Was it really just like being in the garden while kids slept upstairs?.

[Redblossom]

Sure. Living the kids alone is one thing, blaming everybody but themselves is another.

Not to mention her denigrating them

Even her own past patients as a gp, one reason she said she didnt go back to work was because she would be annoyed at peoples sob health  stories when she had been through so much worse! Or words to that effect havent got the EXACT quote

[icabodcrane]

But sadie,  you did not present  'facts'  ...  you presented  'presumtions'   (  as you frequently do  ) 

I won't deconstruct your  post in a piecemeal way,  out of kindness,   but just to make the point,  you suggest that any abductor who entered through the unlocked patio doors would have been  'bathed in light'  given that a living room light was on

In  'fact'  it was a lamp that stood  just outside the children's bedroom

You will recall that as Kate  stood at the open bedroom door on her 10pm check  she spoke about having to  'look and look'  at Madeleine's bed,  unable to see whether she was there or not  ...   and adds that she did not want to turn on the bedroom light for fear of waking the children 

You see,  this lamp (  that  outside the room  )  was so  dim that it did not even illuminate the room sufficiently to make out whether a child was in the bed or not 

You really  should not present imaginings  as  'fact'  and then take other posters to task for not  'disproving'  them.

[Lyall]

Lyall, I have been and eaten at that Tapas restaurant.  What they and I could see depended on whether the bushes had just been cut back ... or whether they had grown long and bushy.  Greenery grows amazingly fast in PT.  There are contemporary photos that show the bushes had just been clipped back at the time of the abduction

Others who say they couldn't see, either went at a time when the bushes were overgrown or viewed the appartment from completely the wrong place.


Virtually all the photographs shown on Mccannfiles etc are taken from a very different viewpoint to that of the actual  Mccann and tapas group position.
These photographs should be removed as they are disinformation and destructive to sensible debate.


This one photograph says it all.   The photograph is taken from in front of the patio windows and where Gerry and Kate and the tapas group sat is clearly visible.
If people refuse to accept what this photograph shows, then they are closing their minds



Where we sat we could see virtually the whole of the patio windows.  The Mccanns view was not as good as ours, because they were a coupla metres further away, but they could still see most of the patio windows

... and Madeleine could see them in a lit outdoor room * IF * she had exited the apartment.  She could see straight thru those railings to the tapas restaurant and the windows were huge .  It was well lit.  She would immediately see her mum and dad and their friends


The railings were too high for her to fall over, or climb over

Sadie it's not me you have a disagreement with, it's the McCanns.

K McCann writes in her book she believes the abductor could have entered and left via the patio doors.

Do you disagree?

[sadie]

But sadie,  you did not present  'facts'  ...  you presented  'presumtions'   (  as you frequently do  ) 

I won't deconstruct your  post in a piecemeal way,  out of kindness,   but just to make the point,  you suggest that any abductor who entered through the unlocked patio doors would have been  'bathed in light'  given that a living room light was on

In  'fact'  it was a lamp that stood  just outside the children's bedroom

You will recall that as Kate  stood at the open bedroom door on her 10pm check  she spoke about having to  'look and look'  at Madeleine's bed,  unable to see whether she was there or not  ...   and adds that she did not want to turn on the bedroom light for fear of waking the children 

You see,  this lamp (  that  outside the room  )  was so  dim that it did not even illuminate the room sufficiently to make out whether a child was in the bed or not 

You really  should not present imaginings  as  'fact'  and then take other posters to task for not  'disproving'  them

No Icabod , you are wrong.

I presented facts

Open your mind please and re-read.

[icabodcrane]

No Icabod , you are wrong.

I presented facts

Open your mind please and re-read.

You said that any abductor who entered through the patio doors would have been  'bathed'   in the strong light of  the living room

That is not a  'fact'  that you possibly know   ...   although you are certainly ignoring  the  'fact'  that the apartment was so dimly lit Kate could not even make out whether Madeleine was in her bed or not

[AnneGuedes]

In  'fact'  it was a lamp that stood  just outside the children's bedroom

That lamp (right corner when entering) was on a low table opposite to the TV set (left corner when entering)

[Redblossom]

It is absolutely pathetic and ridiculous to the extreme to suggest the mccanns could see their patio , even if they ever looked,let alone in any  detail or  Madeleine see her parents from there, laughable , and two professionals have proved this too, nite
 8-)(--)

[sadie]

quote author=icabodcrane link=topic=2275.msg74880#msg74880 date=1379544899]
[You said that any abductor who entered through the patio doors would have been  'bathed'   in the strong light of  the living room

Please quote me correctly.  In comparison to the less strong light of the street lamp I said it was stronger

That is not a  'fact'  that you possibly know  I am not stupid Icabod.  If he had gone in via that patio door his movement and  silhouette would have shown dramatically.  The very fact that he had to draw the curtain back in order to enter would have shown dramatically a new oblong of light..  Why would a man risk entering into a lit room where he had to move curtains especially, when he could go in via a door on the front which was not overlooked, totally hidden and in the almost pitch black.  You are not stupid either.  why are you saying these things? .    

...   although you are certainly ignoring  the  'fact'  that the apartment was so dimly lit Kate could not even make out whether Madeleine was in her bed or not.  Kate had gone from a lit room into a dark room.  Her eyes had to adust ... and as you well know Madeleine was around the corner away from direct light.  Kate could see well enough to not understand the change in Madeleines bed.

Try reading Matts statement, Icabod.  He had a quick look thru the books on the bookshelf when he checked .... so the light was pretty bright][/quote]

[icabodcrane]

quote author=icabodcrane link=topic=2275.msg74880#msg74880 date=1379544899]
[You said that any abductor who entered through the patio doors would have been  'bathed'   in the strong light of  the living room

Please quote me correctly.  In comparison to the less strong light of the street lamp I said it was stronger

That is not a  'fact'  that you possibly know  I am not stupid Icabod.  If he had gone in via that patio door his movement and  silhouette would have shown dramatically.  The very fact that he had to draw the curtain back in order to enter would have shown dramatically a new oblong of light..  Why would a man risk entering into a lit room where he had to move curtains especially, when he could go in via a door on the front which was not overlooked, totally hidden and in the almost pitch black.  You are not stupid either.  why are you saying these things? .    

...   although you are certainly ignoring  the  'fact'  that the apartment was so dimly lit Kate could not even make out whether Madeleine was in her bed or not.  Kate had gone from a lit room into a dark room.  Her eyes had to adust ... and as you well know Madeleine was around the corner away from direct light.  Kate could see well enough to not understand the change in Madeleines bed.

Try reading Matts statement, Icabod.  He had a quick look thru the books on the bookshelf when he checked .... so the light was pretty bright]

There is no evidence of  a 'duplicate key'  being used to enter through the front door  ...  no evidence at  all

If you are presenting that as a theory then you must acknowledge that it is not supported by evidence and is based entirely on imagination

[sadie]

It is absolutely pathetic and ridiculous to the extreme to suggest the mccanns could see their patio , even if they ever looked,let alone in any  detail or  Madeleine see her parents from there, laughable , and two professionals have proved this too, nite
 8-)(--)

Dogs do not understand that what can be seen one way can be seen the other way, but you astound me, Red , that you cant understand that. 

I thought that you were quite intelligent, yet when you see from a photograph that Madeleine standing in front of tyhe patio windows could see where Gerry and Kate sat, you cannot understand that The Mccanns could also see Madeleine and the patio windows behind



it is quite laughable that you dont see that.  I am sure that any readers will understand, even if you cant.



and btw, please stop using the "loony" and "stupid" sign  8-)(--)  ... cos that is what it clearly is.   Despite what wec are told, undecided people do NOT have there tongues hanging out the side of their mouths and neither do people do that with their index finger except when insulting.  Plaese stop it.  It is a sure sign that you have lost the argument ... as readers will understand

Sheer abuse

[sadie]

There is no evidence of  a 'duplicate key'  being used to enter through the front door  ...  no evidence at  all

If you are presenting that as a theory then you must acknowledge that it is not supported by evidence and is based entirely on imagination

Two burglaries in the immediately preceeding weeks in OC including the flat immediately above.  Entrance was via the front door in each case, with no damage done.  A key was used.

Any more indicators needed?

Many people at OC had access to the keys.

[John]

Having considered the opening post I think Gerry might have got away with drawing a comparison had it been daylight but to attempt to make a comparison for something which occurred in the dark just doesn't cut it.

I do agree with Sadie however that the tapas restaurant can be seen from the balcony of 5a and vice versa but unless you had binoculars it is impossible to pick out any people.  It goes without saying that in the dark very little would be visible.

[Luz]

It wasn't neglect according to the Portuguese law : they didn't deliberately put their children in danger. I really think they behaved like many people do, they were unlucky. Is it worse because they are doctors ? I don't think so. We all have experiences of doctors who hardly listen to you !
The problem is they didn't tell the truth, up to what point I don't know, but that ridiculous forced shutters/window story kommt mir nicht aus dem Sinn. Who could follow such a red herring ? The PJ, anxious to find the little girl and thinking they had misunderstood about the shutters/window.

I'm sorry to disagree with you Anne. It is neglect according to the law - as you know, there are several degrees of neglect - even if a simple neglect. The Attorney General made an elegant excuse to avoid that matter by mentioning that they maintained regular checks, which were never totally proved since the depositions were so contradictory.
Some time ago, around the time Madeleine disappeared, a single capverdian mother was summoned to be at Sintra Court for a matter regarding the guard of her children, and as she didn't have anyone to leave her 4 children with she left them at home - the youngest was 7 and the oldest 11 or 12 y.o. Meanwhile a neighbor called the police because the children were making noise. The children were taken from home and put in an institution. The mother was prosecuted and condemned for neglect - sentenced to 18 months suspended imprisonment. (Note: before you ask for doc, I can say there was news in the papers but I am using direct information)

[Lyall]

Having considered the opening post I think Gerry might have got away with drawing a comparison had it been daylight but to attempt to make a comparison for something which occurred in the dark just doesn't cut it.

I do agree with Sadie however that the tapas restaurant can be seen from the balcony of 5a and vice versa but unless you had binoculars it is impossible to pick out any people.  It goes without saying that in the dark very little would be visible.

I agree, and evidence for this is that nobody says they saw Oldfield either going in or coming out through the patio doors. Sadie previously said nobody mentioned seeing him because they didn't think it that important, but his check could hardly be more crucial - and everybody there that night knew it.

[Angelo222]

And can I add that the street light didn't illuminate all the steps as it was slightly offset.  If I remember correctly we have already seen a photo taken at the time showing that only the first three or four steps at the bottom were lit by the streetlight.  I do agree that it is more than likely that the front door was used though. The carrier walked out of it carrying Madeleine horizontally in his arms so who closed it or did he do that trick with his foot?  Remember that nobody else was lurking about as Tanner would have seen them.