Moreover, he says that with respect to Madeleine she was in the same position in which he had left her at the beginning of the night. http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN-ARGUIDO.htm
Same position at the beginning of the night and when he checked. No change.
Yeah the devil is in the detail. That is a good theory Qwerty. However I disagree only on the basis that there is no evidence Gerry did have a physical check. There is no independant witness seeing Madeliene from the time Kate took the children back to the apartment. There is no independant witness to state they saw Madeliene alive just after the parents left for the bar. This in my opinion is a long time not to physically check on the children, and elongates the time frame for a 'missing' Maddie?
I would want to interview the 'burglars' offering immunity if they said they saw anything suspicious other than theor own activity that evening. They may have seen something and not thought anything about it.
However, 1.5 Mill as a reward should open many mouths!
Alternatively they may never have been there in the first place..
By 21.05, GERALD went see his children, and about 10 minutes later JANE left before GM had returned.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RACHAEL-OLDFIELD-11-MAY07.htm
And almost I think as soon after Dave and Fi arrived Gerry went to do his check, because they’d already been there since sort of half past eight, so, you know, sort of like it was half an hour, a half an hour check for them. So he, yeah, he, he went off to his check and he was longer than a bit, because I can remember Kate sort of saying ‘Oh bet he’s put the footy on’, because I think there was a football match that night and she sort of said ‘Oh I think he’s probably’, erm, you know, ‘got side tracked and put the telly on and catch up on the score’, so he was gone a bit longer than normal.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JANE_TANNER_RIGATORY.htm
Long check for Gerry before Jane left the table and said she saw him talking to Jez. No wonder they thought he was watching footy on tv but what was he really doing &%+((£
Witness StatementRachel didn't know what she was talking about IMO.
Rachel Mampilly
Date: 2007-05-15
When they arrived at the restaurant at 20.45 the McCann couple was already there.
They were talking to a couple they knew from tennis, whose name she cannot remember. Jane was also there but she was not talking to them. The Payne family and Dianne arrived just after 21.00. Matthew bumped into them as he had gone to the apartment, but he did not enter, he just listened outside to see if there was any noise. He did the same at the Tanner and McCann apartments.
The window shutters of the McCann's apartments were closed. The patio door that they used to enter the apartment also had its shutter closed. In order to enter they had to raise the shutter.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN.htm
At about 21.05 the witness came to the Club, entered the room using his respective key, the door being locked, went to his children's bedroom and checked that the twins were fine, as was Madeleine.
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.
Why did Gerry say he used his key to enter when he says the patio door is always unlocked?
If Gerry used his key to enter then the obvious answer is the patio door (nearest side) with shutters down according to Rachel was in fact locked and only unlocked and shutter raised (Matt didn't say he had to raise shutters to enter) when Gerry left the apartment before meeting Jez. So now the patio door is unlocked for the next checker who was supposed to be his wife at 9:30.
Shutters Closed i.e. down according to Rachel
(http://i2.wp.com/radaronline.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/madeleine-mccann-2.jpg?fit=700%2C700)
Shutters Open i.e. raised when Matt entered
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/08/05/article-1041660-022B836900000578-510_468x300.jpg)
Rachel didn't know what she was talking about IMO.
That's a question for her to answer as she was there not you.Did she do a check?
Did she do a check?
Why is she the only one trying to say these patio shutters were down?
The Oldfield's passed 5A before arriving at the tapas at 8:45. You could see shutters down if they were from the tapas bar. So it's a question for Rachel to answer. Why is that in her statement?Which door did the Oldfields leave by?
Which door did the Oldfields leave by?Question 1 and 2 answered "The deponent and her husband took a bath, dressed and went to the restaurant "TAPAS" around 20H40. They left by the main door, which they locked, arriving at the "TAPAS" about two minutes later. She emphasized that the back door was closed and properly locked."
1. If they left by their front door and walked around the roads I doubt if the patio door was ever visible.
2. If they left by their patio door then they might see the McCanns patio door.
3. If they saw it down at that time when no one else saw it down that could indicate someone was inside there at that time. Which would be very significant indeed.
My opinion is that it is unlikely that an abductor was in the apartment at the same time as Gerry McCann. In my opinion, a planned abduction should have been over in a few minutes.
In general, I think the events of the evening (including events after the discovery that Madeleine was missing) do make sense if you are willing to take a view on certain aspects of the case, bearing in mind that no one can actually know exactly what happened, apart from any third party who may have been involved.
I believe it is entirely possible that Madeleine was abducted from the apartment, even though no forensic evidence has been found to confirm this.
Alternatively, I believe that Danny Collin's view that Madeleine exited the apartment is also possible. This would mean that it is likely that a third party became involved because Madeleine has not been found. I have not read Danny Collin's book in detail and I'm sure there is much to disagree with, but it is a plausible theory in my opinion.
If Madeleine had wandered on previous occasions as Danny Collin's seems to believe then this would undermine the sniffer/tracker dog evidence about the direction Madeleine took.
I'm going to take a break from the case until Operation Grange winds up.
All the best.
Sadie I'll only reply to the 2nd one for I do believe she left by the front door.
"If she left by the front door
1) How did she manage to leave without leaving finger prints?
2) Could she manage that door bolt and the door on her own with such little fingers?
3) How come she closed the front door behind her? Most kids would leave it open, especially if in a panic
4) It was pitch black by the front door with a long dark walkway to go along. The walkway had walls way above her head level. I dont think she would have dared.
5) How come she left her cherished Cuddle cat?
1) How did she manage to leave without leaving finger prints?
No one ever looked for finger prints on the front door
2) Could she manage that door bolt and the door on her own with such little fingers?
The door was snibbed but not locked so it could have been opened by a 4 year old with ease.
3) How come she closed the front door behind her? Most kids would leave it open, especially if in a panic
As she left she startled burglars who were trying to get in the window. They may have closed it or she closed it herself being the sensible little person she was.
4) It was pitch black by the front door with a long dark walkway to go along. The walkway had walls way above her head level. I don't think she would have dared.
She knew the way around the end of the building as she had gone that way before.
5) How come she left her cherished Cuddle cat?
She was going to come back for that.
No one ever looked for finger prints on the front door
Such negligence on behalf of the police is appalling IMO
The door was snibbed but not locked so it could have been opened by a 4 year old with ease.
Am not sure that my little girl could have done that at nearly 4 ... and she was much more sturdy than Madeleine. Also highly intelligent ... now a doctor. But it has been a long time ago and I bow to your more recent experience of bringing little girls up.
As she left she startled burglars who were trying to get in the window. They may have closed it or she closed it herself being the sensible little person she was.
Sorry Rob, but I find that too far fetched for words. More likely if she had seen anyone trying to get in, she would have been terrifiede in that dark spot and have rushed back into the apartment rather than confront them.
She knew the way around the end of the building as she had gone that way before.
What makes you think that she went around the end of the building? The Police dogs?
IMO, the blanket/towel given to the Police dogs for the scent had been handled by the sweaty lifter and her/his scent overpowered Madeleines.
I think that the lifter gave Madeleine to Tannerman and hot footed it back to the get away vehicle via that route. This was parked where the dogs lost the scent, cos he/she got into the vehicle there and then drove off in the other direction upon realising that Jane had witnessed Tannerman with Madeleine .
The dogs followed predominently the smell of the lifter.
AIMO
I think that explains exactly what might very well have been the sequence of events. We know the dogs will follow the stronger scent ... and I doubt if anyone stealing anything let alone a child would have walked back on themselves via the route the dogs followed.
Therefore I agree that the GNR dogs did not follow Madeleine's but followed the stronger scent.
Maybe the original intention was to exit via the patio doors and cross to the car park; still risky but it would have taken seconds; Gerry and Jez right outside might have meant a rethink.
Or maybe it was always the intention to pass Madeleine out of the window. I thought the Panorama ten year programme was interesting regarding accessibility of keys.
I think Jane Tanner's man was carrying Madeleine. I think rather than abandoning Tannerman having split up and following different routes one to hide and wait and one to the parked car via the lane ... they met at a prearranged spot for pick up and drove out of the town.
I think they had at least nearly three quarters of an hour head start before the alarm was raised.
I appreciate that you have proposed a theory Brietta.
I need to understand what you mean here "would have walked back on themselves via the route the dogs followed".
How would you know if the person that only "may have" touched the towel was a "stronger scent" than Madeleine's bare feet?
Probably didn't express myself too well.OK I understand that but in my theory it is Madeleine going around the block 5 heading to the Tapas. That is why it appears as doubling back, She is not being carried but walking or running on her own. hence leaving a trail as the skin is being worn off her bare feet.
The dogs followed a path for the length of the apartment block 5 ... they then walked down the little lane between blocks 4 and 5 to follow the pathway behind block 5 therefore running parallel with the route already taken at the front.
Anyone exiting 5A and taking that route imo was lengthening their time in public view as well as 'doubling back' to the area they left from.
After puberty I believe there is change in glands in the groin and armpits which means that adults end up more smelly than children.
It is likely that would leave a stronger scent which the dog would follow.
OK I understand that but in my theory it is Madeleine going around the block 5 heading to the Tapas. That is why it appears as doubling back, She is not being carried but walking or running on her own. hence leaving a trail as the skin is being worn off her bare feet.
Probably didn't express myself too well.Also, can you imagine the fear at doing what they/he/she did? Stealing a child.
The dogs followed a path for the length of the apartment block 5 ... they then walked down the little lane between blocks 4 and 5 to follow the pathway behind block 5 therefore running parallel with the route already taken at the front.
Anyone exiting 5A and taking that route imo was lengthening their time in public view as well as 'doubling back' to the area they left from.
After puberty I believe there is change in glands in the groin and armpits which means that adults end up more smelly than children.
It is likely that would leave a stronger scent which the dog would follow.
Why would Madeleine have exited via the front door into what was a dark and daunting area for a wee child?
The patio door was unlocked; the street light was directly opposite and the lights from the tapas made using that exit a better lit prospective route.
But why would she have headed for the small reception area anyway? Misty asked the question some time ago about whether she even knew her parents were not in the apartment. She was asleep when they left. Did she even know they could be located in the tapas restaurant?
Why would Madeleine have exited via the front door into what was a dark and daunting area for a wee child?They go to the Tapas every evening for high tea. Madeleine would definitely know the way. She had to head to the secondary reception to get in from the street. There was enough light to see your way.
The patio door was unlocked; the street light was directly opposite and the lights from the tapas made using that exit a better lit prospective route.
But why would she have headed for the small reception area anyway? Misty asked the question some time ago about whether she even knew her parents were not in the apartment. She was asleep when they left. Did she even know they could be located in the tapas restaurant?
They go to the Tapas every evening for high tea. Madeleine would definitely know the way. She had to head to the secondary reception to get in from the street. There was enough light to see your way.
They go to the Tapas every evening for high tea. Madeleine would definitely know the way. She had to head to the secondary reception to get in from the street. There was enough light to see your way.
I doubt that they would go via the front door, when the patio door is so much closer ... and within view from the Tapas restaurant.During the day they locked up the apartment so it only makes sense that they left via the front door. Would they take the push chair down those steps? There is some talk that one would go around and open up the patio door. So it was a bit of both.
It was in excess of 120 metres by front door and less than 80 metres by patio door
During the day they locked up the apartment so it only makes sense that they left via the front door. Would they take the push chair down those steps? There is some talk that one would go around and open up the patio door. So it was a bit of both.Yep, they would if they went down to the beach or to Madeleines Kids club etc. But going to the Tapas area to the pool or restuarant? I doubt it.
During the day they locked up the apartment so it only makes sense that they left via the front door. Would they take the push chair down those steps? There is some talk that one would go around and open up the patio door. So it was a bit of both.The McCanns did NOT take a push chair on holiday with them.
The McCanns did NOT take a push chair on holiday with them.
Yep, they would if they went down to the beach or to Madeleines Kids club etc. But going to the Tapas area to the pool or restuarant? I doubt it.The sun is overhead, and they are facing, as nearly as can be ascertained, due south i.e. nobody in that trio is looking at 5A.
I notice that in the well known photo of them splashing their feet in the pool, Gerry and A***** and Madeleine are positioned with their backs to the sun in a corner position where they are more or less facing 5A. To keep an eye on it cos the patio door was unlocked?
I wonder if they always sat on this side of the pool, for security of 5A, at the expence of losing a little sun?
My bet is that with little ones especially, there would be constant to-ing and fro-ing from 5A with it being so close... and I doubt that they would keep walkking all the way to the front door.
Drinks, home toilet, snacks, extra clothing, toys maybe .... We all know how demanding little ones can be.
AIMO
They did hire one from MW, though, which was used for more than the trip to the beach.'madeleine' p57 "We borrowed a double buggy from Mark Warner to make the walk easier for Sean and Amelie." That was on the beach trip.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8172.msg402980#msg402980
*snipped*
This was the same Madeleine McCann we had seen tagging along with her mother as she pushed her twins in a double buggy up the hill. This was happening to the same family we had passed on several occasions days before as we walked down towards the supermarket. This was the same Gerry McCann we had seen playing tennis several days earlier.
'madeleine' p57 "We borrowed a double buggy from Mark Warner to make the walk easier for Sean and Amelie." That was on the beach trip.
The two trips to the Millennium would have been much easier with a double buggy, and things might have turned out very differently if the McCanns had access to one.
Key parts of Mr McGee's testimony (the Sunday Independent journalist who wrote the article linked to) just don't stack up.
If they went from the Dolphin to Estrela, the obvious route was the one the Smiths took. I have to perform contortions to put them on a route where anything could speed past them.
His paragraph on the McCanns is, IMO, tripe. If I walked past someone playing tennis at the OC I would not recognise him the next day. The idea that he remembered Gerry is nonsensical.
Yep, they would if they went down to the beach or to Madeleines Kids club etc. But going to the Tapas area to the pool or restuarant? I doubt it.OK do you think Madeleine ever did that trip back on her own during the day. For you are right the McCanns had their breakfast and their midday meals in their apartment, so they did seem to use their apartment as a home base more than the others.
I notice that in the well known photo of them splashing their feet in the pool, Gerry and A***** and Madeleine are positioned with their backs to the sun in a corner position where they are more or less facing 5A. To keep an eye on it cos the patio door was unlocked?
I wonder if they always sat on this side of the pool, for security of 5A, at the expence of losing a little sun?
My bet is that with little ones especially, there would be constant to-ing and fro-ing from 5A with it being so close... and I doubt that they would keep walkking all the way to the front door.
Drinks, home toilet, snacks, extra clothing, toys maybe .... We all know how demanding little ones can be.
AIMO
Yet seemingly many, including you, have no trouble believing the Smiths' recollections of a man + child they saw for a few seconds on a darkened street.I'm not sure what point you are making.
Perhaps this part of the article also poses further questions about the family's inability to recall their sighting on the 3rd until much later:-
"Within 24 hours, the relatively quiet Hugo Beatty's bar and restaurant on the ground floor of the Estrela da Luz complex was transformed into a bustling press centre for the many journalists and camera crews who were dispatched to cover a story which had spread like wildfire on TV networks and in newspapers back in the UK".
It's a shame Mr McGee's statement is not in the files.
I'm not sure what point you are making.
From memory, Peter Smith was told on the 4th May at Faro airport about a missing girl. Martin Smith, I believe also found out on the 4th.
The question is what exact information was imparted to them - missing? Or abducted? The penny would not have dropped before it became 'abducted', since then there would be an 'abductor' involved and Smithman fitted the bill.
And when did the timing of the alleged abduction surface in the news? That piece of information would have been part of the link.
I know that Hugo Beatty's is a popular hangout for the journalists. Indeed I went there last year on 2 May to see if any were in town. There was a small group of folks in there, but they were watching football, with not a single reporter to be seen. What I don't know is whether those first journalists rented accommodation in Estrela or not.
Taken from the same articleI accept Madeleine was the focus. But think about it for a moment.
"Explaining to our four-year-old daughter what was happening was difficult. Instinctively, parents want to protect children from all the horrific things that go on in this world. Sometimes saying nothing is the best option. However, after we were asked to produce her passport at a police checkpoint just outside the village, officers examined her closely, looked at her passport several times to see if she resembled Madeleine in any way, we had to tell her the police were looking for a little girl who had gone missing and that her mummy and daddy wanted her back."
The police were looking for Madeleine, a missing little girl in pyjamas. Why didn't any of the Smith family recall the man + child they saw on a quiet, dark road - irrespective of being aware of any potential abductor? Madeleine was the focus of attention.
I accept Madeleine was the focus. But think about it for a moment.
According to DCI Andy Redwood there were 8 families with 11 children in the OC crèche that night. They must all have got back to their flats, presumably by walking or being carried.
There was Smithman + child, whom the Smiths did not initially think suspicious, merely a man plus child going home.
There was the Smith group, with one child aged 4 and another aged 6. They had come from a pub.
You need to think along the lines that Luz is family friendly. Kid's are welcome in a family group at 10pm in a pub, restaurant, or walking in the street.
smithman was not near the creche....and not in a family group....blows your reasoning out of the waterNot that far away. In fact he could have been closer to the drop off creche that to the apartment 5A. Someone might be able to check that on Google Earth.
smithman was not near the creche....and not in a family group....blows your reasoning out of the waterOh dear, do the arithmetic. 8 families and 11 children means there were around 5 or so children getting home unaccompanied by siblings.
Oh dear, do the arithmetic. 8 families and 11 children means there were around 5 or so children getting home unaccompanied by siblings.
As to near the crèche, is there a relevance? Most of the OC was not near the crèche.
I would appreciate it if you would stick to your points, and leave the barbs out.
those in the creche would be staying at the oc.......not walking near kellysSo?
So?
those in the creche would be staying at the oc.......not walking near kellysIt might have been a service provided for others too. We do know it was free for those who had booked into OC but I have not seen anyone say who could use the facility.
The sun is overhead, and they are facing, as nearly as can be ascertained, due south i.e. nobody in that trio is looking at 5A.
so it blows your theory out of the water.......those near kellys would be in family groups...have a look at your post...not just father and daughterWhy does this person need to be connected to the night crèche. Was there some rule prohibiting, for example, a Portuguese father from carrying his child home that night?
Why does this person need to be connected to the night crèche. Was there some rule prohibiting, for example, a Portuguese father from carrying his child home that night?
Was the carrying of children restricted to OG guests?
How many children did this person have in his family?
Was there a rule saying people had to move in Luz in whole-family units only that night?
I frequently move around Luz at night without dragging my whole family out. For the Smiths, it so happens they were having a family meal out.
At the point 11 children from 8 families were taken out of the crèche, was there a rule that only whole families could do the pick-up?
Was Tannerman being naughty by carrying a child on his own?
I am finding it difficult to work out where the sun actually was in the sky. Portugal is much closer to the Tropic of Cancer than we are. For us the sun is always in the south at mid-day and it never gets nearer to us than the Tropic of Cancer. Portugal on the other hand is much closer to Cancer and I wonder if at certain times of the day in the summer, the sun actually moves north of Pdl in the sky?I have attached a graphic. It shows the sun at 14.29 on 3 May 2007 over Luz. This is the time the photo is alleged to have been taken. I happen to favour an hour earlier, but it matters not a jot, so I prefer not to discuss this.
In the southern hemisphere, the sun is in the North, not the South as in the Northern hemisphere. Between the Tropics of Cancer and Capricorn, in one day the sun would move between overhead-South and overhead-North as the day wore on, I think.
My old brain cant work it out. Where are the eggheads on here that can reliably evaluate what I am puzzling over?
not connected to the creche and not part of a fanily group...so what explanation for a lone man carrying a lone child....Father carrying a child home? As per Tannerman? As per 8 families getting 11 children home?
Father carrying a child home? As per Tannerman? As per 8 families getting 11 children home?
Was it against the law to carry sleeping children home in Luz in 2007. Clearly not.
Was the act of carrying a sleeping child through the streets of Luz deemed suspicious? Clearly not. Until it was known Madeleine had disappeared.
you have missed your own point...no surpriseJane Tanner really didn't think too much about it at the time, apart from finding it odd that the child was not better wrapped against the evening chill.
you have missed your own point...no surpriseOh dear.
Jane Tanner really didn't think too much about it at the time, apart from finding it odd that the child was not better wrapped against the evening chill.I suppose there was a reason for the delay? I can't think of it immediately.
The significance became apparent only when Madeleine's disappearance was discovered.
It took the Smiths a fortnight to make that connection.
"Their two-year-old twins, Sean and Amelie, lay undisturbed in their cots beside the bed, making the absence of the child they call Maddy all the more haunting. Nothing appeared to have been stolen from the room, but the shutters seemed to have been forced, the window was open and the main door unlocked, according to the family."
Main door unlocked - https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2007/may/05/world.sandralaville
I think this is really significant
http://www.kidspot.com.au/parenting/real-life/in-the-news/kate-mccanns-chilling-first-words-moments-after-maddie-went-missing
"“We didn’t see a soul in the original timeline”
Recounting the time period in which it is thought Maddie was taken, the couple said they were on their balcony drinking whiskey, but saw nothing suspicious going on.
“We didn’t see a soul in the original timeline of 9pm to 9.30pm. My take on it, as I have said a million times, especially to the Met, I don’t know what happened. I do feel there is information that the public at large doesn’t know,” he says.
“My wife is of a different opinion and feels it was an abduction. All we can say is we didn’t see anything in the time window that was allotted.”
But that doesn't really make that much sense either because during that time period Matt did his first check, Gerry did a check and spoke with Jez in the street, and Jane went past twice. The view might have been on the McCann's patio but seems ineffective as to what is happening in the street.
Exactly.(http://l7.alamy.com/zooms/645064e6f23040169f4e3a3b00fc27de/general-view-of-the-ocean-club-in-praia-de-luz-portugal-where-madeleine-b54fhp.jpg)What would Mr and Mrs Moyes have seen from their balcony had they stood up and looked directly down? In my opinion they might have seen a corner of Mrs Fenn's balcony. The roof of the McCann balcony, which in all probability would obscure sight of 5A stairs with the hedge obscuring sight of the gate.
It would have been impossible for them to see anything at the front of the building from their balcony. The door may have been opened with a key, the shutter may have been raised from inside, the man seen by Jane Tanner may have exited via the carpark.
Even Jane Tanner who was walking on the street did not see where the man she saw at the junction had come from.
Incidentally ... there is quite a variance in the width of the pavement when viewed from above ... at the approximate place where Jane and Jez thought the conversation had taken place there is ample room to pass with ease ... thanks perhaps to the curvature of the wall into the lane.
How dark the entrance doorway into the ground floor looks in the brightest sunlight.
Moving Door. Someone was in that appartment after Kate and Gerry left to go to dinner, and before Gerry went back to check at 9pm. This isn't a great mystery. Someone was hiding in that Appartment.
And then left the door more wide open when they finally left after taking Madeleine by whatever means.
Alway the most simply explanation is the right one.
That's not simple in my opinion. Simple is forgetting how you left the door in the first place.
But if they heard something they could stand and look.Their balcony is set back both from the road and the rear of the building. The roof of 5A sticks out further as well.
I think we are looking the wrong way, it didn't need to be the Moyes who saw the mystery couple IMO, it is obviously something released by the investigation. A confession they have but they haven't released to us via the PJ file IMO.
Moving Door. Someone was in that appartment after Kate and Gerry left to go to dinner, and before Gerry went back to check at 9pm. This isn't a great mystery. Someone was hiding in that Appartment.
And then left the door more wide open when they finally left after taking Madeleine by whatever means.
Alway the most simply explanation is the right one.
Moving Door. Someone was in that appartment after Kate and Gerry left to go to dinner, and before Gerry went back to check at 9pm. This isn't a great mystery. Someone was hiding in that Appartment.
And then left the door more wide open when they finally left after taking Madeleine by whatever means.
Alway the most simply explanation is the right one.
So according to you, somebody got in the apartment before Gerry. Gerry said Madeleine was sleeping so what was the abductor doing before 9? Watching her sleeping?
No draughts or sounds when Matt checked at 9:30. No open window or moving curtains.
Kate arrived nearly an hour after Gerry and found the door wide open and window open so you think an abductor was hiding in the apartment for that long? Doing what exactly?
Don't be so silly. it was bit more simple than what you chose to believe,
No evidence of an open window or raised shutters at 9:30 so your abduction theory is not credible.
But I don't think that they did. That was the whole point. They didn't forget.The next most simple one beyond forgetting where the door was left was Gerry's explanation was that Madeleine had got up and put herself back to bed.
Their balcony is set back both from the road and the rear of the building. The roof of 5A sticks out further as well.I appreciate that post Sadie. I think the things you say are easily checked on the ground at PDL if we actually get there. The timing aspect is most important, Gerry and Jez would have finished their conversation by 9:15 according to Gerry. So Jez's idea that they kept talking for up to 15 minutes is not supported by the Moyes testimony. If they did continue talking it wasn't in earshot of the Moyes couple. There does seem to be time missing in Gerry's statement if you try to explain it fully. Maybe 4 - 8 minutes of unexplained time. I'll have to study this on a separate thread (Is Jez trying to give Gerry an alibi for this time too?)
Even if the Moyes stood, they couldn't see anyone passing the side of 5A, nor across 5A gate, nor up the steps.
Because of 6A hedge obstructing their view, neither could they see anyone, including Jane T, who passed up that road on the westerly pavement unless, maybe, if the person was walking very near the kerb.
Maybe, maybe not, they could see Gerry and Jez talking on the edge of the Westerly pavement/in the gutter ... if they looked at the correct time.
If they looked at the right time, then they could see Jez before he crossed the road to chat with Gerry
The chances of either of the last things are quite remote.
To be quite frank, imo, they didn't see anyone from the Tapas group. They couldn't, their line of vision being blocked even standing up
No evidence of an open window or raised shutters at 9:30 so your abduction theory is not credible.Matt commented that the room was lighter than he expected, so had it already happened? ... was Madeleine already gone? ... a lull in the gusty weather so the curtains did not move? Like the lull before the storm?
The next most simple one beyond forgetting where the door was left was Gerry's explanation was that Madeleine had got up and put herself back to bed.
She must have floated onto that bed because it just doesn't look like it had been slept in... from the pictures.The police do describe an indentation I suppose consistent with someone lying there. I agree it does look rather neat, but it happens sometimes.
Matt commented that the room was lighter than he expected, so had it already happened? ... was Madeleine already gone? ... a lull in the gusty weather so the curtains did not move? Like the lull before the storm?
How could he know what to expect?
He described what he saw as he saw it.
Matt commented that the room was lighter than he expected, so had it already happened? ... was Madeleine already gone? ... a lull in the gusty weather so the curtains did not move? Like the lull before the storm?Thinking about it, if the shutters raised up high enough for someone to attempt to climb through, and the drape curtains pushed back just leaving the net curtains covering the window that would not just be a little lighter than his own child's bedroom but massively lighter.
Thinking about it, if the shutters raised up high enough for someone to attempt to climb through, and the drape curtains pushed back just leaving the net curtains covering the window that would not just be a little lighter than his own child's bedroom but massively lighter.
Therefore IMO the attempted entry had not yet occurred.
The difference is definitely something that can be measured and compared.
So I didn't specifically see the shutters and I couldn't say that they were definitely open, but certainly the curtains were shut and everything was quiet'.
Where and by whom is it stated that the shutters were partially or even raised.Matt Oldfield Rogatory 9/04/2008.I have 4 people who state they saw the shutters were up, Kate, Gerry, Amy, and Rachael.
I have 4 people who state they saw the shutters were up, Kate, Gerry, Amy, and Rachael.
That's after the alleged abduction ,you were replying to a post prior to the alleged event.I was answering your question: "Where and by whom is it stated that the shutters were partially or even raised."
Where and by whom is it stated that the shutters were partially or even raised.Matt Oldfield Rogatory 9/04/2008.