Rachael Rogatory "yeah I mean we basically came to the conclusion that somebody would have had to have been in the room when Gerry had gone in to check'"
Is that a sensible conclusion - what does the forum think?
For Tannerman to be the man, something like this would need to be true. Nothing else will support their narrative.What sort of sedative would Tannerman have used to knock her out?
OG have dispelled the idea that Tannerman was the man and looked towards Smithman.
What sort of sedative would Tannerman have used to knock her out?
When did he get in and how did he get out?
It seems difficult for me to accept that Tannerman was abducting Madeleine, But Crecheman has just as many issues IMO - direction of walking, did he see Jane, what time did he go past?
I'm afraid that that is for OG to know, and you to guess.https://youtu.be/XZefR25GGKg?t=57
Perhaps a large piece of sticky tape across the mouth would be sufficient.
I'm afraid that that is for OG to know, and you to guess.Making something out of nothing.
Perhaps a large piece of sticky tape across the mouth would be sufficient.
I think there was room for an intruder to hide inside the wardrobe in the room ... behind the room door ... or crouched behind the travel cot with opaque panels at top or bottom.Well that was 3 interesting suggestions. The wardrobe doesn't look very large depth wise and behind the door seems too small.
However if the person was almost caught in the room, I don't think being cornered like that was the reason for opening the window ... I think that was to enable him/her to pass Madeleine through to an accomplice waiting outside ... before exiting, probably via the front door and be long gone before Jane Tanner turned the corner.(http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Nigel/sitebuilderpictures/notwwardrobe.jpg)
I think there was room for an intruder to hide inside the wardrobe in the room ... behind the room door ... or crouched behind the travel cot with opaque panels at top or bottom.
However if the person was almost caught in the room, I don't think being cornered like that was the reason for opening the window ... I think that was to enable him/her to pass Madeleine through to an accomplice waiting outside ... before exiting, probably via the front door and be long gone before Jane Tanner turned the corner.(http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Nigel/sitebuilderpictures/notwwardrobe.jpg)
A cot was in front of the wardrobe. I would like to see anybody open the wardrobe door to get inside. He wasn't behind the door whilst Gerry was having his proud father moment - Madeleine was in the same position according to Gerry so nice of the abductor to wait for him before taking her. Oh my days @)(++(*
That is a good point access to the wardrobe is restricted.
It would be good to have had a scale diagram of the rooms. The furnishings don't look to scale in this diagram (http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_lWXrpwC28yU/S8iouy61TeI/AAAAAAAAHdk/GPwBzL0HZcQ/s1600/mccanns+apartment+cadaver+scent+found+and+blood.png)
A mystical wondrous beast that left no trace discernible to modern [2007 style] forensic science.
A mystical wondrous beast that left no trace discernible to modern [2007 style] forensic science.Do you really believe the forensics were applied properly? Weren't the sheets from the bed Madeleine slept on laundered the following day?
Do you really believe the forensics were applied properly? Weren't the sheets from the bed Madeleine slept on laundered the following day?
1) Do you really believe the forensics were applied properly? 2)Weren't the sheets from the bed Madeleine slept on laundered the following day?[/b]
[/b]
1) How would I know? I have no access to exctly what was done anymore than anyone else on here has acccess to it. So guess away if you wish but I prefer not to.
2) That is scarcely relevant unless you can prove the wondrous beast hid on top of or under the bed covers.
[/b]
1) How would I know? I have no access to exctly what was done anymore than anyone else on here has acccess to it. So guess away if you wish but I prefer not to.
2) That is scarcely relevant unless you can prove the wondrous beast hid on top of or under the bed covers.
- various hairs from the top of the bed where the missing child was sleeping, they being placed inside a paper envelope in accordance with instructions issued by the Biology Section of the LPC and referenced as trace evidence #3;Once again no mention of the sheets or the pillow case.
A search was also made for possible biological traces and fibres on the single bed from where the minor disappeared, using a variable-wave light source appropriate for the task, the result obtained having been negative.
The area of the pillow of the bed from the minor disappeared was inspected with the intention to detect the presence of some smell [aroma] characteristic of volatile substances typical of chloroform or ether, this search proving negative
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/5A_FORENSIC_4_5_7.htm
Once again no mention of the sheets or the pillow case.
Then you do not know that the alleged abductor left no trace...as you posted...there may well have multiple traces and evidence left......and it may be all in the washing machine
You can see them here.
(http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P9/09_VOLUME_IXa_Page_2316.jpg).
IMO the intruder entered the apartment via the front door after Matthew had made his way back to the Tapas following the 9pm check. Having been in the process of sedating Madeleine in the children's room, he/she was interrupted by the unanticipated sound of Gerry opening the patio door (a door noisy enough to be heard in the apartment upstairs).I like your reasoning misty, but how could the abductor have got across to the parents bedroom without Gerry seeing him? It doesn't take long to open a patio door and step in.
There were only 2 places the intruder could have moved to quickly without being seen by Gerry - the bathroom or the parents' bedroom. Bathrooms generally have few hiding places (Psycho-style shower curtains aside) so my assertion is that he/she entered the parents' bedroom & hid behind the floor-length curtains at the window. The PJ did not forensically test the parents' bedroom on 3/5/07 or thereafter for prints/hairs/footprints/DNA.
That scenario accounts for 2 door moves before the 9.30 check.
All MOO.
I like your reasoning misty, but how could the abductor have got across to the parents bedroom without Gerry seeing him? It doesn't take long to open a patio door and step in.Do we know the order of the places Gerry went in 5A? Because it might just have been possible that Gerry used the loo first, then an abductor would have had time to move out of Madeleines bedroom and hide, say, in the kitchen.
Also, i am doubtful if the abductor could have even made it to the bathroom in the time to open that Patio door and step in
Unless, of course, he was last minute warned by someone outside watching and just had the time to do that before the patio door opened. All very risky though.... and he must have moved on from the bathroom because Gerry used the loo before returning to the restaurant, didn't he?
OK they were there when the photos were taken. on the 4th May. So where did the idea that the sheets were laundered come from? Did the cleaners admit to removing them?This is what one statement said
You can see them here.
(http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P9/09_VOLUME_IXa_Page_2316.jpg).
This is what one statement said
MARINA PAULA RAPOSA BAPTISTA CASTELA
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARIA-CASTELA.htm
". She further adds that the respective travel agency contacted and activated the 'CHILD CARE' service. This service is composed of employees of British nationality, who are installed for their length of service in the tourist complex. On the eve of check-in, this service is directed by the administration of the Ocean Club with and end to collecting the key to the respective apartment. Given that this service is related to the travel agency, it is they who give the keys to the guests, and not the 'Ocean Club.' This service is who was responsible for the placement of children's beds in the rooms. The deponent further states that her responsibility is the hygiene of the apartments, not touching the children's beds, as it is the CHILD CARE service which effects the changing of bed linens of these same beds;
Has anyone got a clue what that means?
Behind the curtain in the parents' bedroom would seem the most logical place (IMO).So if you have to hide in a place you are unfamiliar with would you know there are curtains in the parents bedroom to hide behind, or is this place where the intruder came in? If you had came in through there you would remember that this would be a good hiding place and an escape route if needed. Just going out through the front door and holding closed but not latching it would be very effective as well for you could just run off if it was discovered that you had been in there.
So if you have to hide in a place you are unfamiliar with would you know there are curtains in the parents bedroom to hide behind, or is this place where the intruder came in? If you had came in through there you would remember that this would be a good hiding place and an escape route if needed. Just going out through the front door and holding closed but not latching it would be very effective as well for you could just run off if it was discovered that you had been in there.
So if you have to hide in a place you are unfamiliar with would you know there are curtains in the parents bedroom to hide behind, or is this place where the intruder came in? If you had came in through there you would remember that this would be a good hiding place and an escape route if needed. Just going out through the front door and holding closed but not latching it would be very effective as well for you could just run off if it was discovered that you had been in there.
Don't think the bedroom sliding doors could have been used as the blinds were down - on the photo anyway:OK they could be another set of siding doors.
(http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P1/01_VOLUME_Ia_Page_22.jpg)
Behind the curtain in the parents' bedroom would seem the most logical place (IMO).
So what of the open window ? I think it's accepted now that the alleged abductor didn't enter through it and if it was an escape route surely he would have opened it as soon as he entered the room likewise if it was to hand the child out to someone else at the window as time was of the essence and he couldn't do it with a child in his arms. If Tannerman was in the apartment when Gerry entered Gerry would have seen the open window.
So what of the open window ? I think it's accepted now that the alleged abductor didn't enter through it and if it was an escape route surely he would have opened it as soon as he entered the room likewise if it was to hand the child out to someone else at the window as time was of the essence and he couldn't do it with a child in his arms. If Tannerman was in the apartment when Gerry entered Gerry would have seen the open window.
IMO If someone else was in the apartment - then you'd need to know how long he'd been there to answer that. If he'd only just arrived seconds before - then his actions would be different to those if he had been there for a while. He may not have even got as far as entering the children's bedroom when he was interrupted.
It could be that having had such a close shave, he then decided to open the windows once Gerry had gone - for means of a sharp exit.
Because I know how even a small change in air pressure when one door/window is opened can move other doors - a lot - and it was a breezy evening - I've never been able to decide whether someone was in there or not.
AIMHO
Ok - so obviously k mccann new straight away that maddie had been abducted.
Not only, did two highly intelligent people leave their children alone.
They also let 20 odd people, trample round the apartment.
Even your average burgled victim, knows not to let anyone touch anything, till police arrive.
Conclusion, because of this, who would know, if anyone had been in the room or not.
Why did they let all those people in.
Ok - so obviously k mccann new straight away that maddie had been abducted.From my understanding Kate thought Madeleine had been abducted but her friends told her that can't have happened, so she accepted that to begin with, but in the mean time people were coming and going in the apartment. Had her friends backed her to begin with I think the crime scene would have been preserved.
Not only, did two highly intelligent people leave their children alone.
They also let 20 odd people, trample round the apartment.
Even your average burgled victim, knows not to let anyone touch anything, till police arrive.
Conclusion, because of this, who would know, if anyone had been in the room or not.
Why did they let all those people in.
They behaved like any normal panic-stricken parents would behave. I doubt if they were thinking in terms of a 'crime scene' in those first 5/10 minutes of frantic searching. And in any case it wasn't a crime scene until searches in 5a and around the vicinity had failed to find Madeleine.IMO The GNR fell into a similar trap, they looked at the scene and it didn't appear to be a break in so they too thought it will just be a matter of time till she is found wandering somewhere.
Why you choose to criticise the parents for not behaving like policemen from the second they found Madeleine gone, whilst ignoring the fact that the policemen who should have been behaving like policemen - failed miserably to do their job properly - is inexplicable to me.
AIMHO
From my understanding Kate thought Madeleine had been abducted but her friends told her that can't have happened, so she accepted that to begin with, but in the mean time people were coming and going in the apartment. Had her friends backed her to begin with I think the crime scene would have been preserved.
IMO The GNR fell into a similar trap, they looked at the scene and it didn't appear to be a break in so they too thought it will just be a matter of time till she is found wandering somewhere.
They behaved like any normal panic-stricken parents would behave. I doubt if they were thinking in terms of a 'crime scene' in those first 5/10 minutes of frantic searching. And in any case it wasn't a crime scene until searches in 5a and around the vicinity had failed to find Madeleine.
Why you choose to criticise the parents for not behaving like policemen from the second they found Madeleine gone, whilst ignoring the fact that the policemen who should have been behaving like policemen - failed miserably to do their job properly when they arrived - is inexplicable to me.
AIMHO
So what of the open window ? I think it's accepted now that the alleged abductor didn't enter through it and if it was an escape route surely he would have opened it as soon as he entered the room likewise if it was to hand the child out to someone else at the window as time was of the essence and he couldn't do it with a child in his arms. If Tannerman was in the apartment when Gerry entered Gerry would have seen the open window.
I choose to criticize parents, because i do not believe maddie was abducted, is that explicable.
It wasn't the second maddie had gone was it.
K mcann herself searched the apartment, in her words knew straight away maddie had been abducted
If this diagram is drawn correctly it would be easy to go from the kids bedroom across to the parents room without being seen from the patio.I agree, risky but just about possible, with the patio door opening at its western side.
(https://2.bp.blogspot.com/_lWXrpwC28yU/SJ9NndDrWmI/AAAAAAAACyg/_ePz8idf3cE/s400-R/floorplan2.jpg)
So you criticise the McCanns for not treating the apartment like a crime scene, but have no criticism at all of the policemen whose job it was to cordon off the crime scene, and by failing to do that - added to the possible destruction/contamination of evidence. Fair enough - that's your prerogative.
IMO Even if Kate knew in her heart that Madeleine had been abducted that doesn't mean she wasn't hoping against hope that she was wrong. Once again a perfectly normal reaction by any parent in that horrific situation IMO.
Kmccann knew, maddie had been abducted,why let all those people in, when she had already searched.
Why didn't they search the surrounding area, why were they all allowed to go in there.
When imo it was obvious, maddie wasn't in there, only other sleeping children.
Kmccann knew, maddie had been abducted,why let all those people in, when she had already searched.
Why didn't they search the surrounding area, why were they all allowed to go in there.
When imo it was obvious, maddie wasn't in there, only other sleeping children.
This is off topic ... the subject of the thread is the discussion of whether or not the intruder was in the flat during Gerry's check.
Please stick to that.
This is off topic ... the subject of the thread is the discussion of whether or not the intruder was in the flat during Gerry's check.
Please stick to that.
This is off topic ... the subject of the thread is the discussion of whether or not the intruder was in the flat during Gerry's check.
Please stick to that.
IMO It is only a topic, not a fact that an intruder existed.
IMO It is only a topic, not a fact that an intruder existed.
Rachael Rogatory "yeah I mean we basically came to the conclusion that somebody would have had to have been in the room when Gerry had gone in to check'"
Is that a sensible conclusion - what does the forum think?
Yeah they PROBABLY came to that conclusion because the story didn't fit a time line they created.
NOW..here is the thing. How did this intruder get in, not via the window with whooshing curtains AND not the same way Gerry came in cos he used a key?
A discussion on key-not-key is on a different thread.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8992.0
If some are promoting that there was an intruder in the apartment at the time of GM's visit,then the key has relevance,the bogey man didn't happen in the room via a tardis.The simplest way in was through the unlocked patio door, but if you were inside at the time Gerry did his check, you would need to hide firstly, and when he left you couldn't leave via the same door as you came in as Gerry and Jez were talking just beyond the gate, either that or just wait till Gerry left, but I think you would be concerned that he may have detected you. (Door moved out of position was one clue).
[/b]=topic=9016.msg441299#msg441299 date=1516302128]
The simplest way in was through the unlocked patio door, but if you were inside at the time Gerry did his check, you would need to hide firstly, and when he left you couldn't leave via the same door as you came in as Gerry and Jez were talking just beyond the gate, either that or just wait till Gerry left, but I think you would be concerned that he may have detected you. (Door moved out of position was one clue).
I don't think you'd hang around.
Hang on but if this is true you wouldn't walk across the top of the road Gerry and Jez were standing on.
That scenario has a fatal flaw and therefore I'd say Tannerman was not in the apartment when Gerry was in there.
You may not have had a choice if a family on their way back to Block 4 were passing the car park exit as you left, carrying a young child. You'd head away from them, not past them. Gerry & Jez were far enough away to not be able to see you or the child clearly if you were spotted.
All IMO.
I like your reasoning misty, but how could the abductor have got across to the parents bedroom without Gerry seeing him? It doesn't take long to open a patio door and step in.
Also, i am doubtful if the abductor could have even made it to the bathroom in the time to open that Patio door and step in
Unless, of course, he was last minute warned by someone outside watching and just had the time to do that before the patio door opened. All very risky though.... and he must have moved on from the bathroom because Gerry used the loo before returning to the restaurant, didn't he?
Do we know the order of the places Gerry went in 5A? Because it might just have been possible that Gerry used the loo first, then an abductor would have had time to move out of Madeleines bedroom and hide, say, in the kitchen.
Risky ! Phwew !
So you criticise the McCanns for not treating the apartment like a crime scene, but have no criticism at all of the policemen whose job it was to cordon off the crime scene, and by failing to do that - added to the possible destruction/contamination of evidence. Fair enough - that's your prerogative.
IMO Even if Kate knew in her heart that Madeleine had been abducted that doesn't mean she wasn't hoping against hope that she was wrong. Once again a perfectly normal reaction by any parent in that horrific situation IMO.
You may not have had a choice if a family on their way back to Block 4 were passing the car park exit as you left, carrying a young child. You'd head away from them, not past them. Gerry & Jez were far enough away to not be able to see you or the child clearly if you were spotted.Yes it is still back on for he might have had a car in that direction (so he has to take the chance in order to get to his vehicle). There was no other way over there.
All IMO.
Yes it is still back on for he might have had a car in that direction (so he has to take the chance in order to get to his vehicle). There was no other way over there.
If had been me I would have parked closer to apartment 5A.
I don't like the idea that Tannerman was nearly spotted by another couple as they have not come forward.
This was my point, how would they know if an intruder had been in or not?Jane Fiona and Rachael are debating the issue in real time and basically use the open window as proof that someone had been in there. It wasn't till time later that someone clearly demonstrated it was possible to open the window and raise the shutters from the outside, provided the window had not been locked properly. (Heriberto Janosch videoed this)
My evidence of the "push indentation" on the curtain behind the bed.
https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-0CuLJk4p2HY/V8W60rlGHXI/AAAAAAAAL1Y/pycAauc75M04Z9QN4lkqocjV4Wp58we7ACLcB/s640/3%2Boriginal%2BCurtains%2Bdoors%2B2.jpg IMO A person pushing the curtain from the inside would push at a higher spot, rather than below the window sill level.
(https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-0CuLJk4p2HY/V8W60rlGHXI/AAAAAAAAL1Y/pycAauc75M04Z9QN4lkqocjV4Wp58we7ACLcB/s640/3%2Boriginal%2BCurtains%2Bdoors%2B2.jpg)
Haven't they? IMO they came forward at the time & the intention was to use them eventually to discredit Jane's sighting.Can you jog my memory please? Who were they?
Someone might have moved the curtain while bending down to check behind the bed or something, though.Well there is another thing to check if I ever get there.
Can you jog my memory please? Who were they?
Bear in mind the long curtain was reportedly closed across the patio door, so Gerry would have had to open the door, move the curtain, then possibly turn around & slide the door closed again.
On the attached video, it provides some idea how dark it was inside the apartment without the benefit of the small table lamp on. Matt also is shown indicating how far into the apartment he was before he could see into the children's' bedroom through the half-open door. You will also note there is an archway which provides a recess for the 3 doors & reduces visibility from the patio door aspect. IMO there was sufficient time for a fleet-footed intruder to move from one bedroom to the other without being seen.
https://youtu.be/na4aBr5PTYY?t=257
I think your suggestion fits quite well, Misty.
Particularly as far as the window and shutter is concerned ... having almost been caught like a rat in a trap it makes good sense for an intruder to ensure not getting cornered without means of escape.
If there was someone inside who heard Gerry opening the patio door two issues are suggested to me ...
- the intruder had only just entered and hadn't yet had time to enter the children's bedroom ... perhaps via the patio door immediately prior to Gerry ... or more likely via the front door
- imagine the dilemma of where to hide in the seconds available to get out of sight ... to avoid being seen the quickest and only direction would have been the parent's bedroom
So knowing that a check had just been done and knowing, through watching the apartment, that the checks where approximately every half hour are you saying the alleged abductor wasted time opening a window as an escape route while knowing that there was very little chance he would be caught ?
So knowing that a check had just been done and knowing, through watching the apartment, that the checks where approximately every half hour are you saying the alleged abductor wasted time opening a window as an escape route while knowing that there was very little chance he would be caught ?
The intelligence was flawed because the Tapas 9 checking routine changed on the Thursday. GM's visit so soon after MO's check was unanticipated because it deviated from previous routine.
Maybe the window was only opened to let the abductor tell an accomplice what the delay was.
All IMO.
How very courteous of him.
How very courteous of him.
I think the point is that an intruder with the intention of abducting a child is already embarked on a high risk endeavour which in this instance had so nearly been undone.
It takes seconds to open a window and raise a shutter using the mechanism as it should be used ... we've seen Heri doing it from outside with little difficulty.
Having almost been caught like a rat in a trap ... in my opinion only a cretin would risk not having an alternative escape route should the same thing occur again particularly if it took seconds to prepare.
There was every chance an intruder might be caught ... if one had been in the apartment when Gerry was ... it had just almost happened.
Or her.
Nothing courteous about it in my opinion ... just good practice in sharing information between criminals who maybe had a boat to catch.
Or her.
So the seconds it could take to open the squeaky window to tell his accomplice he was running late is the same amount of time it would take an abductor to leave the apartment with Madeleine. Can you see why delaying your escape from the apartment makes no sense if you are an abductor?
The intelligence was flawed because the Tapas 9 checking routine changed on the Thursday. GM's visit so soon after MO's check was unanticipated because it deviated from previous routine.
Maybe the window was only opened to let the abductor tell an accomplice what the delay was.
All IMO.
Gerry said they checked every 30 minutes regardless of others so any abductor would surely know the McCanns checking routine. They arrived at the tapas at 8:30 so they should be expecting a McCann check at 9.
"Every half-hour the deponent or KATE went, alternately, to the apartment to confirm that all was well with the children." http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN-10MAY.htm
The Paynes had left Block 5 via the car park just before 2100hrs. They reportedly crossed paths with MO, who then went into the front car park & listened at the windows of 5A, 5B & 5D.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MATTHEW-OLDFIELD-10MAY.htm
*snipped*
The deponent added that DP, FP and DW were still not present - and as he could see their apartment lights burning - he resolved to go to them, clarifying that he did not reach that apartment as those people were already on their way to the restaurant. He clarifies [further] that he met them near the living quarters, at the corner next to the main door of the McCann apartment.
Benefiting from meeting them next to the residences, he adds that, on his own initiative, he made a 'listening check' at the bedroom window of MBM and the twins at 21h05. That he limited himself to approach the bedroom window on the outside of the apartment to check if the children were crying or awake.
He adds to have not heard any noise nor perceived anything out of the ordinary. He went on to do the same check at the bedroom windows of his daughter and ROB's daughters.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
In the circumstances, 5A having just been checked, would any potential intruder have anticipated another parent arriving, within a few minutes, & entering 5A to check on the children again? That did not fit the pattern of stated checking during the preceding evenings.
The simplest way in was through the unlocked patio door, but if you were inside at the time Gerry did his check, you would need to hide firstly, and when he left you couldn't leave via the same door as you came in as Gerry and Jez were talking just beyond the gate, either that or just wait till Gerry left, but I think you would be concerned that he may have detected you. (Door moved out of position was one clue).
I don't think you'd hang around.
Hang on but if this is true you wouldn't walk across the top of the road Gerry and Jez were standing on.
That scenario has a fatal flaw and therefore I'd say Tannerman was not in the apartment when Gerry was in there.
Or a bigger flaw is that no one in there any way.The OP was "Rachael Rogatory "yeah I mean we basically came to the conclusion that somebody would have had to have been in the room when Gerry had gone in to check'"
The OP was "Rachael Rogatory "yeah I mean we basically came to the conclusion that somebody would have had to have been in the room when Gerry had gone in to check'"
Is that a sensible conclusion - what does the forum think?"
So you are thinking it is not a sensible conclusion, because their conclusion was wrong. No, we actually need reasons to rubbish their conclusion.
Or you let SY come up with the conclusion that there was and they say so.
Some people decided it was a possibility long before Scotland Yard got involved. And it explains why Jane Tanner saw the child being carried so soon after Gerry left the appartment.
With SY announcing that Tannerman is almost certainly some one who was in the exact same area then the Tanner sighting has no bearing,so who ever decided before SY got involved decided for the wrong reasons.
With SY announcing that Tannerman is almost certainly some one who was in the exact same area then the Tanner sighting has no bearing,so who ever decided before SY got involved decided for the wrong reasons.
But without the benefit of hindsight they wouldn't know that at the time - and so would naturally consider whether an intruder may have been in 5a while Gerry was there was an option.
IMO
I find their initial "conclusion" that someone could have been in there during Gerry's check a reasonable question at the time as they felt that there was a strong possibility that Tannerman was indeed carrying Madeleine moments after that check. How could he/she have got in, taken M, and be walking across the street with her in such a short space of time otherwise?
If Tannerman was indeed innocent Crècheman, which they couldn't have known at the time, then there's no particular reason to believe that anyone was in there at the time, unless, of course, Tannerman wasn't the same person as Crèchman after all.
However, as someone else pointed out (PF possibly), if Tannerman had indeed been carrying M, wouldn't Matt have noticed a fluttering window on his check? As it is, he didn't notice anything obviously abnormal, but neither did he see Madeleine.
With SY announcing that Tannerman is almost certainly some one who was in the exact same area then the Tanner sighting has no bearing,so who ever decided before SY got involved decided for the wrong reasons.
You don't know that. Still no explanation for why he was coming from the wrong direction, or where he was going.
Not because she wasn't there,because he never looked for Madeleine,world of difference.
Not because she wasn't there,because he never looked for Madeleine,world of difference.
The shutter is I believe relatively noisy in operation, whether that is a squeak or not is entirely open to debate.
However there is a saying "festina lente" which is interpreted in English as "more haste, less speed" which in my opinion covers nefarious activities such as stealing a child.
If he didn't look then surely there is always the possibility that unknown to him - she may not have been there.
IMO
The possibility is that she was also there at that time.
Apologies I meant shutter and with squeaky I was being generous as the noise made by raising it is far louder.
As to the second part of your post I have literally no idea how that relates to our current scenario. It is simply common sense that an abductor will want to get in and out of the building housing the child as quickly as possible.
The scenario being put forward is that the abductor entered the room before Gerry's check and when Gerry appeared he hid in a wardrobe in the couple's bedroom or the bathroom. His accomplice was also standing by the window. The problems with this are :
a) When entering the property the abductor would either have gone through the patio doors and straight to the children's bedroom or had a key and came in through the main door and accessed the children's bedroom that way. The first he would have know of Gerry's check is when the patio doors opened therefore being in the children's bedroom when Gerry appeared and Gerry, once in the apartment, having a clear view of the children's bedroom door, how did the abductor get out of the bedroom to hide elsewhere?
b) If the abductor and his accomplice had been watching the group they would know that apart from The McCanns the rest of the group when checking went by the McCann children's bedroom window. Do you really think they'd hang about that window if there could be someone walking by at any second ?
c) And lastly is it really feasible that an abductor who has almost been caught abducting a child will risk being caught again by opening a noisy shutter to communicate with an accomplice outside of the bedroom window, doubling the time he remains in the apartment and therefore the risk of getting caught ? Wouldn't t he just lift the child and talk to the accomplice once he was outside and clear ?
Some people decided it was a possibility long before Scotland Yard got involved. And it explains why Jane Tanner saw the child being carried so soon after Gerry left the appartment.I think the point is JT could see a person carrying a child regardless of the time Gerry left the apartment.
With SY announcing that Tannerman is almost certainly some one who was in the exact same area then the Tanner sighting has no bearing,so who ever decided before SY got involved decided for the wrong reasons.So what was wrong with their reasoning. I see what you mean now, if he was never there that is the ultimate reason they are wrong. Then Tannerman becomes someone else carrying a child. That is what Jane wanted in the first place.
Yes but with the benefit of the hindsight some wish to continue with a possible myth,when Redwood clearly says that the Tanner sighting is almost certainly not having any thing to do with it,ergo he wasn't the one who would have been in 5a,if there was indeed any one there.That is another point there could be someone else other than Tannerman!
Apologies I meant shutter and with squeaky I was being generous as the noise made by raising it is far louder.
As to the second part of your post I have literally no idea how that relates to our current scenario. It is simply common sense that an abductor will want to get in and out of the building housing the child as quickly as possible.
The scenario being put forward is that the abductor entered the room before Gerry's check and when Gerry appeared he hid in a wardrobe in the couple's bedroom or the bathroom. His accomplice was also standing by the window. The problems with this are :
a) When entering the property the abductor would either have gone through the patio doors and straight to the children's bedroom or had a key and came in through the main door and accessed the children's bedroom that way. The first he would have know of Gerry's check was when the patio doors opened therefore being in the children's bedroom when Gerry appeared and Gerry, once in the apartment, having a clear view of the children's bedroom door, how did the abductor get out of the bedroom to hide elsewhere?
b) If the abductor and his accomplice had been watching the group they would know that apart from The McCanns the rest of the group when checking went by the McCann children's bedroom window. Do you really think they'd hang about that window if there could be someone walking by at any second ?
c) And lastly is it really feasible that an abductor who has almost been caught abducting a child will risk being caught again by opening a noisy shutter to communicate with an accomplice outside of the bedroom window, doubling the time he remains in the apartment and therefore the risk of getting caught ? Wouldn't t he just lift the child and talk to the accomplice once he was outside and clear ?
Not because she wasn't there,because he never looked for Madeleine,world of difference.There seems to be a series of choices
The Metropolitan Police, I have frequently been informed are the 'professionals' and the 'experts'. I'm told that abduction must be the crime which occurred because The Met say so. People tell me that The Met know more than I do and I should accept what they say; except, it seems, when it comes to Tannerman.
When it comes to Tannerman The Met's fans seem prepared to doubt their word and continue to cling to their belief that he existed and he was hiding in 5A at 9.05.
Operation Grange went to a lot of trouble to find Crecheman, photograph him and his child's clothes, suggest that the alleged abduction occurred after 9.30 and he wasn't involved. They didn't need to do that, they could have just added Smithman to their appeal and left it at that.
I think those who have praised The Met so fulsomely should accept that they had a reason for eliminating Tannerman, even if that reason isn't entirely clear. After all, as I keep being told, they probably have more information than the armchair detectives have access to.
There seems to be a series of choices
Did Matt look Yes or No?
If he said he did why doubt him?
Did Matt tell the full story Yes or No?
As above
was Madeleine in the apartment, Yes or No?
No confirmation either way.
was Tannerman in the apartment, Yes or No?
Redwood believes not
was Crecheman real, Yes or No?
If Redwood says the McCann are not suspects,why should there doubt over Crecheman
was Tannerman and crecheman the same, Yes or No?
Possibly,either way SY aren't interested.
No, I know. Poor guy, I expect he's been beating himself up at not having checked that all three were present, but there was seemingly nothing abnormal (all was quiet) and he'd just popped in to see if there was any noise. No reason to think that a child could have disappeared by the time of his check.
As it stands, no one knows whether she was still asleep in her bed at that point or not.
We have gone full circle Faithlilly. Do you remember our conversations about "believing six daft things before breakfast helps before coming in here?" @)(++(*
I think it is perfectly possible if not probable that the intruder could have been female.
Shouldn't that be IYO, and not stating as fact.In the OP I quote that conclusion by the 3 Tapas friends. They concluded that someone had to have been in the room (apartment).
No proof whatsoever that an intruder exists.
Obviously maddie is missing, but as yet no one knows what happened to her. IMO
there is no conclusion anyone had to have been in the room.
In the OP I quote that conclusion by the 3 Tapas friends. They concluded that someone had to have been in the room (apartment).
Whether that was justified is the debate.
Yes i know, imo no one had been.
so what was the point of your post, was it because they said someone had, we have to take that as gospel.
I thought we were discussing a hypothesis. Did I miss something?
So what was wrong with their reasoning. I see what you mean now, if he was never there that is the ultimate reason they are wrong. Then Tannerman becomes someone else carrying a child. That is what Jane wanted in the first place.Can you please explain what you mean by "That is what Jane wanted in the first place" ?
Can you please explain what you mean by "That is what Jane wanted in the first place" ?IMO In the study of her statement she repeatedly expressed the wish that there would be an alternative explanation for her Tannerman sighting other than it being an abduction of Madeleine McCann. Do you need the actual words she used?
I cant understand what you are saying.
IMO In the study of her statement she repeatedly expressed the wish that there would be an alternative explanation for her Tannerman sighting other than it being an abduction of Madeleine McCann. Do you need the actual words she used?Thank you Rob
She did not want Tannerman to be the abductor, she wanted another explanation.
Quote from JT rogatory: "And I think that’s all, you know, that’s sort of, erm, I think that’s where the sort of I thought ‘Oh’, and that was the only reason I really clocked it I think. Because at that point I thought it’s a person taking their child either back from the crèche or, you know, just some father carrying their own child, so it didn’t really, you know, and that didn’t. I’m making it sound like it really registered at the time, but it didn’t, that is literally, I thought ‘Oh’”." there is an even plainer one than that.
"4078 “I know, yeah. And also you said that, you know, your immediate assumption or not probably even thought about it that much at the time, but you thought he might have been carrying a child home from the crèche?”
Reply “Yeah, well I think you did see people, I mean, not that late at night, and, again, that should have made me think more, but especially sort of, you know, earlier on you’d see them carrying children in pyjamas to the, the crèche where you can leave them at night and then pick them up again”.
4078 “Would that fit in with the direction he had come from?”
Reply “Well, again, no. Well, it would have been, I mean, at that time, you would of more expected him to be going the other way, coming back from the crèche maybe. But he could have gone, if he’d have gone that way and then cut down, there is a way you could have cut down to the crèche, going that way, so”." She even makes up excuses about the wrong direction!
Thank you RobThere is another rave by Jane on the same topic that is even more emphatic.
The way it was worded sounded a bit odd, that is why I asked.
She didn't think that was Madeleine until she disappeared. A lot of them a lot to answer for as the following link proves:
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/POWERPOINT.htm
(http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P15/15_VOLUME-XVa_Page_3979.jpg)
IMO It was ridiculous that Jane could say with 80% certainty that this picture was the man she saw, when she had never seen his face.
IMO It was ridiculous that Jane could say with 80% certainty that this picture was the man she saw, when she had never seen his face.
The text says..... ''After seeing the sketches''..... not just the one sketch. As she never claimed to have seen the man's full face - then common sense alone dictates that it was the full length sketches of the man, drawn by the same artist, that JT was referring to. IMO
So by his posture Tanner could tell that Gail Cooper's efit was more than likely the man she saw yet Martin Smith, when using the same form of identification is derided for it. Have I got that right ?
Where did Jane state that? I can't find it for the moment.
I do remember her saying that she thought it could be cooperman (or more or less agreed or however she put it) based on the hair.
Jane didn't say it, Benice suggested it.
As to Jane recognising the hair, do you have a cite ?
Yes i know, imo no one had been.Kizzy I am wanting you to detail your reasons for your opinion as you state " imo no one had been".
so what was the point of your post, was it because they said someone had, we have to take that as gospel.
So by his posture Tanner could tell that Gail Cooper's efit was more than likely the man she saw yet Martin Smith, when using the same form of identification is derided for it. Have I got that right ?
The text says..... ''After seeing the sketches''..... not just the one sketch. As she never claimed to have seen the man's full face - then common sense alone dictates that it was the full length sketches of the man, drawn by the same artist, that JT was referring to. IMOWhat is she comparing? Their clothing or something? If two people are 100% identical in their clothing are they the same person? Different heights (5`7`` as opposed to 6` 2``, different facial hair (may be able to see that from the side).
IMO JT's comment referred to the full length sketch of the man which was made by the artist using JT's description. IMO it wouldn't make sense for JT to make such a comment about a sketch of a full face made by the same artist but at another persons direction - as she never saw the man's face.r
I don't recall anyone deriding Martin Smith. IMO when he saw Gerry carrying Sean down the steps - the way Gerry was carrying his sleeping son reminded him of the man he saw in Pdl who was carrying a child in the same way - which led him to wonder if they could be one and the same man. But it wasn't Gerry's face that reminded him - it was purely the way he was carrying his sleeping son. IMO if Gerry had been carrying a wide awake Sean in a different position, Martin Smith would not have made the same connection.
I can't see any similarities between that sudden 'revelation' by Martin Smith and JT studying sketches drawn by an artist and assessing how close they were to the picture she had of him in her own mind. Two completely different scenarios IMO.
AIMHO
r
Time and time again you have to use your own opinion based on absolutely no evidence to explain away an anomaly within the McCann narrative. Doesn't that ever give you pause for thought ? ( genuine question )
So by his posture Tanner could tell that Gail Cooper's efit was more than likely the man she saw yet Martin Smith, when using the same form of identification is derided for it. Have I got that right ?
IMO JT's comment referred to the full length sketch of the man which was made by the artist using JT's description. IMO it wouldn't make sense for JT to make such a comment about a sketch of a full face made by the same artist but at another persons direction - as she never saw the man's face.
I don't recall anyone deriding Martin Smith. IMO when he saw Gerry carrying Sean down the steps - the way Gerry was carrying his sleeping son reminded him of the man he saw in Pdl who was carrying a child in the same way - which led him to wonder if they could be one and the same man. But it wasn't Gerry's face that reminded him - it was purely the way he was carrying his sleeping son. IMO if Gerry had been carrying a wide awake Sean in a different position, Martin Smith would not have made the same connection.
I can't see any similarities between that sudden 'revelation' by Martin Smith and JT studying sketches drawn by an artist and assessing how close they were to the picture she had of him in her own mind. Two completely different scenarios IMO.
AIMHO
Yeah that sounds about right...heehee. JT can't recall facial features or details of jammies, when first asked what she saw.... then after speaking to other people it is a miracle! she recalls his face AND claims the jammies were identical to what Maddie was wearing.
OMG.. Pleeeeeeeez
"He has not slept and is worried sick. He states he was watching the 10 pm news on BBC and saw the McCANNS getting off the plane and coming down the steps. He states it was like watching an action replay of the night he saw the male carrying the child back in Portugal. He states the way Gerry was carrying his twin triggered something in his head. It was exactly the same way and look of the other male seen the night Maddy went missing. He also watched ITV news and SKY news and inferred it looked like the same person both times carrying the children. He was with a group of 9 family and friends the night he saw the male in Portugal. He sounded quite shaken and worried whilst speaking to me." http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_SMITH.htm
SY find the Smiths credible. I haven't heard what they think about McCluskey witnessing a sighting two days after Madeleine disappeared. The Smiths sighting was when Madeleine disappeared near to the McCanns apartment.
Mr and Mrs McKluskey do not deserve the contempt with which you are treating what was their report of a perfectly pertinent suspicious event in relation to a missing child case.
Or is it your contention that it is helpful to a police investigation for witnesses to ignore something which they have seen and found suspicious?
Mr and Mrs McKluskey reported what they saw immediately ... despite there being some difficulty for them to do so.
It was thirteen days before the Smith sighting was reported to the police.
And ?
And ... anything on this thread which refers to anything other than an intruder in Madeleine's room is off topic so maybe you can think of something sensible to say along those lines to bring us all back on track.
This usually happens with the passage of time and professional police officers are well aware of it. Research has shown that it is relatively easy to introduce false memory. Media coverage or written recollections by other witnesses - if reviewed by a witness - could suggest "facts" to the witness. Witnesses will often discuss the occurrence amongst themselves and false memories can result. The most reliable statements are those taken almost immediately following any incident, statements taken months after an event are usually less reliable and open to question.
It was you who mentioned Mr Smith and his going to the police 13 days after his sighting so with the greatest respect it was you who was taking the thread off track.
That being said why do you think Mr Smith waited so long ? You don't think it was for nefarious reasons do you ?
Actually I do know the reason Mr Smith gave for that ... I am astounded with your depth of knowledge of the case that apparently you've never stumbled across it.
I'm sure there is an appropriate thread where we can discuss Mr Smith yet again.
However, as I've already pointed out this particular discussion is way off topic. We shall now return to discussing "Conclusion that somebody would have had to have been in the room!"
Thank you.
r
Time and time again you have to use your own opinion based on absolutely no evidence to explain away an anomaly within the McCann narrative. Doesn't that ever give you pause for thought ? ( genuine question )
In the room or in the flat?In the room to open the window but in the apartment (flat) and hiding whilst Gerry was in there.
In the room to open the window but in the apartment (flat) and hiding whilst Gerry was in there.
I must have missed it,couldn't provide a link to the police investigation where its been established there was an intruder in 5a?As in the OP - Rachael's rogatory. "Rachael Rogatory "yeah I mean we basically came to the conclusion that somebody would have had to have been in the room when Gerry had gone in to check'"
As in the OP - Rachael's rogatory. "Rachael Rogatory "yeah I mean we basically came to the conclusion that somebody would have had to have been in the room when Gerry had gone in to check'"
It was the conclusion of the Tapas friends. I have never made out the PJ have established this.
Then the thread title should convey that imo.No - the thread title is limited to a set number of characters (bit like a headline in a newspaper, it is there to catch your eye. It is a matter of reading the OP to understand the thread IMO. I do try to make the heading explain what the thread is about for research purposes.
The abductor need not have been in the room when Gerry did his check.
I don't believe he was working alone.
After Matt's check, the abductor would think he/she had half an hour before the next check, he goes into the bedroom, but then gets alerted by accomplice that Gerry was on his way, the abductor quickly slips back out through the front door. When Gerry leaves, he opens the window so that he could make an escape if anyone else suddenly makes an appearance, takes Madeleine and hands her over to accomplice.
No - the thread title is limited to a set number of characters (bit like a headline in a newspaper, it is there to catch your eye. It is a matter of reading the OP to understand the thread IMO. I do try to make the heading explain what the thread is about for research purposes.
The heading "Conclusion that somebody would have had to have been in the room!" I could change it if you suggest something better. "Conclusion by Tapas wives that somebody would have had to have been in the room! would that be better?
The abductor need not have been in the room when Gerry did his check.
I don't believe he was working alone.
After Matt's check, the abductor would think he/she had half an hour before the next check, he goes into the bedroom, but then gets alerted by accomplice that Gerry was on his way, the abductor quickly slips back out through the front door. When Gerry leaves, he opens the window so that he could make an escape if anyone else suddenly makes an appearance, takes Madeleine and hands her over to accomplice.
What abductor? is it no longer a requirement to add imo,or is it a given that the Justice Forum concludes that an abduction is the only scenario.
Is that all in your opinion, or do you know this as fact.
In the room to open the window but in the apartment (flat) and hiding whilst Gerry was in there.
questions?
1. How did the alleged abductor' invented by the Tapas group' get into the flat? Gerry had to use his key. so did they open and lock the door behind them with a stolen key?
2 what time did they 'take' Maddie
3 How did they and why did they want to open a window from the outside?
4 when did they do this? just after Gerry left and was talking to Jez outside?
5 did Jane notice the shutters were up?
6.how did the shutters stay up?
7 What we do know is the children were never physically checked by anyone apart form that one night! AND we don't know why Gerry changed his 'listening at door check' and did a physical check. AND more importantly Kate claims she was not going to bother looking in on the kids it was the ANGLE OF THE DOOR which prompted her.
Now then do we need to keep saying this?
This is a debating forum - obviously I post my own opinions on different subjects. Doesn't everyone? Don't you? Just because you don't agree with my opinions doesn't make them invalid.
You recently posted YOUR own opinion describing a completely different scenario for when Gerry checked his children to the one he gave in his statement - even though there is no evidence in the files to back up your opinion. No-one criticised you for voicing that opinion.
If you disagree with the content of my post - then feel free to challenge it.
AIMHO
questions?
1. How did the alleged abductor' invented by the Tapas group' get into the flat? Gerry had to use his key. so did they open and lock the door behind them with a stolen key?
2 what time did they 'take' Maddie
3 How did they and why did they want to open a window from the outside?
4 when did they do this? just after Gerry left and was talking to Jez outside?
5 did Jane notice the shutters were up?
6.how did the shutters stay up?
7 What we do know is the children were never physically checked by anyone apart form that one night! AND we don't know why Gerry changed his 'listening at door check' and did a physical check. AND more importantly Kate claims she was not going to bother looking in on the kids it was the ANGLE OF THE DOOR which prompted her.
Now then do we need to keep saying this?
1. The abductor opened the front door with a key and just shut it behind him.
2. In my opinion they took Madeleine after Gerry's check.
3. The abductor didn't open the window from outside in my opiion it was opened after Gerry left.
4. Yes after Gerry left and didn't know he had met Jez.
5. Jane wouldn't have taken any notice of the shutters, plus there were white lace curtains, which could have
looked like the white blinds.
6. The shutters stayed up as they were opened from the inside.
7. Gerry needed to use the bathroom, that is why he went inside the apartment, then checke on the children.
It wasn't the angle of the door that made Kate go into the bedroom, it was the door slamming shut.
.
1. The abductor opened the front door with a key and just shut it behind him.
2. In my opinion they took Madeleine after Gerry's check.
3. The abductor didn't open the window from outside in my opiion it was opened after Gerry left.
4. Yes after Gerry left and didn't know he had met Jez.
5. Jane wouldn't have taken any notice of the shutters, plus there were white lace curtains, which could have
looked like the white blinds.
6. The shutters stayed up as they were opened from the inside.
7. Gerry needed to use the bathroom, that is why he went inside the apartment, then checke on the children.
It wasn't the angle of the door that made Kate go into the bedroom, it was the door slamming shut.
1. The abductor opened the front door with a key and just shut it behind him.
2. In my opinion they took Madeleine after Gerry's check.
3. The abductor didn't open the window from outside in my opiion it was opened after Gerry left.
4. Yes after Gerry left and didn't know he had met Jez.
5. Jane wouldn't have taken any notice of the shutters, plus there were white lace curtains, which could have
looked like the white blinds.
6. The shutters stayed up as they were opened from the inside.
7. Gerry needed to use the bathroom, that is why he went inside the apartment, then checke on the children.
It wasn't the angle of the door that made Kate go into the bedroom, it was the door slamming shut.
I thought that happened AFTER she had re-adjusted the door closure
She was there to check on her children not examine doors. So the door is open and she doesn't check on her children first? She said she closes the door and it slams without checking on the children.
Kate thought Matt had left it open.
One aspect of this case that fascinates me is the amount of assuming that takes place. There was no evidence that Tannerman had abducted anyone, but the T9 seemed content to assume he had and then to speculate about how he did it.
Only the Payne's knew the McCanns in any depth, but the rest of the group assumed their parenting was fine based on one shared lunch and a few play sessions after high tea..
After the alarm was raised the group assumed the McCanns were innocent of any wrong-doing based on their wails of despair.
The McCanns assumed their friends were innocent but why? They didn't know them really well.
You missed my point. KM went there to do a check and did not check on the children before closing the door. Is that normal behaviour to you?
Kate said 'all was quiet'
The door was open so the normal behaviour is to look inside and check on your children like Gerry's proud father moment. Gerry and Kate did completely different behaviours. Interesting.......
Why?
Gerry's behaviour was normal to look and check on the children because the door was open and not in it's normal position. Kate's behaviour was abnormal.
Gerry's behaviour was normal to look and check on the children because the door was open and not in it's normal position. Kate's behaviour was abnormal.
I don't believe Kate's behaviour was abnormal, Kate didn't go in as she didn't want to disturb the children sleeping. I'm the same.
She didn't need to go inside. The door was open so she could see inside but she doesn't check but closes the door. WTF!
(http://i64.tinypic.com/27yptlv.png)
As the window was open and curtains open she would have noticed the room to be very cold and a breeze surely, ALSO, the light would have been shining in through the now open window...
Just the same as you would have thought matt had seen it 30 minutes earlier.
She only noticed the door being not how she left it, so where does the whooshing curtains come into it;
Surely she should have noticed that first, and matt.
Matt says there was nothing of that kind, so for it to be as Kate says, something changed after 9.30.
As the window was open and curtains open she would have noticed the room to be very cold and a breeze surely, ALSO, the light would have been shining in through the now open window...
I have to say I too find this very odd. If the shutter was fully up and sliding window was wide open as Kate claimed then the moment she opened the patio door the air would have rushed through the apartment and would have been very noticeable. Seems none of this happened on the night though unitl she started to leave the bedroom...puzzling?
I have to say I too find this very odd. If the shutter was fully up and sliding window was wide open as Kate claimed then the moment she opened the patio door the air would have rushed through the apartment and would have been very noticeable. Seems none of this happened on the night though unitl she started to leave the bedroom...puzzling?
Some slats were always open so light could get through.
The outside blinds were closed with only two or three slats open.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN-10MAY.htm
Gusts, John. Calm at other times.
That is what gusts mean, imo .... calm with sudden rushes of wind.
You don't get gusts with calm, you gets gusts with wind. The night Madeleieine disappeared was windy with gusts so an open window would create a differential in air pressure which should have been immediately noticeable on opening any exterior door.
Presuming the photos of the shutters have not been potoshopped there are no slats that can be opened without the use of a Desoutter Nibbler or similar. The slots in the upper "slats" are for ventilation. Standard design everywhere in the world.
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=ventilation+in+roller+shutters&tbm=isch&source=iu&ictx=1&fir=HbKsW3tAIGHryM%253A%252CbRLps-3cCCZgWM%252C_&usg=__pv8OOk9UV1n7IVkuGutqaDuBm2A%3D&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjE_ODwnerYAhVGIMAKHS14COcQ9QEIQDAE#imgrc=tmP9ngKZMYh57M:
Presuming the photos of the shutters have not been potoshopped there are no slats that can be opened without the use of a Desoutter Nibbler or similar. The slots in the upper "slats" are for ventilation. Standard design everywhere in the world.
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=ventilation+in+roller+shutters&tbm=isch&source=iu&ictx=1&fir=HbKsW3tAIGHryM%253A%252CbRLps-3cCCZgWM%252C_&usg=__pv8OOk9UV1n7IVkuGutqaDuBm2A%3D&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjE_ODwnerYAhVGIMAKHS14COcQ9QEIQDAE#imgrc=tmP9ngKZMYh57M:
Thanks. In the first photo you will see the shutters closed. In the second crime scene found one they are slightly open which could let light through as Matt thought.The second photo was taken after Gerry had lowered the shutters and both him and Dianne had gone and played with them lifting them up. What you say is unfounded by the facts in the statements.
(https://www.thesun.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/nintchdbpict0003203213021.jpg?strip=all&w=960)
(http://i63.tinypic.com/f1baz4.jpg)
Not sure I understand. I can have mine down, and by lifting the blinds just a bit, there will be a space between a few slats at the top (with the rest still down). And obviously, by lifting it a bit more, space between more of them.
You are wrong. The second photo is when Dianne tried to raise the shutters and got them stuck when they twisted. You are a newbie to the case and have a lot to learn.If that was a reply to my comment I think we are now saying the same thing "The second photo was taken after Gerry had lowered the shutters and both him and Dianne had gone and played with them lifting them up." is the same as or at least similar to "The second photo is when Dianne tried to raise the shutters and got them stuck when they twisted." Except I can't see Dianne in the photo so it too must be after Dianne tried to raise the shutters.
You need to look at the comics.
How are the slats on your shutters held together?
The ones fitted to the window at Apt 5a can only separate by the amount of backlash available in the horizontal joint which is mimimal a fact confirmed by the myriad of photos scattered about.
Hint: look at what is fitted to the apartment window and not at what is fitted to your kitchen/bathroom/bog/bedroom or whathaveyou.
Not sure what you mean by "comics". You've mentioned that before, but I still don't know what you're referring to.They were what I would call exploded diagrams e,g this is a classic
On the technolingo, once I work out what you mean, I might have a better idea. ;)
In the meantime, the slats on mine never turn from vertical to horizontal - they stay vertical (except when wound up inside what I assume to be a cylindrical thing that I can't actually examine). There's some kind of vertical thread every 75 cm that holds them in place vertically in relationship to each other. However, lifting them allows a horizontal space between them, starting at the top - just enough for a bit of light and ventilation - so no where near enough for anyone to slip a hand through, for example.
Mine appear to be quite heavy-duty, i.e., not a relatively flimsy sunshade.
If that was a reply to my comment I think we are now saying the same thing "The second photo was taken after Gerry had lowered the shutters and both him and Dianne had gone and played with them lifting them up." is the same as or at least similar to "The second photo is when Dianne tried to raise the shutters and got them stuck when they twisted." Except I can't see Dianne in the photo so it too must be after Dianne tried to raise the shutters.
So I stand by my criticism of your original assertion that "In the second crime scene found one they are slightly open which could let light through as Matt thought" is wrong because the shutters have been interfered with in the time between when Matt did his check and that photo was taken.
Even you must be able to work that out!
In my opinion that is a perfectly clear and understandable description.Who's description Pathfinder's or mine?
If that was a reply to my comment I think we are now saying the same thing "The second photo was taken after Gerry had lowered the shutters and both him and Dianne had gone and played with them lifting them up." is the same as or at least similar to "The second photo is when Dianne tried to raise the shutters and got them stuck when they twisted." Except I can't see Dianne in the photo so it too must be after Dianne tried to raise the shutters.
So I stand by my criticism of your original assertion that "In the second crime scene found one they are slightly open which could let light through as Matt thought" is wrong because the shutters have been interfered with in the time between when Matt did his check and that photo was taken.
Even you must be able to work that out!
Dianne didn't see Gerry there the first time so he couldn't be lifting the shutters with her. Dianne saw Gerry the second time she went to the apartment after retrieving items from the table.
In that apartment she found that KATE was completely in panic, in "state of shock ".
- Because she was asked, she states that she entered the apartment by the sliding glass door of the patio at the back, which gives access to the lounge. Then she went to the children's bedroom, noting that there she found KATE and the twin siblings of MADELEINE
She added that she did not remember too much detail about the scenario that she found in that bedroom, other that what she said above. However, she states that KATE had repeatedly commented that, on arriving at the bedroom, she had found the window of the room, with its shutter, both open. Yet, she [DW] did not notice, while at the entrance to the room, if the window was or was not open.
- However, she wants to stress that immediately afterwards, she went outside the apartment in order to ascertain whether she would be able to raise the shutters by hand from the outside, and found it was impossible for her. Consequently she infers that at the time of her arrival at the apartment the window would have been closed.
She adds that that night, and after the occurrence of the facts under investigation, have been in the the apartment on two separate occasions. At the time described above she remained about 10 minutes in the apartment. After this time she returned to the restaurant to get her handbag as well as the camera of the couple McCANN and "baby monitor" of her daughter, and was soon back again in the apartment.
The question being asked about the people that were inside the apartment of McCANN at that time, the witness said that the McCANN couple were present (although on the first occasion she had no recollection of having seen GERRY).
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/DIANNE_WEBSTER_11-MAY07.htm
The shutters have slight gaps in the crime scene photo so light could get through as Matt thought so your original unfounded response is wrong (the first photo had no gaps and that was not found in the first photos of the crime scene). Gerry or Dianne didn't say they used the cord to change shutter gaps. They said they went to the outside and lifted them. That will not change the gaps shown in the second photo I posted of the crime scene. Dianne found the shutter closed and not raised by Gerry. If you raise the shutters they do not stay in that position from lifting from the outside. If you let go they fall straight back down. Gerry forget to mention that crucial fact. The little details are important!I read Gerry's statement differently than that. I don't think it was necessary for Gerry to say that after lifting them they fell back down. It might have been helpful, I'll admit that.
are we still going on the assumption that this 'abductor' in the room is a stranger, and not known to the family?