GM's initial statement.

[Holly Goodhead]

GM's testimony is arguably among the most important, if not the most important, since he was first to communicate with GNR officers at OC main reception via OC employee, Silvia Batista, who acted as an interpreter. 

There's no reason to believe GNR officers didn't act on the info provided AND pass it on to others which then sets in motion a train of events.

If GM subsequently changed all or part of his testimony when there was no reason for him not to have the full facts at the time, eg whether or not he entered the apartment via the front door or patio doors at circa 9 pm this raises suspicion and would have been unhelpful to first respondents and the first phase of the investigation.

[Brietta]

In my opinion the thread title is libellous and if not in itself will incite libellous posts.

[Holly Goodhead]

4th May

As usual, every half hour and as the restaurant was near, the witness or his wife, would check whether the children were all right. In this way, 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.  He then went to the WC" where he remained for a few moments, left, and bumped into a person he had played tennis with and who had a child's push chair, he was also British, he had a short conversation with him, "returning after that to the restaurant.

10th May

He followed the normal route up to the rear door, which being open he only had to move [slide] it, that being the way in which he entered [was entering] the lounge, he noted that the children's bedroom door was not ajar as he had left it but half-way open, which he thought strange, having then put together the thought of MADELEINE having got up to go to sleep in his bedroom so as to avoid the noise produced [created] by her siblings. In this way he entered the children's bedroom and established visual contact with each of them, checking and is certain of this, that the three were sleeping deeply. He left the children's bedroom returning to place the door how he had already previously described, [then] going to the bathroom. Everything else was normal, the blinds, curtains and windows closed, very dark, there only being the light that came from the lounge.

----- He adds that he never entered any other part of the residence [his bedroom or the kitchen] where he was for only two or three minutes, leaving yet again through the rear door that he closed but did not lock.

[jassi]

In my opinion the thread title is libellous and if not in itself will incite libellous posts.

If such is the case, will McCann lawyers not issue a writ ?

[Holly Goodhead]

10th May

Despite what he said in his previous statements, he states now and with certainty, that he left with KATE by the rear door which he consequently closed but did not lock given that that is only possible from the inside. Referring to the front door, while he is certain that it was closed it is unlikely that it was locked as [because] they had left by the rear door.

[Mr Gray]

If such is the case, will McCann lawyers not issue a writ ?

I doubt it because its on such a small forum its unlikely to cause any serious harm to his reputation

[Holly Goodhead]

10th May

He is certain that, before leaving home the children's bedroom was totally dark, with the window closed, but he does not know it was locked, the external blinds closed but with some slats open, and the curtains also drawn closed. Asked, he relates that during the night the artificial light coming in from the outside is very weak, because, without a light being on in the lounge or the kitchen, the visibility inside the bedroom is much reduced.

[Mr Gray]

10th May

Despite what he said in his previous statements, he states now and with certainty, that he left with KATE by the rear door which he consequently closed but did not lock given that that is only possible from the inside. Referring to the front door, while he is certain that it was closed it is unlikely that it was locked as [because] they had left by the rear door.

1. those are not Gerrys actual words
2.there are no previous staements just one statement
3. There is nothing in his previous statement saying which door he left by

[pathfinder73]

[Holly Goodhead]

10th May

He is certain that, before leaving home the children's bedroom was totally dark, with the window closed, but he does not know it was locked, the external blinds closed but with some slats open, and the curtains also drawn closed. Asked, he relates that during the night the artificial light coming in from the outside is very weak, because, without a light being on in the lounge or the kitchen, the visibility inside the bedroom is much reduced.

KM interviewed by Piers Morgan where she describes the moment she realised MM was missing:

I just glanced at MM's bed which was by the wall and it was really dark and I couldn't quite make her out but I just kept looking for what felt like minutes thinking where is she you know.  And it seems daft now because normally you'd think put the light on but its that inbuilt thing of don't wake the kids up hmmm and then I looked and realised she wasn't there.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JGuaMZF6k6g

GM describes the last time he observed MM when he carried out his circa 9 pm check:

I'd actually stuck my head around the door and I I lingered for a few seconds and thought how beautiful she was.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MvFmfW5Z1v4

1. At circa 8.30 pm GM's written testimony describes the children's room as "totally dark". 

2.  At circa 9.00 pm GM describes, as above, sticking his head around the door and thinking how beautiful MM was.

3.  At circa 10.00 pm KM describes how the room was "really dark" she was unable to determine whether or not MM was in her bed. 

If 1 and 3 are true how can 2 be true?

If 2 is true how can 1 and 3 be true?

[Holly Goodhead]

GM's Testimony 10th May

At 20H35, they left the apartment in the direction of the TAPAS. Before they left and because the children's bedroom door was ajar as always, he opened it a little more, listening from the outside and, as there was complete silence he did not enter, returning the door to its previous position, with a space of about 10cm.

At 21H05 MATHEW returned, the time at which the deponent left the table to go to check how his children were.

He followed the normal route up to the rear door, which being open he only had to move [slide] it, that being the way in which he entered [was entering] the lounge, he noted that the children's bedroom door was not ajar as he had left it but half-way open, which he thought strange, having then put together the thought of MADELEINE having got up to go to sleep in his bedroom so as to avoid the noise produced [created] by her siblings. In this way he entered the children's bedroom and established visual contact with each of them, checking and is certain of this, that the three were sleeping deeply. He left the children's bedroom returning to place the door how he had already previously described, [then] going to the bathroom. Everything else was normal, the blinds, curtains and windows closed, very dark, there only being the light that came from the lounge.

KM's Testimony 4th May

At around 10 pm, the interviewee went to check on the children. She went into the apartment by the side door, which was closed but not locked, as she said before. She noticed that the door to her children's bedroom was completely open, the window was also open, the shutters raised and the curtains open, while she was certain of having closed them all as she always did.

So given MM asked on morning of 3rd May 'Why didn't you come when Sean and I cried last night' and the McCanns agreeing they needed to be extra vigilant with their checking in case one or more woke between checks why:

1. Did GM not mention to KM the bedroom door had moved which at the time he put down to MM moving about?

2. Why did GM/KM allow MO to carry out the circa 9.30 check?

3. Given 1 and 2 above why did GM/KM not brief MO about the position of the door in order to establish whether there had been any further movement of it between GM leaving and MO arriving?

4. Why did GM not mention the door moving in his testimony of 4th May?

[Holly Goodhead]

KM's PB Page 82:

At breakfast time, Madeleine had a question for us.  'Why didn't you come when Sean and I cried last night?'

KM's PB Page 91:

We mentioned to the others what Madeleine had said that morning.  Obviously, we didn't want any of our children waking and wondering where we were even for a few minutes, and if the chances of that happening seemed remote, it was enough of a concern to make us absolutely prompt with our checks on the kids.  That is why Gerry and I were subsequently able to be so accurate about timings.

If the above is so why didn't GM let KM know after his first check that the bedroom door had moved which he put down to MM moving around?  Why did they both allow MO to check at circa 9.30 pm if they thought MM might have been up and about?  And why was MO oblivious to how he should find the door which GM acknowledges he used to determine whether or not MM was up and about? 

[The General]

2. Why did GM/KM allow MO to carry out the circa 9.30 check?

Now THAT is a very pertinent question, for more than one reason.

[Holly Goodhead]

Now THAT is a very pertinent question, for more than one reason.

Care to elaborate?   

[Holly Goodhead]

GM's testimony is arguably among the most important, if not the most important, since he was first to communicate with GNR officers at OC main reception via OC employee, Silvia Batista, who acted as an interpreter. 

There's no reason to believe GNR officers didn't act on the info provided AND pass it on to others which then sets in motion a train of events.

If GM subsequently changed all or part of his testimony when there was no reason for him not to have the full facts at the time, eg whether or not he entered the apartment via the front door or patio doors at circa 9 pm this raises suspicion and would have been unhelpful to first respondents and the first phase of the investigation.

 

I think we can see that GM did not impart the full facts to the GNR officers as eventually told.