The infamous unlocked door "in case of fire" .....

by LittleMissy 15.07.14 10:37

Hello all, So I got to thinking about the detail, the little things.....this unlocked door, that Kate supposedly said was "in case of fire". Right ok, so the suggestion of the mother appears to be that should a fire break out, her 3 yr old daughter could a/lift out of cot & safely carry 2 yr old twins & b/ get herself and her siblings(only a yr her junior ), out of the building safely. !!!!!Wow. Wow. Wow. I also read suggestion Kate had said door was left open in case Madelaine awoke and wanted to go find her parents. !!!!What, so inthe dark of night it was deemed safe/suitable that a 3 yr old would, wander down the steps, out of apartment to "look" for parents. When I hear Gerry talk of their care "being within bounds of responsible parenting", & how "many parents have told them, thry either have/would do the same" I always find it breathtaking...always. WTF. WHO ARE THESE PEOPLE????? Who the hell is this so called professional who told Gerry that the childcare was "well within bounds of responsible parenting"... ????? I find it hard to believe any child protection professional said such a thing, as if they had, surely Mccans would have given a name to this guru of childcare ??? As for parents telling them they would do the same...well the tapas cronies certainly seem to find it ok, as for "many others", personally I highly doubt it.....

if anyone does have a name for whomsoever told Gerry their "childcare was well within bounds of responsible parenting", plse do enlighten me :) I have looked all over, but NOWHERE have I ever seen the individual named.....

*smiles & waves*

by suzyjohnson 15.07.14 10:54

I thought it was the psychologist who put in an appearance at the libel trial. Wasn't he out in PdL within days of MM's disappearance?

With regard to your post above, don't forget that GM initially tried to say that he walked all the way round to the front of the apartments on his 9.10 pm check and went in via the front door using his key, then changed his mind later, either because -

1) He realised that others had said they had gone into 5A via the patio doors and therefore there was no point in him having walked right round to the front or

2) The patio door really was locked on 3rd May but that didn't allow for an abductor to enter the apartment (the one who was already in there hiding when GM did his check, which in turn meant that JT had seen the abductor at 9.15 pm)

Considering Mrs Fenn said the crying stopped when she heard the patio doors opening (which can't be locked from the outside) when the parents returned from the pub on 1st May, I'm inclined to think the patio doors were open every evening.

by missmar1 15.07.14 11:35

There are so many discrepancies in this case - I know they have all been discussed so many times but that doesn't mean we should put it all to rest because, imo, all these discrepancies amount to justification to get the Mccann's and tappas re-interviewed at the very least.

Gerry changed his story from locked doors to unlocked doors.

Remember the phone calls relatives and friends said they had had from the Mccann's about "tampered" shutters and open window ?

It appears Kate Mccann later put in her book that the abductor may have opened the window to create a "Red herring" Wonder if the fact that the forensics quickly discovered that the silt on the window sill was undisturbed therefore proving the abductor had not taken the window route as first told by the Mccann's ? So another change of story there too.

All my opinion only

by Benion 15.07.14 11:46

What shocks me about them leaving the children alone is not ONCE have the McCanns apologised or admitted any wrongdoing. If it was an abduction, surely they were at fault for leaving them alone. Yet they have not shown any humility. I would release a statement apologising to Madeleine for letting her down. However I would never be in that position as I would not leave my son alone in the first place.

by Benion 15.07.14 11:47

what does warning level 100% mean? what have I said to offend someone?

by Guest 15.07.14 12:14

Benion wrote:what does warning level 100% mean? what have I said to offend someone?

Your question by pm has been answered Benion. See thread in Members Lounge

by LittleMissy 15.07.14 14:17

Thank you all for your comments......I realise as a new member I may be going over old ground, I apologise.
Also I have read there have been some issues with new members not being who or what they pertain to be. I realise that suspision is rife when new pple like myself pop up, but I would like to let you all know I am happy for admin/moderators etc to trace my ip address & will happily give my facebook identity to admin/moderators so I can be checked out :) This is my 1st acc here, I read here for a little while & finally decided I would like to join your community with a view to posting and joining your discussions :) I have read extensively, although this is the first forum site I have joined with a view to discussion, although I am a member of fb groups run by hideho (controversy of Madelaine Mccan), from there, I found you guys here :)

The reason I broached the doors issue, my personal point of reference is that my eldest 2 children have only 13months age difference between them.....similar to Madelaine and twins I guess, there is NO WAY my son at 3 could lift his 2 yr old sister out of her cot and safely carried her outside, NO WAY. Needless to say, I never would have dreamt to leave him in such a situation. My eldest 2 are now 12 and 13, even now they would not be left alone in an apartment, either at home, or abroad. I would go as far as to say, had a fire broken out, a child of that age would be more likely to cower in fear, than organise a safe exit for herself & 2 siblings. I realise the fact my children could not have done so does not automatically mean no child could, but personally I struggle to believe the doors were left unlocked for either reason given by Mccans(fire& to look for parents if she awoke) as either option is problematic given age of child & siblings she would have been expected to save (each twin would have weighed only slightly less than Madelaine herself), hence I mentioned could Madelaine have been expected to LIFT twins out of cot.....

by waiting for justice 15.07.14 15:05

Hi Little Missy,

I'm in the same boat, very new but have been a lurker for ages. Also more than happy to be checked out. I'm not a member, nor do I read on any other sites though.

I'm more inclined to go with the theory the front door was locked and maybe the patio doors were open. I think the story change came about more so in case anyone had mentioned a fire.
I doubt they would've expected MM to rescue herself and the twins but rather the fire service as it seems to be normal for their kids to be everybody else's problem but theirs.
I don't think I believe really that any checking really took place in the first place to allow easy access. More an effort to make them feel better about leaving them and believing they would hear them which of course they probably wouldn't especially if the theory about doping is to be believed.

The actions taken that night (if true) are unforgivable, but probably more unforgivable in my eyes is on the part of SY for not re-asking the questions that were never answered and clarifying all the issues that just don't add up. I fail to see why this pair have been afforded the benefit of the doubt and taken at their word for this amount of time. Unless they came clean with SY or their local force and admitted at some point that all doors were open but they were afraid of public reaction etc at the time. Very much doubt it.

by suzyjohnson 15.07.14 15:31

missmar1 wrote:There are so discrepancies in this case - I know they have all been discussed so many times but that doesn't mean we should put it all to rest because, imo, all these discrepancies amount to justification to get the Mccann's and tappas re-interviewed at the very least.

Gerry changed his story from locked doors to unlocked doors.

Remember the phone calls relatives and friends said they had had from the Mccann's about "tampered" shutters and open window ?

If you put the reporting of the open window together with GM's statement about entering apartment 5A through the front door using his key, it would appear that the original intention was to say that the patio doors were locked, that there was no way into the apartment, for an abductor, except via the window .........

by canada12 15.07.14 15:37

suzyjohnson wrote:
missmar1 wrote:There are so discrepancies in this case - I know they have all been discussed so many times but that doesn't mean we should put it all to rest because, imo, all these discrepancies amount to justification to get the Mccann's and tappas re-interviewed at the very least.

Gerry changed his story from locked doors to unlocked doors.

Remember the phone calls relatives and friends said they had had from the Mccann's about "tampered" shutters and open window ?

If you put the reporting of the open window together with GM's statement about entering apartment 5A through the front door using his key, it would appear that the original intention was to say that the patio doors were locked, that there was no way into the apartment, for an abductor, except via the window .........

I still believe the original plan WAS for someone to trash the outside window blinds and force the window to make it look like an abductor had come in that way, but something happened between the planning and the "Someone's taken her!" whereby they were either let down by someone they had counted on to do the staging, or there was an unforseen circumstance which delayed or prevented it happening (it could be that the task was just impossible to do, who knows).

In any case, I believe this is the only explanation for the McCanns' initial reports to their family members and others that the "shutters had been jemmied" and the subsequent confirmation that nothing of the sort had taken place.

by suzyjohnson 15.07.14 16:05

KM statement 4/5/07 2.20 pm 'At around 10pm, the witness came to check on the children. She went into the apartment by the side door, which was closed, but unlocked, as already said'

GM statement 4/5/07 11.15 am 'At 9.05 pm, the deponent entered the club, using his key, the door being locked'

GM statement 4/5/07 11.15 am 'At around 9.30 pm, his friend MATT (a member of the group) went to his apartment where his own children were, and on his way he went into the deponent's apartment, going in through a sliding glass door at the side of the building, which was always unlocked'

MO statement 10/5/07 'he took the quickest route between ROB's apartment and the side garden gate entrance to the rear patio of the McCann residence, to which he gained access through the glass sliding door into the apartment lounge. The door was closed but not locked as KM had said it would be'

From the above it was GM himself who told the police that MO went into 5A through the patio doors which were always unlocked, in the same statement in which he said he himself walked round the front door and used his key. By 10/5/07 GM says he was also using the patio entrance,
'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.

by SuspiciousMinds 15.07.14 17:19

If the McCanns thought that Madeleine was capable of escaping and/or rescuing her siblings in the event of a fire, or to go looking for her parents if she wanted to, then their utter refusal to even contemplate the idea that she might have wandered off becomes even more inexplicable.

I don't believe they thought the children could get out. The McCanns just left them in a convenient 'cage' while they went out to enjoy themselves, and they couldn't even be bothered to lock the cage because using the front door instead would waste a few extra seconds of their precious 'me time'.

Unbelievable - like everything else about them.

by **PeterMac** 15.07.14 17:27

SuspiciousMinds wrote:If the McCanns thought that Madeleine was capable of escaping and/or rescuing her siblings in the event of a fire, or to go looking for her parents if she wanted to, then their utter refusal to even contemplate the idea that she might have wandered off becomes even more inexplicable.
I don't believe they thought the children could get out. The McCanns just left them in a convenient 'cage' while they went out to enjoy themselves, and they couldn't even be bothered to lock the cage because using the front door instead would waste a few extra seconds of their precious 'me time'.
Unbelievable - like everything else about them.

Of course it is only unbelievable IF you believe it.

If you really believe that 9 parents would leave 8 children for 5 nights = 360 ICAUs (International Child Abandonment Units)
in cold, dark locked or unlocked apartments, whilst at least some were suffering from relatively serious (for small children) medical conditions . . .

Only if you really believe that does it become Un-believeable - if you see what I mean !

And if you find it unbelievable, you are surely entitled to 'purport' another theory

by Guest 15.07.14 18:06

SuspiciousMinds wrote:If the McCanns thought that Madeleine was capable of escaping and/or rescuing her siblings in the event of a fire, or to go looking for her parents if she wanted to, then their utter refusal to even contemplate the idea that she might have wandered off becomes even more inexplicable.

An absolutely brilliant point.

by The Rooster 15.07.14 18:14

I don't believe they all left their children unattended night after night. But why say they did, what does it benefit them to create the collective lie? Presumable it was viewed as the lesser of two evils! So what was the greater evil?

by MrsC 15.07.14 18:18

The Rooster wrote:I don't believe they all left their children unattended night after night. But why say they did, what does it benefit them to create the collective lie? Presumable it was viewed as the lesser of two evils! So what was the greater evil?

Without neglect/abandonment there can have been no abduction.

by The Rooster 15.07.14 18:25

Yes but why all say the did it, why the pact thing. What was the greater evil they are covering up?

by Google.Gaspar.Statements 15.07.14 18:28

The Rooster wrote:Yes but why all say the did it, why the pact thing. What was the greater evil they are covering up?

Have you read the Gaspar statements?

by The Rooster 15.07.14 18:36

Yes I have, but surely they can't all be involved in what was said in the Gaspars statements. The pact must cover something they were all involved in, but what?

by dentdelion 15.07.14 18:49

My first 'take' on the 'open door in case of fire scenario' was to make rescuing the children by outsiders easier and gain precious time. There have been many tragic episodes where secure windows have hampered rescue attempts.

Ludicrous to think of Madeleine assuming the role of hero in a smoke filled room and being physically able to help the twins who were nearly the same size as herself. How they could even have had the thought of a fire being a possibility and then do as they claim they did nah

by HelenMeg 15.07.14 19:30

The Rooster wrote:Yes I have, but surely they can't all be involved in what was said in the Gaspars statements. The pact must cover something they were all involved in, but what?

I agree Rooster -the whole complexity of this case is solely to cover up something that they were all involved in.

The neglect was a fabrication to enable M to be 'abducted' . Whatever it was that they were all involved in was the reason for governmental assistance. So you have to examine who else was there at the OC
that week taking part in the events. This whole charade is about preventing the exposure of what actually went on. If they (the government) are determined it wont be exposed then it wont be exposed.

by Hicks 15.07.14 21:25

HelenMeg wrote:
The Rooster wrote:Yes I have, but surely they can't all be involved in what was said in the Gaspars statements. The pact must cover something they were all involved in, but what?
I agree Rooster -the whole complexity of this case is solely to cover up something that they were all involved in.

The neglect was a fabrication to enable M to be 'abducted' . Whatever it was that they were all involved in was the reason for governmental assistance. So you have to examine who else was there at the OC
that week taking part in the events. This whole charade is about preventing the exposure of what actually went on. If they (the government) are determined it wont be exposed then it wont be exposed.

That pretty much sums it up for me.

I read somewhere-can't remember where now- that there were rumours of CM being with the McCann's on the 3rd May, in a restaurant in PDL... I think. Apparently all references to this have now been whooshed.

Has anybody any info about it?

by SuspiciousMinds 15.07.14 22:54

The McCanns had to keep up the appearance of everything being normal on May 3rd. And normal for that holiday was leaving their kids alone every night. But when that behaviour is going to be revealed to the whole world, the consequences are very different:

1) Their families (and the public in general) would be shocked to learn that they'd left such young children alone in an unlocked apartment;
2) Professional embarrassment - doctors who leave their toddlers to go drinking, but would be expected to report others who do the same?
2) The child could have got out on her own, and then there would be no-one to blame but the parents and thus a very probable neglect charge.

Hence:

1) Opening the window to look like someone got in that way (so it wasn't really their fault);
2) Telling all the relatives that the windows were jemmied open (so it wasn't really their fault);
3) Instantly claiming abduction, to pin the blame on a mystery outsider (so it wasn't really their fault);
4) Conferring with their equally neglectful friends to create a timeline showing they were checking on the children regularly (so it wasn't really their fault);
5) Telling everyone it was only like dining in your back garden (so it wasn't really their fault);
6) Claiming the apartment was locked, until it becomes clear that the police aren't buying the 'window' claim and then backtracking.

So maybe they were a bit embarrassed to start with after all, and then just decided to brazen it out. And the neglect angle did do a pretty good job of providing a focus for people's anger and distracting them from any other possible crimes that might have been committed by the McCanns and their friends that night.

by LittleMissy 16.07.14 1:48

@Suzyjohnson....ahhhh I must admit my ignorance to Mrs Fenn stating that the crying ceased when she heard the patio doors being opened , although I have read of the crying which gradually became a more distressed cry over course of about 75 mins, if my memory serves me well, which in honesty it does not always! Long story, anyhow, this is very interesting, because, obviously Mrs Fenn was a INDEPENDANT witness & we all know there are very few of those in this case! Anyhow, Suzy as you rightly surmise, the crying stopping as patio doors opened(which could ONLY be locked from inside the apartment) This suggests that they did indeed leave the patio doors on previous nights...That is a gem of information Suzy....points to Mccans leaving kids numerous nights with patio doors open, well they certainly did the night Mrs Fenn heard them return, & it seems on the 3rd also, however the detail of the 3rd is highly contentious I know. Now what has just occured to me, is that Kate supposedly mentioned to FP that she was slightly concerned that they had left patio doors that evening, but Gerry had said it was fine....which gives impression it was first time they had done so. Yet i have just learnt that Mrs Fenn heard them return on a previous night through those very patio doors that coukd only be locked from inside.....HMmmmmm my personal opinion is that they were fearful of neglect charges, or other unpleasant repercussions for themselves, so was born the "first time they had left the patio doors open" All this of course, is just my opinion Wink

by LittleMissy 16.07.14 1:55

@suspisious minds.... you have covered just about everything there, indeed, yes it was this back tracking over jemmied shutters & whether it was front or back door they used that night/other nights, in particular, which jumped out at me when I started reading up on this case. I mean, telling relatives the shuttersvhad been jemmied, the famiky then feeding it to media.....Then when the undisturbed lichen & only Kate's prints are on window, there is a change of tact....just like there was a change of tact when the "entered through locked front door using key as always" became untenable, as it gave no opportunity or possibility of intruder entering, let alone, abducting Madelaine.