Author Topic: Were the half hour visual checks a convenient invention after the fact?  (Read 23694 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Mr Moderator

Much has been written about the half hour visual checks allegedly undertaken by certain members of the tapas group but was this a convenient invention after the disappearance intended to cover up any parental shortcomings?

There is evidence including the statements from the upstairs resident Mrs Fenn that an older child had cried and called for her father for over an hour two nights before the event.

Were the parents lulled into a false sense of security as the McCanns later claimed?

26
« Last Edit: October 26, 2016, 03:50:53 PM by John »

Offline sadie

Was there any reason any of them had to expect any harm  to come to their child?

When your child has dropped off to sleep, do you keep going in and looking cos I didn't generally.  No sounds outside the door and that was good enough for me and most parents.

My bet is that Gerry carried out a visual that night cos the door had opened slightly since they left.

A visual check took place every half hour that night.  Plus the listening one.


To remind you an audio check from outside, every half hour, was considerd enough for decades at holiday camps and hotels across the world.

THe Mccanns did visual ones

stephen25000

  • Guest
Was there any reason any of them had to expect any harm  to come to their child?

When your child has dropped off to sleep, do you keep going in and looking cos I didn't generally.  No sounds outside the door and that was good enough for me and most parents.

My bet is that Gerry carried out a visual that night cos the door had opened slightly since they left.

A visual check took place every half hour that night.  Plus the listening one.

To remind you an audio check from outside, every half hour, was considerd enough for decades at holiday camps and hotels across the world.

THe Mccanns did visual ones

Not quite true.

gm did not look in the room.

If I remember correctly, the ONLY time either of them visited the children to check was on that night.
« Last Edit: October 25, 2016, 04:34:10 PM by ShiningInLuz »

Offline Carew

Was there any reason any of them had to expect any harm  to come to their child?

When your child has dropped off to sleep, do you keep going in and looking cos I didn't generally.  No sounds outside the door and that was good enough for me and most parents.

My bet is that Gerry carried out a visual that night cos the door had opened slightly since they left.

A visual check took place every half hour that night.  Plus the listening one.

To remind you an audio check from outside, every half hour, was considerd enough for decades at holiday camps and hotels across the world.

THe Mccanns did visual ones

You still keep trotting this stuff out!..............Listening outside the BEDROOM door of an UNLOCKED apartment open to the street is not the same as either a Butlins listening service or your own house.

"No sounds outside the door" might be good enough for you, but from an unlocked apartment, you could be listening to an empty room with the child already gone.

The McCanns had reason to suspect that Madeleine might wake distressed.........not sleep peacefully through the night. They discussed it..

They seemed to expect that there was a chance she might get out and find them and it is stated that they thought this might be "better" than waking and finding herself securely locked in. How "safe" is that?

On crimewatch, Gerry mentioned increasing the checks due to the possibility that Madeleine might wake distressed.

Never-the-less only one "checker,".......Gerry..... actually said he looked in and saw her in her bed the night she disappeared from an open apartment.

No-one else actually looked at her!

........and yet you still insist that this arrangement was somehow "superior"

Why?
 
Edited to add the omitted word BEDROOM.....
 
« Last Edit: October 25, 2016, 04:35:23 PM by ShiningInLuz »

Offline sadie


Hmmm.........not all peculiar experiences are to be glad about.

Now nip back to post 817 and remove this Sadie- style misinformation .......

"A visual check took place every half hour that night.  Plus the listening one. "

No, it didn`t.

Only one "visual check" of Madeleine took place on the night she disappeared.

No misinformation there. 
Three visual checks took place, one every half hour.

- They arrived at about 8.30 -8.35
- Matt listened at the window at about 9 pm
- Gerry wasn't happy with that .  He visually checked at about 9.05
- Matt visually checked, saw the twins and saw the bottom of Madeleines bed.  No agitation /noise, so he accepted that she too was ok, rather than go into the bedroom and posibly desturb them.  At about 9.30 ish
- Kate checked visually at about 10.pm.  Madeleine was GONE

EVERY HALF AN HOUR there was a visual check.  Madeleine was missed from Matts visual check, unfortunately, but he saw her bed was quiet and quite naturally, imo, assumed she was OK


[... moderated ...]

Offline Carew

No misinformation there. 
Three visual checks took place, one every half hour.

- They arrived at about 8.30 -8.35
- Matt listened at the window at about 9 pm
- Gerry wasn't happy with that .  He visually checked at about 9.05
- Matt visually checked, saw the twins and saw the bottom of Madeleines bed.  No agitation /noise, so he accepted that she too was ok, rather than go into the bedroom and posibly desturb them.  At about 9.30 ish
- Kate checked visually at about 10.pm.  Madeleine was GONE

EVERY HALF AN HOUR there was a visual check.  Madeleine was missed from Matts visual check, unfortunately, but he saw her bed was quiet and quite naturally, imo, assumed she was OK


[... moderated ...]


A visual check is a visual check, not an assumption by you or Matt or anyone else that a child is there because all is quiet.

Madeleine was checked visually only once the whole time she was left alone on the night she disappeared.

Enough is enough.

You are wrong and you know you are wrong.

[... moderated ...]





« Last Edit: April 24, 2014, 01:15:08 PM by John »

Offline sadie


A visual check is a visual check, not an assumption by you or Matt or anyone else that a child is there because all is quiet.

Madeleine was checked visually only once the whole time she was left alone on the night she disappeared.

Enough is enough.

You are wrong and you know you are wrong.

[... moderated ...]
Erm...

She was gone by Kates check at  10pm , that leaves two possibilities for visually seeing her doesn't it? 

Gerry did his.  He went in and visually checked all three.  He possibly went in,  becos the door had moved a little 

Matt had no reason to notice the door was open wider, cos he hadn't seen its position before.  He looked in and thought all was fine.




I suggest that to most people, that would be exactly what they would do.  Look in and NOT go in, unless they were worried for some reason. 


Perhaps you are over protective, Carew?

Offline pathfinder73

No misinformation there. 
Three visual checks took place, one every half hour.

- They arrived at about 8.30 -8.35
- Matt listened at the window at about 9 pm
- Gerry wasn't happy with that .  He visually checked at about 9.05
- Matt visually checked, saw the twins and saw the bottom of Madeleines bed.  No agitation /noise, so he accepted that she too was ok, rather than go into the bedroom and posibly desturb them.  At about 9.30 ish
- Kate checked visually at about 10.pm.  Madeleine was GONE

EVERY HALF AN HOUR there was a visual check.  Madeleine was missed from Matts visual check, unfortunately, but he saw her bed was quiet and quite naturally, imo, assumed she was OK


[... moderated ...]

That's funny Gerry said that was the first visual check he did of the week - I thought you'd seen that Cutting Edge doc? That first check is an important part of solving the case. Kate said she wasn't even going to do a visual check after entering the apartment  8-)(--)
« Last Edit: April 24, 2014, 01:16:05 PM by John »
Smithman carrying a child in his arms checked his watch after passing the Smith family and the time was 10:03. Both are still unidentified 10 years later.

Offline sadie

That's funny Gerry said that was the first visual check he did of the week - I thought you'd seen that Cutting Edge doc? That first check is an important part of solving the case. Kate said she wasn't even going to do a visual check after entering the apartment  8-)(--)
Pathfinder had I been in a similar position, I can honestly say that unless I was worried for some reason, I wouldn't have gone into my kids bedroom.

My son was an horrendous sleeper.  At home, we crept upstairs, went to the loo and washed but we didn't dare flush the loo, cos it would waken him.  And then he would lie awake most of the night crying.  Even without flushing the loo it seemed that he sensed that we had gone to bed and started demanding attention.

I believe thta we were very good parents but we didn't check every night.  Our daughter was different cos she slept quite well but needed lifting for quite a while to potty her.  Otherwise, generally, like most parents of toddlers I imagine, we left them to sleep peacefully unless we were aware of any problem.

Any probs and we were there like a shot.

Tbh, I think you are over reacting, compared to normal behaviour. 

And they did check visually anyhow..

Offline pathfinder73

Pathfinder had I been in a similar position, I can honestly say that unless I was worried for some reason, I wouldn't have gone into my kids bedroom.

My son was an horrendous sleeper.  At home, we crept upstairs, went to the loo and washed but we didn't dare flush the loo, cos it would waken him.  And then he would lie awake most of the night crying.  Even without flushing the loo it seemed that he sensed that we had gone to bed and started demanding attention.

I believe thta we were very good parents but we didn't check every night.  Our daughter was different cos she slept quite well but needed lifting for quite a while to potty her.  Otherwise, generally, like most parents of toddlers I imagine, we left them to sleep peacefully unless we were aware of any problem.

Any probs and we were there like a shot.

Tbh, I think you are over reacting, compared to normal behaviour. 

And they did check visually anyhow..

What? You'd go inside the apartment and you wouldn't walk another 10 feet to see if they're there  8-)(--) I don't believe such ridiculous nonsense.  They said Madeleine would never wake up until 2 or 3am and nothing could wake the twins that night. Kate was about to leave again after entering through the patio door but she notices the door wide open (that door can't stop moving!). So she goes to the door but still doesn't check if the kids are there  8-)(--) She just goes to shut the door and starts to close it and it slams shut on her. Then she opens it and finally does a visual check to see if the kids are there. Talk about beating around the bush flowerbed.
« Last Edit: April 21, 2014, 11:38:12 PM by pathfinder73 »
Smithman carrying a child in his arms checked his watch after passing the Smith family and the time was 10:03. Both are still unidentified 10 years later.

Offline sadie

Re: Were the half hour visual checks a convenient invention after the fact?
« Reply #10 on: April 22, 2014, 12:47:27 AM »
What? You'd go inside the apartment and you wouldn't walk another 10 feet to see if they're there  8-)(--) I don't believe such ridiculous nonsense.  They said Madeleine would never wake up until 2 or 3am and nothing could wake the twins that night. Kate was about to leave again after entering through the patio door but she notices the door wide open (that door can't stop moving!). So she goes to the door but still doesn't check if the kids are there  8-)(--) She just goes to shut the door and starts to close it and it slams shut on her. Then she opens it and finally does a visual check to see if the kids are there. Talk about beating around the bush flowerbed.

Make up what you wish and believe what you wish.  They visually checked.  Full stop.

If all was quiet, i probably would not have done for fear of waking my little boy


But they did.   THEY VISUALLY CHECKED

THEY VISUALLY CHECKED EVERY HALF HOUR.    FULL STOP!


[.....  moderated ....]

Cariad

  • Guest
Re: Were the half hour visual checks a convenient invention after the fact?
« Reply #11 on: April 22, 2014, 10:56:39 AM »
Make up what you wish and believe what you wish.  They visually checked.  Full stop.

If all was quiet, i probably would not have done for fear of waking my little boy


But they did.   THEY VISUALLY CHECKED

THEY VISUALLY CHECKED EVERY HALF HOUR.    FULL STOP!

[..... moderated ....]

Ok, let's pretend that you're not just making up crap and a half hour visual check was performed. Fine.

So Madeleine could not have been taken till after Matt's visual check at 9:30. So where does that leave Sadie's theory now?
« Last Edit: April 22, 2014, 12:14:22 PM by John »

Offline sadie

Re: Were the half hour visual checks a convenient invention after the fact?
« Reply #12 on: April 22, 2014, 11:14:41 AM »
Ok, let's pretend that you're not just making up crap and a half hour visual check was performed. Fine.

So Madeleine could not have been taken till after Matt's visual check at 9:30. So where does that leave Sadie's theory now?
why?

Cariad

  • Guest
Re: Were the half hour visual checks a convenient invention after the fact?
« Reply #13 on: April 22, 2014, 11:59:43 AM »
How twee Cariad to still be going over and over the same stuff and trying to change the times, the evidence, it seems


As you well know, Matt saw the twins and seeing the end of Madeleines bed all quiet, he didn't enter the room.
He behaved the same as you or I would have done.



However somewhere he says that some light in the bedroom seemed to be coming from somewhere else than from the table lamp.


Now where could that source be?  Makes sense that it was coming from under the lifted shutters, doncha think?


There was very little light outside, the street lamps were all masked by heavy foliage and the moon had not yet risen IIRC.  There were also light weight  curtains across the window.

It is quite possible that he didn't even see the window area thru the little over 45* door opening, but he recognised the slight glow.  Through thta door opening he would see the twins and the bottom of Madeleines bed, but depending on where he was standing. not necessarily the window.



I think that the abduction took place between Gerrys visit at about 9.05 - 9.10 ish and Matts visit at about 9.30.
This ties up really nicely with Jane Tanners sighting .... and I haven't found it necessary to fiddle with,/change any of the times in the statements.


I think JT witnessed the abductor carrying Madeleine away



Now, if you will excuse me, I must get on with real life.

Wow! Is it possible to OD on patronisation? I certainly feel a little queasy...

I don't have a theory Sadie, so I don't need to alter times/ checks to fit in with anything.

As for doing as you or I would do, just to be absolutely clear, I would never, ever leave small children out of sight/ hearings in an unsecured apartment for half an hour. Be it day or night, home or abroad. So whether I would actually make sure that they were still in the unlocked apartment on my 'check' is academic.


The point I was making is that you can't have it both ways. Either Matt saw her and the alleged abduction took place later or there wasn't a visual check.

I think you'll find that the man JT saw has been identified now anyway and SY think the 'abduction' took place at about ten.

icabodcrane

  • Guest
Re: Were the half hour visual checks a convenient invention after the fact?
« Reply #14 on: April 22, 2014, 12:03:57 PM »
I've just looked at the layout of the room,  as Matthew Oldfield would have seen it when he looked in

Whilst one of  the cots has a   'see through'  netting on the end,  the other cot end is covered

Oldfield couldn't have  'seen'  the child asleep in that cot unless he walked into the room and looked down into it  ...  could he  ?

Yet he said he saw the twins breathing  from his position at the door  ...  how could that be  ?