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: Robittybob1 on January 09, 2018, 09:47:34 PM
-
When was it shut? David Payne says "no one could have got in that way if that's the way they entered as the door was shut"
Lets go through the timeline:
The front door was shut when the McCanns left their apartment.
If then someone enters via that front door obviously they have a means of opening the door. It is no longer shut, then is it.
So when he says "as the door was shut" when is he making that assessment about the door?
David Payne Quotes:
and again "I said well look how do you know that is the case, and err you know again I, I can't remember the exact words then, but I was very interested in finding what the state of the apartment was like when she'd got there to see who'd left err doors open or etcetera. And from my point of view you know the things that were, I think it was really pertinent to me was that there was two, there was two gates on the back entrance from that apartment. There's the gate which is immediately bring, you know brings you on to the err the road and then there was another child gate, that was at the top and I, you know, and given the fact that the front door was shut".
Reply "Err we, you know, we ran up err to the apartment, you know, with, with err you know Kate and Gerry err and you know for me, I just wanted to know, as I say, about the access to the apartment, were those gates open, err because in my mind was that if the front door was shut there was no, you know there won't be, you know there was no way that she could have wandered out that way and nor would they have gained access in that way. Err also obviously the, the, the issue with the, the shutters had been raised, was brought up err you know on the way up as well and then I was asking about the gates being shut at that back and she said well both gates you know were shut, so in my mind, you know, that had ruled it out that Madeleine had err had wandered off."
-
David Payne is not saying the door was shut at all times, for someone may have entered through that door.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dXtBWNCFt7U&feature=youtu.be&t=518 we see Gerry uing a key to open the front door.
Unusual action too IMO.
He seems to hold the latch back for a long time I think I would have released the torque on the key a lot sooner myself.
-
Matt Oldfield's rogatory explains what David is trying to say. Matt says "you had to turn it to go in and so it would snip, erm, you couldn't really shut it with the lock on,"
You could not just slam the door shut you had to withdraw the latch bolt and the secondary lock bolt (for want of a better description).
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MATTHEW-OLDFIELD-ROGATORY.htm
"4078 'Okay. And this door here, what was the door like''
Reply 'Erm, brown, erm, big, brown and wood, brown and wood like. There was a lock, erm, it sort of, you know, one of those you turn twice with the key. And I think, and sort of I think a round, or was it like a lever handle, I can't remember what the handle was like, I think you had to turn it to go in and so it would snip, erm, you couldn't really shut it with the lock on, but I think if you didn't lock it up here you could then just open it and shut it, I think you had to actually lock it to, it wasn't like a Yale thing that, erm, stops you opening it again, I think'"
-
Russell O'Brien confirms this "We were conscious that, that, erm, if you, you only do one lock on the main door then it can be opened from the inside but if you double lock it then, then, then you need the key to get in or out”.
1578 “Yes”."
One lock means close the door. Results in a door closed but not deadlocked - requires the use of the key from the outside to achieve this.
-
Russell O'Brien confirms this "We were conscious that, that, erm, if you, you only do one lock on the main door then it can be opened from the inside but if you double lock it then, then, then you need the key to get in or out”.
1578 “Yes”."
One lock means close the door. Results in a door closed but not deadlocked - requires the use of the key from the outside to achieve this.
This might explain why the cleaner was able to gain access to another guest's apartment, even though they had claimed to have locked it - they hadn't double locked it.
-
This might explain why the cleaner was able to gain access to another guest's apartment, even though they had claimed to have locked it - they hadn't double locked it.
I think there is a fair chance the lock might have been faulty or even might have been tampered with at some stage ... at least one couple took pains to ensure they were not disturbed, but to no avail ... "We noticed that the cleaning personnel entered the apartment after one knock and did not give us time to respond. This was a bit bothersome and for this reason we would lock the door, and would leave the key in the inside lock.
After this precaution, the next day, the same thing happened and the cleaning woman entered even though the door was locked with the key in the lock.
We never found out how it was possible for a cleaning woman to enter after we had tried to prevent it."
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/CARLO-D_AMBROSIO.htm
-
I think there is a fair chance the lock might have been faulty or even might have been tampered with at some stage ... at least one couple took pains to ensure they were not disturbed, but to no avail ... "We noticed that the cleaning personnel entered the apartment after one knock and did not give us time to respond. This was a bit bothersome and for this reason we would lock the door, and would leave the key in the inside lock.
After this precaution, the next day, the same thing happened and the cleaning woman entered even though the door was locked with the key in the lock.
We never found out how it was possible for a cleaning woman to enter after we had tried to prevent it."
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/CARLO-D_AMBROSIO.htm
It is fairly standard in holiday accommodation for it to be impossible to lock staff out unless with a chain.
-
It is fairly standard in holiday accommodation for it to be impossible to lock staff out unless with a chain.
I believe that the key was left in on the inside of the door. With some locks this prevents people from opening the door from the outside, and with some locks it doesn't
I do have personal experience of this.
-
It is fairly standard in holiday accommodation for it to be impossible to lock staff out unless with a chain.
Staff have to be able to access all facilities at all times for obvious reasons.
-
Russell O'Brien confirms this "We were conscious that, that, erm, if you, you only do one lock on the main door then it can be opened from the inside but if you double lock it then, then, then you need the key to get in or out”.
1578 “Yes”."
One lock means close the door. Results in a door closed but not deadlocked - requires the use of the key from the outside to achieve this.
Agreed, but the door still requires a key to get in from outside, even when only closed. It could be termed single locked rathger than double locked, or deadlocked.
Even single locked/latched like that, it still requires a key to enter from outside. From inside a slider or a knob that is turned, is used to open the door No key required from inside.
-
It is fairly standard in holiday accommodation for it to be impossible to lock staff out unless with a chain.
Their method was not a solution to the problem. it would have to be a very old fashioned lock for the key to activate the same barrel. The key would then need to be shaped with a degree of symmetry like the old Legge keys or as in the pic "Union" keys. (https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/ilAAAOSwEK9T9Pa5/s-l300.jpg)
-
Staff have to be able to access all facilities at all times for obvious reasons.
The main problem in the case quoted was that the cleaners came in after just one knock and didn't give the occupants sufficient time to expect visitors.
-
Agreed, but the door still requires a key to get in from outside, even when only closed. It could be termed single locked rathger than double locked, or deadlocked.
Even single locked/latched like that, it still requires a key to enter from outside. From inside a slider or a knob that is turned, is used to open the door No key required from inside.
Sadie did you stay in one of the apartments when you were there? What you say here is 100% in line with my understanding, but the real point I'm trying to make, and it is emphasised with the way Gerry held that key rotated as he opened the door, that the key has to be used to "single lock" the door from the outside. (did you see that video? found it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dXtBWNCFt7U&feature=youtu.be&t=518 )
So you end up with a situation if there are more than two people doing different things that day, and there is only one key issued, when it becomes impossible for them both to leave the apartment locked in some situations, unless the person inside manually closes the door from the inside and has the key to lock the door when they leave.
But that means the last person to leave has to be the first person home as well otherwise that person will arrive back at the apartment and the other person has the only key.
The Paynes solved this by just leaving the key under the door mat. In their case with 3 adults all doing different things keeping track of how to lock the door became problematic and hiding the key under the door mat during the day was the solution.
-
A real stupid and dangerous situation develops if the person leaving has the key and double locks the door making it impossible for the person inside to let themselves out. Not so bad on the ground floor but when the balcony is several floors up they are stuck.
-
A real stupid and dangerous situation develops if the person leaving has the key and double locks the door making it impossible for the person inside to let themselves out. Not so bad on the ground floor but when the balcony is several floors up they are stuck.
This can't happen.
-
This can't happen.
That situation is mentioned in the PJ file so it must be able to happen. I'll find it again but it takes time.
-
A real stupid and dangerous situation develops if the person leaving has the key and double locks the door making it impossible for the person inside to let themselves out. Not so bad on the ground floor but when the balcony is several floors up they are stuck.
Eleanor says this can't happen but it was what the other families admit doing with their kids at night. The children were locked in their apartments with the front door dead locked so the children could not open it from the inside.
This from Jane Tanner's rogatory "Reply “Yes, yeah well we made, as I said we made sure that was because you could dead lock it as well and that was one of our concerns was Ella waking up and wandering, I mean like I say we didn’t think she would but that was probably our, you know so she couldn’t get out the actual apartment, that was err so we did make sure that was dead locked every night.”
-
Eleanor says this can't happen but it was what the other families admit doing with their kids at night. The children were locked in their apartments with the front door dead locked so the children could not open it from the inside.
This from Jane Tanner's rogatory "Reply “Yes, yeah well we made, as I said we made sure that was because you could dead lock it as well and that was one of our concerns was Ella waking up and wandering, I mean like I say we didn’t think she would but that was probably our, you know so she couldn’t get out the actual apartment, that was err so we did make sure that was dead locked every night.”
Maybe Eleanor never uses the second lock or deadlock? At OC, you have to turn the key twice to achieve deadlock.
-
That situation is mentioned in the PJ file so it must be able to happen. I'll find it again but it takes time.
Don't bother. It can't happen. Do you seriously think that someone could be locked inside a house and unable to get out without a key?
I have one such lock in my house next door, but it has been disabled entirely. And since it is pissing down I can't be bothered to go and look.
No spring lock in existence is ever going to trap anyone inside a house. This would be against all safety regulations.
-
Eleanor says this can't happen but it was what the other families admit doing with their kids at night. The children were locked in their apartments with the front door dead locked so the children could not open it from the inside.
This from Jane Tanner's rogatory "Reply “Yes, yeah well we made, as I said we made sure that was because you could dead lock it as well and that was one of our concerns was Ella waking up and wandering, I mean like I say we didn’t think she would but that was probably our, you know so she couldn’t get out the actual apartment, that was err so we did make sure that was dead locked every night.”
Dead Locks on these locks can be opened from inside. Anyone who thinks otherwise has lost their marbles.
Until recently i was dealing with a Holiday Let that had the self same lock. I could get out but no one could get in.
-
Maybe Eleanor never uses the second lock or deadlock? At OC, you have to turn the key twice to achieve deadlock.
I used such locks on a Holiday Let for years and years. And I was hardly going to leave the house even remotely vulnerable when it was empty.
-
Dead Locks on these locks can be opened from inside. Anyone who thinks otherwise has lost their marbles.
Until recently i was dealing with a Holiday Let that had the self same lock. I could get out but no one could get in.
Well it was quoted that previous tenant who wanted to keep the cleaners out but couldn't. even when they deadlocked the door from the inside.
"We noticed that the cleaning personnel entered the apartment after one knock and did not give us time to respond. This was a bit bothersome and for this reason we would lock the door, and would leave the key in the inside lock.
After this precaution, the next day, the same thing happened and the cleaning woman entered even though the door was locked with the key in the lock.
We never found out how it was possible for a cleaning woman to enter after we had tried to prevent it. " http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/CARLO-D_AMBROSIO.htm
OK admittedly they don't specifically say it was deadlocked but I think that was the intention.
-
I used such locks on a Holiday Let for years and years. And I was hardly going to leave the house even remotely vulnerable when it was empty.
How was a deadlock going to help you if it can be opened from the inside? Why did you feel more secure?
-
I used such locks on a Holiday Let for years and years. And I was hardly going to leave the house even remotely vulnerable when it was empty.
That's a very good point Eleanor. That finger-pull lever on the internal door mechanism must be the failsafe.
-
Well it was quoted that previous tenant who wanted to keep the cleaners out but couldn't. even when they deadlocked the door from the inside.
"We noticed that the cleaning personnel entered the apartment after one knock and did not give us time to respond. This was a bit bothersome and for this reason we would lock the door, and would leave the key in the inside lock.
After this precaution, the next day, the same thing happened and the cleaning woman entered even though the door was locked with the key in the lock.
We never found out how it was possible for a cleaning woman to enter after we had tried to prevent it. " http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/CARLO-D_AMBROSIO.htm
OK admittedly they don't specifically say it was deadlocked but I think that was the intention.
The Cleaner Had a Key. That is the be all and end all.
-
That's a very good point Eleanor. That finger-pull lever on the internal door mechanism must open it regardless of the deadlock I assume.
No in the locks at PdL I believe the pull lever only activated the the latch bolt and the key activated the deadlock bolt.
The purpose of a key operated deadbolt is to stop burglars exiting via the deadlocked doors, so they fail in their purpose if they can be unlocked without a key.
"Some people do lock the deadbolt when they’re at home but this is not advised because if there’s an emergency you can’t get out of the property quickly. If you do want to lock a deadbolt, you should have a key in the back of the deadbolt to give you an easy exit.
A common mistake people make with deadbolts is to leave a key in the back of the lock when they leave the property and then key-locking the deadbolt from the outside. If someone breaks in to the property through another door or window they can easily unlock the deadbolt and exit the property with all your belongings." https://www.realestate.com.au/advice/deadlatch-deadbolt-whats-difference/
-
The Cleaner Had a Key. That is the be all and end all.
Then you are confusing me for why did you say "Dead Locks on these locks can be opened from inside. Anyone who thinks otherwise has lost their marbles.
Until recently i was dealing with a Holiday Let that had the self same lock. I could get out but no one could get in."
Are you now saying they could get in if they had a key?
-
How was a deadlock going to help you if it can be opened from the inside? Why did you feel more secure?
I was trying to keep people out, not keeping people in. And I was going away leaving the property of someone else secure in my absence and when it was empty.
As it happens, most holiday makers failed to dead lock the doors when they left. They just pulled them to on the spring lock. I had to go around dead locking them. This wasn't a problem. I told you, Brits don't understand these locks. I do.
Whether or not a four year old could open a spring lock or a dead lock is a matter for debate. There is nothing wrong with the locks themselves. They are relatively easy to open from the inside without a key.
-
That's a very good point Eleanor. That finger-pull lever on the internal door mechanism must be the failsafe.
It is, from outside. From inside you just pull it. Could a four year old do that?
-
No in the locks at PdL I believe the pull lever only activated the the latch bolt and the key activated the deadlock bolt.
The purpose of a key operated deadbolt is to stop burglars exiting via the deadlocked doors, so they fail in their purpose if they can be unlocked without a key.
"Some people do lock the deadbolt when they’re at home but this is not advised because if there’s an emergency you can’t get out of the property quickly. If you do want to lock a deadbolt, you should have a key in the back of the deadbolt to give you an easy exit.
A common mistake people make with deadbolts is to leave a key in the back of the lock when they leave the property and then key-locking the deadbolt from the outside. If someone breaks in to the property through another door or window they can easily unlock the deadbolt and exit the property with all your belongings." https://www.realestate.com.au/advice/deadlatch-deadbolt-whats-difference/
Sorry, but you are wrong.
-
It is, from outside. From inside you just pull it. Could a four year old do that?
Yes IMO I'm sure she could, being a clever girl.
-
Then you are confusing me for why did you say "Dead Locks on these locks can be opened from inside. Anyone who thinks otherwise has lost their marbles.
Until recently i was dealing with a Holiday Let that had the self same lock. I could get out but no one could get in."
Are you now saying they could get in if they had a key?
Of course they could. That's why people have keys.
-
Yes IMO I'm sure she could, being a clever girl.
This is what we should be debating, and not some nonsense of a perfectly acceptable locking system, albeit different from UK or New Zealand.
These locks are never going to keep someone trapped inside a house. Just think about it for a minute.
-
Maybe Eleanor never uses the second lock or deadlock? At OC, you have to turn the key twice to achieve deadlock.
Are you sure of that John?
Cos I thought pulling the door closed created a locked situation from outside ... and just one turn of the key acheived deadlock
-
Their method was not a solution to the problem. it would have to be a very old fashioned lock for the key to activate the same barrel. The key would then need to be shaped with a degree of symmetry like the old Legge keys or as in the pic "Union" keys. (https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/ilAAAOSwEK9T9Pa5/s-l300.jpg)
I don’t think that you are right Rob about the type of key for the front door. There are other photographs that show that this type of key was used, but this one is the clearest and hopefully should suffice.
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Nigel/id21.htm
-snip-
But Portuguese police have always believed any intruder would have used the FRONT DOOR to enter, knowing the McCanns would never use it that night. He could also have escaped through the shuttered front window to the children's bedroom. For this he would have needed a KEY to the front door. The one the McCanns had for the Ocean Club apartment is known in the locksmiths' trade as a "crucifix key" - and is very unusual because it has four sides. Experienced British locksmith John Reeder told us the key used to take us into the flat yesterday is almost certainly a copy. He said: "Most locksmiths would not be able to copy it without great difficulty. The one in the picture is almost certainly not the original."
Supporting the theory that the kidnap could be an inside job, he added: "I would say it is most likely there is at least one other key in circulation as most locks come with at least two spares when they are cut. But there are not many keys aroun like this one." -snip-
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Nigel/sitebuilderpictures/notwkey.jpg
(http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Nigel/sitebuilderpictures/notwkey.jpg)
IMO the key in the picture has probably been forged which would make a very strong key. A cast lead copy-key could readily be made of it, but would be maleable and much less strong. It would probably only suffice for an odd use.... but that is all it would be needed for
-
I don’t think that you are right Rob about the type of key for the front door. There are other photographs that show that this type of key was used, but this one is the clearest and hopefully should suffice.
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Nigel/id21.htm
-snip-
But Portuguese police have always believed any intruder would have used the FRONT DOOR to enter, knowing the McCanns would never use it that night. He could also have escaped through the shuttered front window to the children's bedroom. For this he would have needed a KEY to the front door. The one the McCanns had for the Ocean Club apartment is known in the locksmiths' trade as a "crucifix key" - and is very unusual because it has four sides. Experienced British locksmith John Reeder told us the key used to take us into the flat yesterday is almost certainly a copy. He said: "Most locksmiths would not be able to copy it without great difficulty. The one in the picture is almost certainly not the original."
Supporting the theory that the kidnap could be an inside job, he added: "I would say it is most likely there is at least one other key in circulation as most locks come with at least two spares when they are cut. But there are not many keys aroun like this one." -snip-
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Nigel/sitebuilderpictures/notwkey.jpg
(http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Nigel/sitebuilderpictures/notwkey.jpg)
IMO the key in the picture has probably been forged which would make a very strong key. A cast lead copy-key could readily be made of it, but would be maleable and much less strong. It would probably only suffice for an odd use.... but that is all it would be needed for
I'm not saying they had old fashioned keys Sadie. I accept they had those 4 sided keys which would in all truth be hard to cast. So did the abductors have a full set of these keys so that no matter which apartment the McCanns were assigned to they had a key? Or did they just make it up that week?
When did the key get copied?
-
I'm not saying they had old fashioned keys Sadie. I accept they had those 4 sided keys which would in all truth be hard to cast. So did the abductors have a full set of these keys so that no matter which apartment the McCanns were assigned to they had a key? Or did they just make it up that week?
When did the key get copied?
There had been two burglaries in the block in the previous weeks. One successful and one not. It was thought a key had been used in at least one.
Snip
But there was no sign of forced entry at the second floor apartment and police called to the scene told the middle-aged book-keeper that they believed someone with a key was the most likely suspect, sparking concerns about security at the complex.
http://themaddiecasefiles.com/portuguese-police-to-re-examine-burglaries-at-19-0-t956.html
If the means of entry was using a key ... why might they not have had a key to the McCann apartment?
-
There had been two burglaries in the block in the previous weeks. One successful and one not. It was thought a key had been used in at least one.
Snip
But there was no sign of forced entry at the second floor apartment and police called to the scene told the middle-aged book-keeper that they believed someone with a key was the most likely suspect, sparking concerns about security at the complex.
http://themaddiecasefiles.com/portuguese-police-to-re-examine-burglaries-at-19-0-t956.html
If the means of entry was using a key ... why might they not have had a key to the McCann apartment?
why might they not have had a key to the McCann apartment?
Don't you remember? because the parents claimed they the shutters were jemmied, the window was open and the curtains were whoosing all over the place- which made the mother convinced that her daughter was abducted and explained this entry exit to the police.
When the police investigated this absurd story(all over every news outlet) it was changed to, well maybe they used a key? well maybe why bother when a perfectly good door was left unlocked is why.
Are the supporters now suggesting they do not accept Kates story about the shutters/window and curtains?
-
I'm not saying they had old fashioned keys Sadie. I accept they had those 4 sided keys which would in all truth be hard to cast. So did the abductors have a full set of these keys so that no matter which apartment the McCanns were assigned to they had a key? Or did they just make it up that week?
When did the key get copied?
They wouldn't be difficult to cast in lead Rob. Given the right coditions of a massive heat availability to melt the iron, they wouldn't be difficult to cast in iron either, then they would last longer, tho they would be very brittle.
I think lead castings could be done easily at home. Iron castings would need a foundry really, but then wouldn't be difficulteither IMO.
I worked in a foundry for two months as part of my design engineer training, and did everything from Pattern making, to core making, to ramming up the sand mould, to actually pouring the red hot, sparking molten metal. I also worked in the metallurgy lab there, testing to distruction the propertrties of the various materials used.
They were rough and ready, but the sweetest bunch of men there that I have ever met. I loved to watch them cooking their bacon breakfasts on the back of their shovels over this emormous furnace.
What amazing experiences I had just because, for a woman, I chose an unusual career. I was so lucky to mix with all types from labourer to MD /owner Sir ............ and I liked them all.
I think that Eleanor, too, chose a different unusual career and had amazing experiences. She was very skilled.
-
There had been two burglaries in the block in the previous weeks. One successful and one not. It was thought a key had been used in at least one.
Snip
But there was no sign of forced entry at the second floor apartment and police called to the scene told the middle-aged book-keeper that they believed someone with a key was the most likely suspect, sparking concerns about security at the complex.
http://themaddiecasefiles.com/portuguese-police-to-re-examine-burglaries-at-19-0-t956.html
If the means of entry was using a key ... why might they not have had a key to the McCann apartment?
Was it ever proven that a key was used or do we remain at the "it was thought" stage?. It was thought by whom ? and for what reason ? would be two good questions in that connexion.
-
Was it ever proven that a key was used or do we remain at the "it was thought" stage?. It was thought by whom ? and for what reason ? would be two good questions in that connexion.
Yes the supporters are still at the 'it was thought' stage and it was invented by one or more of them to absolve the parents of any responsibility of leaving three children in an unlocked apartment. And to move away from Kate and her 'I knew right away' story which doesn't hold any credibility what so ever. In fact the Police investigating were of the opinion that this was staged for their benefit.
-
why might they not have had a key to the McCann apartment?
Don't you remember? because the parents claimed they the shutters were jemmied, the window was open and the curtains were whoosing all over the place- which made the mother convinced that her daughter was abducted and explained this entry exit to the police.
When the police investigated this absurd story(all over every news outlet) it was changed to, well maybe they used a key? well maybe why bother when a perfectly good door was left unlocked is why.
Are the supporters now suggesting they do not accept Kates story about the shutters/window and curtains?
Speaking for myself, I totally accept what Kate said about the window being open, the shutters raised and the curtains whooshing.
What is more, I can understand that in the panic of the moment conclusions might have been made about why the window, shutters were open.
... and upon thinking about it more deeply and rationally, Kate and Gerry would have changed their ideas as to the way that Madeleine vanished
-
Was it ever proven that a key was used or do we remain at the "it was thought" stage?. It was thought by whom ? and for what reason ? would be two good questions in that connexion.
We've gone thru all that several times Alice. Please dont start if off again.
-
Speaking for myself, I totally accept what Kate said about the window being open, the shutters raised and the curtains whooshing.
What is more, I can understand that in the panic of the moment conclusions might have been made about why the window, shutters were open.
... and upon thinking about it more deeply and rationally, Kate and Gerry would have changed their ideas as to the way that Madeleine vanished
'Kate and Gerry would have changed their ideas as to the way that Madeleine vanished' Yes,indeed. Because when challenged on what they said, which didn't seem to fit properly, they changed their ideas... hmmmmm
So, you call them ideas I call them stories we should just shake hands and accept we do not agree on this particular issue.
-
They wouldn't be difficult to cast in lead Rob. Given the right coditions of a massive heat availability to melt the iron, they wouldn't be difficult to cast in iron either, then they would last longer, tho they would be very brittle.
''' snip very interesting ....
But I felt you didn't attempt my question "When did they do this?"
-
There had been two burglaries in the block in the previous weeks. One successful and one not. It was thought a key had been used in at least one.
Snip
But there was no sign of forced entry at the second floor apartment and police called to the scene told the middle-aged book-keeper that they believed someone with a key was the most likely suspect, sparking concerns about security at the complex.
http://themaddiecasefiles.com/portuguese-police-to-re-examine-burglaries-at-19-0-t956.html
If the means of entry was using a key ... why might they not have had a key to the McCann apartment?
They could have a key to 5A as well, but is it a heist with the intention of committing a theft or was it as Sadie theory targeted at abducting a specific child.
-
Yes the supporters are still at the 'it was thought' stage and it was invented by one or more of them to absolve the parents of any responsibility of leaving three children in an unlocked apartment. And to move away from Kate and her 'I knew right away' story which doesn't hold any credibility what so ever. In fact the Police investigating were of the opinion that this was staged for their benefit.
You might be right, but it could also that their opinion got in the way of a decent investigation. Too much opinion and not enough fact could result in a botched investigation.
-
'Kate and Gerry would have changed their ideas as to the way that Madeleine vanished' Yes,indeed. Because when challenged on what they said, which didn't seem to fit properly, they changed their ideas... hmmmmm
So, you call them ideas I call them stories we should just shake hands and accept we do not agree on this particular issue.
But do you have the answers?
-
But I felt you didn't attempt my question "When did they do this?"
How would I know the answer to that? It would just be guessing
-
They could have a key to 5A as well, but is it a heist with the intention of committing a theft or was it as Sadie theory targeted at abducting a specific child.
I agree with most of Sadie's theory. In particular I think there was too much activity going on around the McCann apartment in the days leading up to Madeleine's disappearance recalled by witnesses for her abduction not to have been planned.
If it was a heist what were they after? In my opinion there would be little money left at the end of the holiday and they would know that ... passports? ... a cheap camera?
-
I agree with most of Sadie's theory. In particular I think there was too much activity going on around the McCann apartment in the days leading up to Madeleine's disappearance recalled by witnesses for her abduction not to have been planned.
If it was a heist what were they after? In my opinion there would be little money left at the end of the holiday and they would know that ... passports? ... a cheap camera?
You've got it in one, Brietta. Too many people witnessed a man/ men watching the apartment in the days before, for it not to have been a planned abduction IMO
-
How would I know the answer to that? It would just be guessing
The whole theory is some form of guess isn't it? So no guessing just theoretically when?
-
How would I know the answer to that? It would just be guessing
But all the rest is just guessing?
-
I agree with most of Sadie's theory. In particular I think there was too much activity going on around the McCann apartment in the days leading up to Madeleine's disappearance recalled by witnesses for her abduction not to have been planned.
If it was a heist what were they after? In my opinion there would be little money left at the end of the holiday and they would know that ... passports? ... a cheap camera?
Could it have been the appartment that was planned? there was bound to be a girl child of that age in there at some point.
-
Could it have been the appartment that was planned? there was bound to be a girl child of that age in there at some point.
So just keep raiding the apartment until they found a girl of the right age?
-
Could it have been the appartment that was planned? there was bound to be a girl child of that age in there at some point.
Sounds like the old fashioned lucky dip.
-
So just keep raiding the apartment until they found a girl of the right age?
No, just keep watching. Once a week would have done until something turned up.
-
Sounds like the old fashioned lucky dip.
Certainly doesn't fit with the idea of the 'chosen one'
-
Could it have been the appartment that was planned? there was bound to be a girl child of that age in there at some point.
Out of any of the apartments I am familiar with in the Ocean Club it is one which in my opinion readily lends itself to ease of access and the occupancy of an appropriate child. Just a matter of time and if not Madeleine it would have been someone else.
It was easy to access particularly if a key had been provided ... and it was easy to exit from unobserved. I think the choice of apartment may well have been a factor.
-
If it wasn't Madeleine it would have been someone else? Nobody else has disappeared. It's a one-off for PDL but if idiots leave small defenceless children unguarded in an unlocked apartment or is that what they want you to think? Anyone can enter an unlocked apartment. You don't need no key like Gerry lol. Which one do you think it is for intelligent people? Is neglect the better option? Or are they really irresponsible idiots leaving doors unlocked and telling the truth?
-
If it wasn't Madeleine it would have been someone else? Nobody else has disappeared. It's a one-off for PDL but if idiots leave small defenceless children unguarded in an unlocked apartment or is that what they want you to think? Anyone can enter an unlocked apartment. You don't need no key like Gerry lol. Which one do you think it is for intelligent people? Is neglect the better option? Or are they really irresponsible idiots leaving doors unlocked and telling the truth?
Children were being assaulted in their beds while their parents slept in the room next door ... it happened ... so who is guilty?
If Madeleine was abducted by a stranger ... who is guilty?
In both instances I think it would be the aggressor ... and no-one else.
-
Out of any of the apartments I am familiar with in the Ocean Club it is one which in my opinion readily lends itself to ease of access and the occupancy of an appropriate child. Just a matter of time and if not Madeleine it would have been someone else.
It was easy to access particularly if a key had been provided ... and it was easy to exit from unobserved. I think the choice of apartment may well have been a factor.
Well, that's what I think. That Appartment was the most easy from which to steal a child. It could have been any girl child of that approximate age. Up stairs and down a corridor would have been too complicated.
Anyone who wants a girl child wouldn't want a street urchin who might have been ill bred and neglected.
It had to have been planned. This is just logic.
-
If it wasn't Madeleine it would have been someone else? Nobody else has disappeared. It's a one-off for PDL but if idiots leave small defenceless children unguarded in an unlocked apartment or is that what they want you to think? Anyone can enter an unlocked apartment. You don't need no key like Gerry lol. Which one do you think it is for intelligent people? Is neglect the better option? Or are they really irresponsible idiots leaving doors unlocked and telling the truth?
You could try making some sense. But never mind, eh, what.
-
Could it have been the appartment that was planned? there was bound to be a girl child of that age in there at some point.
That apartment was crying out to be broken into IMO. So easy to watch front and back from the balcony on block 6. So easy to get into it with a key, totally unobserved by anyone. That front door was hidden, out of sight and in a black hole that no-one would see an intruder going in or out.
Another thought is that if Madeleine was abducted for someone who wanted to keep his pure and VERY SPECIAL bloodline going when it was about to die out via an impotent wife ... and Madeleine was of his pure bloodline and a highly desirable mother for a future child to be born, then perhaps he made it his business to find out all about Madeleine.
Perhaps he knew about Madeleine staying at OC and arranged for her to be in that particular, easy to enter, in a hidden way, apartment.
This, of course, would involve some input from OC employees.
Only my ideas which may or may not be correct
-
That apartment was crying out to be broken into IMO. So easy to watch front and back from the balcony on block 6. So easy to get into it with a key, totally unobserved by anyone. That front door was hidden, out of sight and in a black hole that no-one would see an intruder going in or out.
Another thought is that if Madeleine was abducted for someone who wanted to keep his pure and VERY SPECIAL bloodline going when it was about to die out via an impotent wife ... and Madeleine was of his pure bloodline and a highly desirable mother for a future child to be born, then perhaps he made it his business to find out all about Madeleine.
Perhaps he knew about Madeleine staying at OC and arranged for her to be in that particular, easy to enter, in a hidden way, apartment.
This, of course, would involve some input from OC employees.
Only my ideas which may or may not be correct
Or another idea, I think Mohamed Fayed has a very interesting point to make.
Diana was a member of the Grail blood line and her correctly sired children could continue the legacy of the Holy Grail. She was going to marry Dodi, but under advice of the Catholic Church in France she did not go through with this action and she left by the back entrance of the hotel she was staying at after finishing the relationship. The Pope did not know about this change of heart and so arranged for the fatal crash to take place using his own Fiat Uno (translation ‘let there be one’) and once she was in hospital her eggs were removed by a pro-Catholic surgeon. It was hoped that the death of Mother Teresa would divert the world’s media attention from the death of Diana, but this did not work.
These eggs where stored by Opus Deus members who then planted them in to Kate McCann. These eggs were fertilized by JFK’s sperm, which was collected by the mafia in the hospital in Dallas, Texas when he was shot. JFK was also part of the bloodline of the Grail and the union of Marilyn Munroe would have produced a new Grail child and heir to the throne of Jerusalem. This was stopped when Marilyn was killed by orders of the Communist Party in Cuba who did not want JFK gaining more power and over throwing Castro.
The reason that the fertilization of the egg took part 7 years after Diana’s crash was the problem getting JFK’s sperm from the US, and finding a suitable family to foster the new Grail child. The Kate and Jerry McCann’s are a Catholic family and received orders from the Pope to carry and raise this child. Madeleine (Mary Magdalene - mother of the original Grail child) has the unique eye pattern that all heirs to the Grail thrown possess.
Madeleine McCann went to Portugal (Catholic country) with her family to undertake instruction to become the new Queen of Jerusalem. It was hoped that with the new Pope, she would rise to her duties and unite the Christian Church and over throw the up rising of Islam in Europe and Africa. This was also backed by the Skull and Bones sect in the US, as well as members of the New World Order.
Madeleine was abducted from orders of Osman Bin Laden who foresaw her rise to power and the problems this would cause in his rise to world power. She was moved to Morocco and then on to Pakistan where she will be forced to breed with the bloodline of Mohammed to produce a super bloodline.
-
As the OP asks "So when he (DP) says "as the door was shut" when is he making that assessment about the door?
IMO that means when he rushes back to look, because it was closed and Kate had found the other doors closed has he ruled out wandering off? The Tapas 7 can't have ruled out wandering immediately for all the searches completed in the first 10 -20 minutes were for a girl that had wandered off.
-
Does anyone agree with me "The Tapas 7 can't have ruled out Madeleine wandering off immediately for all the searches completed in the first 10-20 minutes were for a girl that had wandered off"?
-
Does anyone agree with me "The Tapas 7 can't have ruled out Madeleine wandering off immediately for all the searches completed in the first 10-20 minutes were for a girl that had wandered off"?
I think they HOPED that she had wandered off, rather than been abducted. After a quick search their thoughts must have turned to abduction, especially after Jane Tanners sighting
-
Or another idea, I think Mohamed Fayed has a very interesting point to make.
Diana was a member of the Grail blood line and her correctly sired children could continue the legacy of the Holy Grail. She was going to marry Dodi, but under advice of the Catholic Church in France she did not go through with this action and she left by the back entrance of the hotel she was staying at after finishing the relationship. The Pope did not know about this change of heart and so arranged for the fatal crash to take place using his own Fiat Uno (translation ‘let there be one’) and once she was in hospital her eggs were removed by a pro-Catholic surgeon. It was hoped that the death of Mother Teresa would divert the world’s media attention from the death of Diana, but this did not work.
These eggs where stored by Opus Deus members who then planted them in to Kate McCann. These eggs were fertilized by JFK’s sperm, which was collected by the mafia in the hospital in Dallas, Texas when he was shot. JFK was also part of the bloodline of the Grail and the union of Marilyn Munroe would have produced a new Grail child and heir to the throne of Jerusalem. This was stopped when Marilyn was killed by orders of the Communist Party in Cuba who did not want JFK gaining more power and over throwing Castro.
The reason that the fertilization of the egg took part 7 years after Diana’s crash was the problem getting JFK’s sperm from the US, and finding a suitable family to foster the new Grail child. The Kate and Jerry McCann’s are a Catholic family and received orders from the Pope to carry and raise this child. Madeleine (Mary Magdalene - mother of the original Grail child) has the unique eye pattern that all heirs to the Grail thrown possess.
Madeleine McCann went to Portugal (Catholic country) with her family to undertake instruction to become the new Queen of Jerusalem. It was hoped that with the new Pope, she would rise to her duties and unite the Christian Church and over throw the up rising of Islam in Europe and Africa. This was also backed by the Skull and Bones sect in the US, as well as members of the New World Order.
Madeleine was abducted from orders of Osman Bin Laden who foresaw her rise to power and the problems this would cause in his rise to world power. She was moved to Morocco and then on to Pakistan where she will be forced to breed with the bloodline of Mohammed to produce a super bloodline.
Interesting.
Where did you get this from slarti ?
-
I think they HOPED that she had wandered off, rather than been abducted. After a quick search their thoughts must have turned to abduction, especially after Jane Tanners sighting
I have been trying to pin point when the information about what Jane saw was told to the rest. It seems to be at odds to a woke and wandering scenario.
-
I have been trying to pin point when the information about what Jane saw was told to the rest. It seems to be at odds to a woke and wandering scenario.
It's in one of the statements, I think ... but sorry apart from it being a Tapas group statement I cant recall whose it was in. Maybe Janes? or Fionas?
Please dont spend all day looking for it because someone will turn it up eventually, if I am right.
-
It's in one of the statements, I think ... but sorry apart from it being a Tapas group statement I cant recall whose it was in. Maybe Janes? or Fionas?
Please dont spend all day looking for it because someone will turn it up eventually, if I am right.
I've put all statements in each alphabetical section on a single Word file and then I can search for a specific word and find things real quick. The Tapas 7 file is 745 pages long. I'll look for the word "carrying" OK carrying comes up 65 times.
First was Rachael Rogatory "00:54:03 1485 "The fact that Jane had come back having seen a male carrying a child.'
Reply "Mm.'
1485 "Could you introduce that within your recollection''
Reply "I can, err it was never mentioned at that table when she came back, err when we went, you know, looking for Madeleine after err Fiona told me that she'd, you know, mentioned this to Fiona and you know so it's, obviously Fiona's statement's probably more important from this point of view exactly what she said about it.'
1485 "Yeah, yeah.'
Reply "But I know from Fiona that this was mentioned and I think it was in the context that she was really worried saying anything to Kate to, to upset her which you know looking from, from people observing out, in at this, they'll probably think well hang on, you think that someone's just seen, but you know, again, it was a, a resort where there was a lot of children around err very, it's a small friendly place and she just thought it was one of the parents who you know was perhaps, you know they'd be staying in one apartment and were transferring their child back to another apartment.'
1485 "Yeah.'
Reply "And really didn't think twice about it at the time and that's why it wasn't mentioned then. But she definitely mentioned it to me you know after Madeleine had been abducted and you know on the, the following day before she'd actually mentioned it to Kate and there was a, a newspaper report, I think it was in the Telegraph err certainly one of the newspapers anyway, that was sort of describing err Madeleine's pyjamas and, and err Jane said that's not right, how did they get that, well she said you know, that in, I don't know how they get that information anyway,...."
Gerald must have known about it before they drew up the timelines.
-
Problem with this method is that I find a result in this long file but I struggle to know who was the witness being interviewed
-
Interesting.
Where did you get this from slarti ?
Oh I couldn’t reveal my source.
-
Oh I couldn’t reveal my source.
A couple of guesses
1) You made it up. Very cleverly done, if so
2) David Icke or Aagarifan or the like
Am I close?
-
Does anyone agree with me "The Tapas 7 can't have ruled out Madeleine wandering off immediately for all the searches completed in the first 10-20 minutes were for a girl that had wandered off"?
Yes I agree. however, did Kate not say she knew right away her daughter was abducted? I mean there is a difference. If you think she wandered of you would check all nooks and crannies in the adjacent areas while at the same time contact the police immediately. This didn't happen! Kate did not address the tapas group with words like 'Maddie has been abducted from her bed please help someone phone the police'...This was an afterthought.. who else noticed the shutters and window open with blowing curtains when they all went back to mess up the 'crime' scene.
-
Yes I agree. however, did Kate not say she knew right away her daughter was abducted? I mean there is a difference. If you think she wandered of you would check all nooks and crannies in the adjacent areas while at the same time contact the police immediately. This didn't happen! Kate did not address the tapas group with words like 'Maddie has been abducted from her bed please help someone phone the police'...This was an afterthought.. who else noticed the shutters and window open with blowing curtains when they all went back to mess up the 'crime' scene.
Is this a Spoonerism and you really meant to say Crooks and Nannies?
-
Yes I agree. however, did Kate not say she knew right away her daughter was abducted? I mean there is a difference. If you think she wandered of you would check all nooks and crannies in the adjacent areas while at the same time contact the police immediately. This didn't happen! Kate did not address the tapas group with words like 'Maddie has been abducted from her bed please help someone phone the police'...This was an afterthought.. who else noticed the shutters and window open with blowing curtains when they all went back to mess up the 'crime' scene.
I don't know if you have been following the thread about Arlindo, but I'm convinced now that the GNR were contacted immediately via Arlindo and Helder, who knew that the GNR were held up in Odiaxere with the alarms going off. The GNR got there as quickly as they could. Kate or Gerry ringing in would not have changed that while they were uncertain that Madeleine could or could not be found. Even when the GNR arrived they were still of the opinion she had wandered off even though people had been searching for close to an hour without success.
-
I don't know if you have been following the thread about Arlindo, but I'm convinced now that the GNR were contacted immediately via Arlindo and Helder, who knew that the GNR were held up in Odiaxere with the alarms going off. The GNR got there as quickly as they could. Kate or Gerry ringing in would not have changed that while they were uncertain that Madeleine could or could not be found. Even when the GNR arrived they were still of the opinion she had wandered off even though people had been searching for close to an hour without success.
Helder Luis :"He knows about the situation that happened at the Ocean Club concerning the disappearance of a little given that on the day in question (03/05/2007) he was on duty and was contacted by a member of staff from the Tapas Restaurant between 09.30 and 22.00 who informed him that the daughter of some guests who were dining there had disappeared.
That he immediately contacted the GNR in Lagos, shortly after this the child's father and John Hill arrived at the reception and he phoned the GNR again.
He then contacted the head of reception Vitor Santos and informed him of the situation." http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/HELDER_LUIS.htm
How do we confirm this? - Vitor Santos would not have known about this if it hadn't happened "With regard to the date of the disappearance on 3rd May 2007, he remembers that at 22.00/22.15 he received a phone call from the reception, from receptionist Helder, who told him that John Hill was extremely agitated as a child had disappeared and that the GNR had been contacted but had not arrived yet. He added (the receptionist) that he had phoned the GNR post several times and that he had been told that they would arrive when they could but that they were investigating a theft in Odiaxere. The receptionist asked the witness whether he should contact the PSP, to which the witness replied no as this area belongs to the GNR." http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/VITOR-SANTOS.htm
So any thought that the Police weren't called ASAP is incorrect.
-
Helder Luis :"He knows about the situation that happened at the Ocean Club concerning the disappearance of a little given that on the day in question (03/05/2007) he was on duty and was contacted by a member of staff from the Tapas Restaurant between 09.30 and 22.00 who informed him that the daughter of some guests who were dining there had disappeared.
That he immediately contacted the GNR in Lagos, shortly after this the child's father and John Hill arrived at the reception and he phoned the GNR again.
He then contacted the head of reception Vitor Santos and informed him of the situation." http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/HELDER_LUIS.htm
How do we confirm this? - Vitor Santos would not have known about this if it hadn't happened "With regard to the date of the disappearance on 3rd May 2007, he remembers that at 22.00/22.15 he received a phone call from the reception, from receptionist Helder, who told him that John Hill was extremely agitated as a child had disappeared and that the GNR had been contacted but had not arrived yet. He added (the receptionist) that he had phoned the GNR post several times and that he had been told that they would arrive when they could but that they were investigating a theft in Odiaxere. The receptionist asked the witness whether he should contact the PSP, to which the witness replied no as this area belongs to the GNR." http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/VITOR-SANTOS.htm
So any thought that the Police weren't called ASAP is incorrect.
OK so what we have is times as guestimates because the story unfolds that 22.00 Kate finds Maddie missing, she does a quick search, then runs to tell the others, then they all go and search the apartment, so the phone call could not have been made at 22.00. either Kate and the tapas are giving the wrong time or the receptionist is?
-
OK so what we have is times as guestimates because the story unfolds that 22.00 Kate finds Maddie missing, she does a quick search, then runs to tell the others, then they all go and search the apartment, so the phone call could not have been made at 22.00. either Kate and the tapas are giving the wrong time or the receptionist is?
In the story I'm telling it appears from the evidence in the file that the first phone call to the police was before the Tapas friends had even spoken about ringing the police.
From the evidence in Stephen Carpenter's statement, and Amy Tierney's statement at least one person was looking for Madeleine prior to Kate's alert. Whether that person spoke to Arlindo is not certain but Arlindo does appear to have prior knowledge.
I am thinking for that person to know to look for Madeleine prior to Kate's alert there has to be a reason this happens. The woman who picks up the child from the night creche identifies the person as a Mark Warner guest according to Charlotte Pennington. (Dispatches documentary).
How come the PJ didn't find out who had children at the night creche and interview this lady and get her to identify the man she spoke to beats me.
-
In the story I'm telling it appears from the evidence in the file that the first phone call to the police was before the Tapas friends had even spoken about ringing the police.
From the evidence in Stephen Carpenter's statement, and Amy Tierney's statement at least one person was looking for Madeleine prior to Kate's alert. Whether that person spoke to Arlindo is not certain but Arlindo does appear to have prior knowledge.
I am thinking for that person to know to look for Madeleine prior to Kate's alert there has to be a reason this happens. The woman who picks up the child from the night creche identifies the person as a Mark Warner quest according to Charlotte Pennington. (Dispatches documentary).
How come the PJ didn't find out who had children at the night creche and interview this lady and get her to identify the man she spoke to beats me.
Yeah, strange that. Maybe the timeline according to some was not all together accurate, that could explain it.
-
A Mark Warner guest, a man, out on the streets just prior to 10:00 PM that knows Madeleine by name must be within rather a limited number of people.
Note: I'm not suggesting this person has done anything wrong or illegal.
-
When was it shut? David Payne says "no one could have got in that way if that's the way they entered as the door was shut"
Lets go through the timeline:
The front door was shut when the McCanns left their apartment.
If then someone enters via that front door obviously they have a means of opening the door. It is no longer shut, then is it.
So when he says "as the door was shut" when is he making that assessment about the door?
David Payne Quotes:
and again "I said well look how do you know that is the case, and err you know again I, I can't remember the exact words then, but I was very interested in finding what the state of the apartment was like when she'd got there to see who'd left err doors open or etcetera. And from my point of view you know the things that were, I think it was really pertinent to me was that there was two, there was two gates on the back entrance from that apartment. There's the gate which is immediately bring, you know brings you on to the err the road and then there was another child gate, that was at the top and I, you know, and given the fact that the front door was shut".
Reply "Err we, you know, we ran up err to the apartment, you know, with, with err you know Kate and Gerry err and you know for me, I just wanted to know, as I say, about the access to the apartment, were those gates open, err because in my mind was that if the front door was shut there was no, you know there won't be, you know there was no way that she could have wandered out that way and nor would they have gained access in that way. Err also obviously the, the, the issue with the, the shutters had been raised, was brought up err you know on the way up as well and then I was asking about the gates being shut at that back and she said well both gates you know were shut, so in my mind, you know, that had ruled it out that Madeleine had err had wandered off."
Kate told Dave that both gates were shut?
2200: (approx): KM leaves table to check children in 5A. The patio gate is closed and the child gate is also probably closed.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TIME_LINE_3_MAY_07.htm
-
Kate told Dave that both gates were shut?
2200: (approx): KM leaves table to check children in 5A. The patio gate is closed and the child gate is also probably closed.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TIME_LINE_3_MAY_07.htm
Is this, second hand non verbatim twice translated that you are now relying on?
-
Both gates were found closed on Kate's visit.
The McCanns have told us this during an Irish TV interview, that I've referenced ad nauseam.
https://youtu.be/WLvnfcl-Zkg?t=1370
-
Kate told Dave that both gates were shut?
2200: (approx): KM leaves table to check children in 5A. The patio gate is closed and the child gate is also probably closed.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TIME_LINE_3_MAY_07.htm
I am sure David's references were to the front door.
He makes it perfectly clear in the quote I gave. "David Payne Quotes:
and again "I said well look how do you know that is the case, and err you know again I, I can't remember the exact words then, but I was very interested in finding what the state of the apartment was like when she'd got there to see who'd left err doors open or etcetera. And from my point of view you know the things that were, I think it was really pertinent to me was that there was two, there was two gates on the back entrance from that apartment. There's the gate which is immediately bring, you know brings you on to the err the road and then there was another child gate, that was at the top and I, you know, and given the fact that the front door was shut".
OK he maybe confirming the gates were shut , but Kate had already gone through those herself so how did he confirm they were shut when Kate entered at the commencement of her check?
-
Is this, second hand non verbatim twice translated that you are now relying on?
Why don't you follow the link and find out?
-
I am sure David's references were to the front door.
He makes it perfectly clear in the quote I gave. "David Payne Quotes:
and again "I said well look how do you know that is the case, and err you know again I, I can't remember the exact words then, but I was very interested in finding what the state of the apartment was like when she'd got there to see who'd left err doors open or etcetera. And from my point of view you know the things that were, I think it was really pertinent to me was that there was two, there was two gates on the back entrance from that apartment. There's the gate which is immediately bring, you know brings you on to the err the road and then there was another child gate, that was at the top and I, you know, and given the fact that the front door was shut".
OK he maybe confirming the gates were shut , but Kate had already gone through those herself so how did he confirm they were shut when Kate entered at the commencement of her check?
By way of Kate telling him so, I believe.
"I said well look how do you know that is the case"
To which Kate must have replied.
And she was telling the truth, to suggest otherwise would be libel.....or would it?
-
Is this, second hand non verbatim twice translated that you are now relying on?
Good point and I have just confirmed that the rogatory interviews don't seem to have been translated back and forth as there are no photographs of the Portuguese language version in the released file.
So the answer is no it is not a "second hand non verbatim twice translated" file that we are now relying on.
-
Both gates were found closed on Kate's visit.
The McCanns have told us this during an Irish TV interview, that I've referenced ad nauseam.
https://youtu.be/WLvnfcl-Zkg?t=1370
I prefer to think that her memory would be more accurate a few days after the event than four years later.
-
I prefer to think that her memory would be more accurate a few days after the event than four years later.
I prefer to believe everything & anything that Kate said, whilst I'm on 15% warning.
-
By way of Kate telling him so, I believe.
"I said well look how do you know that is the case"
To which Kate must have replied.
And she was telling the truth, to suggest otherwise would be libel.....or would it?
According to Matthew the child gate may have been open. If so, he is likely to have left it as he found it in my opinion;
The outside gate is probably shut, but the child gate on the stairs up to the patio is possibly open. The patio door is closed but unlocked.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TIME_LINE_3_MAY_07.htm
-
By way of Kate telling him so, I believe.
"I said well look how do you know that is the case"
To which Kate must have replied.
And she was telling the truth, to suggest otherwise would be libel.....or would it?
Thanks for that help. From David's rogatory David is fair questioning Kate as they are approaching the apartment. Something that hadn't really sunk in till now.
"then Kate came back just after ten o' clock, you know absolutely distraught err you know just, you know her face I'll never forget. It was a face of someone's child who had been taken and you know and very clearly said she's gone, she's you know, she's gone, you know and there was a disbelief on our face you know ah you know you must be mistaken, what, and then you know just looking at her we just all err left the table, rushed over to her and as we were walking up towards the flat she said err you know they've taken her and it was, you know, and I know there's been a controversy about what was actually said but you know that is very accurately what had been said. Like I say, as I say you know you could just never forget her face and those words, and err as we were, you know, approaching their apartment I was just saying to Kate,
I said well look how do you know that is the case, and err you know again I, I can't remember the exact words then, but I was very interested in finding what the state of the apartment was like when she'd got there to see who'd left err doors open or etcetera. And from my point of view you know the things that were, I think it was really pertinent to me was that there was two, there was two gates on the back entrance from that apartment. There's the gate which is immediately bring, you know brings you on to the err the road and then there was another child gate, that was at the top and I, you know, and given the fact that the front door was shut I was just saying well what was the state of those two gates, were those gates open when you went up or were they shut, and she was adamant that those two gates were shut. Well you know there was two possibilities, she'd either been taken or she'd wandered off, no child is gonna wander off and shut two gates behind them so at that moment I knew, although I didn't want to believe it, but I knew that she'd been abducted." End quote.
But he seemed to also come to a narrow conclusion although I didn't want to believe it, but I knew that she'd been abducted. as he hadn't considered that someone else could have noticed Madeleine missing before Kate did and closed the doors for the safety of the twins.
He "knew she'd been abducted but still searched in the immediate area. Now that is a bit contradictory. Why wasn't he organising road blocks or the like? Why didn't he suggest to ring the PJ immediately? Why didn't he stop anyone touching the shutters and the windows?
-
Good point and I have just confirmed that the rogatory interviews don't seem to have been translated back and forth as there are no photographs of the Portuguese language version in the released file.
So the answer is no it is not a "second hand non verbatim twice translated" file that we are now relying on.
Did you miss this little addition to the rogatory statements shown online?
"TRANSCRIPT BY DUARTE LEVY"
Where is the signed & witnessed copy of the transcript?
-
Thanks for that help. From David's rogatory David is fair questioning Kate as they are approaching the apartment. Something that hadn't really sunk in till now.
"then Kate came back just after ten o' clock, you know absolutely distraught err you know just, you know her face I'll never forget. It was a face of someone's child who had been taken and you know and very clearly said she's gone, she's you know, she's gone, you know and there was a disbelief on our face you know ah you know you must be mistaken, what, and then you know just looking at her we just all err left the table, rushed over to her and as we were walking up towards the flat she said err you know they've taken her and it was, you know, and I know there's been a controversy about what was actually said but you know that is very accurately what had been said. Like I say, as I say you know you could just never forget her face and those words, and err as we were, you know, approaching their apartment I was just saying to Kate,
I said well look how do you know that is the case, and err you know again I, I can't remember the exact words then, but I was very interested in finding what the state of the apartment was like when she'd got there to see who'd left err doors open or etcetera. And from my point of view you know the things that were, I think it was really pertinent to me was that there was two, there was two gates on the back entrance from that apartment. There's the gate which is immediately bring, you know brings you on to the err the road and then there was another child gate, that was at the top and I, you know, and given the fact that the front door was shut I was just saying well what was the state of those two gates, were those gates open when you went up or were they shut, and she was adamant that those two gates were shut. Well you know there was two possibilities, she'd either been taken or she'd wandered off, no child is gonna wander off and shut two gates behind them so at that moment I knew, although I didn't want to believe it, but I knew that she'd been abducted." End quote.
But he seemed to also come to a narrow conclusion although I didn't want to believe it, but I knew that she'd been abducted. as he hadn't considered that someone else could have noticed Madeleine missing before Kate did and closed the doors for the safety of the twins.
He "knew she'd been abducted but still searched in the immediate area. Now that is a bit contradictory. Why wasn't he organising road blocks or the like? Why didn't he suggest to ring the PJ immediately? Why didn't he stop anyone touching the shutters and the windows?
Indeed, he knew, but didn't suggest or insist on calling the police, and as I pointed out previously, neither did Kate or Gerry, despite their certainty.
It took Fiona to send Matt to reception, whilst they searched as if looking for a child who wandered off.
The not calling the police immediately scenario has always struck me as suspicious.
-
Kate told Dave that both gates were shut?
2200: (approx): KM leaves table to check children in 5A. The patio gate is closed and the child gate is also probably closed.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TIME_LINE_3_MAY_07.htm
Who writes up this timeline? Is it entirely based on what the witnesses have stated in their statements?
I am totally surprised by this few lines about what Matthew Oldfield must have said to the PJ:
Quote: "2130: RJO remains in 5D as daughter has vomited. MO goes to check on 5A via the patio gate entrance. The outside gate is probably shut, but the child gate on the stairs up to the patio is possibly open. The patio door is closed but unlocked.
Does Matthew say that in any of his statements? Find it.
-
Indeed, he knew, but didn't suggest or insist on calling the police, and as I pointed out previously, neither did Kate or Gerry, despite their certainty.
It took Fiona to send Matt to reception, whilst they searched as if looking for a child who wandered off.
The not calling the police immediately scenario has always struck me as suspicious.
Why suspicious? Does every parent who loses their child in a shopping centre immediately call 999 because the situation is another James Bulger?
-
Why suspicious? Does every parent who loses their child in a shopping centre immediately call 999 because the situation is another James Bulger?
....because that's how I perceive it.
I don't see any similarity with the Bulger case.
They were in a shopping centre, the child wandered off or was led away, Ms Fergus had no reason to immediatley suspect an abduction, only that James had wandered off.
Whereas, Kate knew Maddie didn't open the window & shutters herself, hence she had no doubt, neither did Gerry or David, apparently.
-
Why suspicious? Does every parent who loses their child in a shopping centre immediately call 999 because the situation is another James Bulger?
Misty I think the point we are making is that DP is claiming he knew it was an abduction even while he was walking toward the apartment. If you are convinced your actions should confirm that IMO.
"Every parent who loses their child in a shopping centre" should "immediately call 999" if they know the child has been abducted"
-
....because that's how I perceive it.
I don't see any similarity with the Bulger case.
They were in a shopping centre, the child wandered off or was led away, Ms Fergus had no reason to suspect abduction, only that James had wandered off.
Whereas, Kate knew Maddie didn't open the window & shutters herself, hence she had no doubt, neither did Gerry or David, apparently.
Wouldn't you have found it more suspicious if they had not immediately searched, called the police & sat around waiting for the GNR to arrive?
-
Misty I think the point we are making is that DP is claiming he knew it was an abduction even while he was walking toward the apartment. If you are convinced your actions should confirm that IMO.
"Every parent who loses their child in a shopping centre" should "immediately call 999" if they know the child has been abducted"
DP believed what Kate was telling him. He was not in a position to know what may have occurred until he had survey the scene himself. A panic-stricken person can overlook the obvious, especially when that person hadn't been out into the front car park or checked with Jane in 5D.
-
Wouldn't you have found it more suspicious if they had not immediately searched, called the police & sat around waiting for the GNR to arrive?
No, I wouldn't.
If one of the three who were sure, had seen to it personally that the police were informed immediately, I would have found that less suspicious. I would have regarded that as entirely in keeping with their immediate certainty that an abduction had occurred, so I would.
-
Wouldn't you have found it more suspicious if they had not immediately searched, called the police & sat around waiting for the GNR to arrive?
Honestly - NO.
Provided the OC still activated their missing child procedure. Why because the likes of Pathfinder (if I understand his theory correctly) seem to suggest the McCanns used the pretence of searching as a method to remove the body away from the crime scene.
I don't quite understand when GA thought the McCanns removed the body away from the crime scene. But I have a feeling it was much later in the morning e.g between 5 - 7 AM. Did he ever say?
I know Gerry posed the question "When did we remove the body?" A damn good question IMO.
-
DP believed what Kate was telling him. He was not in a position to know what may have occurred until he had survey the scene himself. A panic-stricken person can overlook the obvious, especially when that person hadn't been out into the front car park or checked with Jane in 5D.
Explain how Jane could have known anything?
-
Explain how Jane could have known anything?
Jane didn't know anything for definite. She equated her sighting earlier in the evening with the possibility that the man was carrying Madeleine but, like anyone, would have prayed that wasn't the case & Madeleine would quickly have been found. Had she not seen the man + child the searches would have been carried out in the same way they were. IMO
-
Honestly - NO.
Provided the OC still activated their missing child procedure. Why because the likes of Pathfinder (if I understand his theory correctly) seem to suggest the McCanns used the pretence of searching as a method to remove the body away from the crime scene.
I don't quite understand when GA thought the McCanns removed the body away from the crime scene. But I have a feeling it was much later in the morning e.g between 5 - 7 AM. Did he ever say?
I know Gerry posed the question "When did we remove the body?" A damn good question IMO.
When viewed from the perspective of a staged abduction, that's when I query Gerry's 9pm check taking so long, (long enough for Jane to notice he was taking his time) I don't believe he was watching football.
-
Jane didn't know anything for definite. She equated her sighting earlier in the evening with the possibility that the man was carrying Madeleine but, like anyone, would have prayed that wasn't the case & Madeleine would quickly have been found. Had she not seen the man + child the searches would have been carried out in the same way they were. IMO
But she did see the sighting and told her friends but strangely no on said "then let's go look in that direction ". Bizarre !
-
But she did see the sighting and told her friends but strangely no on said "then let's go look in that direction ". Bizarre !
It would have been totally illogical for everyone to have gone searching in one direction, given the time elapsed since Jane's sighting & no evidence that the child being carried was Madeleine.
-
Jane didn't know anything for definite. She equated her sighting earlier in the evening with the possibility that the man was carrying Madeleine but, like anyone, would have prayed that wasn't the case & Madeleine would quickly have been found. Had she not seen the man + child the searches would have been carried out in the same way they were. IMO
What about a scenario like this:
After Russell went back to finish his meal, Jane heard Madeleine crying and went to the apartment and took Madeleine to her apartment, planning to tell Kate at the earliest opportunity.
In that situation Jane would have known something so the guys had to confirm she wasn't in one of the other apartments, and it says that they checked this.
-
What about a scenario like this:
After Russell went back to finish his meal, Jane heard Madeleine crying and went to the apartment and took Madeleine to her apartment, planning to tell Kate at the earliest opportunity.
In that situation Jane would have known something so the guys had to confirm she wasn't in one of the other apartments, and it says that they checked this.
How would Jane have heard Madeleine crying?
-
How would Jane have heard Madeleine crying?
They are only three doors down 5B and 5C between them. And she has just walked past on her way to relieve Russell.
-
What about a scenario like this:
After Russell went back to finish his meal, Jane heard Madeleine crying and went to the apartment and took Madeleine to her apartment, planning to tell Kate at the earliest opportunity.
In that situation Jane would have known something so the guys had to confirm she wasn't in one of the other apartments, and it says that they checked this.
Sorry Rob, but Jane was in their apartment looking after their little one who was sick. Madeleine was too far way for Jane to hear her even had she been wailing her head off
IMO of course.
-
What about a scenario like this:
After Russell went back to finish his meal, Jane heard Madeleine crying and went to the apartment and took Madeleine to her apartment, planning to tell Kate at the earliest opportunity.
In that situation Jane would have known something so the guys had to confirm she wasn't in one of the other apartments, and it says that they checked this.
There is absolutely no suggestion that anything like that happened, Robitty, therefore such speculation is in my opinion unwarranted.
-
They are only three doors down 5B and 5C between them. And she has just walked past on her way to relieve Russell.
Jane was not close enough to the bedroom of 5A to hear any crying. The only place she could have heard it was when walking up RDFGdM passing underneath the lounge & kitchen windows.
Why wouldn't she have told Russell before he went back to the Tapas Bar & how would she have got into 5A without going around to the patio door?
-
Sorry Rob, but Jane was in their apartment looking after their little one who was sick. Madeleine was too far way for Jane to hear her even had she been wailing her head off
IMO of course.
It is just a hypothetical situation but if Madeleine had made it out to the patio then I'm sure if Jane had stepped out as well she could have heard. Madeleine had a loud McCann volume voice, I've heard Kate say that.
There is absolutely no suggestion that anything like that happened, Robitty, therefore such speculation is in my opinion unwarranted.
It is not speculation but just one of the things the Tapas 9 had to consider. There is evidence that they did consider this as they searched the other apartments in case there had been any opportunity Madeleine had gone into another apartment.
-
You all seem to be getting confused between things that they needed to check for and what actually happened. They searched the pools but she wasn't in there, they also checked the other Tapas apartments in case she had got into one of them somehow.
I read it today so I should be able to find it again.
This isn't it but it is close Rachael Oldfield Rogatory:
"Matt and I went round and went to our apartment to check on Grace, erm and she was there, erm and then Matt sort of went back and I think he went off to sort of look a bit more and search and he, he went down to call the Police at the main reception of the Ocean Club, erm and I just stayed near our apartment really and Jane was, she didn't know what happened, she was looking after Evie, so I went to tell Jane what had happened, erm I think it must have been, must have been after we checked on Grace or sort of, after we checked on Grace and come out and I think perhaps Kate and Fi were standing by the window, like on the outside of the apartment and no, Kate, I think Kate had said you know, somebodys taken her, cos the shutter was up and the window was open, erm yeah, I think it was then that we kind of realised that she'd been taken, erm as, you know, as opposed to just kind of wandering out of her bed and just wondering where people were, erm and then, and I remember then going to talk to Jane and Matt went off and that, I went to talk to Jane....."
-
Even David went and check his apartment DP rogatory "You know we, you know we didn't know what to do, we went running around you know err the safety of my own you know children, you know I started, you wanted to check that your own two are alright so I, some say I ran up to our apartment and checked they were alright."
At the same time you are looking at your own kids you are looking for the presence of Madeleine IMO.
-
It is just a hypothetical situation but if Madeleine had made it out to the patio then I'm sure if Jane had stepped out as well she could have heard. Madeleine had a loud McCann volume voice, I've heard Kate say that.
It is not speculation but just one of the things the Tapas 9 had to consider. There is evidence that they did consider this as they searched the other apartments in case there had been any opportunity Madeleine had gone into another apartment.
You've lost me. I know they ran and checked on their own children and checked if the windows were unlocked but when did they search the other apartments looking for Madeleine?
-
You've lost me. I know they ran and checked on their own children and checked if the windows were unlocked but when did they search the other apartments looking for Madeleine?
Each family checked their own apartment, except for Jane's it read like Rachael and Jane went through there. [PS: I might still be a bit wrong there as it sounds like the both checked on Grace - who is Rachael's kid not Jane's.]
-
Each family checked their own apartment, except for Jane's it read like Rachael and Jane went through there.
One of the children from their party was missing. They had all left their children in exactly the same circumstances.
Their priority was to check on their own children in their respective apartments ... imagine the horror of the situation.
-
A Mark Warner guest, a man, out on the streets just prior to 10:00 PM that knows Madeleine by name must be within rather a limited number of people.
Note: I'm not suggesting this person has done anything wrong or illegal.
Bear in mind that that is his recollection of what his wife vaguely remembered. I haven't come across a statement by her.
At approximately half past eight, Gerry and Kate and their group of approximately ten people were already seated at their table, which was so close to ours that it was possible to converse with them, we spoke of tennis amongst other things,
snip
Between approximately a quarter past nine and half past nine we left the Tapas bar to go home, we walked across the MW reception area, crossed the road and a semi circular path to return to the apartment, were we put the children to bed and a short while later did the same ourselves. I do not remember seeing or hearing anyone during our return to the apartment. When I crossed the road outside the MW reception I remember there were cars parked, I remember taking some time to see if I could cross the road because there were cars parked to my left and I was carrying I****.
snip
My wife mentioned on the following day that she vaguely remembered someone calling "Madeleine, Madeleine", this was after we had crossed the road from the MW reception and before entering our apartment. She does not remember where the sound came from or whether it was in an urgent tone, not paying any more attention to it and only remembered the following day when we heard about Madeleine's disappearance". OK, before going on the next part, do you remember at what time you left'
SC: Humm... vaguely, I think it was what was put in the statement, the same, the leaving the restaurant, the way back to the apartment, looking to my left to check that the way was clear and I didn't see anything....My wife vaguely remembers hearing "Madeleine, Madeleine" and that was all until the following morning when I saw the television.
Some possibilities:
a) She did hear someone calling Madeleine before Kate's check (but there's nothing in the files that would substantiate that).
b) She heard someone calling someone else and thought it might have been Madeleine that she heard.
c) She heard someone calling Madeleine but once people were out looking for her and Steve got muddled about when exactly that was. One reason I think this might be the case is that he said that at 8:30 all the T9 were sitting at their table - but they weren't all there until nearly 9pm. If his timing was out by 20-25 minutes (i.e., they left the Tapas later than he'd remembered), she could well have heard someone calling her (one of the Tapas, or OC staff) just after 10pm. I've copied some of the statements, but IMO the collective timeline is probably more accurate.
Fiona's 4 May statement:
She left around 20H45, accompanied by David and her mother, in order to meet the rest of the group in the Tapas restaurant.
David's 4 May statement:
Concerning yesterday evening, he states that he, his wife and his mother-in-law arrived at the restaurant at around 8.55pm. According to what he remembers, when they arrived, all the members of the group were present, apart from the children, who were in bed.
Matt's 4 May statement:
That the last to arrive at the restaurant was the couple David and Fiona. That the latter arrived at the restaurant at around 9pm.
That around 9.05pm, the interviewee went to the area of the apartments.
The collective timeline:
2055: MO returns to apartments to check on ground floor flats, passing David Payne (DP), Fiona Payne (FP) and her mother Dianne Webster (DW) on their way down to the table.
2057: MO listens outside all ground floor flats' windows on the car park side of the apartment (5A, 5B and 5D) to make sure they were asleep. At this time, all the shutters were down on each window.
2100: MO return to the table. Starters were ordered.
2105: GM returns to his flat (5A) and enters via the patio gate entrance. This and a child gate at the top of the stairs were closed at the time. He enters the flat via the patio door which is closed but unlocked.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TIME_LINE_3_MAY_07.htm
-
you've done a bit of work haven't you. I'll get back to you.
-
Who writes up this timeline? Is it entirely based on what the witnesses have stated in their statements?
I am totally surprised by this few lines about what Matthew Oldfield must have said to the PJ:
Quote: "2130: RJO remains in 5D as daughter has vomited. MO goes to check on 5A via the patio gate entrance. The outside gate is probably shut, but the child gate on the stairs up to the patio is possibly open. The patio door is closed but unlocked.
Does Matthew say that in any of his statements? Find it.
The problem is that they all say different things at different times. This was the group timeline that they all constructed together on Georgina's laptop just after the first weekend. They all agreed it was correct and gave it to the PJ. Gerry, for example, accepted this at that time, but not later;
2115: JT leaves table, and sees GM talking with fellow resident ("Jez" Wilkins) outside the patio gate of 5A. The two were standing just up the hill from the gate towards Rua A. da Silva Road. She did not speak to GM as she passed.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TIME_LINE_3_MAY_07.htm
Jane blames the PJ in her rog for getting the height of the man she saw wrong, but they themselves wrote it in this document;
Description of Man:
- Age 35 to 40.
- 1.7m tal1 approximately with a slim build.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TIME_LINE_3_MAY_07.htm
Russell clarified the origins of this timeline;
“Erm, and so that was a timeline that was made purely by the nine of us.... I typed it and it was typed on a borrowed laptop from err the tennis coach of Mark WARNER who’s called Georgina......I turned up on my second interview and presented them with the, with the stick and said, ‘look we’ve sat down, it’s all typed, we think this is quite accurate, there you go’.....this was done to go over the events, down on paper before they become, inevitably they got less and less clear in our mind
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RUSSELL-OBRIEN_ROGATORY.htm
Inevitably, perhaps, his memory is less clear a year later because he didn't hand over a 'stick' according to the PJ. They got the typed pages on 10th, Russell's second interview was on 11th;
On this date, I attached to these official papers 3 computer printed pages, relating to the description of the events, that have been collectively prepared by the nine people of the group in question, that was delivered to this Police Officer by the British Liaison Official, before the start of re-questioning of those same people.
Portimao, 10 May 2007
INSPECTOR
M.P.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TIME_LINE_3_MAY_07.htm
-
The problem is that they all say different things at different times. This was the group timeline that they all constructed together on Georgina's laptop just after the first weekend. They all agreed it was correct and gave it to the PJ. Gerry, for example, accepted this at that time, but not later;
2115: JT leaves table, and sees GM talking with fellow resident ("Jez" Wilkins) outside the patio gate of 5A. The two were standing just up the hill from the gate towards Rua A. da Silva Road. She did not speak to GM as she passed.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TIME_LINE_3_MAY_07.htm
Jane blames the PJ in her rog for getting the height of the man she saw wrong, but they themselves wrote it in this document;
Description of Man:
- Age 35 to 40.
- 1.7m tal1 approximately with a slim build.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TIME_LINE_3_MAY_07.htm
Russell clarified the origins of this timeline;
“Erm, and so that was a timeline that was made purely by the nine of us.... I typed it and it was typed on a borrowed laptop from err the tennis coach of Mark WARNER who’s called Georgina......I turned up on my second interview and presented them with the, with the stick and said, ‘look we’ve sat down, it’s all typed, we think this is quite accurate, there you go’.....this was done to go over the events, down on paper before they become, inevitably they got less and less clear in our mind
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RUSSELL-OBRIEN_ROGATORY.htm
Inevitably, perhaps, his memory is less clear a year later because he didn't hand over a 'stick' according to the PJ. They got the typed pages on 10th, Russell's second interview was on 11th;
On this date, I attached to these official papers 3 computer printed pages, relating to the description of the events, that have been collectively prepared by the nine people of the group in question, that was delivered to this Police Officer by the British Liaison Official, before the start of re-questioning of those same people.
Portimao, 10 May 2007
INSPECTOR
M.P.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TIME_LINE_3_MAY_07.htm
Re the USB stick, it's possible he hadn't realised that the FLO had already handed over a printed copy and turned up with a stick after the PJ had already got a copy.
-
1.7 m = 5 foot 7 inches.
-
1.7 m = 5 foot 7 inches.
And, IMO, that is noticeably on the short side for a man.
-
Bear in mind that that is his recollection of what his wife vaguely remembered. I haven't come across a statement by her.
At approximately half past eight, Gerry and Kate and their group of approximately ten people were already seated at their table, which was so close to ours that it was possible to converse with them, we spoke of tennis amongst other things,
snip
Between approximately a quarter past nine and half past nine we left the Tapas bar to go home, we walked across the MW reception area, crossed the road and a semi circular path to return to the apartment, were we put the children to bed and a short while later did the same ourselves. I do not remember seeing or hearing anyone during our return to the apartment. When I crossed the road outside the MW reception I remember there were cars parked, I remember taking some time to see if I could cross the road because there were cars parked to my left and I was carrying I****.
snip
My wife mentioned on the following day that she vaguely remembered someone calling "Madeleine, Madeleine", this was after we had crossed the road from the MW reception and before entering our apartment. She does not remember where the sound came from or whether it was in an urgent tone, not paying any more attention to it and only remembered the following day when we heard about Madeleine's disappearance". OK, before going on the next part, do you remember at what time you left'
SC: Humm... vaguely, I think it was what was put in the statement, the same, the leaving the restaurant, the way back to the apartment, looking to my left to check that the way was clear and I didn't see anything....My wife vaguely remembers hearing "Madeleine, Madeleine" and that was all until the following morning when I saw the television.
Some possibilities:
a) She did hear someone calling Madeleine before Kate's check (but there's nothing in the files that would substantiate that).
b) She heard someone calling someone else and thought it might have been Madeleine that she heard.
c) She heard someone calling Madeleine but once people were out looking for her and Steve got muddled about when exactly that was. One reason I think this might be the case is that he said that at 8:30 all the T9 were sitting at their table - but they weren't all there until nearly 9pm. If his timing was out by 20-25 minutes (i.e., they left the Tapas later than he'd remembered), she could well have heard someone calling her (one of the Tapas, or OC staff) just after 10pm. I've copied some of the statements, but IMO the collective timeline is probably more accurate.
Fiona's 4 May statement:
She left around 20H45, accompanied by David and her mother, in order to meet the rest of the group in the Tapas restaurant.
David's 4 May statement:
Concerning yesterday evening, he states that he, his wife and his mother-in-law arrived at the restaurant at around 8.55pm. According to what he remembers, when they arrived, all the members of the group were present, apart from the children, who were in bed.
Matt's 4 May statement:
That the last to arrive at the restaurant was the couple David and Fiona. That the latter arrived at the restaurant at around 9pm.
That around 9.05pm, the interviewee went to the area of the apartments.
The collective timeline:
2055: MO returns to apartments to check on ground floor flats, passing David Payne (DP), Fiona Payne (FP) and her mother Dianne Webster (DW) on their way down to the table.
2057: MO listens outside all ground floor flats' windows on the car park side of the apartment (5A, 5B and 5D) to make sure they were asleep. At this time, all the shutters were down on each window.
2100: MO return to the table. Starters were ordered.
2105: GM returns to his flat (5A) and enters via the patio gate entrance. This and a child gate at the top of the stairs were closed at the time. He enters the flat via the patio door which is closed but unlocked.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TIME_LINE_3_MAY_07.htm
If....if....the man leaving the table at 9.30 was Gerry and not Oldfield and Gerry had found Madeleine missing that would certainly explain Madeleine being called quietly. It would also explain why Oldfield's recollection of the check was such a pig's ear.
-
If....if....the man leaving the table at 9.30 was Gerry and not Oldfield and Gerry had found Madeleine missing that would certainly explain Madeleine being called quietly. It would also explain why Oldfield's recollection of the check was such a pig's ear.
Why is Matt's recollection a pig's ear?
I'd agree that a few details don't seem accurate, but I don't find anything that would make me suspect he'd never checked. I don't think I've found anything more than the 3 below:
Rog: he mentioned having a look at books on a bookshelf - but it was actually a buffet with books on top.
4 May:
He seemed to remember two windows, but there was only one, sliding one. He may have got mixed up with someone else's flat, possibly his own.
He states that the bedroom has two windows. The twins occupy two cots placed in the middle of the room and Madeleine occupies a bed pushed against the wall, facing the wall which has the two windows that look out onto the outside of the complex.
10 May:
He only talked about one window in this one, but that he remembered the curtains as some shade of green, when they were blue and white. Depending on the light source(s), they may well have appeared more green than blue.
He recalls having the perception that the window curtains - green in colour - were drawn closed but could not determine if the window was closed or open. Concerning the external blinds he clarifies that he did not see if it was closed or open. He recalls having thought that in that bedroom there was more brightness than there was in his daughter's room (where the external blinds were always fully closed), adding to have had the feeling that that light was coming from the outside - making the point that both were turned in the same direction.
Why would the entire group collude to swap in Matt for Gerry at 9:30? Particularly when any of the Tapas staff could have noticed who'd got up or who was still sitting at the table?
-
Bear in mind that that is his recollection of what his wife vaguely remembered. I haven't come across a statement by her.
At approximately half past eight, Gerry and Kate and their group of approximately ten people were already seated at their table, which was so close to ours that it was possible to converse with them, we spoke of tennis amongst other things,
snip
Between approximately a quarter past nine and half past nine we left the Tapas bar to go home, we walked across the MW reception area, crossed the road and a semi circular path to return to the apartment, were we put the children to bed and a short while later did the same ourselves. I do not remember seeing or hearing anyone during our return to the apartment. When I crossed the road outside the MW reception I remember there were cars parked, I remember taking some time to see if I could cross the road because there were cars parked to my left and I was carrying I****.
snip
My wife mentioned on the following day that she vaguely remembered someone calling "Madeleine, Madeleine", this was after we had crossed the road from the MW reception and before entering our apartment. She does not remember where the sound came from or whether it was in an urgent tone, not paying any more attention to it and only remembered the following day when we heard about Madeleine's disappearance". OK, before going on the next part, do you remember at what time you left'
SC: Humm... vaguely, I think it was what was put in the statement, the same, the leaving the restaurant, the way back to the apartment, looking to my left to check that the way was clear and I didn't see anything....My wife vaguely remembers hearing "Madeleine, Madeleine" and that was all until the following morning when I saw the television.
Some possibilities:
a) She did hear someone calling Madeleine before Kate's check (but there's nothing in the files that would substantiate that).
b) She heard someone calling someone else and thought it might have been Madeleine that she heard.
c) She heard someone calling Madeleine but once people were out looking for her and Steve got muddled about when exactly that was. One reason I think this might be the case is that he said that at 8:30 all the T9 were sitting at their table - but they weren't all there until nearly 9pm. If his timing was out by 20-25 minutes (i.e., they left the Tapas later than he'd remembered), she could well have heard someone calling her (one of the Tapas, or OC staff) just after 10pm. I've copied some of the statements, but IMO the collective timeline is probably more accurate.
Fiona's 4 May statement:
She left around 20H45, accompanied by David and her mother, in order to meet the rest of the group in the Tapas restaurant.
David's 4 May statement:
Concerning yesterday evening, he states that he, his wife and his mother-in-law arrived at the restaurant at around 8.55pm. According to what he remembers, when they arrived, all the members of the group were present, apart from the children, who were in bed.
Matt's 4 May statement:
That the last to arrive at the restaurant was the couple David and Fiona. That the latter arrived at the restaurant at around 9pm.
That around 9.05pm, the interviewee went to the area of the apartments.
The collective timeline:
2055: MO returns to apartments to check on ground floor flats, passing David Payne (DP), Fiona Payne (FP) and her mother Dianne Webster (DW) on their way down to the table.
2057: MO listens outside all ground floor flats' windows on the car park side of the apartment (5A, 5B and 5D) to make sure they were asleep. At this time, all the shutters were down on each window.
2100: MO return to the table. Starters were ordered.
2105: GM returns to his flat (5A) and enters via the patio gate entrance. This and a child gate at the top of the stairs were closed at the time. He enters the flat via the patio door which is closed but unlocked.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TIME_LINE_3_MAY_07.htm
I would go with option (c)as being the most likely scenario.
c) She heard someone calling Madeleine but once people were out looking for her and Steve got muddled about when exactly that was. One reason I think this might be the case is that he said that at 8:30 all the T9 were sitting at their table - but they weren't all there until nearly 9pm. If his timing was out by 20-25 minutes (i.e., they left the Tapas later than he'd remembered), she could well have heard someone calling her (one of the Tapas, or OC staff) just after 10pm. I've copied some of the statements, but IMO the collective timeline is probably more accurate.
That opinion is reinforced by the fact that the couple were together on their return home. If she heard someone calling, isn't it odd that he didn't hear it too?
-
I would go with option (c)as being the most likely scenario.
c) She heard someone calling Madeleine but once people were out looking for her and Steve got muddled about when exactly that was. One reason I think this might be the case is that he said that at 8:30 all the T9 were sitting at their table - but they weren't all there until nearly 9pm. If his timing was out by 20-25 minutes (i.e., they left the Tapas later than he'd remembered), she could well have heard someone calling her (one of the Tapas, or OC staff) just after 10pm. I've copied some of the statements, but IMO the collective timeline is probably more accurate.
That opinion is reinforced by the fact that the couple were together on their return home. If she heard someone calling, isn't it odd that he didn't hear it too?
Dunno. Sometimes others see or hear things that I don't or vice versa.
Someone simply calling out might not have stood out at the time (and it was just a vague recollection) - as opposed to, e.g., the screech of an ambulance or a helicopter.
-
Yesterdays warnings as to inappropriate posting appears to have been lost on some members so I have instructed moderators to apply maximum sanctions against any member who continues to flaunt the forum rules. There will be no appeal against these sanctions. In the worst cases the appropriate account will be deleted permanently.
No further warning will be given!
Admin
-
Why is Matt's recollection a pig's ear?
I'd agree that a few details don't seem accurate, but I don't find anything that would make me suspect he'd never checked. I don't think I've found anything more than the 3 below:
Rog: he mentioned having a look at books on a bookshelf - but it was actually a buffet with books on top.
4 May:
He seemed to remember two windows, but there was only one, sliding one. He may have got mixed up with someone else's flat, possibly his own.
He states that the bedroom has two windows. The twins occupy two cots placed in the middle of the room and Madeleine occupies a bed pushed against the wall, facing the wall which has the two windows that look out onto the outside of the complex.
10 May:
He only talked about one window in this one, but that he remembered the curtains as some shade of green, when they were blue and white. Depending on the light source(s), they may well have appeared more green than blue.
He recalls having the perception that the window curtains - green in colour - were drawn closed but could not determine if the window was closed or open. Concerning the external blinds he clarifies that he did not see if it was closed or open. He recalls having thought that in that bedroom there was more brightness than there was in his daughter's room (where the external blinds were always fully closed), adding to have had the feeling that that light was coming from the outside - making the point that both were turned in the same direction.
Why would the entire group collude to swap in Matt for Gerry at 9:30? Particularly when any of the Tapas staff could have noticed who'd got up or who was still sitting at the table?
The tapas waiters, being busy, would only have noticed that a man was missing not who. Reading their statements you can see that they had very little idea who was who.
If the McCanns had arrived at 8.30 the next check would have been at 9 . According to DW in her first statement ( always the most reliable ) she didn't see Oldfied so it is possible that it was Gerry did that check and it was at this point that he saw Jez ( Jez couldn't narrow the time down to any slimmer than a 30 minute window ). Jez said Gerry was acting normally and if Gerry had simply listened at the children's door, as Oldfield claims he himself did, he would have had no idea that Madeleine was not in her bed. Gerry then checks properly at 9.30 and finds Madeleine missing. Mrs Carpenter hears Gerry calling for Madeleine while searching.
I'm not saying it did happen like this just that it IMO is possible. Why, if it did happen like this, the other tapas friends colluded I suppose we will only ever know when the full picture of that night is revealed.
-
This may not be the right place, so apologies in advance.
IF Jane had done her visit at 9.15, why did Russell need to do another visit at 9.30 ?
If daughter was ill when seen by Jane, why did she leave & return to the Tapas ?
If she wasn't ill, why should Russel go 15 minutes later?
-
Yesterdays warnings as to inappropriate posting appears to have been lost on some members so I have instructed moderators to apply maximum sanctions against any member who continues to flaunt the forum rules. There will be no appeal against these sanctions. In the worst cases the appropriate account will be deleted permanently.
No further warning will be given!
Admin
I notice that you have reset the watched list, there can be no excuses now for rule breaches.
-
I notice that you have reset the watched list, there can be no excuses now for rule breaches.
Yes, I reset all warnings to zero to create a level playing field. The new zero tolerance stance is now in operation.
-
And, IMO, that is noticeably on the short side for a man.
Especially for the man that Gail Cooper drew in her identikit picture. I read that in was quoted that Jane was 80% certain the man Gail drew was the one Jane saw (something along those lines).
How tall was the man Gail Cooper saw?
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GAIL_COOPER.htm"As I sat with D**** watching the children, I heard the door bell sounding and thinking that it was my husband and son in law returning, I went to the front door and opened it. There is a camera on the Intercom system which I believe activated itself automatically upon the bell being activated however I do not know of any recording facilities that may have captured the image of the person I am about to describe. I opened the door and was surprised to see a person described as olive skinned male roughly 40 ? 45 years of age, 6.0? to 6.02? tall and of slim to medium build. He appeared to be Mediterranean however due to his appearance and mannerism I did not feel that he was Portuguese. I also noticed that he had a Mexican looking moustache which was dark brown or black in colour and was very thick and bushy and drooped down the sides of his mouth. His chin was clean shaven. He wore a khaki coloured waist length heavy cotton jacket and a green or blue round neck T shirt. He also had khaki coloured combat type trousers with pockets on the side of the trousers but they were plain trousers with no other patterns or markings on them . I did not notice his footwear. "
6 foot to 6 foot 2 not the 5 foot 7 recorded in the combined timeline. That is a major difference.
The other major difference is the droopy moustache.
Jane was looking up hill could that make height estimation difficult?
-
Dunno. Sometimes others see or hear things that I don't or vice versa.
Someone simply calling out might not have stood out at the time (and it was just a vague recollection) - as opposed to, e.g., the screech of an ambulance or a helicopter.
Some people suffer a degree of deafness for a variety of reasons too.
-
This may not be the right place, so apologies in advance.
IF Jane had done her visit at 9.15, why did Russell need to do another visit at 9.30 ?
If daughter was ill when seen by Jane, why did she leave & return to the Tapas ?
If she wasn't ill, why should Russel go 15 minutes later?
Was it 9:15 or a bit earlier?
Russell's rog - he needed a pee.
Reply “’Window’, yeah. I think it’s the opposite way round really, ‘I went to the toilet to urinate’, and I knew, I knew, because Evie was awake, I was staying anyway , so ‘I went to the toilet to urinate and then checked on Evie and she had been sick’, so I think I actually went”.
1578 “Okay, I will swap those'”
Reply “Just round, yeah. I had a pee first because I was a little desperate. Erm, ‘I started to clean her up and change her. Matt came into my apartment and asked if I needed any help. I said ‘No, go back and tell Jane that Evie was unwell’’”.
1578 “So if we include in there ‘Matt came into my apartment’'”
-
I think there were toilets on the Tapas site so why go further than necessary?
-
I think there were toilets on the Tapas site so why go further than necessary?
Some people prefer their own private toilet.
-
There was also Matt getting up, and it may simply have seemed a convenient time to go as well.
-
Was it 9:15 or a bit earlier?
Russell's rog - he needed a pee.
Reply “’Window’, yeah. I think it’s the opposite way round really, ‘I went to the toilet to urinate’, and I knew, I knew, because Evie was awake, I was staying anyway , so ‘I went to the toilet to urinate and then checked on Evie and she had been sick’, so I think I actually went”.
1578 “Okay, I will swap those'”
Reply “Just round, yeah. I had a pee first because I was a little desperate. Erm, ‘I started to clean her up and change her. Matt came into my apartment and asked if I needed any help. I said ‘No, go back and tell Jane that Evie was unwell’’”.
1578 “So if we include in there ‘Matt came into my apartment’'”
It sounds like Russell had forgot he was being recorded. Altering his statement at will!
-
It sounds like Russell had forgot he was being recorded. Altering his statement at will!
They were going over the statement that hadn't been recorded, so I'm not sure what was actually written up.
Personally, I doubt whether I'd be certain whether I'd gone for a pee before or after tending to a sick child within the space of a couple of minutes a year later.
Is it crucial, do you think?
-
They were going over the statement that hadn't been recorded, so I'm not sure what was actually written up.
Personally, I doubt whether I'd be certain whether I'd gone for a pee before or after tending to a sick child within the space of a couple of minutes a year later.
Is it crucial, do you think?
what are your priorities? Is it just to send the right impression to someone? Attend the sick child before having a pee sounds more humane but could it be uncomfortable. When you've got to go, you've got to go.
-
what are your priorities? Is it just to send the right impression to someone? Attend the sick child before having a pee sounds more humane but could it be uncomfortable. When you've got to go, you've got to go.
I don't think I've seen what the draft statement actually said, so I don't know how it was written.
There was presumably something about going for a pee and attending a child who'd vomited and it was just the order that was in question.
If there was no immediate danger, but just a child who needed to be cleaned up, I'd have gone for a pee first if it was urgent, otherwise I probably wouldn't have been able to deal with the situation in a soothing and calm manner. But others may react differently. No idea.
-
I don't think I've seen what the draft statement actually said, so I don't know how it was written.
There was presumably something about going for a pee and attending a child who'd vomited and it was just the order that was in question.
If there was no immediate danger, but just a child who needed to be cleaned up, I'd have gone for a pee first if it was urgent, otherwise I probably wouldn't have been able to deal with the situation in a soothing and calm manner. But others may react differently. No idea.
There are times when you decide to do something else first and you regret that. As I understood it the sound track was recorded but the video didn't work, so they must have transcribed the first interview and discussed it during the second one. If one had enough stamina I think there would be some important clues in there.
So far I have not been able to even read it. The thought of analysing it is put off till later.
-
Why is Matt's recollection a pig's ear?
I'd agree that a few details don't seem accurate, but I don't find anything that would make me suspect he'd never checked. I don't think I've found anything more than the 3 below:
Rog: he mentioned having a look at books on a bookshelf - but it was actually a buffet with books on top.
4 May:
He seemed to remember two windows, but there was only one, sliding one. He may have got mixed up with someone else's flat, possibly his own.
He states that the bedroom has two windows. The twins occupy two cots placed in the middle of the room and Madeleine occupies a bed pushed against the wall, facing the wall which has the two windows that look out onto the outside of the complex.
10 May:
He only talked about one window in this one, but that he remembered the curtains as some shade of green, when they were blue and white. Depending on the light source(s), they may well have appeared more green than blue.
He recalls having the perception that the window curtains - green in colour - were drawn closed but could not determine if the window was closed or open. Concerning the external blinds he clarifies that he did not see if it was closed or open. He recalls having thought that in that bedroom there was more brightness than there was in his daughter's room (where the external blinds were always fully closed), adding to have had the feeling that that light was coming from the outside - making the point that both were turned in the same direction.
Why would the entire group collude to swap in Matt for Gerry at 9:30? Particularly when any of the Tapas staff could have noticed who'd got up or who was still sitting at the table?
The sodium street lamps outside, altho very much reduced bu the heads of the trees, would give of a decidedly yellow glow. The curtains were blue and white
Yellow + blue makes green, as I fell sure most of you are aware.
That Matt saw the curtains as green rather than blue, indicates that either
1) That the shutters were not fully closed but had light coming thru the tiny holes that opened up when the shutters were not totally closed.
or
2) The shutters were raised
Had someone come and
1) Raised the shutters, partially so that the tiny holes allowed a little light in ? ... before Matts 9.30 visit ... creating the green colour?
or,
2) Already done the dirty deed (the abduction) before Matts 9.30 visit ? So that the yellow lighting influenced the the blue curtains to make them look green ?
For the second to be true, the weather must have been quite calm at 9.30 pm, otherwise the curtains wouild have fluttered. Was it the lull before the storm ?
I prefer the second, that the dirty deed had already been done.
That matches up with Jane Tanners sighting.
One thing is certain:
The blue curtains would not have looked green, unless the colour was influenced by a yellow light.
-
I've gone on to the web and looked up colour blindness, and there is a online test. It isn't a walk in the park doing that. I know I don't have colour blindness as my former job required we had to be tested for it. Was Matt colour blind in a certain combination of colours?
http://enchroma.com/test-150401.2/#test&ui-state=dialog - a bit of a challenge.
-
More information on page http://www.colourblindawareness.org/colour-blindness/types-of-colour-blindness/
There is also a colour chart comparing what normal sighted people see compared to what colour blind people see.
-
When was it shut? David Payne says "no one could have got in that way if that's the way they entered as the door was shut"
Lets go through the timeline:
The front door was shut when the McCanns left their apartment.
If then someone enters via that front door obviously they have a means of opening the door. It is no longer shut, then is it.
So when he says "as the door was shut" when is he making that assessment about the door?
David Payne Quotes:
and again "I said well look how do you know that is the case, and err you know again I, I can't remember the exact words then, but I was very interested in finding what the state of the apartment was like when she'd got there to see who'd left err doors open or etcetera. And from my point of view you know the things that were, I think it was really pertinent to me was that there was two, there was two gates on the back entrance from that apartment. There's the gate which is immediately bring, you know brings you on to the err the road and then there was another child gate, that was at the top and I, you know, and given the fact that the front door was shut".
Reply "Err we, you know, we ran up err to the apartment, you know, with, with err you know Kate and Gerry err and you know for me, I just wanted to know, as I say, about the access to the apartment, were those gates open, err because in my mind was that if the front door was shut there was no, you know there won't be, you know there was no way that she could have wandered out that way and nor would they have gained access in that way. Err also obviously the, the, the issue with the, the shutters had been raised, was brought up err you know on the way up as well and then I was asking about the gates being shut at that back and she said well both gates you know were shut, so in my mind, you know, that had ruled it out that Madeleine had err had wandered off."
It is clear to see that this was very much a case of damage limitation going on which is still going on to this day. The parents had to be protected at all cost and that cost has been a very high one. If it is ever established that Maddie did wander then culpability returns to the parents.
-
It is clear to see that this was very much a case of damage limitation going on which is still going on to this day. The parents had to be protected at all cost and that cost has been a very high one. If it is ever established that Maddie did wander then culpability returns to the parents.
I would go one further and say they are responsible for whatever happened to her as Maddie was supposed to be in their care.
-
I would go one further and say they are responsible for whatever happened to her as Maddie was supposed to be in their care.
So why are they so adamant she didn't wander then if it is all the same.
-
So why are they so adamant she didn't wander then if it is all the same.
Because if she wandered off on her own, there is no one else to shift the blame onto IMO
-
Because if she wandered off on her own, there is no one else to shift the blame onto IMO
Yes that seems possible - anyone could suffer the attack of a predator, but if a predator attacks a wandering child the parents are asking for it. Is that your way of think about it?
Does it NOT make a difference where the predator is? In the private room or just walking on the public road. is that all the same? You could be right for my mind switches back and forth on this too, I have not settled that debate in my own head even though the words of St. Kate keep going through my head - "we've got to remember there is a predator out there and he could do it again". (if I have used the wrong words put it down to bad memory please, it was in an interview.)
-
Yes that seems possible - anyone could suffer the attack of a predator, but if a predator attacks a wandering child the parents are asking for it. Is that your way of think about it?
Does it NOT make a difference where the predator is? In the private room or just walking on the public road. is that all the same? You could be right for my mind switches back and forth on this too, I have not settled that debate in my own head even though the words of St. Kate keep going through my head - "we've got to remember there is a predator out there and he could do it again". (if I have used the wrong words put it down to bad memory please, it was in an interview.)
I was really meaning that if she got out on her own, then the parents can be considered negligent for allowing it to happen, irrespective of what might have happened subsequently.
-
I was really meaning that if she got out on her own, then the parents can be considered negligent for allowing it to happen, irrespective of what might have happened subsequently.
The parents admit the doors were unlocked.
They don't deny she was capable of opening the doors and going to find them.
Fiona says Kate discussed this.
So is Kate only negligent if that wandering occurs. I was thinking it is like seat belts, you get fined for not wearing them and for not having worn them in the event in an accident, liable before and after an event.
-
The parents admit the door were unlocked.
They don't deny she was capable of opening the doors and going to find them.
Fiona says Kate discussed this.
So is Kate only negligent if that wandering occurs. I was thinking it is like seat belts, you get fie for not wearing them and for not having worn them after the event in an accident, liable before and after an event.
This applies to many things in life. You only get into trouble if you get caught. Just ask any politician
-
Yes that seems possible - anyone could suffer the attack of a predator, but if a predator attacks a wandering child the parents are asking for it. Is that your way of think about it?
Does it NOT make a difference where the predator is? In the private room or just walking on the public road. is that all the same? You could be right for my mind switches back and forth on this too, I have not settled that debate in my own head even though the words of St. Kate keep going through my head - "we've got to remember there is a predator out there and he could do it again". (if I have used the wrong words put it down to bad memory please, it was in an interview.)
I doubt she was gender specific. Gerry was careful not to be.
.......
'Mr McCann said that whoever was involved must have been laughing during these last six years at what Mr Amaral has claimed - that there was no abduction and there is no predator out there.'
"There is - he or she or they may strike again,"
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/madeleine-mccann-libel-trial-kate-3828366
He is somehow certain Maddie was targeted by a predator.
He seems to rule out the burglary gone wrong.
He knows more than SY.
GM "I've no doubt that Madeleine was targeted and that makes us sick to the core to think that someone was watching us and our daughter and then targeted her - I think the true word is a predator."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7100377.stm
KM: It's not about us, you know, we were bobbing back and forwards several times and I wanted to see the kids so.. you know, it's not about us. You know, I think that the problem is it's a predator basically who's been watching us, which gives you the shivers anyway, and broken into the apartment and taken Madeleine out of her bed.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/panorama/7106086.stm
He said something along the lines of there being Paedophile gangs in Portugal and that they had abducted Madeleine.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GRAHAM-MCKENZIE.htm
-
The parents admit the door were unlocked.
They don't deny she was capable of opening the doors and going to find them.
Fiona says Kate discussed this.
So is Kate only negligent if that wandering occurs. I was thinking it is like seat belts, you get fie for not wearing them and for not having worn them after the event in an accident, liable before and after an event.
It’s more to with degree of culpability. If MM walked out and met with a fatal accident the McCann’s would be wholly responsible. That responsibility drops with walked out and taken from the street and drops further with an intruder to it’s lowest level possible in the left in unlocked apartment scenario. It can never drop to zero as parents are always ultimately responsible for their children.
-
It’s more to with degree of culpability. If MM walked out and met with a fatal accident the McCann’s would be wholly responsible. That responsibility drops with walked out and taken from the street and drops further with an intruder to it’s lowest level possible in the left in unlocked apartment scenario. It can never drop to zero as parents are always ultimately responsible for their children.
You could be right but to me that doesn't make sense as what the parents did remains the same in all situations.
In most circumstances of children being left alone the police are not involved. My kids were always left alone while I worked and I would walk the 100 meters to check them regularly. OK there were times there were near misses and minor accidents but fortunately no child was lost permanently.
-
You could be right but to me that doesn't make sense as what the parents did remains the same in all situations.
What particularly happened makes a difference to their reputation.
-
It’s more to with degree of culpability. If MM walked out and met with a fatal accident the McCann’s would be wholly responsible. That responsibility drops with walked out and taken from the street and drops further with an intruder to it’s lowest level possible in the left in unlocked apartment scenario. It can never drop to zero as parents are always ultimately responsible for their children.
In your opinion, perhaps? Unless you have cites?
-
What particularly happened makes a difference to their reputation.
Being accused of secreting one's daughter's body inside a dead dog and having her incinerated at a pet crematorium doesn't affect one's reputation in any way whatsoever then??
I'll have to mull that one over.
Pet cremator is asked: Did you burn Madeleine McCann's body
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1563735/Pet-cremator-is-asked-Did-you-burn-Madeleine-McCanns-body.html
-
Being accused of secreting one's daughter's body inside a dead dog and having her incinerated at a pet crematorium doesn't affect one's reputation in any way whatsoever then??
I'll have to mull that one over.
Pet cremator is asked: Did you burn Madeleine McCann's body
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1563735/Pet-cremator-is-asked-Did-you-burn-Madeleine-McCanns-body.html
The words Dutch criminal and convicted terrorist caught my eye in the DT link posted.
What a nice gentleman he turned out to be.
With that sitting on one's doortstep one would run it in for anything in the way of unsolved crime and seemingly what we may find bizarre and oooh errr no one would do that....well oh yes he would apparently.
You seem to suggest the police should not have interrogated him. Why would that be given his record?
https://www.ad.nl/den-haag/beruchte-bajesklant-eef-hoos-overleden-na-ziekbed~a7649277/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=86xB-jghDGs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=86xB-jghDGs
I'll leave you to do the googlish bit.
-
In your opinion, perhaps? Unless you have cites?
So you think their reputation would be better if MM had woke and wandered?
-
What particularly happened makes a difference to their reputation.
But we really don't know what happened even though some are favouring the woke and wandered theory.
-
It’s more to with degree of culpability. If MM walked out and met with a fatal accident the McCann’s would be wholly responsible. That responsibility drops with walked out and taken from the street and drops further with an intruder to it’s lowest level possible in the left in unlocked apartment scenario. It can never drop to zero as parents are always ultimately responsible for their children.
I sort of see what you mean, as even though what the parents did remains a constant in all scenarios, the prosecution would claim the parent did not consider the dangers sufficiently if there had been a resultant serious accident as opposed to a simple getting lost situation, ( a situation that is happening many times every day in the UK "Every 5 mins a child is reported missing in the UK.").
-
But we really don't know what happened even though some are favouring the woke and wandered theory.
I didn’t say we did. I gave a range of possibilities and the relative impact of the McCann’s reputation.
-
But we really don't know what happened even though some are favouring the woke and wandered theory.
the w and wtheory needs to be seen in the context of it being described as highly unlikely by the final report...they did not say abduction was highly unlikely
-
I didn’t say we did. I gave a range of possibilities and the relative impact of the McCann’s reputation.
Well when I read "What particularly happened makes a difference to their reputation.", I don't know what you mean by "what particularly happened" if no one knows what actually happened. You might mean something different to the way I understand it.
OK you might mean "if it is ever determined what happened this will make a difference to their reputation"
-
Well when I read "What particularly happened makes a difference to their reputation.", I don't know what you mean by "what particularly happened" if no one knows what actually happened. You might mean something different to the way I understand it.
Which possibility.
-
the w and wtheory needs to be seen in the context of it being described as highly unlikely by the final report...they did not say abduction was highly unlikely
The final report is just more opinion on that matter. This forum is at least as thorough as the PJ.
-
It is clear to see that this was very much a case of damage limitation going on which is still going on to this day. The parents had to be protected at all cost and that cost has been a very high one. If it is ever established that Maddie did wander then culpability returns to the parents.
I'm still waiting for someone to explain why the McCanns are such extremely important people that they have to be protected at all costs. Care to elaborate?
-
Being accused of secreting one's daughter's body inside a dead dog and having her incinerated at a pet crematorium doesn't affect one's reputation in any way whatsoever then??
I'll have to mull that one over.
Pet cremator is asked: Did you burn Madeleine McCann's body
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1563735/Pet-cremator-is-asked-Did-you-burn-Madeleine-McCanns-body.html
Who accused the McCanns of this? The article linked to doesn't say that. The true story is in the files, newspapers just print speculation and rumour imo.
The rumour seems to have been begun by Correio da Manha. After reading what they said Hoos himself decided to go and see the PJ on the morning of 20th September. He told them that the crematorium had been closed and sealed since 2nd March 2007 and invited them to go and look. Two of the PJ visited the site that same afternoon and confirmed that he was telling the truth.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/HOOS_HENDRIK.htm
-
The final report is just more opinion on that matter. This forum is at least as thorough as the PJ.
you are stating your opinion as fact...this forum is simply members of the public without access to al the info and therefore carries little weight...imo. the PJ must have had some evidence to make such a strong statememt...without sight of that evidence we cannot just simply write it off as you have done
-
you are stating your opinion as fact...this forum is simply members of the public without access to al the info and therefore carries little weight...imo. the PJ must have had some evidence to make such a strong statememt...without sight of that evidence we cannot just simply write it off as you have done
They had the opportunity to present the file to us, That is their evidence to support the archiving report, and those files have been looked at in some depth. And discussed at length on forums such as this. Truly impressive work has been achieved.
I agree they should have some evidence but all the evidence i see for it are the claims that the doors and gates would have been found open but Kate didn't find those open but the window open and the shutters up.
-
They had the opportunity to present the file to us, That is their evidence to support the archiving report, and those files have been looked at in some depth. And discussed at length on forums such as this. Truly impressive work has been achieved.
I agree they should have some evidence but all the evidence i see for it are the claims that the doors and gates would have been found open but Kate didn't find those open but the window open and the shutters up.
They stated it was highly unlikely... Unless we know on what evidence that was based we are simply guessing...
-
They stated it was highly unlikely... Unless we know on what evidence that was based we are simply guessing...
I'm not going to discuss this with you as there is no way to progress it.
-
I'm not going to discuss this with you as there is no way to progress it.
That's fine but she should state it's your opinion not a fact... That's the forum rule
-
The final report is just more opinion on that matter. This forum is at least as thorough as the PJ.
Note... All this, is opinion
-
Note... All this, is opinion
It could even be a fact. I'll have to consider the effort required. It is so easy to write IMO or even IMHO after everything and not try and challenge yourself to actually prove your point.
-
It could even be a fact. I'll have to consider the effort required. It is so easy to write IMO or even IMHO after everything and not try and challenge yourself to actually prove your point.
Unless you can prove it... It's opinion... That applies to all posters
I would think they would not make such a definitive statement unless they had good reason to do so... ie some actual evidence that we do not know about... That's my opinion
-
It could even be a fact. I'll have to consider the effort required. It is so easy to write IMO or even IMHO after everything and not try and challenge yourself to actually prove your point.
It may be fact but until it is shown to be fact it's opinion
-
It may be fact but until it is shown to be fact it's opinion
If I was to say it is a fact someone else will still call it an opinion.
-
I'm not going to discuss this with you as there is no way to progress it.
Do you think, perchance, that you are ignoring Davel's opinion?
-
Do you think, perchance, that you are ignoring Davel's opinion?
I always wonder how people come to their opinions. I like checking to see if they are basing their opinion on some sound facts. In this particular case Davel accepts the PJ's opinion, based on the premise that the PJ have some additional information that they have but have not revealed. That is a speculation at best, but at least not an unreasonable one. But Davel does not apply the same logic across the board and say "the PJ must be right in all their accusations/insinuations against the McCanns". (Well therefore IMO Davel's opinions are inconsistent.)
-
I always wonder how people come to their opinions. I like checking to see if they are basing their opinion on some sound facts. In this particular case Davel accepts the PJ's opinion, based on the premise that the PJ have some additional information that they have but have not revealed. That is a speculation at best, but at least not an unreasonable one. But Davel does not apply the same logic across the board and say "the PJ must be right in all their accusations/insinuations against the McCanns". (Well therefore IMO Davel's opinions are inconsistent.)
I have been very clear to say that the pj MAY have some evidence evidence to support their view.... In fact IMO it is likely they have.... It seems a strange statement to be based on nothing.... The fact that they use the words very unlikely rather than unlikely suggests that to me. So my opinion is based on sound, reasoning.
Your suggestion that one should accept everything or nothing from the pj is not reasonable IMO... I take every statement on it's merits.... Which is a, reasonable thing to do so it seems you have misunderstood my reasoning process
-
I have been very clear to say that the pj MAY have some evidence evidence to support their view.... In fact IMO it is likely they have.... It seems a strange statement to be based on nothing.... The fact that they use the words very unlikely rather than unlikely suggests that to me. So my opinion is based on sound, reasoning.
Your suggestion that one should accept everything or nothing from the pj is not reasonable IMO... I take every statement on it's merits.... Which is a, reasonable thing to do so it seems you have misunderstood my reasoning process
So in this case your "merit" appointing system is in question. You apply merits as you see fit.
-
So in this case your "merit" appointing system is in question. You apply merits as you see fit.
Based on the evidence as I see it... That's not just what I do it's what everyone here does
-
Based on the evidence as I see it... That's not just what I do it's what everyone here does
But your so called evidence is your own assumption.
-
But your so called evidence is your own assumption.
As is yours.
-
But your so called evidence is your own assumption.
No it isnt....If I said that the pj do have evidence that would be an assumption...what have said several times is based on their statement...which is evidence....they may have further information that we do not have
-
No it isnt....If I said that the pj do have evidence that would be an assumption...what have said several times is based on their statement...which is evidence....they may have further information that we do not have
"they may have further information" or the pj do have evidence" are both assumptions.
What is the true definition of an assumption.
"a thing that is accepted as true or as certain to happen, without proof.
"they made certain assumptions about the market"
synonyms: supposition, presupposition, presumption, premise, belief, expectation, conjecture, speculation, surmise, guess, theory, hypothesis, postulation, conclusion, deduction, inference, thought, suspicion, notion, impression, fancy;"
In fact unless you had proof the statement "the pj do have evidence" could be false, an untruth or even a lie.
-
"they may have further information" or "the pj do have evidence" are both assumptions.
Its an opinion...which I am entitled to...your persistent nitpicking is tiresome imo...you dont rate my opinons ...I dont rate yours...thats where this should end
-
"they may have further information" or the pj do have evidence" are both assumptions.
What is the true definition of an assumption.
"a thing that is accepted as true or as certain to happen, without proof.
"they made certain assumptions about the market"
synonyms: supposition, presupposition, presumption, premise, belief, expectation, conjecture, speculation, surmise, guess, theory, hypothesis, postulation, conclusion, deduction, inference, thought, suspicion, notion, impression, fancy;"
In fact unless you had proof the statement "the pj do have evidence" could be false, an untruth or even a lie.
I havent said the PJ have evidence...as regards assumptions that applies to much of what you post...imo
-
I havent said the PJ have evidence...as regards assumptions that applies to much of what you post...imo
No but you assume they either have evidence or they might have evidence. - an assumption, which then is awarded Merit points, so becomes your opinion. That you defend till the end of the Earth.
-
No but you assume they either have evidence or they might have evidence. - an assumption, which then is awarded Merit points, so becomes your opinion. That you defend till the end of the Earth.
Why should I not defend my opinion
I am defending my opinion and you are criticizing me for that..that is very unfair...imo
-
So the on day w and w is highly unlikely...but they have not said abduction is highly unlikely....why should that be
-
So the on day w and w is highly unlikely...but they have not said abduction is highly unlikely....why should that be
Do they say what is most likely? Do all their probabilities add up to 100%
-
Do they say what is most likely? Do all their probabilities add up to 100%
I've made this point many times before...the possibilities have to add up to 100%
One poster here disagreed
-
I've made this point many times before...the possibilities have to add up to 100%
One poster here disagreed
Have you checked that they do? Do the PJ estimates of probabilities add up to 100%?
-
Have you checked that they do? Do the PJ estimates of probabilities add up to 100%?
They haven't given any numbers but it's a fact that they have to..
-
They haven't given any numbers but it's a fact that they have to..
So without all the facts you stick to your opinion regarding an unchecked possibility!
-
So without all the facts you stick to your opinion regarding an unchecked possibility!
Without all what facts
All the probabilities have to add up to 100%....that's, a, fact
-
No but you assume they either have evidence or they might have evidence. - an assumption, which then is awarded Merit points, so becomes your opinion. That you defend till the end of the Earth.
Snip
The attorney general said the case could be reopened if new evidence emerged from any "serious, pertinent and authoritative source".
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7516585.stm
It seems the Policia Judiciaria presented new evidence which merited the reopening of Madeleine's case.
-
Snip
The attorney general said the case could be reopened if new evidence emerged from any "serious, pertinent and authoritative source".
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7516585.stm
It seems the Policia Judiciaria presented new evidence which merited the reopening of Madeleine's case.
Maybe they finally looked back through their rubbish bins. I've heard that a lot of evidence ends up in the rubbish.