The Tapas Note.

[stephen25000]

Same as us.
If we went out, we locked our house.
If we were in the garden where we could see it, it was left unlocked, day or after dark.

My bet is that the Mccanns left the patio door closed but unlocked when they were in the tapas area able to keep an eye on it.  So convenient for snacks, drinks, the lavatory, towels, dry clothes, sun oil, etc.   But I dont know the exact situation, and neither do you.

You use keys Sadie, to lock and unlock.

It helps keeping your children safe.

In fact, it's just plain common sense.

[John]

They thought that they were safe.  They thought that the front was secure and the group of friends could see the patio and patio entrance, which was illuminated from the street lamp immediately opposite 5A from only 50 metres away.

The Mccanns made an unknowing error.
;they were desperately unlucky.

They thought that they were safe?  Then why bother to lock up during the day?  A massive fail imo.

[sadie]

Unlocking an entrance door with a key Sadie, will not wake up children.

I didn't make that comment Stephen

But I will tell you that when we went to bed, we tip toed up the carpeted stairs with no shoes on, we used the lavatory .... BUT WE NEVER FLUSHED THE LOO, or SPOKE and the moment that we started to go to sleep our little boy would start crying.

However he was a desperately poor sleeper and i doubt that the Mccann children would react as much as he did.

I can empathise with The Mccanns if they had a child who woke up all the time and i can understand not wanting to open a door which might have been very noisy.


Now if you weill excuse me.  Life has to go on in this part of The Midlands

[stephen25000]

The Mccanns were not lucky.

They locked up when they were away and couldn't see the unlocked part of 5A, same as us.  Simples

Their fault Sadie.

No one else's.

[ShiningInLuz]

Joe Public did not wander around 5A back garden; they had to open a gate to get in.  At the front too, just like in our front garden, they had to come in via a relatively narrow entrance on to what was very obviously a private area.

We lived on a main ring road and we left the side gate and the back door open, but in those days it felt very safe, when we were in the back garden.   I wouldn't risk it now, things have changed. 

PdL still feels safe, it is a relatively refined sort of place with old ladies and families wandering around.   You [and all of uis] know better now tho SIL, but would you agree that on the surface Luz feels very safe?

I would rate Luz as extremely safe, much safer than the UK.

However, we still take basic safety measures.  We security-lock our front door.  We don't leave our car open, or with a key in it.  We have a ring of family and friends we can telephone for rapid support.  We know how to summon the GNR and the bombeiros, and we know we have never had any language barrier.

Our 'new' home is already occupied by our children and grandchildren, one aged 6, another approaching 2.  There is a large patio in their part of the house which has the exact same type of balcony as 5A, and it has a 1 storey drop below (on to a hard surface).  This was deemed to be climbable, therefore not safe enough.  The builder was asked to alter it to make it secure.  The safety fence is 1.8m high.

Please don't get me wrong.  I am not saying Portugal (or Luz) is perfect.  I have just written on my blog the third instalment about the forest fire near Pedrógão Grande.  The good news is the fire is out.  The bad news is those evacuated are returning home to find thefts and burglaries.  There are jackals and vultures everywhere.

[G-Unit]

They thought that they were safe.  They thought that the front was secure and the group of friends could see the patio and patio entrance, which was illuminated from the street lamp immediately opposite 5A from only 50 metres away.



People make errors, John, same as you made an unknowing massive error in taking your babies into your bed if they cried.  However, you were very lucky and nothing untoward happened, thank goodness.
 
Me, I was aware and spent 7 years up and down literally all night long every night, because, altho I would have liked the ease of it and loved my babies in bed cuddled up to me, I wasn't prepared to take the risk of smothering my babies.

I was on the verge of a break down after 7 years of almost no sleep.


Like you, the Mccanns made an unknowing error.
But you were lucky; they were desperately unlucky.

They were mature people and trained doctors who, in my opinion, ignored the danger to their children. If they were unaware of the potential for a child to fall from the balcony, of the dangers in the home (knives, medicines), of the dangers of leaving small children alone I can't help wondering what they would class as dangerous.

I would never allow small children unsupervised access to that balcony; far more dangerous than hiring a baby-sitter or someone reading some note in a book in my opinion.

[John]

The Mccanns were not lucky.

They locked up when they were away and couldn't see the unlocked part of 5A, same as us.  Simples

Seeing the obscure outline of their apartment in the night glare didn't mitigate the dangers as evidenced by what occurred. Leaving three toddlers alone for over an hour in a foreign resort was highly irresponsible and was asking for trouble.  Aside from the abduction claim, there are many other dangers for children left alone.  #choking #fire

[Innominate]

The claim that entrance was made via the sliding door to avoid waking the children was in the documentary 'Madeleine was here'.

The problem is this explanation does not tie up with the statement:

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN-10MAY.htm

snip

----- That they left the house by the main door, that he was sure he locked, it being that the rear door was also closed and locked. They were the first to arrive at the TAPAS where everyone showed up except only for MATHEW, who was still ill.

---

They entered through the front door on this night.

By the Wed 2nd the statement states:

----- On Wednesday night, 2 May 2007, as well as he and his wife, he thinks that DavidP also went to his apartment to confirm that his children were well, not having reported to him any abnormal situation with the children. On this day he and KATE had already left the rear door closed, but not locked, to allow entrance by their colleagues to check on the children.

---

i.e. the rear door was left open to facilitate 'entrance by their colleagues to check on the children.'

DavidP categorically denied making any checks on the children in his rogatory statement.

The Wed 2nd is also the night of the 'crying incident'.

What all this means is not clear to me, but the status of the doors through the week is an open question IMO.

[ferryman]

I would rate Luz as extremely safe, much safer than the UK.

However, we still take basic safety measures.  We security-lock our front door.  We don't leave our car open, or with a key in it.  We have a ring of family and friends we can telephone for rapid support.  We know how to summon the GNR and the bombeiros, and we know we have never had any language barrier.

Our 'new' home is already occupied by our children and grandchildren, one aged 6, another approaching 2.  There is a large patio in their part of the house which has the exact same type of balcony as 5A, and it has a 1 storey drop below (on to a hard surface).  This was deemed to be climbable, therefore not safe enough.  The builder was asked to alter it to make it secure.  The safety fence is 1.8m high.

Please don't get me wrong.  I am not saying Portugal (or Luz) is perfect.  I have just written on my blog the third instalment about the forest fire near Pedrógão Grande.  The good news is the fire is out.  The bad news is those evacuated are returning home to find thefts and burglaries.  There are jackals and vultures everywhere.

I would rate Luz as extremely safe, much safer than the UK.

However, we still take basic safety measures.  We security-lock our front door.  We don't leave our car open, or with a key in it.  We have a ring of family and friends we can telephone for rapid support.  We know how to summon the GNR and the bombeiros, and we know we have never had any language barrier.

Our 'new' home is already occupied by our children and grandchildren, one aged 6, another approaching 2.  There is a large patio in their part of the house which has the exact same type of balcony as 5A, and it has a 1 storey drop below (on to a hard surface).  This was deemed to be climbable, therefore not safe enough.  The builder was asked to alter it to make it secure.  The safety fence is 1.8m high.

Please don't get me wrong.  I am not saying Portugal (or Luz) is perfect.  I have just written on my blog the third instalment about the forest fire near Pedrógão Grande.  The good news is the fire is out.  The bad news is those evacuated are returning home to find thefts and burglaries.  There are jackals and vultures everywhere.

Not quite sure how you arrive at the conclusion at the start of your post I have highlighted?

I would argue that anywhere in the world is as safe, or as crime-prone, as the people who actually live there or visit.

I have no particular reason to doubt that the population of Luz (whether native or visitor) is as replete with honest, upright inhabitants, or shady, fly-by-night or outright criminal-types as anywhere else.

Portugal is a small country, with a much smaller population than the UK, so its dishonest citizens (as a proportion of its population as a whole) is also likely to be smaller.

Perhaps, in that sense, Portugal is safer than the UK.

But Portugal (as everywhere) has dishonest citizens and honest citizens, as honest visitors, are at risk of falling prey to their dishonest deeds. 

No doubt Portugal has its share of dishonest inhabitants not indigenous to the country (or to Luz).

Your final sentence is, of course, exactly right.

[Alice Purjorick]

The claim that entrance was made via the sliding door to avoid waking the children was in the documentary 'Madeleine was here'.

The problem is this explanation does not tie up with the statement:

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN-10MAY.htm

snip

----- That they left the house by the main door, that he was sure he locked, it being that the rear door was also closed and locked. They were the first to arrive at the TAPAS where everyone showed up except only for MATHEW, who was still ill.

---

They entered through the front door on this night.

By the Wed 2nd the statement states:

----- On Wednesday night, 2 May 2007, as well as he and his wife, he thinks that DavidP also went to his apartment to confirm that his children were well, not having reported to him any abnormal situation with the children. On this day he and KATE had already left the rear door closed, but not locked, to allow entrance by their colleagues to check on the children.

---

i.e. the rear door was left open to facilitate 'entrance by their colleagues to check on the children.'

DavidP categorically denied making any checks on the children in his rogatory statement.

The Wed 2nd is also the night of the 'crying incident'.

What all this means is not clear to me, but the status of the doors through the week is an open question IMO.

Not just in your opinion either.
If you could fathom out from statements made by the chief protagonists exactly what went on from 17:30 until 22:00 it would be enlightening I am sure. Statements made by receptionists and nannies et al are interesting but just so much chaff [as in the old military, strips of foil, sense of the word].

[ShiningInLuz]

Not quite sure how you arrive at the conclusion at the start of your post I have highlighted?

I would argue that anywhere in the world is as safe, or as crime-prone, as the people who actually live there or visit.

I have no particular reason to doubt that the population of Luz (whether native or visitor) is as replete with honest, upright inhabitants, or shady, fly-by-night or outright criminal-types as anywhere else.

Portugal is a small country, with a much smaller population than the UK, so its dishonest citizens (as a proportion of its population as a whole) is also likely to be smaller.

Perhaps, in that sense, Portugal is safer than the UK.

But Portugal (as everywhere) has dishonest citizens and honest citizens, as honest visitors, are at risk of falling prey to their dishonest deeds. 

No doubt Portugal has its share of dishonest inhabitants not indigenous to the country (or to Luz).

Your final sentence is, of course, exactly right.

I got there because I have lived in both.

I would rather my grandchildren grew up here.

[misty]

The claim that entrance was made via the sliding door to avoid waking the children was in the documentary 'Madeleine was here'.

The problem is this explanation does not tie up with the statement:

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN-10MAY.htm

snip

----- That they left the house by the main door, that he was sure he locked, it being that the rear door was also closed and locked. They were the first to arrive at the TAPAS where everyone showed up except only for MATHEW, who was still ill.

---

They entered through the front door on this night.

By the Wed 2nd the statement states:

----- On Wednesday night, 2 May 2007, as well as he and his wife, he thinks that DavidP also went to his apartment to confirm that his children were well, not having reported to him any abnormal situation with the children. On this day he and KATE had already left the rear door closed, but not locked, to allow entrance by their colleagues to check on the children.

---

i.e. the rear door was left open to facilitate 'entrance by their colleagues to check on the children.'

DavidP categorically denied making any checks on the children in his rogatory statement.

The Wed 2nd is also the night of the 'crying incident'.

What all this means is not clear to me, but the status of the doors through the week is an open question IMO.

IMO on the first night(Sun) the McCanns left the children alone they did lock both doors as they said. However, from Gerry's remark that using the patio door was to avoid waking the children, IMO that is exactly what did happen on one of the first nights, causing inconvenience & disruption.
I also do not believe any of the rest of the group entered apartment 5A prior to 3rd May or had any knowledge that the patio door was unlocked.


https://mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MATTHEW-OLDFIELD.htm    (4th May)
" That the door through which he entered the apartment was closed but not locked. That he doesn't know if it is usual for Madeleine's parents to leave the door closed but not locked because that door is visible from the restaurant."


http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/FIONA-PAYNE-ROGATORY.htm
1485 “So she asked you what your thoughts were regarding locking?”

Reply “Yeah”.

1485 “Did she say whether she had locked or?”

Reply “No, that was the point, I think they said they’d left it, well she’d said she’d left it unlocked”.

1485 “Left the patio?”

Reply “And she felt a bit nervous about it but Gerry, Gerry had sort of said ‘Oh it will be fine’, you know. But she was obviously, because it wasn’t something she was quite easy with, that’s the way it came across, you know, but, but Gerry said, you know, ‘It’ll be fine. It’ll be fine

[Robittybob1]

Unlocking an entrance door with a key Sadie, will not wake up children.

That is what they were saying though.  For that was straight from something I've heard them say (I think it was an interview can't recall sorry).  Physics:  The front door is right beside the kids room so it could be more likely to wake them as opposed to a door (same noise) but further away.

[stephen25000]

That is what they were saying though.  For that was straight from something I've heard them say (I think it was an interview can't recall sorry).  Physics:  The front door is right beside the kids room so it could be more likely to wake them as opposed to a door (same noise) but further away.

Now by that logic, the children would have been woken up when the parents returned from their dining and wining.

Presumably the doors would have been locked on their return as well.

[G-Unit]

IMO on the first night(Sun) the McCanns left the children alone they did lock both doors as they said. However, from Gerry's remark that using the patio door was to avoid waking the children, IMO that is exactly what did happen on one of the first nights, causing inconvenience & disruption.
I also do not believe any of the rest of the group entered apartment 5A prior to 3rd May or had any knowledge that the patio door was unlocked.


https://mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MATTHEW-OLDFIELD.htm    (4th May)
" That the door through which he entered the apartment was closed but not locked. That he doesn't know if it is usual for Madeleine's parents to leave the door closed but not locked because that door is visible from the restaurant."


http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/FIONA-PAYNE-ROGATORY.htm
1485 “So she asked you what your thoughts were regarding locking?”

Reply “Yeah”.

1485 “Did she say whether she had locked or?”

Reply “No, that was the point, I think they said they’d left it, well she’d said she’d left it unlocked”.

1485 “Left the patio?”

Reply “And she felt a bit nervous about it but Gerry, Gerry had sort of said ‘Oh it will be fine’, you know. But she was obviously, because it wasn’t something she was quite easy with, that’s the way it came across, you know, but, but Gerry said, you know, ‘It’ll be fine. It’ll be fine

Why did Russell claim he did go to the McCann's, I wonder? Why would Gerry's colleagues check his kids when he and his wife never returned the favour?

On Sunday I recall I checked Kate and Gerry’s apartment as well as Rachael and Matt’s. I had taken Matt’s keys and I believe that their door was deadlocked the same as ours and that I would have needed to turn the key two times.  We kept our shutters down, and the patio door was closed I am not sure whether theirs was the same.  I recall that Kate and Gerry’s apartment was accessed by the patios door which was left closed and unlocked.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RUSSELL-OBRIEN_ROGATORY.htm