So how did the abductor enter and leave the apartment?

[AnneGuedes]

How clear was the telephone line ? Wasn't it noisy since she was calling from far away ? And was Trish Cameron really awake ? Could she in such circumstances understand what her  mentally exhausted and unfortunate brother told her ? She was stressed and traumatised as well and likely understood "open" instead of "locked". Perfectly expected in that context. How can we be sure she got a BBC journalist on the phone, so early in the morning ? And how experienced was this person in abduction matter ? So many opportunities of mistakes.Think Trish Cameron was capable of casually and coherently inform the BBC is beyond common sense.

[sadie]

How clear was the telephone line ? Wasn't it noisy since she was calling from far away ? And was Trish Cameron really awake ? Could she in such circumstances understand what her  mentally exhausted and unfortunate brother told her ? She was stressed and traumatised as well and likely understood "open" instead of "locked". Perfectly expected in that context. How can we be sure she got a BBC journalist on the phone, so early in the morning ? And how experienced was this person in abduction matter ? So many opportunities of mistakes.Think Trish Cameron was capable of casually and coherently inform the BBC is beyond common sense.

It would be a combination of Gerrys racing brain which would also quite possibly go blank at times too

.... and the passing a message along a line syndrome, where the original message comes out jumbled ay the far end and altogeter different.

[sadie]

I agree, and  it is to the detriment of solving the case that it did not happen, and one has to then ask why it was prevented from taking place.

That being said, can you accept that the PJ, or indeed any police force in the world, would treat a refusal to take part in a reconstruction of the evening's events, involving the last people to see Madeleine alive and well, as suspicious?

Albertini, my understanding is that The Mccanns wanted a reconstruction in the early stages, but Amaral did not.  Presumably that was becos he decided from day 1 that the Mccanns dunit.


It was only after it became clear that Amaral was setting them up in September, that there was a change of mind amongst the Tapas group.

Do you remember how at that Arguido meeting in ?Portimao, Amaral lied to Gerry and told him that "the game was up" cos they had evidence that Madeleines dead body had been in the car?   A car only hired 3 weeks afterwards.

Gerry knowing that to be untrue would immediately realise that they were being "fitted up".  Any future reconstructions would be heavily biased with the sole intent of incriminating them, or even providing false evidence.

[John]

I meant to post this earlier but got sidetracked.

Here in Gerry's statement of 10th May is the answer as to why he changed his statement re the doors.

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

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

[Albertini]

I meant to post this earlier but got sidetracked.

Here in Gerry's statement of 10th May is the answer as to why he changed his statement re the doors.

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

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

There are no answers here as to why he changed his previous statement. This is simply a change of statement without explanation as to why it has changed.

[Albertini]

Is it not possible that Gerry did indeed enter the apartment via the front door, using his key, during his first check, and opened the patio door shutter then so that it would be easier to make further checks via the unlocked patio door?

If that is what occured then there is no conflict between his two statements.

I agree but only had Gerry mentioned this himself in any one of the three statements he provided during the investigation. The fact he hasn't mentioned it surely and by your logic indicates then that there are indeed conflicts.

You can't fill in the gaps yourself as an explanation as to the discrepancies in the statements of others and then say that is what he meant (but did not say himself then or since) as justification of  those differences.

To do so corrupts the whole ethos and value of the witness statement process.

[Albertini]

That would seem feasible... but why didn't the police officer ask?

Firstly because it is not the job of a police officer to put words in a witnesses mouth whilst they are giving  their statement and secondly because Rachel's statement was given on the 15th May some days after Gerry gave his statements on the 4th and 10th May! The policeman interviewing Gerry would not have known what Rachel was going to say 11 and 5 days later!

[AnneGuedes]

I agree but only had Gerry mentioned this himself in any one of the three statements he provided during the investigation.

Actually they were more than 3. One in August was informal and we'll never know what Mr McCann said, only that this interview left him in a terrible state. Apart from that, we know a conversation between Inspector Martins and Gerald McCann on the crime scene made possible to establish the following..
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/VITOR_MARTINS.htm

[Carana]

There are no answers here as to why he changed his previous statement. This is simply a change of statement without explanation as to why it has changed.

Wouldn't it have been helpful if the police officer had asked and noted the reason for the clarification?

[DCI]

Firstly because it is not the job of a police officer to put words in a witnesses mouth whilst they are giving  their statement and secondly because Rachel's statement was given on the 15th May some days after Gerry gave his statements on the 4th and 10th May! The policeman interviewing Gerry would not have known what Rachel was going to say 11 and 5 days later!

Rachel gave statements on the 4th May, 11th May and the 15th May. Rogatory statement 09.04.08

4th May, she states

Between the starters and the main course, at around 9.30pm, her husband Matthew Oldfield and Russell O'Brien both went to check on the children. Kate was also planning to go and see the children, but they told her it was no trouble, that they would go and check. Kate, therefore, stayed at the restaurant. Four or five minutes later the interviewee's husband came back after having checked his apartment. He also checked the one where Madeleine was. He entered the apartment by the sliding door/window at the rear (the couple Gerry and Kate McCann left that access unlocked during dinner). The said patio door gives access to the apartment's lounge where two doors open into the respective bedrooms.
 

11th May, she states

When they were both standing, KATE said the same, namely, that she would also go to see her children. At that point, presumably, she cannot be sure, if her husband MATHEW or RUSSEL volunteered to go to see KATE's children, and she them that they would have to enter by the back door, which was unlocked.

15th May, she states

After checking his children Matthew went to see the McCann children. In order to do so he entered via the patio doors.

Rogatory statement 09.04.08

I said I'd go and check on Grace and Matt said he'd go and then Russell said that he'd go and check on Evie and Ella as well at the same time, erm and Kate got up to go and check on Sean, Amelie and Madeleine and Matt and Russell said oh you know, do you want us to do it, we're going up there anyway so, erm she said yes and she said that the patio doors were open, so just to go in that way

There's something not right about this statement,

The window shutters of the McCann's apartments were closed. The patio door that they used to enter the apartment also had its shutter closed. In order to enter they had to raise the shutter.

Its in the same statement,  just above where she states

After checking his children Matthew went to see the McCann children. In order to do so he entered via the patio doors.

[Carana]

Firstly because it is not the job of a police officer to put words in a witnesses mouth whilst they are giving  their statement and secondly because Rachel's statement was given on the 15th May some days after Gerry gave his statements on the 4th and 10th May! The policeman interviewing Gerry would not have known what Rachel was going to say 11 and 5 days later!

The police officer was asking questions to which the witnesses answered.

Do you seriously find it normal that a police officer interviewing the people closest to the child (and therefore needed to be thoroughly grilled) didn't even wonder why he'd supposedly taken the long way around whilst stating that Matt had entered through the unlocked patio door?

This wasn't about taking a statement for a stolen smartphone.

If Gerry had said he was confused in his first statement due to whatever reason, that might well have been included in the statement as a reason. I'm far less sure that the reason would have been included if the interpreter or the police officer had misunderstood.

[AnneGuedes]

The interpreter interpreted erroneously and  the interviewed, Mr McCann, signed that inaccuracy because he was out of his mind. Shame on the interpreter.
In order to conceal the interpreter's mistake, the police officer dropped the question of the main door turning into the patio window ! Shame on the police officer.
But the same interpreter interpreted correctly Mrs McCann (patio window), though she had heard (likely an hallucination) Mr McCann pretend his wife got in through the main door. And surely Mrs McCann was as much out of her mind as Mr McCann.

[Albertini]

Albertini, my understanding is that The Mccanns wanted a reconstruction in the early stages, but Amaral did not.  Presumably that was becos he decided from day 1 that the Mccanns dunit.


It was only after it became clear that Amaral was setting them up in September, that there was a change of mind amongst the Tapas group.

Do you remember how at that Arguido meeting in ?Portimao, Amaral lied to Gerry and told him that "the game was up" cos they had evidence that Madeleines dead body had been in the car?   A car only hired 3 weeks afterwards.

Gerry knowing that to be untrue would immediately realise that they were being "fitted up".  Any future reconstructions would be heavily biased with the sole intent of incriminating them, or even providing false evidence.

Hi Sadie. If you look at the files you will see that no official request for a reconstruction was put forward until late March 2008.

You can view the details here at McCann files:

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id279.html

In 2007 (when there was no official request) Clarence Mitchell said they would return. However after the official requests were made after 17 March 2008 (and after Amaral had been removed from the case) the tone of Mr Mitchell's statements changed.

For example as emails were being exchanged between the PJ, Stuart Prior and the Tapas group Mr Mitchell said:

Clarence Mitchell, April 6:

"If they returned now to Portugal it would be a distraction and would put pressure on police.Their lawyers would block it anyway. But once their arguido status has been lifted, they will feel differently."

So Mr Mitchell is stating on record that the McCann's lawyers would block them from coming back to perform the official PJ requested reconstruction!

There are more quotes from Mr Mitchell around this time that can be added and analysed but i haven't got time right now to list them all. Will be happy to later if you like.

[Albertini]

I came across the following comment which Gerry's sister, Trish Cameron, made in a BBC interview on 4th May 2007 being the day after the abduction.

"Trish Cameron: They last checked at half past nine; they were all sound asleep, sleeping; windows shut; shutters shut. Kate went back at ten o'clock to check; the front door was lying open; the window had been tampered with; the shutters had been jammied open... or whatever you call it, and Madeleine was missing."

Note the "...the front door was lying open." comment?

www.mccannfiles.com/id31.html

And add to that the similar comments made by other fmaily members / friends at that time:

Brian Healy -
Madeleine's maternal grandfather, told the Guardian his son-in-law had phoned him shortly
after returning "Gerry told me when they went back the shutters to the room were broken,
they were jemmied up and she was gone," said Mr Healy. "She'd been taken from the chalet.
The door was open."

Jon Corner -
a close friend of Kate McCann and godparent of the twins, said she phoned him in the middle
of the night distraught. He said: "She just blurted out that Madeleine had been abducted.
Kate said the shutters of the room were smashed. Madeleine was missing It looks as
though someone had gone straight past the twins to get to her.

Jill  Renwick -
a family friend told GMTV the McCanns were certain that Madeleine has been abducted. "They
were just watching the hotel room and going back every half-hour and the shutters had been
broken open and they had gone into the room and taken Madeleine," she said.”

[Carana]

The interpreter interpreted erroneously and  the interviewed, Mr McCann, signed that inaccuracy because he was out of his mind. Shame on the interpreter.
In order to conceal the interpreter's mistake, the police officer dropped the question of the main door turning into the patio window ! Shame on the police officer.
But the same interpreter interpreted correctly Mrs McCann (patio window), though she had heard (likely an hallucination) Mr McCann pretend his wife got in through the main door. And surely Mrs McCann was as much out of her mind as Mr McCann.

Gerry's was the first interview (IIRC). Neither the interpreter not the police officer would have been familiar with the layout. Although there is no detail in the initial statements, I would have thought that the police officer would have tried to get a basic understanding of the layout of the apartment. It would be an easy mistake for either the interpreter or the officer to scribble a note to the effect that a key was needed to open one door from the outside and then get mixed up between which was the "back" door and the "front" one. Different words may have been used (e.g., patio instead of "back") concerning Matt's check. 

By the time Kate was interviewed, he may have already realised that the door issue didn't make sense, but Gerry's statement had already been typed up and signed.

Initial confusion seems far more likely to me than Gerry lying for no fathomable reason.