it.
There is a credible reason why this might have arisen. It has nothing to do with fatigue, stress or disorientation. And no, I do NOT know this credible reason is what actually was the driver.
The PJ noticed;
During Gerry's first questioning (Folio 34) he said that at 21.05 when he went to his apartment to 'check' the children, he entered by the main door; during his second questioning (Folio 891) he changed this by saying he had entered through the patio doors.
- During Gerry's first questioning he said that Kate, at 22.00, when she went to the apartment, entered by the locked front door . When she entered she noticed the door to the children's bedroom was opened inwards, the window was open and the shutter was raised. (if this had happened, she would not have noticed this scene after entering. She would have noticed this before entering the apartment, as she would have passed the window of the children's bedroom).
- During his second questioning, Gerry said that Kate entered through the patio doors.
- During Kate's questioning she said that she entered through the patio doors.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/BRIGADE-OF-INFORMATION.htm
-
The PJ noticed;
During Gerry's first questioning (Folio 34) he said that at 21.05 when he went to his apartment to 'check' the children, he entered by the main door; during his second questioning (Folio 891) he changed this by saying he had entered through the patio doors.
- During Gerry's first questioning he said that Kate, at 22.00, when she went to the apartment, entered by the locked front door . When she entered she noticed the door to the children's bedroom was opened inwards, the window was open and the shutter was raised. (if this had happened, she would not have noticed this scene after entering. She would have noticed this before entering the apartment, as she would have passed the window of the children's bedroom).
- During his second questioning, Gerry said that Kate entered through the patio doors.
- During Kate's questioning she said that she entered through the patio doors.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/BRIGADE-OF-INFORMATION.htm
You do not have any verbatim statement by Gerry...none of these police statements would be accepted as evidence in a court
-
Of course it is, Davel, of course it is @)(++(*
Remember Jassi.
Dave's an expert on everything.
We have to thank him for working in casualty during the Birmingham Pub bombings in '74.
Where would this country be without him. 8)--))
-
Insults are creeping in. Please stop now.
-
You do not have any verbatim statement by Gerry...none of these police statements would be accepted as evidence in a court
Statements which are not taken verbatim in the language of the person making the statement or recorded in audio and / or video must be considered unreliable.
The idea that there was a 'cover up' regarding entry to the apartment by the checkers is risible.
-
Statements which are not taken verbatim in the language of the person making the statement or recorded in audio and / or video must be considered unreliable.
The idea that there was a 'cover up' regarding entry to the apartment by the checkers is risible.
There is no independent verification of regular checks.
-
Statements which are not taken verbatim in the language of the person making the statement or recorded in audio and / or video must be considered unreliable.
The idea that there was a 'cover up' regarding entry to the apartment by the checkers is risible.
Is this your word of the week, courtesy of Readers Digest " extend your vocabulary"?
-
You do not have any verbatim statement by Gerry...none of these police statements would be accepted as evidence in a court
Would that be a Portuguese court? If the witness statements aren't admissible why did the police bother to take them I wonder.
-
Is this your word of the week, courtesy of Readers Digest " extend your vocabulary"?
Nope, not just this week ... I use it quite a lot. Did you have to look it up?
-
Would that be a Portuguese court? If the witness statements aren't admissible why did the police bother to take them I wonder.
Maybe the cops were going through the processes when they were working on the case of a missing child. I believe witness statements are useful in such circumstances.
-
Would that be a Portuguese court? If the witness statements aren't admissible why did the police bother to take them I wonder.
surely someone with your knowledge of the case.....your knowledge of the evidence...doesn't have to ask someone like me such a question...are you under the impression Gerry's statement would be admissible?
-
surely someone with your knowledge of the case.....your knowledge of the evidence...doesn't have to ask someone like me such a question...are you under the impression Gerry's statement would be admissible?
It was a rhetorical question obviously. @)(++(*
-
It was a rhetorical question obviously. @)(++(*
so you are under the illusion that these statements would be admissible as evidence
-
As it is inconceivable that the McCanns would be allowed to be brought to trial, it is irrelevant whether certain evidence would, or would not stand in court.
-
so you are under the illusion that these statements would be admissible as evidence
Do you have any cite of where and when translated witness statements from foreign nationals have not been allowed in a court of law in Portugal? There must be plenty of cases where foreign nationals have been in court.
The difference in language didn't seem to be a problem in the Mccanns' recent trial in Portugal. Excuse me for a while whilst I catch up.
@Benice
It was not a matter of what a policeman "believed" in any summary. There was the small matter of a translator who was in between the policeman and the witness.
-
Do you have any cite of where and when translated witness statements from foreign nationals have not been allowed in a court of law in Portugal? There must be plenty of cases where foreign nationals have been in court.
The difference in language didn't seem to be a problem in the Mccanns' recent trial in Portugal. Excuse me for a while whilst I catch up.
@Benice
It was not a matter of what a policeman "believed" in any summary. There was the small matter of a translator who was in between the policeman and the witness.
So you think these statements would be admissable on a court were the mccanns to be tried
-
So you think these statements would be admissable on a court were the mccanns to be tried
No second hand, translated statement would be admissible in a Court of Law.
-
So you think these statements would be admissable on a court were the mccanns to be tried
I asked first
8((()*/
Same questions go to Eleanor, she might know too.
-
I asked first
8((()*/
Same questions go to Eleanor, she might know too.
the statements could not be used against the McCanns.....do you doubt my super intelligence and knowledge
-
the statements could not be used against the McCanns.....do you doubt my super intelligence and knowledge
Is there any particular reason why you cannot answer my question? Here is another. Who said anything about anyone using translated statements "against" the Mccanns? Or are some statements OK but others aren't? Or are all translated statements disallowed in courts?
Awaiting your cites.
-
Is there any particular reason why you cannot answer my question? Here is another. Who said anything about anyone using translated statements "against" the Mccanns? Or are some statements OK but others aren't? Or are all translated statements disallowed in courts?
Awaiting your cites.
There are several reasons why none of those statements would be acceptable as evidence against the McCanns...I'm surprised I'm the only one who realises
-
There are several reasons why none of those statements would be acceptable as evidence against the McCanns...I'm surprised I'm the only one who realises
Again, you have ignored my post and not answered any of my questions. I can only assume it is because you cannot back up your statements or "realisations". It's good to share. This is not a competition of one upmanship.
@)(++(*
Oh well.
-
Again, you have ignored my post and not answered any of my questions. I can only assume it is because you cannot back up your statements or "realisations". It's good to share. This is not a competition of one upmanship.
@)(++(*
Oh well.
first they were interviewed as witnesses...not arguidos. Do you understand the concept of being interviewed under caution in the UK...this is similar to arguido status in Portugal.
in the Uk unless a suspect is cautioned none of his statements can be used in court...in Portugal unless the witness is an arguido...none of the statements can be used in court
-
the statements could not be used against the McCanns.....do you doubt my super intelligence and knowledge
'ere, what about mine? Although I do have to say that it doesn't take much to work it out.
-
first they were interviewed as witnesses...not arguidos. Do you understand the concept of being interviewed under caution in the UK...this is similar to arguido status in Portugal.
in the Uk unless a suspect is cautioned none of his statements can be used in court...in Portugal unless the witness is an arguido...none of the statements can be used in court
Thanks, finally!
Why did it take you three pages to explain then? I will for the moment assume you are correct, although I could be terribly wrong.
You gave the impression that it was the translation issue that would be the problem in court, as in this post of yours:
You do not have any verbatim statement by Gerry...none of these police statements would be accepted as evidence in a court
Perhaps you should take the time to flesh your posts out, and not conflate disparate issues without explanation, and make posts a little clearer in future?
-
Thanks, finally!
Why did it take you three pages to explain then? I will for the moment assume you are correct, although I could be terribly wrong.
You gave the impression that it was the translation issue that would be the problem in court, as in this post of yours:
You do not have any verbatim statement by Gerry...none of these police statements would be accepted as evidence in a court
Perhaps you should take the time to flesh your posts out, and not conflate disparate issues without explanation, and make posts a little clearer in future?
You assumed I was referring solely to the translation issues.....your problem. having said that I cannot see any court accepting statements that witnesses are asked to sign when it is clear that they do not understand what they are signing.
-
IMO if people were asked now they would remember the blue lever and whether they operated it.
I would have an identical gate in interview room to educate interviewer.
If it was always locked we can probably rule out wandering.
The police ruled out the woke and wandered and nearby somewhere theory early on. The 4th May statement gathering seems to have been a gathering basic information exercise. By the 10th May where more detailed questions were asked, it was obvious to them Madeleine did not walk and wonder to somewhere nearby as she would have been found probably (and indeed has never been found since) and therefore whether she went out of the apartment herself via any means and was abducted or whether abducted from inside, was a moot point.
-
You assumed I was referring solely to the translation issues.....your problem. having said that I cannot see any court accepting statements that witnesses are asked to sign when it is clear that they do not understand what they are signing.
Why would anyone assume anythng else if that is all you posted, unless you want people to be mind readers!
As for signing any statement, if it was read back in English then I assume, the English speaker understood English so yes, presumably they would understand what they were signing.
-
Why would anyone assume anythng else if that is all you posted, unless you want people to be mind readers!
As for signing any statement, if it was read back in English then I assume, the English speaker understood English so yes, presumably they would understand what they were signing.
depends how accurate the translation was...and we have no way of knowing....neither did Gerry...Gerry had no way of knowing what was written down...that is a fact
-
depends how accurate the translation was...and we have no way of knowing....neither did Gerry...Gerry had no way of knowing what was written down...that is a fact
Oh those evil translators.....the ones who just plucked out the word "key" and the phrase "because it was locked" from their imaginations ...ever heard of the phrase"scraping the barrell"? Or was it a case of Gerry being wrong in his memory and correcting himself in his second statement, or of not being wrong but changing the statement?
ETA:
What you are suggesting is what was written down was NOT what the translator read back in English before beng signed ..so basically youre calling the translator a fraud, more barrell scraping.
-
Oh those evil translators.....the ones who just plucked out the word "key" and the phrase "because it was locked" from their imaginations ...ever heard of the phrase"scraping the barrell"? Or was it a case of Gerry being wrong in his memory and correcting himself in his second statement, or of not being wrong but changing the statement?
You only have to look at Google translations of Portuguese news articles to understand the fallibility of human translation.
-
You only have to look at Google translations of Portuguese news articles to understand the fallibility of human translation.
I think there is a difference Misty between google robotic translations and actual human translators
@)(++(*
If the translations of statements in a criminal or other case were of the same par, I agree, there would be no point whatsoever
-
I think there is a difference Misty between google robotic translations and actual human translators
@)(++(*
If the translations of statements in a criminal or other case were of the same par, I agree, there would be no point whatsoever
Well done you.
-
Well done you.
The analogy was a bit silly, I agree.
-
The analogy was a bit silly, I agree.
Not a problem for me. We are all at point scoring, are we not?
-
The analogy was a bit silly, I agree.
The files were translated into German & Dutch as well. Must have cost Levy a fortune to get them done accurately by humans.
-
Not a problem for me. We are all at point scoring, are we not?
?? never mind.
-
I think there is a difference Misty between google robotic translations and actual human translators
@)(++(*
If the translations of statements in a criminal or other case were of the same par, I agree, there would be no point whatsoever
Is Google translate programmed by robots?
-
The files were translated into German & Dutch as well. Must have cost Levy a fortune to get them done accurately by humans.
I will try and respond when I don't get a cryptic question. Whats this, whatever it is about, got to do with the police having a translator? One whch by all accounts seems to be being called a fraud by some.
As I said, scraping barrells galore.
-
Is Google translate programmed by robots?
Whoever programmed Google translate deserves to be called a robot, or maybe not, not as good as robots.
-
I will try and respond when I don't get a cryptic question. Whats this, whatever it is about, got to do with the police having a translator? One whch by all accounts seems to be being called a fraud by some.
As I said, scraping barrells galore.
The PJ did the bet they could as far as translation was concerned, given the circumstances and the number of English witnesses to urgently interview. I think you'd agree that some would have been much more proficient than others and to believe that every single word in each statement was exactly translated would be foolhardy.
-
The PJ did the bet they could as far as translation was concerned, given the circumstances and the number of English witnesses to urgently interview. I think you'd agree that some would have been much more proficient than others and to believe that every single word in each statement was exactly translated would be foolhardy.
So are you saying the Pj used unqualified translators, and if they did, what is to say they did a crap job?
not every single word or nuance has to be exact, just the facts of what was said, and Im sure, I did this then that and after that I did this, saw this, said this is not hard to translate, they werent reciting philosophies on the meaning of beauty in art for example
@)(++(*
-
So are you saying the Pj used unqualified translators, and if they did, what is to say they did a crap job?
not every single word or nuance has to be exact, just the facts of what was said, and Im sure, I did this then that and after that I did this, saw this, said this is not hard to translate, they werent reciting philosophies on the meaning of beauty in art for example
@)(++(*
Murat wasn't a qualified translator, to name but one.
You say that not every single word or nuance has to be exact - so why on earth was a reconstitution required & why do the sceptics hyper-analyse every single word from the Tapas 9 statements in their attempts to prove itwastheMcCannswotdunit?
-
Murat wasn't a qualified translator, to name but one.
You say that not every single word or nuance has to be exact - so why on earth was a reconstitution required & why do the sceptics hyper-analyse every single word from the Tapas 9 statements in their attempts to prove itwastheMcCannswotdunit?
Oh dear. The last witnesses to see the missing child are always investigated. Have you got a problem with that?
-
Murat wasn't a qualified translator, to name but one.
You say that not every single word or nuance has to be exact - so why on earth was a reconstitution required & why do the sceptics hyper-analyse every single word from the Tapas 9 statements in their attempts to prove itwastheMcCannswotdunit?
Murat was probably better than a qualified translator, being naturally bilingual is better than "studied"
You are right that overanalysing every word is not helpful. Its all to do with context.
The reconstruction was something the police wanted, to iron out discrepancies and to shed more light on the night, and obviously the statements did not all match up or were incomplete, even if you look at Kate Mccanns 48 questions, there are so many things the police still had questions about, so late in the day, basic things, and not anyone's job to decline it if they had nothing to hide IMO this would be called obstructing justice
-
Oh dear. The last witnesses to see the missing child are always investigated. Have you got a problem with that?
Not at all. So why was it necessary to request the presence of many of the Tapas 9 in a reconstitution when they hadn't seen Madeleine since lunchtime?
-
Not at all. So why was it necessary to request the presence of many of the Tapas 9 in a reconstitution when they hadn't seen Madeleine since lunchtime?
Because they were all together on the night of the disappearance before and after so all their testimonies/actions from the begnning to the end of the evening are important
Goodnight Misty, keep questioning and asking, its a healthy thing to do, whatever side of the fence you sit on
8((()*/
-
Not at all. So why was it necessary to request the presence of many of the Tapas 9 in a reconstitution when they hadn't seen Madeleine since lunchtime?
They were all there on the night she disappeared. What they saw, what they heard, what they know.........
-
They were all there on the night she disappeared. What they saw, what they heard, what they know.........
.....as were the people who saw Madeleine at high tea, the waiters, the other diners in the Tapas Bar.....
Just exactly what would a reconstitution show other than who walked from A to B & at roughly what time? It certainly would not have shown how an intruder got into 5a or Smithman legged it to the beach clutching a cadaver, then back again.
Would the PJ have re-installed the safety gate for the reconstitution?
-
Thanks Misty, previous 65 posts seem to not mention the thing at upper end of steps which is thread topic if I recall correctly. IMO PJ probably wouldn't have thought in sufficient tiny detail to reinstall it. But it would be necessary for a realistic reenactment. If the lever was always down (locked) it might rule out the wandering (accident or abduction) theories.
-
I would not rely on such a specific memory many years after the event.
Different if it had been asked at the time and refreshed later that is different ... and who knows it may well have been if statements were written down as is police practice even when not in formal interview ... not everything is documented in the files.
IMO if SY were to ask each person who checked apartment that evening:
"When you arrived did you press button and move blue lever from horizontal to vertical to unlock stairgate?"
"When you left did you move blue lever from vertical to horizontal to lock stairgate?"
they may recall even now in 2015.
-
IMO if SY were to ask each person who checked apartment that evening:
"When you arrived did you press button and move blue lever from horizontal to vertical to unlock stairgate?"
"When you left did you move blue lever from vertical to horizontal to lock stairgate?"
they may recall even now in 2015.
Having read the rogatory statements I don't think the question would have been asked like that, Pegasus. Probably more along the lines of ~
When you climbed the stair, what did you see?
Describe the gate in detail.
Take it one step at a time and describe what you did next ... (not perfect I know but I think it would be necessary to get answers without prompting ... and if someone mentioned specifics such as a description of the opening mechanism ... I am sure my brain would "remember" opening it)
Proper assessment of statements can't be concluded ... unless one knows the questions asked to elicit the response.
For example ...
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/CAROL_TRANMER.htm ... this statement being one where gentle questioning of the witness made her realise that she had got her dates mixed up.
There are no examples of Portuguese interviews taking the same tack to ensure accuracy ... with the exception of the "48 questions" we have only the statements to go on with no idea what questions were being asked.
We can assume from the number of statements which contain reference to not having seen Robert Murat that it was in answer to the question was he there and was he seen.
-
It is a fact that non verbatim twice translated statements cannot be relied upon to be accurate.
-
Oh those evil translators.....the ones who just plucked out the word "key" and the phrase "because it was locked" from their imaginations ...ever heard of the phrase"scraping the barrell"? Or was it a case of Gerry being wrong in his memory and correcting himself in his second statement, or of not being wrong but changing the statement?
ETA:
What you are suggesting is what was written down was NOT what the translator read back in English before beng signed ..so basically youre calling the translator a fraud, more barrell scraping.
These notes from the translator - would strongly suggest that translating the statements was not exactly a walk in the park.
QUOTE
905 to 917 Witness statement of Matthew David Oldfield 2007.05.10
918-Consent for mouth swab for Matthew David Oldfield
TRANSLATION BY ALBYM
04-Processo 04 Page 905 to 917
[M Oldfield's Statement 10th May Again, there were several omissions from, and errors in, the original Portuguese. I corrected those that I found. Also, much of the Portuguese statement is written with a convoluted 'future + past' verb construct that attributes an 'uncertainty' to the words, whereas I have translated much of it in a non-literal manner to make it read more definitively. Hence, the reader must understand that neither the Portuguese nor my translation necessarily constitute the exact words spoken by Oldfield.
If you read MO's Rogatory Letter testimony you will get a sense of the difficulty the Portuguese interpreter faced when listening to this man.]
End quote
Translators note - -
I must make it clear that this officer, while doing his clear professional duty, was, of necessity, couching much of his statement in a very diplomatic manner. Some of his phrasing I have managed to keep word-for-word, whereas other parts I have had to cut directly to the chase because it is simply too tortuous for me to convert word-for-word into English.
As usual my inline explanatory comments are in square brackets.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/ROBERT-MURAT.htm
-
It is a fact that non verbatim twice translated statements cannot be relied upon to be accurate.
"2130: ... the child gate on the stairs up to the patio is possibly open".
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P4/04_VOLUME_IVa_Page_890.jpg
That is a scan of the original English typed page handed to PJ. There is no possibility of translation error.
-
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P4/04_VOLUME_IVa_Page_890.jpg
"possibly open" - There is certainly no translation or transcription error in this
- it is the original 3-page english timeline document composed by the group of 9 adults themselves, not by the PJ.
"that was a timeline that was made purely by the nine of us"
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RUSSELL-OBRIEN_ROGATORY.htm (about halfwaydown)
-
Madeleine was moved out before 9:30 and Eddie told you it was on that side.
-
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P4/04_VOLUME_IVa_Page_890.jpg
"possibly open" - There is certainly no translation or transcription error in this
- it is the original 3-page english timeline document composed by the group of 9 adults themselves, not by the PJ.
"that was a timeline that was made purely by the nine of us"
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RUSSELL-OBRIEN_ROGATORY.htm (about halfwaydown)
It also states quite clearly that the patio door was closed but unlocked.
-
"2130: ... the child gate on the stairs up to the patio is possibly open".
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P4/04_VOLUME_IVa_Page_890.jpg
That is a scan of the original English typed page handed to PJ. There is no possibility of translation error.
The possibilities are:-
1. MO was mistaken & the gate was closed
2. The gate had been left open by GM.
3. The gate had been left open by a wandering Madeleine.
4. The gate had been left open by a potential intruder.
I think MO would have remembered stopping & having to assess how the child gate opened, which tends to suggest it was already open & he left it open after completing his check.
-
The possibilities are:-
1. MO was mistaken & the gate was closed
2. The gate had been left open by GM.
3. The gate had been left open by a wandering Madeleine.
4. The gate had been left open by a potential intruder.
I think MO would have remembered stopping & having to assess how the child gate opened, which tends to suggest it was already open & he left it open after completing his check.
2 or 3 are the most probable (1 or 4 are unlikely) IMO.
-
It also states quite clearly that the patio door was closed but unlocked.
Thanks Yes. Who closed the sliding door but left the stairgate open? The 9.10pm checker? Or the child?
-
Madeleine was moved out before 9:30 and Eddie told you it was on that side.
In your theory does your child-carrying man close and lock the stairgate before continuing down the steps?
-
A schoolboy error...neither statement is made by Gerry...they are not verbatim...they are made by the translator...
They are translated by a translator. Both statements were made by Gerry.
The translator was in no position to know which door required a key and which did not, hence in no position to 'invent' or 'mis-translate' a key.
Verbatim statements might work on sound recordings. I have given more than one statement to UK police, none of them sound recorded.
The Portuguese for key is chave. This means either a key or an electrical switch. Gerry entered by means of a key, not an electrical switch. At least, according to his first statement.
Please do us both a favour. I don't insult you about your 'schoolboy errors'. Please refrain from insulting me.
-
Consistently throughout the statements those who were entering the apartment via the unlocked patio doors are recorded as saying they were entering though the unlocked patio doors.
Just as Dr McCann stated, not that Madeleine would have been unable to open the doors, (I fell for that one) but that Madeleine would not have closed the patio doors behind her ... or the closed the child gate behind her ... or closed the outer gate behind her.
Apparently both inaccuracies have been promulgated by Pat Brown's profile which may be the 'driver' you seek.
There is a more concise rebuttal here ...
http://madeleinemythsexposed.pbworks.com/w/page/41720163/Analysis%20and%20Rebuttal%20of%20Pat%20Brown's%20ebook%20%22Profile%20of%20the%20Disappearance%20of%20Madeleine%20McCann%20(UPDATE
I haven't read Pat Brown's ideas. The link looks like it is a bit of jolly amusement for a idle hour so I have stacked in my in-tray, thanks.
But concise? I need to read an entire book for a concise rebuttal? ?{)(**
-
2 or 3 are the most probable (1 or 4 are unlikely) IMO.
Do you think Madeleine could have closed the patio door without getting the heavy curtain/nets jammed in it?
-
Do you think Madeleine could have closed the patio door without getting the heavy curtain/nets jammed in it?
I doubt anyone aged around 4 would bother shutting the patio door, closing the child gate and closing the garden gate, which is why the state of these is so important.
-
I doubt anyone aged around 4 would bother shutting the patio door, closing the child gate and closing the garden gate, which is why the state of these is so important.
I agree with that, which only leaves the questions as to whether or not MO found the safety gate open and why the PJ didn't question both him & GM further on that very point.
-
Consistently throughout the statements those who were entering the apartment via the unlocked patio doors are recorded as saying they were entering though the unlocked patio doors.
Just as Dr McCann stated, not that Madeleine would have been unable to open the doors, (I fell for that one) but that Madeleine would not have closed the patio doors behind her ... or the closed the child gate behind her ... or closed the outer gate behind her.
Apparently both inaccuracies have been promulgated by Pat Brown's profile which may be the 'driver' you seek.
There is a more concise rebuttal here ...
http://madeleinemythsexposed.pbworks.com/w/page/41720163/Analysis%20and%20Rebuttal%20of%20Pat%20Brown's%20ebook%20%22Profile%20of%20the%20Disappearance%20of%20Madeleine%20McCann%20(UPDATE
I read the 'rebuttal' link, but they haven't got the correct information either. There is hard evidence that the police weren't called until 10.40pm;
That the police were called at 10.40.
False. The police had been called twice by this time. According to the witness statements of the Ocean Club receptionist (see below), the police were called immediately following a phonecall from restaurant staff. When the police had not arrived by around 10.30pm, they were called a second time at the request of Gerry McCann. By this time, there were many guests and staff searching the complex and surrounding streets for Madeleine.
-
They are translated by a translator. Both statements were made by Gerry.
The translator was in no position to know which door required a key and which did not, hence in no position to 'invent' or 'mis-translate' a key.
Verbatim statements might work on sound recordings. I have given more than one statement to UK police, none of them sound recorded.
The Portuguese for key is chave. This means either a key or an electrical switch. Gerry entered by means of a key, not an electrical switch. At least, according to his first statement.
Please do us both a favour. I don't insult you about your 'schoolboy errors'. Please refrain from insulting me.
the statements were made by the translator based on what she understood Gerry told her...neither made by Gerry and translated twice...if that is not a recipe for error I don't know what is
-
Was Gerry questioned about this "key" issue when he was questioned as an arguido? If not, why not?
-
Was Gerry questioned about this "key" issue when he was questioned as an arguido? If not, why not?
Is that question rhetorical? It seems to be one only the PJ could answer. The rather flimsy child gate and the warning notices on the patio door would have been taken into account by responsible parents. They would have made sure their children couldn't leave by that patio door onto that dangerous balcony when they were left alone. They would have locked them in just like their friends did, in my opinion.
-
How much did a wireless baby intercom cost back then? The Paynes had it sussed, it's a pity others didn't take notice.
-
How much did a wireless baby intercom cost back then? The Paynes had it sussed, it's a pity others didn't take notice.
I believe JT had one. Personally I wouldn't 100% trust anything 'mechanical'. Also the fact that the alarm is sitting there in full view - and thus advertising to all and sundry that your children are alone in their apartment - is not a good idea IMO.
Personally I think the use of baby alarms and the listening service - as a means of child care whilst parents are absent should be discouraged or even banned maybe - at all holiday venues.
-
I believe JT had one. Personally I wouldn't 100% trust anything 'mechanical'. Also the fact that the alarm is sitting there in full view - and thus advertising to all and sundry that your children are alone in their apartment - is not a good idea IMO.
Personally I think the use of baby alarms and the listening service - as a means of child care whilst parents are absent should be discouraged or even banned maybe - at all holiday venues.
I'm amazed that they're still seen as viable options considering the publicity this case received. Not because of the danger of abduction, but because other things can happen when children are left alone and they won't necessarily include noise.
-
The possibilities are:-
1. MO was mistaken & the gate was closed
2. The gate had been left open by GM.
3. The gate had been left open by a wandering Madeleine.
4. The gate had been left open by a potential intruder.
I think MO would have remembered stopping & having to assess how the child gate opened, which tends to suggest it was already open & he left it open after completing his check.
Number 2 if it was open. Kate was supposed to check at 9:30 not anybody else. If Matt took those extra steps as he put it he would've found Madeleine gone. Smithman moved her out before 9:30 (patio side) but to be seen nearly an hour later there is only one explanation for Madeleine's disappearance. She was moved by Smithman on two separate occasions but the plan was not clever enough to fool Pathfinder.
-
I haven't read Pat Brown's ideas. The link looks like it is a bit of jolly amusement for a idle hour so I have stacked in my in-tray, thanks.
But concise? I need to read an entire book for a concise rebuttal? ?{)(**
LOL ... depends very much how many arguments you wish to counter 8**8:/: I think it would possibly take the equivalent of a few volumes of Encyclopaedia Britannica to get most ...
Perhaps you are correct though ... having given it some thought, 'concise' was possibly the wrong adjective here.
-
I doubt anyone aged around 4 would bother shutting the patio door, closing the child gate and closing the garden gate, which is why the state of these is so important.
Yes. The only way to properly ask each checker the state of the stairgate before and after each check, is for investigators to first obtain an identical stairgate. So they can learn how it works and learn the right questions to ask. I found the exact make and model so SY should be capable of doing the same.
You need to understand the function of the u-shaped metal flange, and the detailed operation of the button and lever, and the fact it doesn't lock by itself, and that it opens both ways.
Then have it there in the interviews so that witnesses can demonstrate hands-on exactly how they opened and closed it.
If it was at all times locked, that might rule out out the wandering-then-abduction (MWT and O'Connor theories) and wandering-then-accident (e.g. see Morgan statement) ideas.
-
Number 2 if it was open. Kate was supposed to check at 9:30 not anybody else. If Matt took those extra steps as he put it he would've found Madeleine gone. Smithman moved her out before 9:30 (patio side) but to be seen nearly an hour later there is only one explanation for Madeleine's disappearance. She was moved by Smithman on two separate occasions but the plan was not clever enough to fool Pathfinder.
So in your theory (what I disagree with) your hypothetical bag by way of this safety gate and steps?
-
Do you think Madeleine could have closed the patio door without getting the heavy curtain/nets jammed in it?
- (answered on sliding door thread)
-
So in your theory (what I disagree with) your hypothetical bag by way of this safety gate and steps?
I'm not ruling out a bag being used on the first move until it's properly investigated. There's an unidentified bag that needs to be confirmed. One thing is for certain you don't want to be seen carrying a child away from the crime scene.
-
I read the 'rebuttal' link, but they haven't got the correct information either. There is hard evidence that the police weren't called until 10.40pm;
That the police were called at 10.40.
False. The police had been called twice by this time. According to the witness statements of the Ocean Club receptionist (see below), the police were called immediately following a phonecall from restaurant staff. When the police had not arrived by around 10.30pm, they were called a second time at the request of Gerry McCann. By this time, there were many guests and staff searching the complex and surrounding streets for Madeleine.
Correct. The police WERE called twice but at 10.40 and 10.50 or so, not earlier, proof is in the files, but some insist on hearsay and assumptions. Cold hard evidenced facts are normally better to rely on.
-
The gate has three states
Open / Closed and unlocked / Closed and locked.
Why not obtain same gate, fit it at top of some stairs, same way round as in PDL, and ask relevant peeps to re-enact how they went through the gate?
-
Correct. The police WERE called twice but at 10.40 and 10.50 or so, not earlier, proof is in the files, but some insist on hearsay and assumptions. Cold hard evidenced facts are normally better to rely on.
That helping of hearsay and assumptions was from a site claiming to be exposing the myths too. Here they are saying someone was wrong about the time the police were called. As we know, they are the ones who have got it wrong.
That the police were called at 10.40.
False. The police had been called twice by this time. According to the witness statements of the Ocean Club receptionist (see below), the police were called immediately following a phonecall from restaurant staff. When the police had not arrived by around 10.30pm, they were called a second time at the request of Gerry McCann. By this time, there were many guests and staff searching the complex and surrounding streets for Madeleine.
http://madeleinemythsexposed.pbworks.com/w/page/41720163/Analysis%20and%20Rebuttal%20of%20Pat%20Brown's%20ebook%20%22Profile%20of%20the%20Disappearance%20of%20Madeleine%20McCann%20(UPDATE
-
That helping of hearsay and assumptions was from a site claiming to be exposing the myths too. Here they are saying someone was wrong about the time the police were called. As we know, they are the ones who have got it wrong.
That the police were called at 10.40.
False. The police had been called twice by this time. According to the witness statements of the Ocean Club receptionist (see below), the police were called immediately following a phonecall from restaurant staff. When the police had not arrived by around 10.30pm, they were called a second time at the request of Gerry McCann. By this time, there were many guests and staff searching the complex and surrounding streets for Madeleine.
http://madeleinemythsexposed.pbworks.com/w/page/41720163/Analysis%20and%20Rebuttal%20of%20Pat%20Brown's%20ebook%20%22Profile%20of%20the%20Disappearance%20of%20Madeleine%20McCann%20(UPDATE
it is ironic you use the word hearsay....
the report of another person's words by a witness, which is usually disallowed as evidence in a court of law.
that sums up Gerry's statements
-
it is ironic you use the word hearsay....
the report of another person's words by a witness, which is usually disallowed as evidence in a court of law.
that sums up Gerry's statements
Usually disallowed.
By whom exactly.
Cite.
-
That helping of hearsay and assumptions was from a site claiming to be exposing the myths too. Here they are saying someone was wrong about the time the police were called. As we know, they are the ones who have got it wrong.
That the police were called at 10.40.
False. The police had been called twice by this time. According to the witness statements of the Ocean Club receptionist (see below), the police were called immediately following a phonecall from restaurant staff. When the police had not arrived by around 10.30pm, they were called a second time at the request of Gerry McCann. By this time, there were many guests and staff searching the complex and surrounding streets for Madeleine.
http://madeleinemythsexposed.pbworks.com/w/page/41720163/Analysis%20and%20Rebuttal%20of%20Pat%20Brown's%20ebook%20%22Profile%20of%20the%20Disappearance%20of%20Madeleine%20McCann%20(UPDATE
Not hearsay at all - the above statement was based on the witness statement of the employee who actually made the calls.
Helder Jorge Samaio Luis, receptionist
"He knows about the situation that happened at the Ocean Club concerning the disappearance of a little given that on the day in question (03/05/2007) he was on duty and was contacted by a member of staff from the Tapas Restaurant between 09.30 and 22.00 who informed him that the daughter of some guests who were dining there had disappeared. That he immediately contacted the GNR in Lagos, shortly after this the child’s father and John Hill arrived at the reception and he phoned the GNR again."
Vitor Manuel dos Santos, Head of accommodation
With regard to the date of the disappearance on 3rd May 2007, he remembers that at 22.00/22.15 he received a phone call from the reception, from receptionist Helder, who told him that John Hill was extremely agitated as a child had disappeared and that the GNR had been contacted but had not arrived yet. He added (the receptionist) that he had phoned the GNR post several times and that he had been told that they would arrive when they could but that they were investigating a theft in Odiaxere. The receptionist asked the witness whether he should contact the PSP, to which the witness replied no as this area belongs to the GNR.
End quote.
Not a hint anywhere in those two statements that the first call was not actually made until 10.41 but a clear indication that the first call had been made between 10 and 10.15.
Just goes to show the fallibility of memory and although I'm sure both witnesses told the truth as they remembered it - they were both obviously wrong about the time of the phone calls. Another reason IMO why the information in witness statements cannot be relied on to be accurate.
-
Usually disallowed.
By whom exactly.
Cite.
Previous consistent and inconsistent statements
Sometimes during the testimony of a witness, the witness may be questioned about statements he previously made outside court on an earlier occasion, to demonstrate either that he has been consistent or inconsistent in his account of events. The Act did not change the circumstances in which such statements could become admissible in evidence (which are still prescribed in the Criminal Procedure Act 1865), but it did change the evidential effect of such statements once admitted. Formerly, such statements were not evidence of the facts stated in them (unless the witness agreed with them in court): they only proved that the witness had kept his story straight or had changed his story, and so were only evidence of his credibility (or lack of it) as a witness. They were not hearsay. Under the 2003 Act, however, such statements are now themselves evidence of any facts stated in them, not just of credibility, and so are now hearsay.
-
Previous consistent and inconsistent statements
Sometimes during the testimony of a witness, the witness may be questioned about statements he previously made outside court on an earlier occasion, to demonstrate either that he has been consistent or inconsistent in his account of events. The Act did not change the circumstances in which such statements could become admissible in evidence (which are still prescribed in the Criminal Procedure Act 1865), but it did change the evidential effect of such statements once admitted. Formerly, such statements were not evidence of the facts stated in them (unless the witness agreed with them in court): they only proved that the witness had kept his story straight or had changed his story, and so were only evidence of his credibility (or lack of it) as a witness. They were not hearsay. Under the 2003 Act, however, such statements are now themselves evidence of any facts stated in them, not just of credibility, and so are now hearsay.
That statement was not made by Gerry... plus...it would not be allowed in court as evidence as Gerry had not been made arguido...uk equivalent of cautiuoned
-
Not hearsay at all - the above statement was based on the witness statement of the employee who actually made the calls.
Helder Jorge Samaio Luis, receptionist
"He knows about the situation that happened at the Ocean Club concerning the disappearance of a little given that on the day in question (03/05/2007) he was on duty and was contacted by a member of staff from the Tapas Restaurant between 09.30 and 22.00 who informed him that the daughter of some guests who were dining there had disappeared. That he immediately contacted the GNR in Lagos, shortly after this the child’s father and John Hill arrived at the reception and he phoned the GNR again."
Vitor Manuel dos Santos, Head of accommodation
With regard to the date of the disappearance on 3rd May 2007, he remembers that at 22.00/22.15 he received a phone call from the reception, from receptionist Helder, who told him that John Hill was extremely agitated as a child had disappeared and that the GNR had been contacted but had not arrived yet. He added (the receptionist) that he had phoned the GNR post several times and that he had been told that they would arrive when they could but that they were investigating a theft in Odiaxere. The receptionist asked the witness whether he should contact the PSP, to which the witness replied no as this area belongs to the GNR.
End quote.
Not a hint anywhere in those two statements that the first call was not actually made until 10.41 but a clear indication that the first call had been made between 10 and 10.15.
Just goes to show the fallibility of memory and although I'm sure both witnesses told the truth as they remembered it - they were both obviously wrong about the time of the phone calls. Another reason IMO why the information in witness statements cannot be relied on to be accurate.
The PJ used their investigative skills to show that witness statements can be shown to be wrong. The reason why is unknown, we can speculate but that doesn't add any truth. A site dedicated to exposing myths should ensure that they have fully examined the evidence available, don't you think?
-
I don't recall the time of the first call to police having anything to do with the stairgate for up to 24-month olds.
-
It has nothing to do with it. Someone quoted a site dedicated to exposing myths which is supposed to demonstrate that all three checkers used the unlocked patio doors to enter and exit the apartment. The first statement by Gerald Mccann says he and Kate used the locked front door. If that statement was correct then only one person entered via the patio door.
-
It has nothing to do with it. Someone quoted a site dedicated to exposing myths which is supposed to demonstrate that all three checkers used the unlocked patio doors to enter and exit the apartment. The first statement by Gerald Mccann says he and Kate used the locked front door. If that statement was correct then only one person entered via the patio door.
IMO it was easily possible for a child to go out that safety gate whether locked or unlocked. But easily possible does not mean it happened. The instinctive behaviour upon the shutter and window north of bed being opened from outside is obvious to go south out of room. But maybe not as far as balcony and safety gate?
-
IMO it was easily possible for a child to go out that safety gate whether locked or unlocked. But easily possible does not mean it happened. The instinctive behaviour upon the shutter and window north of bed being opened from outside is obvious to go south out of room. But maybe not as far as balcony and safety gate?
If the sound of the shutter and window being opened wakened Madeleine, why wouldn't it wake the twins who were nearer?
-
IMO it was easily possible for a child to go out that safety gate whether locked or unlocked. But easily possible does not mean it happened. The instinctive behaviour upon the shutter and window north of bed being opened from outside is obvious to go south out of room. But maybe not as far as balcony and safety gate?
So how does that square with the applauded heriberto theory that the child would go towards that sound and be lifted out of the window?
Do you agree with heribertos theory? forgetting for the moment that no forensics existed surrounding a child being dragged through the window
-
If the sound of the shutter and window being opened wakened Madeleine, why wouldn't it wake the twins who were nearer?
answered on window thread
-
A test for you armchair detectives. Here is a photo of the stairgate on 04 May 2007.
Q. Describe, in three words or less, the status of the stairgate at the moment this photo was taken.
-
A test for you armchair detectives. Here is a photo of the stairgate on 04 May 2007.
Q. Describe, in three words or less, the status of the stairgate at the moment this photo was taken.
Ajar, handle unlocked.
-
Ajar, handle unlocked.
Very good Misty you understand how the blue lever works.
But it is ajar by a gap of 0mm therefore it is:
Closed but unlocked
-
Very good Misty you understand how the blue lever works.
But it is ajar by a gap of 0mm therefore it is:
Closed but unlocked
Well done you two ... I can't even see the gate never mind its position.
-
Very good Misty you understand how the blue lever works.
But it is ajar by a gap of 0mm therefore it is:
Closed but unlocked
I may be wrong, but when I zoomed in on the photo, the bottom left of the gate looked further back than the bottom right judging by the paving at the bottom and it seemed to be open a good 6 inches....unless it's my eyes.
-
Well done you two ... I can't even see the gate never mind its position.
BTW the source is 0m35s into the second video on http://www.mccannfiles.com/id121.html
This proves that it is possible for the stairgate to be closed but unlocked.
A document in the files states that when KM arrived to do the 10pm check the stairgate was "probably closed". That is not enough information, because even if it was closed, we need to know the completely seperate and missing bit of important information - was it locked?
-
BTW the source is 0m35s into the second video on http://www.mccannfiles.com/id121.html
This proves that it is possible for the stairgate to be closed but unlocked.
A document in the files states that when KM arrived to do the 10pm check the stairgate was "probably closed". That is not enough information, because even if it was closed, we need to know the completely seperate and missing bit of important information - was it locked?
A document also in the files states that when MO checked at 9.35 the stairgate may have been open.
SY will no doubt have tried to clear up these issues which the PJ failed to clarify when memories were much fresher. At no point does MO seem to have been formally asked the relevant positions of the side gate, the safety gate & the patio door upon entering & after exiting 5a.
If the safety gate was unlocked when KM did her check - it may not have registered in her mind, or she may have no recollection at all because of the shock almost immediately afterwards.
-
A document also in the files states that when MO checked at 9.35 the stairgate may have been open.
SY will no doubt have tried to clear up these issues which the PJ failed to clarify when memories were much fresher. At no point does MO seem to have been formally asked the relevant positions of the side gate, the safety gate & the patio door upon entering & after exiting 5a.
If the safety gate was unlocked when KM did her check - it may not have registered in her mind, or she may have no recollection at all because of the shock almost immediately afterwards.
Yes same document Misty and it was written by the T9 themselves.
I sometimes wonder if any of the 5 SIOs who were or are on this case looked at small important details like the make and model the stairgate was or know how it works, how to lock it, how to unlock it. The instruction book is clear - closed does not equal locked. And if it wasn't locked it would provide no obstacle at all to a child.
Why would anyone bother locking it anyway if they were so sure a child wouldn't wake and wander?
-
Yes same document Misty and it was written by the T9 themselves.
I sometimes wonder if any of the 5 SIOs who were or are on this case looked at small important details like the make and model the stairgate was or know how it works, how to lock it, how to unlock it. The instruction book is clear - closed does not equal locked. And if it wasn't locked it would provide no obstacle at all to a child.
Why would anyone bother locking it anyway if they were so sure a child wouldn't wake and wander?
I think you have to look at the crime scene as a whole.
At the front of the property there was reportedly a closed door & an open window/shutter.
At the rear of the property there was a closed side gate, a stairgate in an unconfirmed position & a closed patio door.
Madeleine's shoes were near the front door, her(?) pink jacket was over the back of the dining chair.
The front suggests an intrusion of some sort.
The rear appears undisturbed.
There appears no sign anyone left in a hurry.
There appears no sign a controlled & untroubled child consciously left the premises to look for her parents.
Why lock the gate at all? Habit/just in case.
Were the McCanns asked if Madeleine could open the safety gate on her own?
Why didn't the additional gate dissuade an intruder from attempting to enter via the front & exit via the rear?
-
I think you have to look at the crime scene as a whole.
At the front of the property there was reportedly a closed door & an open window/shutter.
At the rear of the property there was a closed side gate, a stairgate in an unconfirmed position & a closed patio door.
Madeleine's shoes were near the front door, her(?) pink jacket was over the back of the dining chair.
The front suggests an intrusion of some sort.
The rear appears undisturbed.
There appears no sign anyone left in a hurry.
There appears no sign a controlled & untroubled child consciously left the premises to look for her parents.
Why lock the gate at all? Habit/just in case.
Were the McCanns asked if Madeleine could open the safety gate on her own?
Why didn't the additional gate dissuade an intruder from attempting to enter via the front & exit via the rear?
"There appears no sign anyone left in a hurry" ... Certainly it appeared to the witnesses that someone had left. And that person's shoes and coat were still there. So one of the possible explanations is, that person left in a hurry. The stairgate could be easily opened, unless it was locked.
-
"There appears no sign anyone left in a hurry" ... Certainly it appeared to the witnesses that someone had left. And that person's shoes and coat were still there. So one of the possible explanations is, that person left in a hurry. The stairgate could be easily opened, unless it was locked.
Or she could have been lifted and handed out of the window or carried out through the front door ... both scenarios missing going anywhere near the child gate or back entrance.
The big flaw in the argument that Madeleine woke and wandered or was frightened and ran is that she has never been found. Relatively quickly after the last time she was seen, there were people out in the streets looking out for her.
If searchers had passed open road works, I doubt they would have been ignored. So where did she go?
-
"There appears no sign anyone left in a hurry" ... Certainly it appeared to the witnesses that someone had left. And that person's shoes and coat were still there. So one of the possible explanations is, that person left in a hurry. The stairgate could be easily opened, unless it was locked.
I cant believe this could be a possibility. It would be pretty daft to exit the patio doors carrying a child and descend the stairs at the risk of being seen or walking straight into one of the child checkers, at the bottom.
I had thought that a wander scenario was possible at one point, but not with bare feet.
These are probably the reasons that her parents believe that she must have been taken.
If she was taken, I think she would have been passed through the window or taken out of the door, near the car park.
-
"There appears no sign anyone left in a hurry" ... Certainly it appeared to the witnesses that someone had left. And that person's shoes and coat were still there. So one of the possible explanations is, that person left in a hurry. The stairgate could be easily opened, unless it was locked.
That person. ie Madeleine, ventured out into the cold night air, sleeveless & barefoot, yet was controlled enough to close the front door, possibly the safety gate, then the side gate behind her, leaving her siblings in the room where she had been woken by the noise of the opening shutters (not so loud the twins were awoken, though, or subsequently woken by Madeleine leaving the room).
The stairgate is a deterrent to most scenarios involving the use of the rear in the disappearance, imo.
-
That person. ie Madeleine, ventured out into the cold night air, sleeveless & barefoot, yet was controlled enough to close the front door, possibly the safety gate, then the side gate behind her, leaving her siblings in the room where she had been woken by the noise of the opening shutters (not so loud the twins were awoken, though, or subsequently woken by Madeleine leaving the room).
The stairgate is a deterrent to most scenarios involving the use of the rear in the disappearance, imo.
That was the opinion of WonderfulSpam as I recall but he couched it in different terms.
The window looks flaky too so what's left?
-
That person. ie Madeleine, ventured out into the cold night air, sleeveless & barefoot, yet was controlled enough to close the front door, possibly the safety gate, then the side gate behind her, leaving her siblings in the room where she had been woken by the noise of the opening shutters (not so loud the twins were awoken, though, or subsequently woken by Madeleine leaving the room).
The stairgate is a deterrent to most scenarios involving the use of the rear in the disappearance, imo.
The front of the apartment had everything an intruder could wish for, particularly if he had a key, and if not it would have taken seconds to ascertain if the window behind the shutter was locked.
The later addition of a spotlight and the cutting back of the overhanging trees indicates the vulnerability in 2007. The front door was recessed and dark ... the overhanging trees provided cover as well as blocking the street lighting.
The front of 5A is at street level ... making unnecessary any requirement on exit to close the sliding door and either to drop into the small garden or negotiate two gates and a stair.
Were I making an illicit entry and exit, I know which route I would choose.
-
Are we are slipping off topic, guys? Please lets get back on track. Thanks.
-
Or she could have been lifted and handed out of the window or carried out through the front door ... both scenarios missing going anywhere near the child gate or back entrance.
The big flaw in the argument that Madeleine woke and wandered or was frightened and ran is that she has never been found. Relatively quickly after the last time she was seen, there were people out in the streets looking out for her.
If searchers had passed open road works, I doubt they would have been ignored. So where did she go?
Her father said he saw her at 9.05pm. Her mother discovered her missing at 10pm. There's quick!
-
Her father said he saw her at 9.05pm. Her mother discovered her missing at 10pm. There's quick!
Quite.
It takes far longer than half an hour to abduct a child ....
-
That person. ie Madeleine, ventured out into the cold night air, sleeveless & barefoot, yet was controlled enough to close the front door, possibly the safety gate, then the side gate behind her, leaving her siblings in the room where she had been woken by the noise of the opening shutters (not so loud the twins were awoken, though, or subsequently woken by Madeleine leaving the room).
The stairgate is a deterrent to most scenarios involving the use of the rear in the disappearance, imo.
A thought just occurred, it may be possible that Madeleine had reached the stage of being able to open stair gates (not an unlikely situation). She may also, because of her siblings, have been encouraged to shut the gates behind her.
-
A thought just occurred, it may be possible that Madeleine had reached the stage of being able to open stair gates (not an unlikely situation). She may also, because of her siblings, have been encouraged to shut the gates behind her.
I wouldn't argue with that, except for the case of her fleeing the apartment in a state of panic.
-
Who saw the locked gate?
who said Maddie was bare footed?
When was Maddie last seen (before being declared missing) by an independant witness?
We only have parents input to this story.
-
Who saw the locked gate?
who said Maddie was bare footed?
When was Maddie last seen (before being declared missing) by an independant witness?
We only have parents input to this story.
Why don't the police tear up all the statements & make up their own script?
-
Quite.
It takes far longer than half an hour to abduct a child ....
You really should read the previous posts before commenting. Otherwise you're comments are meaningless because you don't know what you're commenting on.
-
You really should read the previous posts before commenting. Otherwise you're comments are meaningless because you don't know what you're commenting on.
I understood the post in its context.
-
I understood the post in its context.
Really? What time did Madeleine leave the apartment then?
-
Really? What time did Madeleine leave the apartment then?
Sometime between the times you quoted. Or not, depending on what myth you believe.
How long does the average abduction take?
-
Sometime between the times you quoted. Or not, depending on what myth you believe.
How long does the average abduction take?
I was replying to Brietta. i believe she still favours Tannerman for the abduction, in which case it would be 9.15pm-9.20pm. It was quite some time after that when people were searching.
If we are talking woke and wandered she must have moved fast, there was only 5 minutes between each check. (That answers your question about abduction also)
-
I was replying to Brietta. i believe she still favours Tannerman for the abduction, in which case it would be 9.15pm-9.20pm. It was quite some time after that when people were searching.
If we are talking woke and wandered she must have moved fast, there was only 5 minutes between each check. (That answers your question about abduction also)
Crossed wires. You inserted Ferryman's post into the post I replied to.
-
Crossed wires. You inserted Ferryman's post into the post I replied to.
So I did, sorry, i didn't notice you'd joined in.
-
(snip)... it appeared to the witnesses that someone had left. And that person's shoes and coat were still there. So one of the possible explanations is, that person left in a hurry. The stairgate could be easily opened, unless it was locked.
I cant believe this could be a possibility. It would be pretty daft to exit the patio doors carrying a child and descend the stairs at the risk of being seen or walking straight into one of the child checkers, at the bottom ...(snip)
The evidence that a child may have left the apartment alone in a hurry is: 1. the child was reported to be no longer in the apartment, 2. the shoes and coat were still there (indicating hurry). I am talking about a child leaving the apartment alone and getting past the stairgate alone (no abductor present). A child walking through the stairgate is not tall enough to be seen from the restaurant.
-
The evidence that a child may have left the apartment alone in a hurry is: 1. the child was reported to be no longer in the apartment, 2. the shoes and coat were still there (indicating hurry). I am talking about a child leaving the apartment alone and getting past the stairgate alone (no abductor present). A child walking through the stairgate is not tall enough to be seen from the restaurant.
She managed to accomplish that ... ... then what?
-
She managed to accomplish that ... ... then what?
Two experts proposed continuations (see relevant thread) which, after going through the stairgate, go like this:
(A) walked downhill along Rua Martins and was taken by a completely opportunistic person near entrance to Tapas reception.
(B) walked downhill along Rua Martins past Tapas reception and then followed path to supermarket carpark and was taken by a completely opportunistic person from supermarket carpark.
IMO if a child did leave the apartment alone and get past the stairgate, there are other possible explanations for a subsequent disappearance after getting past the stairgate, without assuming any abductor.
-
Two experts proposed continuations (see relevant thread) which, after going through the stairgate, go like this:
(A) walked downhill along Rua Martins and was taken by a completely opportunistic person near entrance to Tapas reception.
(B) walked downhill along Rua Martins past Tapas reception and then followed path to supermarket carpark and was taken by a completely opportunistic person from supermarket carpark.
IMO if a child did leave the apartment alone and get past the stairgate, there are other possible explanations for a subsequent disappearance after getting past the stairgate, without assuming any abductor.
On cobbles or rough walkway?…..No I don’t think she would have gone further than the Tapas bar if this was the case……Why would she?
Opportunist who just happened to be around at the same time as the causers of her panic?
They would risk taking a squealing, struggling child from a holiday complex? No don’t believe that one either. Sorry Pegasus.
If a burglar or intruder to 5A, had panicked her however, she may have ran out of a door. Whether it was the balcony doors and child gate or the front door that may have been left open by the intruder?
If there was a possibility that she could recognise them, they would be fast on her heels catching her and muffling any screams. Then she would be put in the get away vehicle.
-
On cobbles or rough walkway?…..No I don’t think she would have gone further than the Tapas bar if this was the case……Why would she? ...(snip)
I agree that without shoes the distance covered after going past the stairgate would probably be short.
The questions "had you told the child you would be out? had you told the child you were at a restaurant? had you told the child which one?" are so important but appear to have never been asked by investigators, therefore it is pure conjecture to assume that a wandering child would know a specific destination to head for.
-
I agree that without shoes the distance covered after going past the stairgate would probably be short.
The questions "had you told the child you would be out? had you told the child you were at a restaurant? had you told the child which one?" are so important but appear to have never been asked by investigators, therefore it is pure conjecture to assume that a wandering child would know a specific destination to head for.
That is true, but I was thinking....The nearest place she was likely to get help, if she was in a frightened state. Just another scenario though.
-
(snip)...
Opportunist who just happened to be around at the same time as the causers of her panic?
They would risk taking a squealing, struggling child from a holiday complex? No don’t believe that one either. Sorry Pegasus.
If a burglar or intruder to 5A, had panicked her however, she may have ran out of a door. Whether it was the balcony doors and child gate or the front door that may have been left open by the intruder?
If there was a possibility that she could recognise them, they would be fast on her heels catching her and muffling any screams. Then she would be put in the get away vehicle.
If the child passed the stairgate and went down the stairs IMO there are possible continuations (including some in which there is no perp) which are more far likely than abduction.
-
That is true, but I was thinking....The nearest place she was likely to get help, if she was in a frightened state. Just another scenario though.
Understood, but there are other possibilities. For example imagine a child knows adults are in a restaurant but has not been told which one, and sees it is dark. The only experience of eating in a restaurant in the evening and of walking home from that restuarant, probably in the dark, was evening 28th. So one instinctive response might be to walk trying to retrace backwards the route home from Millenium evening 28th.
-
Understood, but there are other possibilities. For example imagine a child knows adults are in a restaurant but has not been told which one, and sees it is dark. The only experience of eating in a restaurant in the evening and of walking home from that restuarant, probably in the dark, was evening 28th. So one instinctive response might be to walk trying to retrace backwards the route home from Millenium evening 28th.
If she went out of the child gate and down the stairs. Where was the most familiar direction tp her which would have been used for swimming pool, tennis courts, high tea etc? A child in a panic would not be reasoning as to where her parents were.....she would be seeking help in a familiar area close by. IMO
-
If she went out of the child gate and down the stairs. Where was the most familiar direction tp her which would have been used for swimming pool, tennis courts, high tea etc? A child in a panic would not be reasoning as to where her parents were.....she would be seeking help in a familiar area close by. IMO
The compound containing the tapas restaurant and bar and two pools and courts was familiar in memory connected with daytime. If the child passed the stairgate, it was dark, so why assume that anyone would be in that compound?
And the doors from Rua Martins into that compound's unattended reception building - could a small child open them?
-
The compound containing the tapas restaurant and bar and two pools and courts was familiar in memory connected with daytime. If the child passed the stairgate, it was dark, so why assume that anyone would be in that compound?
Was it that dark? And as I said, a child in a panic would not be reasoning. A couple on their balcony just above that child gate at 10pm ish, were watching children play and adults chatting over dinner in Tapas..............No sound?
-
Was it that dark? And as I said, a child in a panic would not be reasoning. A couple on their balcony just above that child gate at 10pm ish, were watching children play and adults chatting over dinner in Tapas..............No sound?
IMO it was dark at 9.15pm and no moon.
The lady two floors above said "I went out on the balcony, looking over at the tapas bar ... there were so many people in there eating and drinking". The eating and drinking people obviously incuded the T9 group. She does not mention children playing.
I am interested in whether a small child could open the tapas reception street doors
-
IMO it was dark at 9.15pm and no moon.
The lady two floors above said "I went out on the balcony, looking over at the tapas bar ... there were so many people in there eating and drinking". The eating and drinking people obviously incuded the T9 group. She does not mention children playing.
I am interested in whether a small child could open the tapas reception street doors
There was street lights. The were bright enough for Gerry, Jez and JT.
Was there not another gate entrance to the Tapas area?
Anyway, unless she exited the patio doors to try and call her parents standing on a chair, or tried to open the stair gate which opened towards the steps(dangerous), or as you say, possibly ran in panic, I can see no other reason apart from taken(Dead or alive), for her disappearance.
However if it was ran in panic, where is she? I don't believe that it was an opportunist.
I thought I read somewhere about children. Sorry...I must have been mistaken.
-
Understood, but there are other possibilities. For example imagine a child knows adults are in a restaurant but has not been told which one, and sees it is dark. The only experience of eating in a restaurant in the evening and of walking home from that restuarant, probably in the dark, was evening 28th. So one instinctive response might be to walk trying to retrace backwards the route home from Millenium evening 28th.
I don't think she even knew her parents were out of the apartment, Pegasus. I base that on her passing question to her mother at breakfast.
-
I don't think she even knew her parents were out of the apartment, Pegasus. I base that on her passing question to her mother at breakfast.
I agree Brietta. However if a child does get out of bed and look in the other bedroom and find the parents not there, it would be an obvious deduction, that they are somewhere outside the apartment. This is why the possibility of a child going past the stairgate and down the steps needs to be considered.
-
I agree Brietta. However if a child does get out of bed and look in the other bedroom and find the parents not there, it would be an obvious deduction, that they are somewhere outside the apartment. This is why the possibility of a child going past the stairgate and down the steps needs to be considered.
It is also not beyond the realms of possibility that Madeleine pulled up the shutters & opened the window, to see if her parents were outside in the front car park. If she could unlock the stairgate, she could probably raise the shutters - presumably she had seen her parents raising/lowering the patio shutters from inside each day.
-
It is also not beyond the realms of possibility that Madeleine pulled up the shutters & opened the window, to see if her parents were outside in the front car park. If she could unlock the stairgate, she could probably raise the shutters - presumably she had seen her parents raising/lowering the patio shutters from inside each day.
I have always been of the opinion that Madeleine would not have raised the bedroom shutters for the simple reason she had never seen it done.
It didn't occur to me that she had watched the patio shutters being raised each morning.
I now concede there is a possibility she could have raised the shutter and opened the window herself. She could even have walked bare footed the route followed by the GNR dogs.
-
I have always been of the opinion that Madeleine would not have raised the bedroom shutters for the simple reason she had never seen it done.
It didn't occur to me that she had watched the patio shutters being raised each morning.
I now concede there is a possibility she could have raised the shutter and opened the window herself. She could even have walked bare footed the route followed by the GNR dogs.
I also thought at one time, that she could have opened the blind and window.
However there was a drop of about 5-6 foot the other side of the window, so I doubt she would have attempted to leave that way. Unless of course she fell out, recovered and then made her way down the dog route...................but then what?
-
Neither of the Mccanns said the front door was locked, one said it was not, the other said it probably wasn't, so if Madeleine left the apartment, the front door would have been the simplest and quickest exit. IMO. And raising the shutters and climbing out the bedroom window the least feasible.
-
Neither of the Mccanns said the front door was locked, one said it was not, the other said it probably wasn't, so if Madeleine left the apartment, the front door would have been the simplest and quickest exit. IMO.
IIRC it has been said it has been said that it was usual for the children to enter and leave the apartment via the sliding patio door. I think had she left of her own volition she would have taken the exit and the route with which she was more familiar and not the front door.
-
IIRC it has been said it has been said that it was usual for the children to enter and leave the apartment via the sliding patio door. I think had she left of her own volition she would have taken the exit and the route with which she was more familiar and not the front door.
The nearest, familiar places were the neighbouring apartments, in which she knew friends were located. Wouldn't they be her first port of call?
-
IIRC it has been said it has been said that it was usual for the children to enter and leave the apartment via the sliding patio door. I think had she left of her own volition she would have taken the exit and the route with which she was more familiar and not the front door.
Well then, you would have to believe she also closed the patio door and stair gate and garden gate when going out looking for her parents, hardly
Kids are intelligent, sprightly, surprising, difficult to control, they will do what they want when they want to, how they want, front door exit is as feasible IMO, raising shutters and jumping a few feet out of the window is the least feasible unless the whole flat was locked which was not, in fact, it seems none of it was...a very strange situation in itself...what parents leave doors unlocked, patio doors open, not know if windows were locked? when they go out and leave their kiddies on their own...
-
The nearest, familiar places were the neighbouring apartments, in which she knew friends were located. Wouldn't they be her first port of call?
If she had exited either via the window or the front door I am sure she would have headed into the well lit area where she knew friends were staying. At the time in question there was an adult in residence just next door. I do not think she would have walked into the dark following the walled path.
-
The nearest, familiar places were the neighbouring apartments, in which she knew friends were located. Wouldn't they be her first port of call?
Had she ever visited any of the other apartments? Would she know which ones to go to?
-
Had she ever visited any of the other apartments? Would she know which ones to go to?
She went upstairs to the Payne's apt, as witnessed by one of the cleaners:-
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/FATIMA_ESPADA.htm
*snipped*
She states that this took place on Sunday 29th April, just before she finished her morning work shift (13.30) as she had the afternoon off that day. At about 13.15 she went to help her mother, who was cleaning apartment I of the same block (5) situated on the first floor. She clearly remembers seeing the girl accompanied by her siblings and mother leave their apartment (5 A) and walk to the stairs leading to the floor above. She was very close to them at a distance of about 1 metre, observing their movements for a few moments because she was charmed by them. Madeleine led the way with a plate (perhaps plastic) in her hand bearing a piece of bread. As regards the clothes she was wearing she only remembers a skirt but cannot recall its description. She noted, because she thought them nice, the type of shoes she was wearing, tennis shoes, light in colour she thinks, which had little lights along the soles, which lit up each time she stepped on the ground. Her siblings followed behind her, wearing the same king of shoes and each holding a piece of bread in their hands, their mother followed behind them without holding their hands. She seems to remember that the mother was also carrying a plate. Moments afterwards, perhaps the time it took to close the apartment door, the father came out and also headed to the apartment upstairs. When asked, she does not remember whether the father pulled the door closed or locked it with a key.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I would think Madeleine would have been aware at some stage during the week who was staying right next door.
-
It is also not beyond the realms of possibility that Madeleine pulled up the shutters & opened the window, to see if her parents were outside in the front car park. If she could unlock the stairgate, she could probably raise the shutters - presumably she had seen her parents raising/lowering the patio shutters from inside each day.
From inside for a child it is elementary to open the window, and physically possible to open the shutter. But look at statistics - there are several cases in those two buildings of a would-be burglar opening a shutter, and absolutely no cases of a small child opening a shutter.
The difference between the shutter and the childgate is the shutter was definitely down, but we do not know if the childgate was locked - there is not a single statement saying it was locked (some statements say it was closed but as I proved closed does not mean locked). If it was closed but not locked then any toddler could have opened it.
-
From inside for a child it is elementary to open the window, and physically possible to open the shutter. But look at statistics - there are several cases in those two buildings of a would-be burglar opening a shutter, and absolutely no cases of a small child opening a shutter.
The difference between the shutter and the childgate is the shutter was definitely down, but we do not know if the childgate was locked - there is not a single statement saying it was locked (some statements say it was closed but as I proved closed does not mean locked). If it was closed but not locked then any toddler could have opened it.
We just don't know, Pegasus. Just because there were no reported cases of children opening shutters doesn't mean it never happened.
Haven't there been changes in the manufacture of blind cords simply because deaths were occurring after children's necks became entwined in them? That's the only reason we heard about children messing with blind cords, not because it never occurred.
-
If she had exited either via the window or the front door I am sure she would have headed into the well lit area where she knew friends were staying. At the time in question there was an adult in residence just next door. I do not think she would have walked into the dark following the walled path.
IMO under normal circumstances on waking up the child would not leave the apartment.
If the child did exit the apartment alone there must have been some kind of extraordinary event to trigger it IMO.
-
IMO under normal circumstances on waking up the child would not leave the apartment.
If the child did exit the apartment alone there must have been some kind of extraordinary event to trigger it IMO.
Bit like finding herself on her own without her parents
-
IMO under normal circumstances on waking up the child would not leave the apartment.
If the child did exit the apartment alone there must have been some kind of extraordinary event to trigger it IMO.
Not necessarily. Young children have very active imaginations & sometimes their actions are entirely unpredictable.
There was the young girl in USA who left home late at night to buy some sweets, unknown to her parents.
My own son, at the same age as Madeleine, walked off from behind me in a crowded supermarket as I unloaded a trolley of shopping.. Five very frightening minutes later, I located him in the stairwell of the adjoining car park, playing with his toy train. Why did he wander? I was never able to find out what went on his mind.
-
Not necessarily. Young children have very active imaginations & sometimes their actions are entirely unpredictable.
There was the young girl in USA who left home late at night to buy some sweets, unknown to her parents.
My own son, at the same age as Madeleine, walked off from behind me in a crowded supermarket as I unloaded a trolley of shopping.. Five very frightening minutes later, I located him in the stairwell of the adjoining car park, playing with his toy train. Why did he wander? I was never able to find out what went on his mind.
Misty if you say the child could have walked past the stairgate and down the stairs barefoot in the dark because of imagination, what do you think the child imagined? Could it have been due to imagining or dreaming that someone was opening the bedroom shutter and window?
-
No, I don't agree with that at all. In the 2 instances I quoted above, the child was located alive & well.
Madeleine may well have been able to open the patio door, window shutters & a locked child gate - I just don't think, from the way Kate found the scene & Madeleine's complete disappearance, it happened that way.
Do you have a source for the stairgate being locked?
-
Misty if you say the child could have walked past the stairgate and down the stairs barefoot in the dark because of imagination, what do you think the child imagined? Could it have been due to imagining or dreaming that someone was opening the bedroom shutter and window?
It could have been many things, including the scenario you suggest - but that would be panic, uncontrolled.
The scene suggested unconscious control if she left via the rear, ie sleepwalking - not uncommon in a child who has had a physically active day thus no shoes or coat.
The stairgate - don't know if it was locked or unlocked after Gerry's first check. I think Kate was the one who operated the stairgate most frequently, based on Gerry locking/unlocking the front door with the key when they left or returned to the apt.
-
It could have been many things, including the scenario you suggest - but that would be panic, uncontrolled.
The scene suggested unconscious control if she left via the rear, ie sleepwalking - not uncommon in a child who has had a physically active day thus no shoes or coat.
The stairgate - don't know if it was locked or unlocked after Gerry's first check. I think Kate was the one who operated the stairgate most frequently, based on Gerry locking/unlocking the front door with the key when they left or returned to the apt.
If she had been panicked I think the bed clothes would have been more disturbed as they would have been thrown off. Had she run for the sliding door, I don't see her pausing to close it behind her ... or if she had I doubt if she would have left the alleged fingertip gap, as we have seen it slides very easily and would have slammed tightly shut.
Same goes for the gate ... a panic stricken child would have barged through leaving no doubt about whether it was locked or not, it would have been wide open.
Similarly the bottom gate would have been open.
I think the raid on the apartment took place from the front and I do not think Madeleine left via the back door either carried or under her own steam.
-
If she had been panicked I think the bed clothes would have been more disturbed as they would have been thrown off. Had she run for the sliding door, I don't see her pausing to close it behind her ... or if she had I doubt if she would have left the alleged fingertip gap, as we have seen it slides very easily and would have slammed tightly shut.
Same goes for the gate ... a panic stricken child would have barged through leaving no doubt about whether it was locked or not, it would have been wide open.
Similarly the bottom gate would have been open.
I think the raid on the apartment took place from the front and I do not think Madeleine left via the back door either carried or under her own steam.
No-one in the statements says they locked the childgate. And it was "possibly open" at about 9.30pm. The streetgate might close itself? The biggest evidence against a child leaving alone by this route is that none of the checkers say they found the sliding door open. It's possible for a child to close it from outside IMO but we would need to test the door to find how easy that is.
-
It could have been many things, including the scenario you suggest - but that would be panic, uncontrolled.
The scene suggested unconscious control if she left via the rear, ie sleepwalking - not uncommon in a child who has had a physically active day thus no shoes or coat.
The stairgate - don't know if it was locked or unlocked after Gerry's first check. I think Kate was the one who operated the stairgate most frequently, based on Gerry locking/unlocking the front door with the key when they left or returned to the apt.
We don't know if Maddie was barefooted, she may have had socks on or slip on sandles- we only have information given to us supplied by the parents. Who knows what Kate/Gerry packed for their holiday.
-
No-one in the statements says they locked the childgate. And it was "possibly open" at about 9.30pm. The streetgate might close itself? The biggest evidence against a child leaving alone by this route is that none of the checkers say they found the sliding door open. It's possible for a child to close it from outside IMO but we would need to test the door to find how easy that is.
Having watched some of the videos showing adults opening the door ... it seems to slide very easily. I think it would be possible for a four year old child to open and close that particular door very easily. I do not think Madeleine did so but there certainly is no evidence either way.