UK Justice Forum 🇬🇧
Disappeared and Abducted Children and Young Adults => Madeleine McCann (3) disappeared from her parent's holiday apartment at Ocean Club, Praia da Luz, Portugal on 3 May 2007. No trace of her has ever been found. => Topic started by: G-Unit on October 04, 2020, 02:27:57 PM
-
"Kate had already answered those questions on a previous occasion."
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=11731.msg620668#msg620668
Is that true? I'll make a start. Every 'NO' means that imo Kate had never answered those questions in any of her previous police interviews.
1. On May 3, 2007, around 22:00, when you entered the apartment, what did you see? What did you do? Where did you look? What did you touch?
2. Did you search inside the master bedroom wardrobe? NO
3. (Shown two photographs of her bedroom wardrobe) Can you describe its contents? NO
4. Why was the curtain by the sofa near the side window tampered with? Did someone go behind the sofa? NO
5. How long did your search of the apartment take after you detected Madeleine’s disappearance?
6. Why did you say Madeleine had been abducted?
7. Assuming Madeleine was abducted, why did you leave the twins to go to the ‘Tapas’ and raise the alarm? The supposed abductor could still be in the apartment.
8. Why didn’t you ask the twins then what happened to their sister or why didn’t you ask them later on? NO
9. When you raised the alarm at the ‘Tapas’ what exactly did you say – what were your exact words?
10. What happened after you raised the alarm there?
11. Why did you go and warn your friends instead of shouting from the verandah?
12. Who contacted the authorities? NO
13. Who took place in the searches? NO
14. Did anyone outside the group learn of her disappearance in those following minutes? NO
15. Did any neighbour offer you help? NO
16. What does “we let her down” mean? NO
17. Did Jane Tanner tell you that night she’d seen a man with a child? NO
18. How were the authorities contacted and which police force was alerted? NO
19. During the searches, with the police there, where did you search for Maddie, how and in what way? NO
20. Why did the twins not wake up during that search or when they were taken upstairs? NO
21. Who did you phone after the occurrence? NO
22. Did you call Sky News? NO
23. Did you know the danger of calling the media, because it could influence the abductor? NO
24. Did you ask for a priest? NO
25. By what means did you divulge Madeleine’s features, by photographs or by any other means? NO
26. Is it true that during the searches you remained seated on Maddie’s bed without moving? NO
27. What was your behaviour that night? NO
28. Did you manage to sleep? NO
29. Before travelling to Portugal, did you make any comment about a foreboding or a bad feeling? NO
30. What was Madeleine’s behaviour like? NO
31. Did Maddie suffer from any illness or take any medication? NO
32. What was Madeleine’s relationship like with her brother and sister? NO
33. What was Madeleine’s relationship like with her brother and sister, friends and school mates? NO
34. As for your professional life, in how many and which hospitals have you worked? NO
35. What is your medical speciality?
36. Have you ever done shift work in any emergency services or other services? NO
37. Did you work every day? NO
38. At a certain point you stopped working. Why? NO
39. Are the twins difficult to get to sleep? Are they restless and does that cause you uneasiness? NO
40. Is it true sometimes you despaired at your children’s behaviour and it left you feeling very uneasy? NO
41. Is it true that in England you even considered handing over Madeleine’s custody to a relative? NO
42. In England, did you medicate your children? What type of medication? NO
43. In the case files, you were shown canine forensic testing films. After watching them, did you say you couldn’t explain any more than you already had?
44. When the sniffer dog also marked human blood behind the sofa, did you say you couldn’t explain any more than you already had?
45. When the sniffer dog marked the scent of corpse coming from the vehicle you hired a month after the disappearance, did you say you couldn’t explain any more than you already had?
46. When human blood was marked in the boot of the vehicle, did you say you couldn’t explain any more than you already had?
47. When confronted with the results of Maddie’s DNA, carried out in a British lab, collected from behind the sofa and the boot of the vehicle, did you say you couldn’t explain any more than you already had?
48. Did you have any responsibility or intervention in your daughter’s disappearance?
https://thetab.com/uk/2019/03/15/48-questions-kate-mccann-95757
-
Haven't we done this already? Beaten it to death in fact.
-
"Kate had already answered those questions on a previous occasion."
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=11731.msg620668#msg620668
Is that true? I'll make a start. Every 'NO' means that imo Kate had never answered those questions in any of her previous police interviews.
1. On May 3, 2007, around 22:00, when you entered the apartment, what did you see? What did you do? Where did you look? What did you touch?
2. Did you search inside the master bedroom wardrobe? NO
3. (Shown two photographs of her bedroom wardrobe) Can you describe its contents? NO
4. Why was the curtain by the sofa near the side window tampered with? Did someone go behind the sofa? NO
5. How long did your search of the apartment take after you detected Madeleine’s disappearance?
6. Why did you say Madeleine had been abducted?
7. Assuming Madeleine was abducted, why did you leave the twins to go to the ‘Tapas’ and raise the alarm? The supposed abductor could still be in the apartment.
8. Why didn’t you ask the twins then what happened to their sister or why didn’t you ask them later on? NO
9. When you raised the alarm at the ‘Tapas’ what exactly did you say – what were your exact words?
10. What happened after you raised the alarm there?
11. Why did you go and warn your friends instead of shouting from the verandah?
12. Who contacted the authorities? NO
13. Who took place in the searches? NO
14. Did anyone outside the group learn of her disappearance in those following minutes? NO
15. Did any neighbour offer you help? NO
16. What does “we let her down” mean? NO
17. Did Jane Tanner tell you that night she’d seen a man with a child? NO
18. How were the authorities contacted and which police force was alerted? NO
19. During the searches, with the police there, where did you search for Maddie, how and in what way? NO
20. Why did the twins not wake up during that search or when they were taken upstairs? NO
21. Who did you phone after the occurrence? NO
22. Did you call Sky News? NO
23. Did you know the danger of calling the media, because it could influence the abductor? NO
24. Did you ask for a priest? NO
25. By what means did you divulge Madeleine’s features, by photographs or by any other means? NO
26. Is it true that during the searches you remained seated on Maddie’s bed without moving? NO
27. What was your behaviour that night? NO
28. Did you manage to sleep? NO
29. Before travelling to Portugal, did you make any comment about a foreboding or a bad feeling? NO
30. What was Madeleine’s behaviour like? NO
31. Did Maddie suffer from any illness or take any medication? NO
32. What was Madeleine’s relationship like with her brother and sister? NO
33. What was Madeleine’s relationship like with her brother and sister, friends and school mates? NO
34. As for your professional life, in how many and which hospitals have you worked? NO
35. What is your medical speciality?
36. Have you ever done shift work in any emergency services or other services? NO
37. Did you work every day? NO
38. At a certain point you stopped working. Why? NO
39. Are the twins difficult to get to sleep? Are they restless and does that cause you uneasiness? NO
40. Is it true sometimes you despaired at your children’s behaviour and it left you feeling very uneasy? NO
41. Is it true that in England you even considered handing over Madeleine’s custody to a relative? NO
42. In England, did you medicate your children? What type of medication? NO
43. In the case files, you were shown canine forensic testing films. After watching them, did you say you couldn’t explain any more than you already had?
44. When the sniffer dog also marked human blood behind the sofa, did you say you couldn’t explain any more than you already had?
45. When the sniffer dog marked the scent of corpse coming from the vehicle you hired a month after the disappearance, did you say you couldn’t explain any more than you already had?
46. When human blood was marked in the boot of the vehicle, did you say you couldn’t explain any more than you already had?
47. When confronted with the results of Maddie’s DNA, carried out in a British lab, collected from behind the sofa and the boot of the vehicle, did you say you couldn’t explain any more than you already had?
48. Did you have any responsibility or intervention in your daughter’s disappearance?
https://thetab.com/uk/2019/03/15/48-questions-kate-mccann-95757
you need to understand that not all unanswerred questions are equal.
A suspect may have a perfect;ly good raeson for not answerring questions and its up to the court to decide if those raesons are valid.
and once again you raise a 13 yr old topic that has been done to death...a sure sign of desperaation imo
-
Haven't we done this already? Beaten it to death in fact.
A claim was made which, imo, wasn't correct. Hence revisiting the topic.
-
Had she answered their questions previously as claimed?
claimed by whom...cite. she ceratinly answered all the important questions imo.
-
claime dby whom...cite. she ceratinly answered all the important questions imo.
Claimed by me.
I'm with you on this one.
-
Claimed by me.
I'm with you on this one.
In my opinion she answered no questions around the disappearance. Surely they were the most important?
-
two very different questions that would surely have helped the police understand what had happened to Madeleine - not
32. What was Madeleine’s relationship like with her brother and sister?
33. What was Madeleine’s relationship like with her brother and sister, friends and school mates?
-
In my opinion she answered no questions around the disappearance. Surely they were the most important?
A blatant lie as evidenced by G-unit’s list above.
-
In my opinion she answered no questions around the disappearance. Surely they were the most important?
I think we can say that it's not correct to claim that Kate McCann had answered all the questions previously. That claim is opinion, not fact.
-
I think we can say that it's not correct to claim that Kate McCann had answered all the questions previously. That claim is opinion, not fact.
Is there any record of the questions Kate was asked before she was made Arguida?
-
I think we can say that it's not correct to claim that Kate McCann had answered all the questions previously. That claim is opinion, not fact.
are you suggesting she didnt.......
-
I think we can say that it's not correct to claim that Kate McCann had answered all the questions previously. That claim is opinion, not fact.
24. Did you ask for a priest ? No.
Had she been asked that before ? Her answer of course was dishonest.
-
24. Did you ask for a priest ? No.
Had she been asked that before ? Her answer of course was dishonest.
Cite.
-
are you suggesting she didnt.......
Didn't what?
-
Didn't what?
Answer all the questions previously
-
Answer all the questions previously
Of course she didn't.
-
Is there any record of the questions Kate was asked before she was made Arguida?
Is there any record of the questions Kate was asked before she was made Arguida?
-
Of course she didn't.
Which ones didn't she answer...cite
Which ones didn't she answer ..you are making an accusation..you must provide evidence
-
Of course she didn't.
Is there any record of the questions Kate was asked before she was made Arguida?
-
I'm not going to get an answer to my question either, am I.
-
Is there any record of the questions Kate was asked before she was made Arguida?
You might struggle because you have no written questions, you have to deduce from the answers.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/KATE-MCCANN.htm
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/KATE-MCCANN_ARGUIDO.htm
-
Is there any record of the questions Kate was asked before she was made Arguida?
I would think that both parents were asked many questions of a general nature prior to being made official suspects. The crucial thing about being designated arguido though is that the questions become accusatory.
-
You might struggle because you have no written questions, you have to deduce from the answers.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/KATE-MCCANN.htm
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/KATE-MCCANN_ARGUIDO.htm
How do you square this with Faithlilly’s claim that
“She answered no questions around the disappearance”?
-
You might struggle because you have no written questions, you have to deduce from the answers.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/KATE-MCCANN.htm
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/KATE-MCCANN_ARGUIDO.htm
=So you cannot state as a fact Kate didn't answer all questions
-
Which ones didn't she answer...cite
Which ones didn't she answer ..you are making an accusation..you must provide evidence
No, it's the person who claimed Kate had answered the questions who needs to provide cites to uphold the claim. If they were answered the answers will all be there in her previous two statements. If just one is missing the claim is wrong. I can't provide cites which show something isn't there.
-
No, it's the person who claimed Kate had answered the questions who needs to provide cites to uphold the claim. If they were answered the answers will all be there in her previous two statements. If just one is missing the claim is wrong. I can't provide cites which show something isn't there.
You claimed as fact that Kate didn't answer all the questions...you don't know that's true...do you can't claim it as s fact. The only thing worse than being wrong is not realising you are wrong.
There is no evidence Kate didn't answer all questions pre arguido
-
No, it's the person who claimed Kate had answered the questions who needs to provide cites to uphold the claim. If they were answered the answers will all be there in her previous two statements. If just one is missing the claim is wrong. I can't provide cites which show something isn't there.
Kate doesn't appear to have had a problem telling them what they wanted to know.
-
Kate doesn't appear to have had a problem telling them what they wanted to know.
Kate have a full account of her actions and movement that night. There is absolutely no evidence she didn't answer any questions
-
Kate have a full account of her actions and movement that night. There is absolutely no evidence she didn't answer any questions
I believe that she was made an arguida before answering questions about the time after she raised the alarm. After that she refused to give any details of her movements and also refused to provide background information on her home life etc.
-
How do you square this with Faithlilly’s claim that
“She answered no questions around the disappearance”?
And reply came there none.
-
Do you cannot state as a fact Kate didn't answer all questions
Can she what now?
-
And reply came there none.
No comment.
-
It was claimed that all the questions asked of the arguida Kate McCann had been answered previously. In my opinion they had not. If only one of the questions had not been answered then I'm right.
Here are just two that imo weren't answered previously;
2. Did you search inside the master bedroom wardrobe?
3. (Shown two photographs of her bedroom wardrobe) Can you describe its contents?
-
It was claimed that all the questions asked of the arguida Kate McCann had been answered previously. In my opinion they had not. If only one of the questions had not been answered then I'm right.
Here are just two that imo weren't answered previously;
2. Did you search inside the master bedroom wardrobe?
3. (Shown two photographs of her bedroom wardrobe) Can you describe its contents?
Is this statement correct - a yes / no answer will suffice
She answered no questions around the disappearance. Surely they were the most important?
-
Is this statement correct - a yes / no answer will suffice
She answered no questions around the disappearance. Surely they were the most important?
All I'm interested in is whether Kate McCann answered the questions previously. In my opinion she did not.
-
I think we can also claim that Faithlilly’s post is blatantly false, based on your own assessment yet you refuse to condemn it or remove it.
Is it? Please explain.
-
Is it? Please explain.
This thread is about questions Kate McCann had answered previously, prior to her arguido questions. On this thread Faithlilly claimed Kate had never answered questions on the disappearance. Here is your list again. I have bolded the ones you claim Kate gave answers to. Can you spot any that relate to the disappearance?
1. On May 3, 2007, around 22:00, when you entered the apartment, what did you see? What did you do? Where did you look? What did you touch?
2. Did you search inside the master bedroom wardrobe? NO
3. (Shown two photographs of her bedroom wardrobe) Can you describe its contents? NO
4. Why was the curtain by the sofa near the side window tampered with? Did someone go behind the sofa? NO
5. How long did your search of the apartment take after you detected Madeleine’s disappearance?
6. Why did you say Madeleine had been abducted?
7. Assuming Madeleine was abducted, why did you leave the twins to go to the ‘Tapas’ and raise the alarm? The supposed abductor could still be in the apartment.
8. Why didn’t you ask the twins then what happened to their sister or why didn’t you ask them later on? NO
9. When you raised the alarm at the ‘Tapas’ what exactly did you say – what were your exact words?
10. What happened after you raised the alarm there?
11. Why did you go and warn your friends instead of shouting from the verandah?
12. Who contacted the authorities? NO
13. Who took place in the searches? NO
14. Did anyone outside the group learn of her disappearance in those following minutes? NO
15. Did any neighbour offer you help? NO
16. What does “we let her down” mean? NO
17. Did Jane Tanner tell you that night she’d seen a man with a child? NO
18. How were the authorities contacted and which police force was alerted? NO
19. During the searches, with the police there, where did you search for Maddie, how and in what way? NO
20. Why did the twins not wake up during that search or when they were taken upstairs? NO
21. Who did you phone after the occurrence? NO
22. Did you call Sky News? NO
23. Did you know the danger of calling the media, because it could influence the abductor? NO
24. Did you ask for a priest? NO
25. By what means did you divulge Madeleine’s features, by photographs or by any other means? NO
26. Is it true that during the searches you remained seated on Maddie’s bed without moving? NO
27. What was your behaviour that night? NO
28. Did you manage to sleep? NO
29. Before travelling to Portugal, did you make any comment about a foreboding or a bad feeling? NO
30. What was Madeleine’s behaviour like? NO
31. Did Maddie suffer from any illness or take any medication? NO
32. What was Madeleine’s relationship like with her brother and sister? NO
33. What was Madeleine’s relationship like with her brother and sister, friends and school mates? NO
34. As for your professional life, in how many and which hospitals have you worked? NO
35. What is your medical speciality?
36. Have you ever done shift work in any emergency services or other services? NO
37. Did you work every day? NO
38. At a certain point you stopped working. Why? NO
39. Are the twins difficult to get to sleep? Are they restless and does that cause you uneasiness? NO
40. Is it true sometimes you despaired at your children’s behaviour and it left you feeling very uneasy? NO
41. Is it true that in England you even considered handing over Madeleine’s custody to a relative? NO
42. In England, did you medicate your children? What type of medication? NO
43. In the case files, you were shown canine forensic testing films. After watching them, did you say you couldn’t explain any more than you already had?
44. When the sniffer dog also marked human blood behind the sofa, did you say you couldn’t explain any more than you already had?
45. When the sniffer dog marked the scent of corpse coming from the vehicle you hired a month after the disappearance, did you say you couldn’t explain any more than you already had?
46. When human blood was marked in the boot of the vehicle, did you say you couldn’t explain any more than you already had?
47. When confronted with the results of Maddie’s DNA, carried out in a British lab, collected from behind the sofa and the boot of the vehicle, did you say you couldn’t explain any more than you already had?
48. Did you have any responsibility or intervention in your daughter’s disappearance?
Additionally, you supplied links to Kate McCann's statements in which she clearly answers questions surrounding the disappearance.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/KATE-MCCANN.htm
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/KATE-MCCANN_ARGUIDO.htm
Do I need to explain any further?
-
Is it? Please explain.
Faith posted..
24. Did you ask for a priest ? No.
Had she been asked that before ? Her answer of course was dishonest.
That's incorrect..faith saw your NO and presumed it was Kate's..I asked for a cite..none given...blatant disregard for rules
-
This thread is about questions Kate McCann had answered previously, prior to her arguido questions. On this thread Faithlilly claimed Kate had never answered questions on the disappearance. Here is your list again. I have bolded the ones you claim Kate gave answers to. Can you spot any that relate to the disappearance?
1. On May 3, 2007, around 22:00, when you entered the apartment, what did you see? What did you do? Where did you look? What did you touch?
2. Did you search inside the master bedroom wardrobe? NO
3. (Shown two photographs of her bedroom wardrobe) Can you describe its contents? NO
4. Why was the curtain by the sofa near the side window tampered with? Did someone go behind the sofa? NO
5. How long did your search of the apartment take after you detected Madeleine’s disappearance?
6. Why did you say Madeleine had been abducted?
7. Assuming Madeleine was abducted, why did you leave the twins to go to the ‘Tapas’ and raise the alarm? The supposed abductor could still be in the apartment.
8. Why didn’t you ask the twins then what happened to their sister or why didn’t you ask them later on? NO
9. When you raised the alarm at the ‘Tapas’ what exactly did you say – what were your exact words?
10. What happened after you raised the alarm there?
11. Why did you go and warn your friends instead of shouting from the verandah?
12. Who contacted the authorities? NO
13. Who took place in the searches? NO
14. Did anyone outside the group learn of her disappearance in those following minutes? NO
15. Did any neighbour offer you help? NO
16. What does “we let her down” mean? NO
17. Did Jane Tanner tell you that night she’d seen a man with a child? NO
18. How were the authorities contacted and which police force was alerted? NO
19. During the searches, with the police there, where did you search for Maddie, how and in what way? NO
20. Why did the twins not wake up during that search or when they were taken upstairs? NO
21. Who did you phone after the occurrence? NO
22. Did you call Sky News? NO
23. Did you know the danger of calling the media, because it could influence the abductor? NO
24. Did you ask for a priest? NO
25. By what means did you divulge Madeleine’s features, by photographs or by any other means? NO
26. Is it true that during the searches you remained seated on Maddie’s bed without moving? NO
27. What was your behaviour that night? NO
28. Did you manage to sleep? NO
29. Before travelling to Portugal, did you make any comment about a foreboding or a bad feeling? NO
30. What was Madeleine’s behaviour like? NO
31. Did Maddie suffer from any illness or take any medication? NO
32. What was Madeleine’s relationship like with her brother and sister? NO
33. What was Madeleine’s relationship like with her brother and sister, friends and school mates? NO
34. As for your professional life, in how many and which hospitals have you worked? NO
35. What is your medical speciality?
36. Have you ever done shift work in any emergency services or other services? NO
37. Did you work every day? NO
38. At a certain point you stopped working. Why? NO
39. Are the twins difficult to get to sleep? Are they restless and does that cause you uneasiness? NO
40. Is it true sometimes you despaired at your children’s behaviour and it left you feeling very uneasy? NO
41. Is it true that in England you even considered handing over Madeleine’s custody to a relative? NO
42. In England, did you medicate your children? What type of medication? NO
43. In the case files, you were shown canine forensic testing films. After watching them, did you say you couldn’t explain any more than you already had?
44. When the sniffer dog also marked human blood behind the sofa, did you say you couldn’t explain any more than you already had?
45. When the sniffer dog marked the scent of corpse coming from the vehicle you hired a month after the disappearance, did you say you couldn’t explain any more than you already had?
46. When human blood was marked in the boot of the vehicle, did you say you couldn’t explain any more than you already had?
47. When confronted with the results of Maddie’s DNA, carried out in a British lab, collected from behind the sofa and the boot of the vehicle, did you say you couldn’t explain any more than you already had?
48. Did you have any responsibility or intervention in your daughter’s disappearance?
Additionally, you supplied links to Kate McCann's statements in which she clearly answers questions surrounding the disappearance.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/KATE-MCCANN.htm
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/KATE-MCCANN_ARGUIDO.htm
Do I need to explain any further?
I bet she bitterly regrets that woopa. She didn't know then that the whole world would get to see her refusal to cooperate while designated as arguida. If anything made her look guilty, that did imo.
-
I bet she bitterly regrets that woopa. She didn't know then that the whole world would get to see her refusal to cooperate while designated as arguida. If anything made her look guilty, that did imo.
Thanks for sharing but perhaps you as a moderator would care to comment on the false claim made on this forum that Kate never answered questions around the disappearance?
-
24. Did you ask for a priest ? No.
Had she been asked that before ? Her answer of course was dishonest.
It's not Kate's answer it's gunits ..no
-
The fact IMO kmc not answering the questions was suspicious in itself ...what did she think was going to prove.
Apart from not making any slip ups it seems.
They had the best lawyers money could buy [sat with her] so nothing untoward was going to happen to her.
Seemed like the old... one answers questions the other one doesn't...to avoid conflict.
But that surely I believe should not happen if your telling the truth about what happened.
Especially when you are trying to do everything possible to find your daughter.
There imo was obviously something maybe in those questions that could open a can of worms it seems.
-
The fact IMO kmc not answering the questions was suspicious in itself ...what did she think was going to prove.
Apart from not making any slip ups it seems.
They had the best lawyers money could buy [sat with her] so nothing untoward was going to happen to her.
Seemed like the old... one answers questions the other one doesn't...to avoid conflict.
But that surely I believe should not happen if your telling the truth about what happened.
Especially when you are trying to do everything possible to find your daughter.
There imo was obviously something maybe in those questions that could open a can of worms it seems.
If there was a can of worms to be opened it would have been opened by now. There is no can and the only worm the police are interested in is the one in a German prison.
-
1. On May 3, 2007, around 22:00, when you entered the apartment, what did you see? What did you do? Where did you look? What did you touch?
Imo that question alone could have been the most simplest to answer.
Or the hardest to explain why she was she in there 10 mins.
Why did she do that when the window was allegidly wide open and Maddie was not there.
As every one insists its only a few metres away so what was she doing for 9 mins when she knew maddie had been abducted.
-
If there was a can of worms to be opened it would have been opened by now. There is no can and the only worm the police are interested in is the one in a German prison.
Had the German police been doing their job properly this worm would have been taken out of society a long time ago. But obviously the attraction of the Maddie case has proven irresistible.
As to Kate's unanswered questions, her lawyer panicked when the Portuguese police told him that both parents were to be made arguidos. IMO he too thought them guilty and that is why he told them not to answer the questions.
-
1. On May 3, 2007, around 22:00, when you entered the apartment, what did you see? What did you do? Where did you look? What did you touch?
Imo that question alone could have been the most simplest to answer.
Or the hardest to explain why she was she in there 10 mins.
Why did she do that when the window was allegidly wide open and Maddie was not there.
As every one insists its only a few metres away so what was she doing for 9 mins when she knew maddie had been abducted.
The entire thing is questionable. If your child disappeared from a ground floor holiday apartment and the bedroom window was wide open I am willing to bet the first thing you would do is run out the front door to the carpark and search for her.
Not so with Kate McCann if she is to be believed. She ran off in the opposite direction leaving the other two babies alone and unprotected. She didn't even close the supposedly open window.
No wonder Paiva and Amaral weren't convinced.
-
This thread is about questions Kate McCann had answered previously, prior to her arguido questions. On this thread Faithlilly claimed Kate had never answered questions on the disappearance. Here is your list again. I have bolded the ones you claim Kate gave answers to. Can you spot any that relate to the disappearance?
1. On May 3, 2007, around 22:00, when you entered the apartment, what did you see? What did you do? Where did you look? What did you touch?
2. Did you search inside the master bedroom wardrobe? NO
3. (Shown two photographs of her bedroom wardrobe) Can you describe its contents? NO
4. Why was the curtain by the sofa near the side window tampered with? Did someone go behind the sofa? NO
5. How long did your search of the apartment take after you detected Madeleine’s disappearance?
6. Why did you say Madeleine had been abducted?
7. Assuming Madeleine was abducted, why did you leave the twins to go to the ‘Tapas’ and raise the alarm? The supposed abductor could still be in the apartment.
8. Why didn’t you ask the twins then what happened to their sister or why didn’t you ask them later on? NO
9. When you raised the alarm at the ‘Tapas’ what exactly did you say – what were your exact words?
10. What happened after you raised the alarm there?
11. Why did you go and warn your friends instead of shouting from the verandah?
12. Who contacted the authorities? NO
13. Who took place in the searches? NO
14. Did anyone outside the group learn of her disappearance in those following minutes? NO
15. Did any neighbour offer you help? NO
16. What does “we let her down” mean? NO
17. Did Jane Tanner tell you that night she’d seen a man with a child? NO
18. How were the authorities contacted and which police force was alerted? NO
19. During the searches, with the police there, where did you search for Maddie, how and in what way? NO
20. Why did the twins not wake up during that search or when they were taken upstairs? NO
21. Who did you phone after the occurrence? NO
22. Did you call Sky News? NO
23. Did you know the danger of calling the media, because it could influence the abductor? NO
24. Did you ask for a priest? NO
25. By what means did you divulge Madeleine’s features, by photographs or by any other means? NO
26. Is it true that during the searches you remained seated on Maddie’s bed without moving? NO
27. What was your behaviour that night? NO
28. Did you manage to sleep? NO
29. Before travelling to Portugal, did you make any comment about a foreboding or a bad feeling? NO
30. What was Madeleine’s behaviour like? NO
31. Did Maddie suffer from any illness or take any medication? NO
32. What was Madeleine’s relationship like with her brother and sister? NO
33. What was Madeleine’s relationship like with her brother and sister, friends and school mates? NO
34. As for your professional life, in how many and which hospitals have you worked? NO
35. What is your medical speciality?
36. Have you ever done shift work in any emergency services or other services? NO
37. Did you work every day? NO
38. At a certain point you stopped working. Why? NO
39. Are the twins difficult to get to sleep? Are they restless and does that cause you uneasiness? NO
40. Is it true sometimes you despaired at your children’s behaviour and it left you feeling very uneasy? NO
41. Is it true that in England you even considered handing over Madeleine’s custody to a relative? NO
42. In England, did you medicate your children? What type of medication? NO
43. In the case files, you were shown canine forensic testing films. After watching them, did you say you couldn’t explain any more than you already had?
44. When the sniffer dog also marked human blood behind the sofa, did you say you couldn’t explain any more than you already had?
45. When the sniffer dog marked the scent of corpse coming from the vehicle you hired a month after the disappearance, did you say you couldn’t explain any more than you already had?
46. When human blood was marked in the boot of the vehicle, did you say you couldn’t explain any more than you already had?
47. When confronted with the results of Maddie’s DNA, carried out in a British lab, collected from behind the sofa and the boot of the vehicle, did you say you couldn’t explain any more than you already had?
48. Did you have any responsibility or intervention in your daughter’s disappearance?
Additionally, you supplied links to Kate McCann's statements in which she clearly answers questions surrounding the disappearance.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/KATE-MCCANN.htm
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/KATE-MCCANN_ARGUIDO.htm
Do I need to explain any further?
The thread was set up to decide whether it was true that Kate McCann had previously answered the questions asked in her arguida interview, as claimed. It isn't true, because I identified quite a lot of them which were not answered previously. Hopefully the claim will not be repeated in the future.
-
The thread was set up to decide whether it was true that Kate McCann had previously answered the questions asked in her arguida interview, as claimed. It isn't true, because I identified quite a lot of them which were not answered previously. Hopefully the claim will not be repeated in the future.
No you haven't. And I shall repeat it if I choose.
-
The thread was set up to decide whether it was true that Kate McCann had previously answered the questions asked in her arguida interview, as claimed. It isn't true, because I identified quite a lot of them which were not answered previously. Hopefully the claim will not be repeated in the future.
What do you suppose the Judicial police were doing with their time if they hadn't already asked the majority of these crucial questions between Kate's first interrogation on 4rd May and her last interrogation on 6th September prior to being constituted arguida.
As a witness she was obliged to answer all questions put to her during that time.
If you think the PJ waited until she had the right as an arguida not to answer ... why on earth do you suppose they didn't ask them when she had no option but to answer.
I know the initial investigation was botched, but I doubt even they could have failed to ask the basics, so why do you think they were as incompetent as that?
-
What do you suppose the Judicial police were doing with their time if they hadn't already asked the majority of these crucial questions between Kate's first interrogation on 4rd May and her last interrogation on 6th September prior to be constituted arguida.
As a witness she was obliged to answer all questions put to her during that time.
If you think the PJ waited until she had the right as an arguida not to answer ... why on earth do you suppose they didn't ask them when she had no option but to answer.
I know the initial investigation was botched, but I doubt even they could have failed to ask the basics, so why do you think they were as incompetent as that?
Because they were incompetent?
-
Faith posted..
24. Did you ask for a priest ? No.
Had she been asked that before ? Her answer of course was dishonest.
That's incorrect..faith saw your NO and presumed it was Kate's..I asked for a cite..none given...blatant disregard for rules
You are correct I did read G’s answer as Kate’s and for that I apologise. My point still stands. After being made an arguida Kate refused to answer any questions regarding her 10pm check and her subsequent activities. She also refused to answer any questions about her or her family’s life.
Virtually all the questions posted by G had not been answered in previous interviews by Kate. That is simply a fact.
-
You are correct I did read G’s answer as Kate’s and for that I apologise. My point still stands. After being made an arguida Kate refused to answer any questions regarding her 10pm check and her subsequent activities. She also refused to answer any questions about her or her family’s life.
Virtually all the questions posted by G had not been answered in previous interviews by Kate. That is simply a fact.
You simply don't know this. What do you think The PJ were doing during that very long interview? They were asking every question they could think of and then later reiterated when they knew that Kate no longer had to answer.
-
You are correct I did read G’s answer as Kate’s and for that I apologise. My point still stands. After being made an arguida Kate refused to answer any questions regarding her 10pm check and her subsequent activities. She also refused to answer any questions about her or her family’s life.
Virtually all the questions posted by G had not been answered in previous interviews by Kate. That is simply a fact.
I have never said they were not...it seems Eleanor made a mistaken claim...as you did ... and g saw fit to start a while thread on it. I think it was quite over the top. I think there were totally valid reasons for Kate not to answer those questions but it would harm her defence if she later relied on in court any replies she had not made at the time.
Same for CB...if he fails when questioned to answer it will be his own defence he's harming.
As I recall Michael Stone was convicted almost solely on his confession to another con...the court took it seriously and the prosecutor was not laughed out of court. I think there's a lot more on CB
-
You simply don't know this. What do you think The PJ were doing during that very long interview? They were asking every question they could think of and then later reiterated when they knew that Kate no longer had to answer.
We simply do know that.
-
I have never said they were not...it seems Eleanor made a mistaken claim...as you did ... and g saw fit to start a while thread on it. I think it was quite over the top. I think there were totally valid reasons for Kate not to answer those questions but it would harm her defence if she later relied on in court any replies she had not made at the time.
Same for CB...if he fails when questioned to answer it will be his own defence he's harming.
As I recall Michael Stone was convicted almost solely on his confession to another con...the court took it seriously and the prosecutor was not laughed out of court. I think there's a lot more on CB
I’ll just leave this here.
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/stone-witness-retracts-evidence-1.207412
-
I’ll just leave this here.
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/stone-witness-retracts-evidence-1.207412
I'll leave this. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-50316890
-
So you taught all us supporters a lesson, whilst turning a blind eye to a blatantly false statement that was posted on the thread by a sceptic because....?
Did all of you 'supporters' think that Kate McCann had previously answered those questions then? How do you know that?
-
It's not Kate's answer it's gunits ..no
No = means (if I'm not wrong too) Kate gave NO answer.
-
No = means (if I'm not wrong too) Kate gave NO answer.
faith thought kate said no and accused kate of being dishonest
-
1. On May 3, 2007, around 22:00, when you entered the apartment, what did you see? What did you do? Where did you look? What did you touch?
Imo that question alone could have been the most simplest to answer.
Or the hardest to explain why she was she in there 10 mins.
Why did she do that when the window was allegidly wide open and Maddie was not there.
As every one insists its only a few metres away so what was she doing for 9 mins when she knew maddie had been abducted.
Who says she was in there 10 minutes? I believe it was only Gerry from my research of the statements. So why would he get it so wrong? Why would it matter how long she took? It was her check. His check took much longer.
-
You are correct I did read G’s answer as Kate’s and for that I apologise. My point still stands. After being made an arguida Kate refused to answer any questions regarding her 10pm check and her subsequent activities. She also refused to answer any questions about her or her family’s life.
Virtually all the questions posted by G had not been answered in previous interviews by Kate. That is simply a fact.
Thanks for the response...everyone makes mistakes ..even me. The forum I feel has become quite toxic lately but with posts like that it would be a better palce
-
What makes the whole premise of this thread so very disingenuous is that it implies Kate was asked this list of questions before her arguido interview and declined to answer them then as well, however as we have no record of the questions asked we cannot say she didn’t give answers to questions which in all probability she was not asked before. So, unless anyone can provide a cite of Kate refusing to co-operate with the investigation prior to her arguido interview, then this is clearly a false premise. Also, we continue to have the falsehood on this thread that Kate never answered questions around the disappearance which is patently a lie but which the author of this thread (a moderator to boot) refuses to acknowledge or remove. In short, the whole thread is simply another excuse to beat up Kate McCann, despite the fact she is not a suspect and both German and British police believe her daughter was ABDUCTED
-
What makes the whole premise of this thread so very disingenuous is that it implies Kate was asked this list of questions before her arguido interview and declined to answer them then as well, however as we have no record of the questions asked we cannot say she didn’t give answers to questions which in all probability she was not asked before. So, unless anyone can provide a cite of Kate refusing to co-operate with the investigation prior to her arguido interview, then this is clearly a false premise. Also, we continue to have the falsehood on this thread that Kate never answered questions around the disappearance which is patently a lie but which the author of this thread (a moderator to boot) refuses to acknowledge or remove. In short, the whole thread is simply another excuse to beat up Kate McCann, despite the fact she is not a suspect and both German and British police believe her daughter was ABDUCTED
The FACT is we don't know what questions Kate was asked pre arguido because there is no accurate record of the interviews
-
The entire thing is questionable. If your child disappeared from a ground floor holiday apartment and the bedroom window was wide open I am willing to bet the first thing you would do is run out the front door to the carpark and search for her.
Not so with Kate McCann if she is to be believed. She ran off in the opposite direction leaving the other two babies alone and unprotected. She didn't even close the supposedly open window.
No wonder Paiva and Amaral weren't convinced.
Absolutly.
To me it seems that was a window of opportunity the golden ten minutes of the case.
Why would he window be used anyway could anyone make sense of that.
You have the front door opens from the inside] right next to Maddie's bed.
The window I believe was the backbone of the alleged abduction
If that window wasn't open then everything else would be false IMO.
No wonder kmc didn't want to answer the simple first question.
quote from G-Unit
The open shutters and window could have been opened from outside or inside, as the patio doors were unlocked. So why, instead of scouring the resort, was her father wasting time testing if the shutters could be opened from outside?
A really good point why was he concentrating more on the shutters than looking for Maddie.
-
If Kate not answering questions means she’s got something to hide, what does it mean when Gerry answers all his questions? I think if you are a sceptic it still means he’s hiding something. In other words it doesn’t really matter to sceptics whether she answered the questions or not as to them Kate would still be hiding something. Am I right or am I right?
-
What makes the whole premise of this thread so very disingenuous is that it implies Kate was asked this list of questions before her arguido interview and declined to answer them then as well, however as we have no record of the questions asked we cannot say she didn’t give answers to questions which in all probability she was not asked before. So, unless anyone can provide a cite of Kate refusing to co-operate with the investigation prior to her arguido interview, then this is clearly a false premise. Also, we continue to have the falsehood on this thread that Kate never answered questions around the disappearance which is patently a lie but which the author of this thread (a moderator to boot) refuses to acknowledge or remove. In short, the whole thread is simply another excuse to beat up Kate McCann, despite the fact she is not a suspect and both German and British police believe her daughter was ABDUCTED
That's hogwash, nobody has inferred that at all. The type of questioning changed the moment she became a suspect. Previously she would have been asked all sorts of questions as the mother of a missing child.
After being designated a formal suspect the questions would have changed significantly and be appropriate to that status and the rights it afforded her. Those who think she was asked the same questions before and after being made an arguida don't have a basic understanding of what the designation means.
-
That's hogwash, nobody has inferred that at all. The type of questioning changed the moment she became a suspect. Previously she would have been asked all sorts of questions as the mother of a missing child.
After being designated a formal suspect the questions would be appropriate to that status and the rights it afforded her.
i think you need to move on from 13 years ago...the mcCanns are not suspects...even John said yesterday he desnt see them culpable apart from neglect
-
i think you need to move on from 13 years ago...the mcCanns are not suspects...even John said yesterday he desnt see them culpable apart from neglect
The Portuguese Supreme Court stated that they hadn't been cleared which is good enough for me.
-
The Portuguese Supreme Court stated that they hadn't been cleared which is good enough for me.
the SC never said that...you need to have alook at what the SC actually said
-
That's hogwash, nobody has inferred that at all. The type of questioning changed the moment she became a suspect. Previously she would have been asked all sorts of questions as the mother of a missing child.
After being designated a formal suspect the questions would have changed significantly and be appropriate to that status and the rights it afforded her. Those who think she was asked the same questions before and after being made an arguida don't have a basic understanding of what the designation means.
The opening post states
“imo Kate had never answered those questions in any of her previous police interviews”.
implying she was asked these questions before. Your post is hogwash IMO.
-
In my opinion she answered no questions around the disappearance. Surely they were the most important?
^^^^still untrue, still on the thread.
-
Because they were incompetent?
And other reasons, but you will have to works those out for yourself. I think most on our side of the discussion already have.
So many clues !!!
-
Absolutly.
To me it seems that was a window of opportunity the golden ten minutes of the case.
Why would he window be used anyway could anyone make sense of that.
You have the front door opens from the inside] right next to Maddie's bed.
The window I believe was the backbone of the alleged abduction
If that window wasn't open then everything else would be false IMO.
No wonder kmc didn't want to answer the simple first question.
quote from G-Unit
The open shutters and window could have been opened from outside or inside, as the patio doors were unlocked. So why, instead of scouring the resort, was her father wasting time testing if the shutters could be opened from outside?
A really good point why was he concentrating more on the shutters than looking for Maddie.
We all know that the window and shutters could be opened from the inside
Heri with his video showed that so long as the catch on the window was not locked, both the shutter and window could be opened from outside too. Thank you Heri.
I have always said that it would be impossible for an intruder to get in via the window, but hands up, having heard about CB's dexterity and scaling up the outside of the building to enter via windows upstairs - and having seen his long slim legs and body, I am wondering if he (only he) could have entered via the window?
But even if he were responsible for the physical abduction of Madeleine, I don't think he did it for himself. The big money payout he talked about, + other evidence /pointers that I have found, convinces me that he was commissioned to take Madeleine for someone else
But why no fibres and why no fingerprints on the window and its frame? Have we been told porkies? Is someone protecting him?
-
WARNING RE FORUM DISRUPTION:
It has been brought to my attention that some members are engaged in an activity which can only be viewed as a malicious disruption of the forum. This will not be allowed to continue!
Let me be very clear. If this conduct does not cease immediately I will delete the accounts of the offenders.
-
^^^^still untrue, still on the thread.
I agree with VS about Faiths words
Let's remove all untrue statements and have a nice transparently 'clean' forum
-
I agree with VS about Faiths words
Let's remove all untrue statements and have a nice transparently 'clean' forum
And who is going to decide what is true? It is too much for the moderators. You need to put up arguments why something is true.
-
And who is going to decide what is true? It is too much for the moderators. You need to put up arguments why something is true.
If it was possible to remove all untrue statements there'd be 17 posts left. And this would not be one of them.
But I'll decide if stuff is true or not. Just PM me the link and I'll take a look at it and adjudicate accordingly. My decision will be final, no appeals. The offer is open to all members, past or present.
I may even have a look at historical posts if I have time.
-
And who is going to decide what is true? It is too much for the moderators. You need to put up arguments why something is true.
I agree Rob. There are different opinions on this board and therefore different opinions about 'truth'.
-
I agree Rob. There are different opinions on this board and therefore different opinions about 'truth'.
some ( not me) would love to have these forums censored wouldnt they
-
some ( not me) would love to have these forums censored wouldnt they
I suppose it's quite normal for people to want the Forum to reflect their opinions. I enjoy seeing all opinions expressed and discussed, so long as members treat each other with respect.
-
I suppose it's quite normal for people to want the Forum to reflect their opinions. I enjoy seeing all opinions expressed and discussed, so long as members treat each other with respect.
There has been a distinct lack of respect shown to Davel and Sadie in some recent posts.
The forum is over moderated and censored.
My last post was censored by admin because I used the word abduction even though that is how Madeleine's disappearance is being treated by current police investigations.
Meanwhile snide, goading posts are allowed......
Enjoy your break Davel.
-
I agree Rob. There are different opinions on this board and therefore different opinions about 'truth'.
Thanks to the forum owner this forum is unique in many ways. It is one of the very few internet fora which allows me and others like me to have an opinion on a McCann board and a voice with which to openly express it.
I value that ethos as I value the ideal that everything posted should as accurate as possible and opinion not just a mantra but fact based.
-
There has been a distinct lack of respect shown to Davel and Sadie in some recent posts.
The forum is over moderated and censored.
My last post was censored by admin because I used the word abduction even though that is how Madeleine's disappearance is being treated by current police investigations.
Meanwhile snide, goading posts are allowed......
Enjoy your break Davel.
I find those 2 sentences contradictory.
Less censorship/moderation is likely to result in exactly what you are complaining about.
IMO
-
We all know that the window and shutters could be opened from the inside
Heri with his video showed that so long as the catch on the window was not locked, both the shutter and window could be opened from outside too. Thank you Heri.
I have always said that it would be impossible for an intruder to get in via the window, but hands up, having heard about CB's dexterity and scaling up the outside of the building to enter via windows upstairs - and having seen his long slim legs and body, I am wondering if he (only he) could have entered via the window?
But even if he were responsible for the physical abduction of Madeleine, I don't think he did it for himself. The big money payout he talked about, + other evidence /pointers that I have found, convinces me that he was commissioned to take Madeleine for someone else
But why no fibres and why no fingerprints on the window and its frame? Have we been told porkies? Is someone protecting him?
Ok if he was the professional burgler like it sounds he was ...why would he go to all the trouble of climbing through a window.
Messing with the mechanics the noise of it going up and down he could be seen from the street in an open road.
When he could have gone in through the open patio door... and out by the front door.[nearest maddies bed]
It makes no sense what so ever using the window, nothing was found on that window apart from kmc prints.
-
There has been a distinct lack of respect shown to Davel and Sadie in some recent posts.
The forum is over moderated and censored.
My last post was censored by admin because I used the word abduction even though that is how Madeleine's disappearance is being treated by current police investigations.
Meanwhile snide, goading posts are allowed......
Enjoy your break Davel.
That again seems only to be your opinion.
-
Thanks to the forum owner this forum is unique in many ways. It is one of the very few internet fora which allows me and others like me to have an opinion on a McCann board and a voice with which to openly express it.
I value that ethos as I value the ideal that everything posted should as accurate as possible and opinion not just a mantra but fact based.
That's a lovely sentiment but I don't see how this forum is '.....one of the very few internet fora which allows me and others like me to have an opinion.....', as that's what most fora do - that's the point of a forum. There's several other forii (new word made up just now) primarily discussing this case too.
So not unique in any way really.
And there's nothing wrong with unverified opinions, that's why they're called opinions; it's the viewpoint of the individual and, as humans, we are wrong most of the time. But try telling that to the opinion espouser (another made up word) for whom it's a firmly held belief.
-
Ok if he was the professional burgler like it sounds he was ...why would he go to all the trouble of climbing through a window.
Messing with the mechanics the noise of it going up and down he could be seen from the street in an open road.
When he could have gone in through the open patio door... and out by the front door.[nearest maddies bed]
It makes no sense what so ever using the window, nothing was found on that window apart from kmc prints.
The only reason a skilled burglar would improvise ingress would be due to the lack of direct ingress. Contrary to popular belief they're not all idiots.
They try all doors first, then look for secreted keys, then consider ground floor entry by other means, then move on to physically breaking. Path of least resistance every single time.
Your smash and grab housebreakers, the smackheads, will check the coast is clear and throw a brick through your patio doors, because the fear of being caught is subsumed by the need for a hit - they literally don't care if they get caught at that point.
-
Ok if he was the professional burgler like it sounds he was ...why would he go to all the trouble of climbing through a window.
Messing with the mechanics the noise of it going up and down he could be seen from the street in an open road.
When he could have gone in through the open patio door... and out by the front door.[nearest maddies bed]
It makes no sense what so ever using the window, nothing was found on that window apart from kmc prints.
If he had been observing the McCann family for a few days, IMO he had been. Then he would have seen that the checking would have all been done using the patio doors. So going in through the bedroom window, which he was used to doing would allow him not to meet anyone doing any checking, he IMO could have left it open in order to have an escape rout back out if someone came into the bedroom.
-
About the questioning of Kate this is from her book -
Tell us about that night, they said. Tell us everything that happened after the children went to bed. I gave them every detail I could remember, as I had before, but this time they responded by just staring at me and shaking their heads. I was reeling with confusion, disbelief and panic. What the hell was going on? Evidently not satisfied with my account, they pressed me. Was there anything else I wanted to add? Anything else unusual that had occurred that night?
Of course there wasn't. If there had been I would have told them on the 3rd of May. I'd recounted absolutely everything and anything - more than they wanted or needed to know, probably, just in case some triviality I recalled might be significant. How could they think I would hold something back that might help my daughter. Why were they asking me this? Why?
On and on it went. They tried convince me I'd had a blackout - a loss of memory episode, I think they called it. My denials answers and pleas fell on deaf ears. This was their theory and they wanted to shoehorn me into it, end of story.
So it seems Kate answered all the questions, and it wasn't what they wanted to hear.
-
If he had been observing the McCann family for a few days, IMO he had been. Then he would have seen that the checking would have all been done using the patio doors. So going in through the bedroom window, which he was used to doing would allow him not to meet anyone doing any checking, he IMO could have left it open in order to have an escape rout back out if someone came into the bedroom.
On the contrary, he might have been going in the window while someone was entering via the patio door.
More sensible to enter via the patio door, which you say he was casing, certain in the knowledge that no one else was around.
IMO
-
If he had been observing the McCann family for a few days, IMO he had been. Then he would have seen that the checking would have all been done using the patio doors. So going in through the bedroom window, which he was used to doing would allow him not to meet anyone doing any checking, he IMO could have left it open in order to have an escape rout back out if someone came into the bedroom.
He sounds as if he is not all that clever the amount of times he has been approached by angry parent and time spent in jail confessing crimes etc.
So how come do you believe - he has committed the perfect crime... a drug addictive drifter.
So if as you believe he had been watching ..he would have known after the so called checks he would have had time to be in and out that patio door or front door..
being a burglar he would know the layout of apartments so why would he use all the faffing about to open shutters and a window, when he could walk right in and out.
-
About the questioning of Kate this is from her book -
Tell us about that night, they said. Tell us everything that happened after the children went to bed. I gave them every detail I could remember, as I had before, but this time they responded by just staring at me and shaking their heads. I was reeling with confusion, disbelief and panic. What the hell was going on? Evidently not satisfied with my account, they pressed me. Was there anything else I wanted to add? Anything else unusual that had occurred that night?
Of course there wasn't. If there had been I would have told them on the 3rd of May. I'd recounted absolutely everything and anything - more than they wanted or needed to know, probably, just in case some triviality I recalled might be significant. How could they think I would hold something back that might help my daughter. Why were they asking me this? Why?
On and on it went. They tried convince me I'd had a blackout - a loss of memory episode, I think they called it. My denials answers and pleas fell on deaf ears. This was their theory and they wanted to shoehorn me into it, end of story.
So it seems Kate answered all the questions, and it wasn't what they wanted to hear.
I think you have you settled the question as to whether or not Kate had answered all questions put to her including everything she could think of in statements made in interviews on previous occasions.
For example the infamous leak of Madeleine asking where she was when she was crying.
You have also settled that Kate had already answered the questions put to her as a witness and asked of her again as an arguida which would explain some of her answers being that she couldn't say more than she already had.
Well done you, Lace
-
I think you have you settled the question as to whether or not Kate had answered all questions put to her including everything she could think of in statements made in interviews on previous occasions.
For example the infamous leak of Madeleine asking where she was when she was crying.
You have also settled that Kate had already answered the questions put to her as a witness and asked of her again as an arguida which would explain some of her answers being that she couldn't say more than she already had.
Well done you, Lace
When did Kate McCann tell the PJ the answer to this question?
2. Did you search inside the master bedroom wardrobe?
-
On the contrary, he might have been going in the window while someone was entering via the patio door.
More sensible to enter via the patio door, which you say he was casing, certain in the knowledge that no one else was around.
IMO
IMO he wasn't working alone. He would be alerted to anyone going in through the patio doors. He could easily then nip out through the front door. However, he knew the length of minutes between each check, so he would wait until a check was done and then enter the apartment. I think he was caught out when Gerry did his check, as Matt [I think] had listened by the apartment, he probably thought he was ok to enter after the listening by the window check, but Gerry came and he would have had to get out quickly. That is why Gerry found the door opened further than how they had left it.
-
When did Kate McCann tell the PJ the answer to this question?
2. Did you search inside the master bedroom wardrobe?
What questions did Kate answer before the ones she decided not to answer? Probably because she had already answered them and knew they were just trying to fit her up.
-
He sounds as if he is not all that clever the amount of times he has been approached by angry parent and time spent in jail confessing crimes etc.
So how come do you believe - he has committed the perfect crime... a drug addictive drifter.
So if as you believe he had been watching ..he would have known after the so called checks he would have had time to be in and out that patio door or front door..
being a burglar he would know the layout of apartments so why would he use all the faffing about to open shutters and a window, when he could walk right in and out.
I explained why, the checking was done using the patio doors.
-
I explained why, the checking was done using the patio doors.
All you have done L is say what you assumed happened ...doesn't mean to say it did.
Dont you think burglers are used to risk ...or they wouldn't do it.
They don't do it the hard way either they do it the easiest.
He would not have got maddie out of that window...he would have had to have gone out a door
He was allegedly taking a child fgs not a camera
-
I think you have you settled the question as to whether or not Kate had answered all questions put to her including everything she could think of in statements made in interviews on previous occasions.
For example the infamous leak of Madeleine asking where she was when she was crying.
You have also settled that Kate had already answered the questions put to her as a witness and asked of her again as an arguida which would explain some of her answers being that she couldn't say more than she already had.
Well done you, Lace
Ahh seems it was contradictions they were trying to clear up ...If so IMO best to stay silent lol.
Also was not questioned about events after 5pm.
part of its government to resolve the case as soon as possible." English and Portuguese investigators actively prepare the interviews and draw up a list of questions focusing particularly on the course of events on the night of the disappearance. The suspects must clarify for us the various contradictions raised in the course of their previous statements.
THE INTERROGATIONS
The decision to declare Kate and Gerald McCann arguidos was taken. Notification had already reached them. On September 6th, a little before 3pm, Kate arrives at the DIC in Portimão, accompanied by her press officer. Her lawyer has already arrived and the interview room is ready. The crowd has been building up outside for a while. Going through the door, Kate laughs as she says that this media scrum is good for tourism.
Her lawyer requests that she be heard as a witness and not interrogated as an arguida. We don't agree with what, to us, constitutes a backward step. Some officers involved in the investigation seem to be hoping for the miracle of a confession. We remain skeptical.
We finally decide to question her as a witness, but not to pose questions on the events after 5.30pm, the time at which she returned to the apartment with her three children. From that time on, everything she said could be held against her. According to the principle of non-incrimination, she would then have to be declared arguida since we have sufficient evidence to be able to do that.
On the subject of the press officer who was accompanying her everywhere, including to the police station, the opinion was unanimous: she had nothing to do with anything here.
- I have never heard of the role of the press officer in the penal code!...Perhaps it's the subject of the next amendment, or else it's a new method.
- Drop it. She is only going to sit near the police officers on duty and wait.
Her presence in the offices of the police during the interrogations seems unacceptable to me, useless and prejudicial to the investigation. However, she was to stay there from start to finish.
At 8 o'clock, we have a break to have something to eat, then the interrogation continues until 11pm. At the end of that day, we have learned nothing new with the exception of two details: Kate now remembers - five months after the event - that on the evening of May 3rd, Gerald was wearing jeans and trainers. Another detail came back to her: the time that David Payne had spent at her apartment. Gerald had spoken of 30 minutes, Kate now insists that he was only there for 30 seconds. We have never understood why it was so important to minimise this period of time. When Kate leaves the premises, we make sure that all necessary precautions have been taken to ensure her safety.
-
What questions did Kate answer before the ones she decided not to answer? Probably because she had already answered them and knew they were just trying to fit her up.
Is there any evidence (not just opinions) that she answered that question in previous police interviews?
-
All you have done L is say what you assumed happened ...doesn't mean to say it did.
Dont you think burglers are used to risk ...or they wouldn't do it.
They don't do it the hard way either they do it the easiest.
He would not have got maddie out of that window...he would have had to have gone out a door
He was allegedly taking a child fgs not a camera
kizzy you make me smile. You tell me I am just assuming as to what happened, of course I am I wasn't there. Then you go on assuming that he wouldn't have taken Madeleine out of the window!!!
He probably didn't take Madeleine out of the window IMO unless he passed her on to an accomplice. I think he would have taken her through the front door, or passed her on to someone at the front door.
-
Is there any evidence (not just opinions) that she answered that question in previous police interviews?
I haven't seen any, though I haven't seen any evidence that she didn't.
-
Ahh seems it was contradictions they were trying to clear up ...If so IMO best to stay silent lol.
Also was not questioned about events after 5pm.
part of its government to resolve the case as soon as possible." English and Portuguese investigators actively prepare the interviews and draw up a list of questions focusing particularly on the course of events on the night of the disappearance. The suspects must clarify for us the various contradictions raised in the course of their previous statements.
THE INTERROGATIONS
The decision to declare Kate and Gerald McCann arguidos was taken. Notification had already reached them. On September 6th, a little before 3pm, Kate arrives at the DIC in Portimão, accompanied by her press officer. Her lawyer has already arrived and the interview room is ready. The crowd has been building up outside for a while. Going through the door, Kate laughs as she says that this media scrum is good for tourism.
Her lawyer requests that she be heard as a witness and not interrogated as an arguida. We don't agree with what, to us, constitutes a backward step. Some officers involved in the investigation seem to be hoping for the miracle of a confession. We remain skeptical.
We finally decide to question her as a witness, but not to pose questions on the events after 5.30pm, the time at which she returned to the apartment with her three children. From that time on, everything she said could be held against her. According to the principle of non-incrimination, she would then have to be declared arguida since we have sufficient evidence to be able to do that.
On the subject of the press officer who was accompanying her everywhere, including to the police station, the opinion was unanimous: she had nothing to do with anything here.
- I have never heard of the role of the press officer in the penal code!...Perhaps it's the subject of the next amendment, or else it's a new method.
- Drop it. She is only going to sit near the police officers on duty and wait.
Her presence in the offices of the police during the interrogations seems unacceptable to me, useless and prejudicial to the investigation. However, she was to stay there from start to finish.
At 8 o'clock, we have a break to have something to eat, then the interrogation continues until 11pm. At the end of that day, we have learned nothing new with the exception of two details: Kate now remembers - five months after the event - that on the evening of May 3rd, Gerald was wearing jeans and trainers. Another detail came back to her: the time that David Payne had spent at her apartment. Gerald had spoken of 30 minutes, Kate now insists that he was only there for 30 seconds. We have never understood why it was so important to minimise this period of time. When Kate leaves the premises, we make sure that all necessary precautions have been taken to ensure her safety.
He makes it sound as though he was there.
-
He makes it sound as though he was there.
He was
-
He was
The McCann's saw him for the first time in court.
-
I haven't seen any, though I haven't seen any evidence that she didn't.
Therefore you can't claim as a fact that Kate McCann had answered that question during previous interviews and neither can anyone else. The same applies to all the questions she didn't answer.
-
On the contrary, he might have been going in the window while someone was entering via the patio door.
More sensible to enter via the patio door, which you say he was casing, certain in the knowledge that no one else was around.
IMO
Oh Yeh ?
But Amaral said that no intruder would dare go in by the patio doors with the parents and friends so close and overlooking it.
Was Amaral WRONG, yet again ?
-
He sounds as if he is not all that clever the amount of times he has been approached by angry parent and time spent in jail confessing crimes etc.
So how come do you believe - he has committed the perfect crime... a drug addictive drifter.
So if as you believe he had been watching ..he would have known after the so called checks he would have had time to be in and out that patio door or front door..
being a burglar he would know the layout of apartments so why would he use all the faffing about to open shutters and a window, when he could walk right in and out.
No he couldn't.
The patio doors were closely overlooked.
The front door was locked.
Is CB druga addicted? We know that he is a dealer in drugs but is he personally addicted? It is news to m.
-
IMO he wasn't working alone. He would be alerted to anyone going in through the patio doors. He could easily then nip out through the front door. However, he knew the length of minutes between each check, so he would wait until a check was done and then enter the apartment. I think he was caught out when Gerry did his check, as Matt [I think] had listened by the apartment, he probably thought he was ok to enter after the listening by the window check, but Gerry came and he would have had to get out quickly. That is why Gerry found the door opened further than how they had left it.
Good well structured thinking Lace. 8@??)(
-
IMO he wasn't working alone. He would be alerted to anyone going in through the patio doors. He could easily then nip out through the front door. However, he knew the length of minutes between each check, so he would wait until a check was done and then enter the apartment. I think he was caught out when Gerry did his check, as Matt [I think] had listened by the apartment, he probably thought he was ok to enter after the listening by the window check, but Gerry came and he would have had to get out quickly. That is why Gerry found the door opened further than how they had left it.
So IYO he went in through the window, then was warned Gerry was coming so he had to close the window and shutters and scamper off out of the front door? Wasn't he lucky that Gerry didn't go to enter through the front door as he originally testified.
He couldn't have gone far, however, if, as some believe, Jane Tanner saw him with his black hair. If it was him, he raised the shutters, opened the window and climbed back in almost immediately after Gerry left. His accomplice must have thought that was fine, even though Gerry was still close by.
-
Therefore you can't claim as a fact that Kate McCann had answered that question during previous interviews and neither can anyone else. The same applies to all the questions she didn't answer.
When did I claim it as fact? You had the question down as she didn't answer it not me.
It seems Kate had a grilling before she was asked the questions she didn't answer, in her words she would not have kept anything back.
-
So IYO he went in through the window, then was warned Gerry was coming so he had to close the window and shutters and scamper off out of the front door? Wasn't he lucky that Gerry didn't go to enter through the front door as he originally testified.
He couldn't have gone far, however, if, as some believe, Jane Tanner saw him with his black hair. If it was him, he raised the shutters, opened the window and climbed back in almost immediately after Gerry left. His accomplice must have thought that was fine, even though Gerry was still close by.
Maybe he went back out through the window, who knows? I was only giving my thoughts on how Madeleine could have been taken.
If Gerry had left then he was safe for another half hour wasn't he? So yes, he did go back in. He IMO passed her on to an accomplice. The accomplice didn't know Gerry would still be in the road talking did he?
-
IMO he wasn't working alone. He would be alerted to anyone going in through the patio doors. He could easily then nip out through the front door. However, he knew the length of minutes between each check, so he would wait until a check was done and then enter the apartment. I think he was caught out when Gerry did his check, as Matt [I think] had listened by the apartment, he probably thought he was ok to enter after the listening by the window check, but Gerry came and he would have had to get out quickly. That is why Gerry found the door opened further than how they had left it.
Why didn't he just go in at eight thirty then when they left...knowing he had half an hour.
-
Maybe he went back out through the window, who knows? I was only giving my thoughts on how Madeleine could have been taken.
If Gerry had left then he was safe for another half hour wasn't he? So yes, he did go back in. He IMO passed her on to an accomplice. The accomplice didn't know Gerry would still be in the road talking did he?
Where is there even a scintilla of evidence that there was an accomplice?
-
Why didn't he just go in at eight thirty then when they left...knowing he had half an hour.
He quite likely did. Or shortly after.
-
He quite likely did. Or shortly after.
If that had been the case gmc would have been the one who found Maddie missing.
-
He quite likely did. Or shortly after.
There is absolutely no foundation for thinking that.
-
There is absolutely no foundation for thinking that.
There's no evidence that anyone used that window.
-
Use your imagination. It isn't difficult to work out.
-
Why didn't he just go in at eight thirty then when they left...knowing he had half an hour.
Maybe he thought it was too light outside?
-
&%%6
Where is there even a scintilla of evidence that there was an accomplice?
It possibly could explain the girl (Tanner sighting) with her head on the man’s left arm i.e passed through the window. My opinion.
-
Just to be clear, the emoji attached to my replying posts, is not mine. I have never used them and never will.
-
&%%6It possibly could explain the girl (Tanner sighting) with her head on the man’s left arm i.e passed through the window. My opinion.
I don't support your idea, but theoretically Madeleine could have been passed through window head first or feet first and picked up from right or left of window.
-
&%%6It possibly could explain the girl (Tanner sighting) with her head on the man’s left arm i.e passed through the window. My opinion.
The Tanner sighting has been ruled out.
-
I don't support your idea, but theoretically Madeleine could have been passed through window head first or feet first and picked up from right or left of window.
Wrong thread probably but even Wolters hasn't said how he supposes Madeleine was taken.
-
The Tanner sighting has been ruled out.
By whom?
-
Anyone with a modicum of sense - IMO
-
By whom?
By OG. How else were they able to move the timeline forward ?
-
The Tanner sighting has been ruled out.
Not entirely, as far as I know.
-
Not entirely, as far as I know.
Name me anyone you know who is pursuing it.
-
By OG. How else were they able to move the timeline forward ?
So nothing definite then.
-
Not entirely, as far as I know.
Wolters who is almost certain his suspect did for Madeleine is lauded yet Redwood who was almost certain Tannerman was anything but an abductor is met with caution,go figure.
-
Wolters who is almost certain his suspect did for Madeleine is lauded yet Redwood who was almost certain Tannerman was anything but an abductor is met with caution,go figure.
Yeah well, depends on which side of the line you stand, init ?
-
I don't support your idea, but theoretically Madeleine could have been passed through window head first or feet first and picked up from right or left of window.
Possibly but in order not to wake her, she could have been picked up from her bed with her head on the right arm and passed in that same position to someone at the other side of the window.
-
Name me anyone you know who is pursuing it.
Of course I don’t know but it is possible that German authorities are pursuing it.
-
Possibly but in order not to wake her, she could have been picked up from her bed with her head on the right arm and passed in that same position to someone at the other side of the window.
Yes, that that depends on the position that the lifter takes when approaching the window - ie from right or left.
Similarly with the receiver.
-
Of course I don’t know but it is possible that German authorities are pursuing it.
So just an idea based on nothing.
-
Wolters who is almost certain his suspect did for Madeleine is lauded yet Redwood who was almost certain Tannerman was anything but an abductor is met with caution,go figure.
Correct. Redwood said he is almost certain. Surely that comment suggests the possibility of him being not 100% sure. He never explained the direction re. Totman. Currently, there are three authorities assessing Madeleine’s disappearance and the case is been moved forward at the present time.
-
So just an idea based on nothing.
True. What do you have?
-
True. What do you have?
An opinion based upon the interpretation of evidence.
In this case , evidence that the PJ rejected Tannerman, and that OG offered up an alternative to Tannerman.
You may not like this interpretation - in which case, tough.
-
Correct. Redwood said he is almost certain. Surely that comment suggests the possibility of him being not 100% sure. He never explained the direction re. Totman. Currently, there are three authorities assessing Madeleine’s disappearance and the case is been moved forward at the present time.
Redwood went to a lot of trouble to convince people in my opinion. The man was photographed in similar clothing and even the pyjamas his child allegedly wore were photographed. Would he have put that effort in if he was unsure? Maybe, if he wanted to highlight the man seen later, but it suggests to me that they were getting nowhere with Tannerman and thought it was worth changing their focus.
-
Not entirely, as far as I know.
Almost certainly....sounds pretty conclusive to me.
-
As off-topic as most of the recent posts but here's a SS from Sexta9 (Portuguese TV) 25/9/2020
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
As off-topic as most of the recent posts but here's a SS from Sexta9 (Portuguese TV) 25/9/2020
I'm sorry, does this have any significance ?
-
I'm sorry, does this have any significance ?
Based on the fact the specific time of Madeleine's disappearance was published by Portuguese TV for the first time, I think it does. Sandra F has done a lot of good research behind the scenes & spoken directly with Wolters.
It suggests the abductor was already inside the apartment during GM's check, something some of us have suspected for a long time.
-
Based on the fact the specific time of Madeleine's disappearance was published by Portuguese TV for the first time, I think it does. Sandra F has done a lot of good research behind the scenes & spoken directly with Wolters.
It suggests the abductor was already inside the apartment during GM's check, something some of us have suspected for a long time.
How do you know this ?
-
Based on the fact the specific time of Madeleine's disappearance was published by Portuguese TV for the first time, I think it does. Sandra F has done a lot of good research behind the scenes & spoken directly with Wolters.
It suggests the abductor was already inside the apartment during GM's check, something some of us have suspected for a long time.
How can specifics be applied when its not even known what crime has been commited.
-
Based on the fact the specific time of Madeleine's disappearance was published by Portuguese TV for the first time, I think it does. Sandra F has done a lot of good research behind the scenes & spoken directly with Wolters.
It suggests the abductor was already inside the apartment during GM's check, something some of us have suspected for a long time.
I have suspected this for many a long year.
-
Christian B has no similarity to the man described by Jane Tanner.
-
Christian B has no similarity to the man described by Jane Tanner.
This is where the accomplice comes in.
-
This is where the accomplice comes in.
His so called mates seem to have missed that.
-
This is where the accomplice comes in.
Hasn't Wolters said they're not looking for an accomplish?
-
This is where the accomplice comes in.
What evidence do you have of an accomplice ?
-
20th September.
Wolters added; "We are only investigating Christian B, nobody else. At this stage we believe he acted alone in this case."
-
An opinion based upon the interpretation of evidence.
In this case , evidence that the PJ rejected Tannerman, and that OG offered up an alternative to Tannerman.
You may not like this interpretation - in which case, tough.
It’s got nothing to do with ‘what I like’.
-
What evidence do you have of an accomplice ?
The direction in which the Child's head was lying as she was being carried away. Opposite from being picked up out of bed.
-
The direction in which the Child's head was lying as she was being carried away. Opposite from being picked up out of bed.
Depends on the position of alleged accomplice, so no evidence at all.
All depends on whether you believe Tanner in the first place.
-
Redwood went to a lot of trouble to convince people in my opinion. The man was photographed in similar clothing and even the pyjamas his child allegedly wore were photographed. Would he have put that effort in if he was unsure? Maybe, if he wanted to highlight the man seen later, but it suggests to me that they were getting nowhere with Tannerman and thought it was worth changing their focus.
How do you position the current investigation against the backdrop of Redwood’s comment?
-
How do you position the current investigation against the backdrop of Redwood’s comment?
How does one tie in the german assertion that the girl is dead with SY saying they have seen nothing to suggest she is and have a open mind.
-
Who knows. What can 4 low rank detectives possibly be doing month after month ?
-
How does one tie in the german assertion that the girl is dead with SY saying they have seen nothing to suggest she is and have a open mind.
Again, Davel has explained that Wolters has communicated what they have on Brückner. Operation Grange do not have that intelligence, hence treating it as a missing person case.
-
Depends on the position of alleged accomplice, so no evidence at all.
All depends on whether you believe Tanner in the first place.
I do believe Jane Tanner. She had no reason to lie.
-
Again, Davel has explained that Wolters has communicated what they have on Brückner. Operation Grange do not have that intelligence, hence treating it as a missing person case.
Why would BKA withhold any intelligence from MET?
-
How does one tie in the german assertion that the girl is dead with SY saying they have seen nothing to suggest she is and have a open mind.
Not to mention the PJ not interested in running the original appeal in Portugal where the child disappeared, where Brueckner lived and where the phone numbers and vehicles were situated. It's just like always; ask everyone except those who are best placed to know something.
-
Why would BKA withhold any intelligence from MET?
The fact that Brückner would be charged under German law. So, no limitation for the murder as suggested by them.
-
The fact that Brückner would be charged under German law. So, no limitation for the murder as suggested by them.
There's no limitation for murder under British Law either, so that doesn't seem a valid reason. IMO
-
Redwood went to a lot of trouble to convince people in my opinion. The man was photographed in similar clothing and even the pyjamas his child allegedly wore were photographed. Would he have put that effort in if he was unsure? Maybe, if he wanted to highlight the man seen later, but it suggests to me that they were getting nowhere with Tannerman and thought it was worth changing their focus.
The same is applicable to the current investigation.
-
Based on the fact the specific time of Madeleine's disappearance was published by Portuguese TV for the first time, I think it does. Sandra F has done a lot of good research behind the scenes & spoken directly with Wolters.
It suggests the abductor was already inside the apartment during GM's check, something some of us have suspected for a long time.
SF is a primarily a TV presenter not a heavyweight investigative journalist.
Remember this:
https://youtu.be/j2WMtvITFz8
She will go with whatever way the wind blows.
-
There's no limitation for murder under British Law either, so that doesn't seem a valid reason. IMO
Brückner is a German citizen. The prosecutor will try him within the limitations as prescribed in his own country.
-
SF is a primarily a TV presenter not a heavyweight investigative journalist.
Remember this:
https://youtu.be/j2WMtvITFz8
She will go with whatever way the wind blows.
You are underestimating Sandra’s journalistic investigative position. She herself is on record discussing how Amaral selectively leaked information. She is on the ground, so to speak, and holistically analysing what is at the core of the case and residents’ firsthand experiences, and beyond re. Madeleine’s disappearance.
-
Again, Davel has explained that Wolters has communicated what they have on Brückner. Operation Grange do not have that intelligence, hence treating it as a missing person case.
Davel is patently wrong.
-
I do believe Jane Tanner. She had no reason to lie.
So do SY and they have explained her sighting.
-
You are underestimating Sandra’s journalistic investigative position. She herself is on record discussing how Amaral selectively leaked information. She is on the ground, so to speak, and holistically analysing what is at the core of the case and residents’ firsthand experiences, and beyond re. Madeleine’s disappearance.
Seems she only found out she had been lied to many months after the files were published and long after her journalistic contemporaries had published chapter and verse. Doesn’t sound much of a journalist to me.
-
So do SY and they have explained her sighting.
You think?
-
So do SY and they have explained her sighting.
In your opinion; in mine they have done no such thing.
-
In your opinion; in mine they have done no such thing.
I think the rest of the public who watched Crimewatch would disagree and that’s the main thing. Redwood’s claim wasn’t aimed at those with entrenched views.
-
I think the rest of the public who watched Crimewatch would disagree and that’s the main thing. Redwood’s claim wasn’t aimed at those with entrenched views.
Then it is about time that the rest of the public developed a better understanding and comprehension of the English language.
-
Then it is about time that the rest of the public developed a better understanding and comprehension of the English language.
If Redwood was still trying to identify Tannerman it does seem a strange way of doing it, telling the public that he had already ‘ almost certainly’ been identified and they had been able because of this to move the timeline forward. Those policemen and their devious ways eh !
-
If Redwood was still trying to identify Tannerman it does seem a strange way of doing it, telling the public that he had already ‘ almost certainly’ been identified and they had been able because of this to move the timeline forward. Those policemen and their devious ways eh !
Perhaps Redwood should have found out the direction in which Dr. Totman should have been walking.
-
So IYO he went in through the window, then was warned Gerry was coming so he had to close the window and shutters and scamper off out of the front door? Wasn't he lucky that Gerry didn't go to enter through the front door as he originally testified.
He couldn't have gone far, however, if, as some believe, Jane Tanner saw him with his black hair. If it was him, he raised the shutters, opened the window and climbed back in almost immediately after Gerry left. His accomplice must have thought that was fine, even though Gerry was still close by.
Well if his accomplice was on the balcony opposite as seems likely (superb viewing point and cigarette stubs) and was looking out, s/he would have found it impossible to see Gerry and Jez cos they were beyond his vision. The balcony is set back with the main block 6 building wall on the Rua Dr FGM side jutting out hiding most of the view in a southerly direction. This wall blocked off the spot where Gerry and Jez chatted. The watcher couldn't see them, and as they had a sleeping child s/he wouldn't have heard their hushed talking either.
Please note: You have to enlarge GEarth to its maximum, draw lines understanding perspective, and study it very closely to see how the view from the recessed balcony is cut off by the jutting out wall of block 6. Gerry and Jez in the kerb and road would be totally out of sight.
As far as his accomplice was concerned, Gerry had gone back to the restaurant and it was time to let the abductor know and go out to the little car park opposite the Tapas reception to pick up the getaway vehicle. The abduction would have taken less than two minutes, imo
All the above is theory, but it all fits perfectly
-
Maybe he thought it was too light outside?
Good thinking Lace 8@??)(
-
Just to be clear, the emoji attached to my replying posts, is not mine. I have never used them and never will.
These emojis kept attaching themselves to the start of my posts about a month ago too.
I wondered if they were deliberately attached to downgrade the seriousness of my posts.
IIRC the emoji which kept attaching itself was the laughing one i.e. @)(++(* … so laughing at and ridiculing my serious post before anyone read it
-
I don't support your idea, but theoretically Madeleine could have been passed through window head first or feet first and picked up from right or left of window.
Very awkward with a chair being almost up against the bed under the window. This left very little space for feet to stand. In fact one foot would have to be behind the other in the narrow gap.
To be quite frank, I doubt that a (bendy) child of 90cms length could be passed through safely, with such an unbalanced foothold and the distance required. Would be good if someone tried this to see if it was possible. I think she was just carried thru the front door and passed over to Tannerman.
-
The Tanner sighting has been ruled out.
No, it hasn't, but there are alternative thoughts. It hasn't been ruled out.
-
Possibly but in order not to wake her, she could have been picked up from her bed with her head on the right arm and passed in that same position to someone at the other side of the window.
Sorry Anthro, but I doubt that would be possible, given the limited space between the under window bed and the chair. IMO, the possible lifter would be unbalanced just standing there, one foot in front of the other, without the added weight of Madeleine pulling him over, when leaning forward and slightly sideways.
Also the window is very narrow to pass Madeleine through without her touching either side and leaving traces IMHO
I am happy to be found wrong on this, if someone would like to set up an exact replica situation
I think that s/he had to be carried out via the front door. A very safe thing to do given the recessed almost pitch black porchway - and no-body passed by that doorway. It was like being at the end of a cul de sac, no one went past unless visiting 5A
-
As off-topic as most of the recent posts but here's a SS from Sexta9 (Portuguese TV) 25/9/2020
Like with lots of videos on MoJ, I cannot open this. I wonder why I am denied access?
I would have liked to watch it altho' I don't speak Portuguese.
-
Sorry Anthro, but I doubt that would be possible, given the limited space between the under window bed and the chair. IMO, the possible lifter would be unbalanced just standing there, one foot in front of the other, without the added weight of Madeleine pulling him over, when leaning forward and slightly sideways.
Also the window is very narrow to pass Madeleine through without her touching either side and leaving traces IMHO
I am happy to be found wrong on this, if someone would like to set up an exact replica situation
I think that s/he had to be carried out via the front door. A very safe thing to do given the recessed almost pitch black porchway - and no-body passed by that doorway. It was like being at the end of a cul de sac, no one went past unless visiting 5A
It doesn't really matter, Sadie. Front Door or Window, Madeleine could have been passed to someone else.
-
Again, Davel has explained that Wolters has communicated what they have on Brückner. Operation Grange do not have that intelligence, hence treating it as a missing person case.
And possibly other reasons supplied by yours faithfully ?
-
Perhaps Redwood should have found out the direction in which Dr. Totman should have been walking.
Perhaps he picked up his child from the creche and was going back to a restaurant to pick up his wife ?
-
No, it hasn't, but there are alternative thoughts. It hasn't been ruled out.
All but ruled out. Redwood moved the timeline on so he must have been pretty sure...and of course he’s the real detective.
-
It doesn't really matter, Sadie. Front Door or Window, Madeleine could have been passed to someone else.
But there’s absolutely no evidence of it.
-
Perhaps he picked up his child from the creche and was going back to a restaurant to pick up his wife ?
Carrying his child over two arms? Okaaayyy.
So why didn't he go straight to the restaurant?
-
Perhaps he picked up his child from the creche and was going back to a restaurant to pick up his wife ?
No
Walking in wrong direction dear.
Google Earth is very good at getting it right, if you are not sure.
-
But there’s absolutely no evidence of it.
Oh yes there is evidence.
Madeleine was passed from one person to another
The arm swap is evidence, whether you like it or not.
-
Carrying his child over two arms? Okaaayyy.
So why didn't he go straight to the restaurant?
Detour to pick up a bottle of wine ?
As to the way he was carrying the child, there is no way of doing it without the head and hair of the child being in view. The mockumentary showed that clearly.
-
No
Walking in wrong direction dear.
Google Earth is very good at getting it right, if you are not sure.
I’ve been there sweetie, several times.
-
Oh yes there is evidence.
Madeleine was passed from one person to another
The arm swap is evidence, whether you like it or not.
No it’s not.
-
All debatable, of course, which is what we are doing.
But my stance has more common sense and logic.
-
All debatable, of course, which is what we are doing.
But my stance has more common sense and logic.
No it hasn’t. Yours is just simpler but as we know people are rarely simple.
-
I’ve been there sweetie, several times.
Well why have you got it wrong?
Have you got a bad memory, or are you one of these people who can't read maps?
-
No it hasn’t. Yours is just simpler but as we know people are rarely simple.
Common sense and logic are things that one is born with. Everything else is dross. And there is an awful lot of dross on this Forum.
-
Perhaps Redwood should have found out the direction in which Dr. Totman should have been walking.
Once again it's not known who specifically Redwood alluded to,he never named him,important witness imo.
-
Common sense and logic are things that one is born with. Everything else is dross. And there is an awful lot of dross on this Forum.
C'est la vie.
-
Again, Davel has explained that Wolters has communicated what they have on Brückner. Operation Grange do not have that intelligence, hence treating it as a missing person case.
All posters posts lots of opinions doesn't make them right anymore than wrong.
-
All posters posts lots of opinions doesn't make them right anymore than wrong.
Isn't that what a Discussion Forum is all about. It is so often the nastiness that I find difficult to deal with.
-
Oh yes there is evidence.
Madeleine was passed from one person to another
The arm swap is evidence, whether you like it or not.
Only if the child was Madeleine and not the man's own child.
-
Well why have you got it wrong?
Have you got a bad memory, or are you one of these people who can't read maps?
I haven’t got it wrong. There are multiple reasons why Totman could have been going the way he was. Refusing to consider those reasons because of an entrenched position is not helpful.
-
I haven’t got it wrong. There are multiple reasons why Totman could have been going the way he was. Refusing to consider those reasons because of an entrenched position is not helpful.
I think very little can be taken as fact in this case except that Madeleine disappeared.
-
I think very little can be taken as fact in this case except that Madeleine disappeared.
Indeed.
-
Only if the child was Madeleine and not the man's own child.
Dr Totmans child was carried to a different destination to that of Tannermans child.
Dr T had to walk in a southerly direction, down Rua Dr FGM, to access the entrance to his apartment block
Yet, Jane Tanner witnessed Tannerman carry on walking in an easterly direction along Rua Dr A de S.
This was towards, but probably not to Murats villa.
Most likely, with Gerry and Jez chatting in the way and also Jane Tanner walking up the hill of Rua Dr FGM towards Tannerman and ?Madeleine?, the pick up vehicle had not arrived. Because the driver had taken fright at the thought of passing them and the possibility of being spotted ?
IMO, Tannerman had nowhere to go, he knew that Jane would be following him if he doubled back, so he made a snap decision to carry on in the easterly direction, with the intention of turning right down the first alleyway - and taking the short circular route via the alleyway to the car park where the pick up vehicle was parked. See G Earth.
If he had been hiding in the shadows of OC car park waiting to be picked up, Tannerman might even not have known that the pick up / getaway vehicle had shot off in the opposite direction.
Just my thoughts, but everything fits. Check it out on Google earth.
Soz, Gunit, but you have got it wrong; Tannerman and Dr T were different people walking in different directions and at different times..
Come on Gunit, how about some more help? I remember you helped me hone my thoughts last time ... and you are doing well again
Editted to add:
Please note that this is based upon DCI Redwood stating in Crimewatch that Dr Totman was staying in block 6.
I can remember a long discussion about that at the time. So did DCI Redwood get it wrong ? … or has the MagicK anti-Justice Disinformation set up been at work again? Changing the facts ?
-
Dr T's child was carried to a different destination to that of Tannermans child.
Dr T had to walk in a southerly direction, down Rua Dr FGM, to access the entrance to his apartment block
Yet, Jane Tanner witnessed Tannerman carry on walking in an easterly direction along Rua Dr A de S.
This was towards, but probably not to Murats villa.
Most likely, with Gerry and Jez chatting in the way and also Jane Tanner walking up the hill of Rua Dr FGM towards Tannerman and ?Madeleine?, the pick up vehicle had not arrived. Because the driver had taken fright at the thought of passing them and the possibility of being spotted ?
IMO, Tannerman had nowhere to go, he knew that Jane would be following him if he doubled back, so he made a snap decision to carry on in the easterly direction, with the intention of turning right down the first alleyway - and taking the short circular route via the alleyway to the car park where the pick up vehicle was parked. See G Earth.
If he had been hiding in the shadows of OC car park waiting to be picked up, Tannerman might even not have known that the pick up / getaway vehicle had shot off in the opposite direction.
Just my thoughts, but everything fits. Check it out on Google earth.
Soz, Gunit, but you have got it wrong; Tannerman and Dr T were different people walking in different directions and at different times..
Come on Gunit, how about some more help? I remember you helped me hone my thoughts last time ... and you are doing well again
Dr T was housed in Block 4, which, imo, was to the west of block 5. I don't think walking down Rua Dr FGM was involved.
Jane's sighting was somewhere around 9:15pm. I'm not sure why you think there were two men moving around at two different times, unless you agree with Heri that Jane mistook the time when she saw the man.
-
Detour to pick up a bottle of wine ?
As to the way he was carrying the child, there is no way of doing it without the head and hair of the child being in view. The mockumentary showed that clearly.
Sorry Faith, but both your comments are ill thought out.
1. Detour to pick up a bottle of wine? Where from? You have been there and the only place was the tapas bar [past the restaurant]. He wasn't going in the right direction for that. Have you ever carried a child the way he was carrying his little one ? Cos they don't half get very heavy carrying that way … and fancy carrying a child like that and a bottle of wine!
Nah *&^^&, you have got it completely wrong. Perhaps you are not a parent, faith, so wouldn't know these things.
2. As for the head and hair of the child always being on view, that is absolute claptrap, sorry. I couldn't care less what shows in the mockumentary, cos that is just a view taken from a certain angle. If I remember correctly that angle was from above the child, looking down. Jane was down hill looking up at the child. Also the precise angles that the man is to the camera and the exact way that the man is carrying matter
Have you thought that Tannerman may have deliberately hung Madeleines head down to hide the face and hair from Jane.
it is futile using such a mockumentary video to try to illustrate this particular point.
Come on faith please find something, anything realistic, to illustrate what you are claiming.
-
Dr T was housed in Block 4, which, imo, was to the west of block 5. I don't think walking down Rua Dr FGM was involved.
Jane's sighting was somewhere around 9:15pm. I'm not sure why you think there were two men moving around at two different times, unless you agree with Heri that Jane mistook the time when she saw the man.
There may have been internet MagicK and it may have been changed now as so much is these days.
But , without checking, I am pretty confident that at the time that DCI Redwood was commenting on Crimewatch, he talked about Dr Totman going back to his apartment in block 6. This is to the east of block 5. The entrance to block 6 is on Rua Dr FMG. The last yards of his walk would have had to be in either a south western or a southern direction depending on how he crossed the road.
Check it on GE., faith.
-
There may have been internet MagicK and it may have been changed now as so much is these days.
But , without checking, I am pretty confident that at the time that DCI Redwood was commenting on Crimewatch, he talked about Dr Totman going back to his apartment in block 6. This is to the east of block 5. The entrance to block 6 is on Rua Dr FMG. The last yards of his walk would have had to be in either a south western or a southern direction depending on how he crossed the road.
Check it on GE., faith.
Don't worry, Sadie, I'm always available to supply the facts for you. Dr T stayed in G4M.
(https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/T/03_VOLUME_IIIa_Page_606.jpg)
Next to bottom on this list;
(https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/T/03_VOLUME_IIIa_Page_611.jpg)
-
Maybe he thought it was too light outside?
No, it would have been dark at 8.30. 3rd of May
-
Dr Totmans child was carried to a different destination to that of Tannermans child.
Dr T had to walk in a southerly direction, down Rua Dr FGM, to access the entrance to his apartment block
Yet, Jane Tanner witnessed Tannerman carry on walking in an easterly direction along Rua Dr A de S.
This was towards, but probably not to Murats villa.
Most likely, with Gerry and Jez chatting in the way and also Jane Tanner walking up the hill of Rua Dr FGM towards Tannerman and ?Madeleine?, the pick up vehicle had not arrived. Because the driver had taken fright at the thought of passing them and the possibility of being spotted ?
IMO, Tannerman had nowhere to go, he knew that Jane would be following him if he doubled back, so he made a snap decision to carry on in the easterly direction, with the intention of turning right down the first alleyway - and taking the short circular route via the alleyway to the car park where the pick up vehicle was parked. See G Earth.
If he had been hiding in the shadows of OC car park waiting to be picked up, Tannerman might even not have known that the pick up / getaway vehicle had shot off in the opposite direction.
Just my thoughts, but everything fits. Check it out on Google earth.
Soz, Gunit, but you have got it wrong; Tannerman and Dr T were different people walking in different directions and at different times..
Come on Gunit, how about some more help? I remember you helped me hone my thoughts last time ... and you are doing well again
Hi Sadie, despite the fact that Totman was walking towards the creche with his child instead of towards his apartment as stated by Mr Redwood, there is also a shorter route to the night creche as indicated by the orange line, down the road, through block 6’s parking area and around the Palms swimming pool. To me this indicate that Tannerman is not Totman. My opinion.
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Don't worry, Sadie, I'm always available to supply the facts for you. Dr T stayed in G4M.
(https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/T/03_VOLUME_IIIa_Page_606.jpg)
Next to bottom on this list;
(https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/T/03_VOLUME_IIIa_Page_611.jpg)
Are you sure that you haven't got hold of some more internet MagicK?
The internet Magick where shapes, colours, positions, words, reports etc.can be changes to defeat justice. where facts are seamlessly altered? The reason to be to spread disinformation
Oh, in that case it is even less likely that Dr Totman could have been the man seen by Jane Tanner. From the direction that he was walking he certainly wasn't going to the tapas restaurant, and neither was he going to the Tapas bar
ETA
My posts were based upon DCI's Redwoods reports on Crimewatch that Dr Totman was staying in block 6. If that is wrong then the situation changes.
However, why would he be taking his little one to that crech at near closing time?
Why would he be carrying his little one to buy a bottle of wine especially on such a cool blustery night?
Why would he be taking his little one from that direction to the tapas Restaurant?
Clearly both this and the previous question are incorrect because if he was the man that Jane saw, then he wasn't going towards either the Tapas bar or the Tapas Restaurant. Tannerman was walking in an easterly direction not southerly.
-
Sorry Faith, but both your comments are ill thought out.
1. Detour to pick up a bottle of wine? Where from? You have been there and the only place was the tapas bar [past the restaurant]. He wasn't going in the right direction for that. Have you ever carried a child the way he was carrying his little one ? Cos they don't half get very heavy carrying that way … and fancy carrying a child like that and a bottle of wine!
Nah *&^^&, you have got it completely wrong. Perhaps you are not a parent, faith, so wouldn't know these things.
2. As for the head and hair of the child always being on view, that is absolute claptrap, sorry. I couldn't care less what shows in the mockumentary, cos that is just a view taken from a certain angle. If I remember correctly that angle was from above the child, looking down. Jane was down hill looking up at the child. Also the precise angles that the man is to the camera and the exact way that the man is carrying matter
Have you thought that Tannerman may have deliberately hung Madeleines head down to hide the face and hair from Jane.
it is futile using such a mockumentary video to try to illustrate this particular point.
Come on faith please find something, anything realistic, to illustrate what you are claiming.
There are a myriad of reasons why Totman would be going the way he was and Redwood and his team had no problem believing that he could carry his child the way he did for some distance.
As to the child’s face and hair being visible you only have to look at the still below from the mockumentary, a still Tanner agreed was accurate with regard to the position of Madeleine, to see this is beyond argument.
https://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Nigel/sitebuilderpictures/MadeleineWasHere2.jpg
-
Hi Sadie, despite the fact that Totman was walking towards the creche with his child instead of towards his apartment as stated by Mr Redwood, there is also a shorter route to the night creche as indicated by the orange line, down the road, through block 6’s parking area and around the Palms swimming pool. To me this indicate that Tannerman is not Totman. My opinion.
Oh thanks Anthro.
So DCI Redwood got the position of Dr Totmans apartment wrong the, did he? So, in this instance, it is not a case of Internet Disinformation MagicK after all.
Well if Totman was walking down to the little car park opposite The Tapas reception en route to the crech, he definitely wasn't Tannerman. He was going South at that stage. Jane Tanners man was going East towards the Murat villa
Where would we be without your font of knowledge? Well spotted
-
There are a myriad of reasons why Totman would be going the way he was and Redwood and his team had no problem believing that he could carry his child the way he did for some distance.
As to the child’s face and hair being visible you only have to look at the still below from the mockumentary, a still Tanner agreed was accurate with regard to the position of Madeleine, to see this is beyond argument.
https://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Nigel/sitebuilderpictures/MadeleineWasHere2.jpg
With all due respect faith that image is a nonsense re the direction Jane saw Tannerman from. She was down the hill a little looking up at him and neither was she square to him, she saw him from partly the rear. Jane was unable to see even his face enough, or at all, because she refused to have it shown in the genuine image approved by herself.
You have to understand that images, especially of faces, change as the head moves relative to the viewer. The image that you show has no recogniseable face, or hair, that I can see, anyhow.
Was the Mockumentary produced by your side, cos the producers have even substituted a tiny tot in place of a more robust Madeleine. A two year old instead of a nearly 4 year old. 8)-)))
(https://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Nigel/sitebuilderpictures/MadeleineWasHere2.jpg)
This seems to me a deliberate attempt to impose the idea that Jane saw Dr Totman, rather than Tannerman carrying Madeleine. And that is clearly untrue. Totmans little one was 2yr old, IIRC. Please correct me if I am wrong on that.
-
Are you sure that you haven't got hold of some more internet MagicK?
The internet Magick where shapes, colours, positions, words, reports etc.can be changes to defeat justice. where facts are seamlessly altered? The reason to be to spread disinformation
Oh, in that case it is even less likely that Dr Totman could have been the man seen by Jane Tanner. From the direction that he was walking he certainly wasn't going to the tapas restaurant, and neither was he going to the Tapas bar
The only disinformation being spread around here is that being spread by you, Sadie.
-
The only disinformation being spread around here is that being spread by you, Sadie.
Can you please state what exactly the disinformation is that you suggest Sadie is spreading on the forum?
-
Can you please state what exactly the disinformation is that you suggest Sadie is spreading on the forum?
That Dr T was staying in block 6 and that to reach the entrance to that block the mystery man had to walk south down Rua FGM.
-
That Dr T was staying in block 6 and that to reach the entrance to that block the mystery man had to walk south down Rua FGM.
In my opinion you are pedantic. Sadie clearly meant block 4.
-
In my opinion you are pedantic. Sadie clearly meant block 4.
Really? Is that why she said "Dr T had to walk in a southerly direction, down Rua Dr FGM, to access the entrance to his apartment block". That statement applies to neither block 4, where he was staying, or block 6, where he was not staying.
I don't mind speculation, but I do mind when it's supported by 'facts' which are not true.
-
Really? Is that why she said "Dr T had to walk in a southerly direction, down Rua Dr FGM, to access the entrance to his apartment block". That statement applies to neither block 4, where he was staying, or block 6, where he was not staying.
I don't mind speculation, but I do mind when it's supported by 'facts' which are not true.
You will find that I have amended my posts, but I distinctly remember us discussing, on forum the fact that Dr Totman was going back to his apartment. He was supposed to have left the crech and was carrying his 2 yr old back to his apartment.
I was the first to notice that he was going in the wrong direction if he had come from the crech.
What I couldn't understand either was the size of p'jays his 2 yr old was supposed to have been wearing. They looked big enough to fit a 6 or 7 year old … and fancy keeping them all those years!
-
With all due respect faith that image is a nonsense re the direction Jane saw Tannerman from. She was down the hill a little looking up at him and neither was she square to him, she saw him from partly the rear. Jane was unable to see even his face enough, or at all, because she refused to have it shown in the genuine image approved by herself.
You have to understand that images, especially of faces, change as the head moves relative to the viewer. The image that you show has no recogniseable face, or hair, that I can see, anyhow.
Was the Mockumentary produced by your side, cos the producers have even substituted a tiny tot in place of a more robust Madeleine. A two year old instead of a nearly 4 year old. 8)-)))
(https://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Nigel/sitebuilderpictures/MadeleineWasHere2.jpg)
This seems to me a deliberate attempt to impose the idea that Jane saw Dr Totman, rather than Tannerman carrying Madeleine. And that is clearly untrue. Totmans little one was 2yr old, IIRC. Please correct me if I am wrong on that.
The mockumentary was made by Emma Loach and with the full cooperation of the parents, Tanner and Oldfield. Tanner was there as the still was being filmed and gave it her approval.
-
Really? Is that why she said "Dr T had to walk in a southerly direction, down Rua Dr FGM, to access the entrance to his apartment block". That statement applies to neither block 4, where he was staying, or block 6, where he was not staying.
I don't mind speculation, but I do mind when it's supported by 'facts' which are not true.
It applies to block 6, as you must well know if you are able to understand Google Earth.
-
There are a myriad of reasons why Totman would be going the way he was and Redwood and his team had no problem believing that he could carry his child the way he did for some distance.
As to the child’s face and hair being visible you only have to look at the still below from the mockumentary, a still Tanner agreed was accurate with regard to the position of Madeleine, to see this is beyond argument.
https://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Nigel/sitebuilderpictures/MadeleineWasHere2.jpg
You showed this image claiming that Jane agreed to the position of Madeleine
https://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Nigel/sitebuilderpictures/MadeleineWasHere2.jpg
(https://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Nigel/sitebuilderpictures/MadeleineWasHere2.jpg)
Jane did not see Dr Totman, but she did see Tannerman. The man in the picture is clearly Dr Totman; he is nothing like Tannerman.
Dr Totman was carrying his 2 year old. Madeleine was nearly 4. The child in the image is clearly a 2 year old. and neither the child nor Totman look anything like Janes images.
Jane, an intelligent woman would not, could not, get Totman mixed up with Tannerman. They are totally different.
I notice that rabid skeptic-anti 'Nigel' has plenty to do with this. Everything that I have seen that he has produced always is twisted in some way. He is a master at it IMO. He is trying to pull the wool over peoples eyes that there was no abduction, just Dr Totman.
Strange that all three countries, Germany, Portugal and the UK do not agree with Anti-skeptic Nigel and say that there was an abduction.
How do you account for that Faith?
Re the position of Dr Totman crossing the road, that may well have been the same spot that she saw the moving image of Tannerman walk over and she was agreeing to that - and only that. Why are you trying to obfuscate Faith?
-
It applies to block 6, as you must well know if you are able to understand Google Earth.
The entrances to blocks 4, 5 and 6 were all situated off the car parks in front of the blocks on Rua Dr Agostinho da Silva.
-
The entrances to blocks 4, 5 and 6 were all situated off the car parks in front of the blocks on Rua Dr Agostinho da Silva.
Every apartment has a small gate entrance at the back of the blocks.
-
Every apartment has a small gate entrance at the back of the blocks.
Every ground floor apartment I think you'll find.