‘Do remember in McCann world - there is always more than one version of events.’

She did not think of going into the room to cover up the children, close the window, shutter and curtains.

She immediately knew Madeleine was taken.

Hmmm what about the twins?  Were they there?  Was she not concerned about them?
-----------------------------------------------------------

'concerned'? Obviously NOT!

She LEFT them, according to her, EXACTLY where they were when she went BACK to the tapas, to 'raise the alarm'.

SO, her last two kids left in a darkened room, out of her sight, with an UNCAUGHT and predatory 'burglartor/abductor' on the loose!

Leaving the 'scene' WINDOW WIDE OPEN, SHUTTER RAISED, CURTAINS OPEN!

How would she have EXPLAINED when the whole 'gang' rushed back to the apartment and had then found the twins 'gone' as well?

Because 'burglator/abductor' snatched her last two kiddies when she 'ran out of the apartment' to go BACK to the tapas restaurant, out of SIGHT.

And we KNOW she did that, leaving the twins ALONE, in total danger of 'abduction, or worse'  because we have this from................GERALD McCANN!

G. MCCANN: "The first thing that went straight through my head and I think -- it was just disbelief. I said, she can't be there, she can't be there. And I was running to the apartment with Kate. And I've checked. And she said, I've checked, I've checked, she's not there."

"And I ran into the bedroom. And I found it just as Kate described. And when I saw that window pushed wide open and the shutter up, which we'd left down the whole week, it was horrible. And I -- lowered the shutter and I went through the front door. And I was able to lift the shutter from outside which -- "
------------------------------------------

"And i FOUND it JUST as Kate had 'described'"

"when i SAW that window pushed wide OPEN and the shutter UP."

"and I LOWERED the shutter, and LIFTED the shutter from outside" (thus altering/contaminating the 'crime' scene, himself!)

He never EXPLAINED HOW he managed to LIFT the shutter from the outside with his 'fingers' with the heavy shutter having been lowered to 'rest' on the 'sill'. Guess he must have been able to squeeze his 'tiny' fingers between the bottom of the lowered shutter and the sill.  'Tiny' fingers for 'Tiny' tears!

He had no 'jemmy' did he?

And his 'efforts' to 'raise' the shutters are quite seperate from Fiona P AND her mothers 'efforts to 'raise' the shutter, from outside! (who also had no access to a 'jemmy'!)

Were the shutters 'raised' or 'lowered' when the GNR/PJ 'arrived' at the 'scene'?

Anyway,

The bottom line is, Kate McCann would have us 'believe' she LEFT the twins in THAT 'exposed' room, out of sight, again, with an 'abductor/burglator' UNCAUGHT, on the 'prowl' outside her apartment!

And IF pigs could fly..................

That's the thing that struck me in the early days. The twins wouldn't have been that heavy and as a mother 
I'm pretty sure my natural reaction would've been to scoop one up in each arm and go to the balcony and scream for my husband. 
Also in the days after the supposed abduction, leaving them in childcare! They wouldn't have been out of my sight for more than a second. 

It still angers me to this day how supporters said "we've all done it". 
Er, no, we haven't all done it.

If Gerry tried to open the shutters, as he said, then why were Kate's fingerprints the only ones found on said shutters?  

TMH wrote:If Gerry tried to open the shutters, as he said, then why were Kate's fingerprints the only ones found on said shutters?  

Those prints were in a very strange place, always puzzled my what contortions would have to be done to place thumb prints like they were.

Nina wrote:

TMH wrote:If Gerry tried to open the shutters, as he said, then why were Kate's fingerprints the only ones found on said shutters?  

Those prints were in a very strange place, always puzzled my what contortions would have to be done to place thumb prints like they were.

Perhaps he used Kate as a jemmy?

No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:The words "think" and "Lorraine Kelly" are a contradiction in terms!

LIKE

G. MCCANN: The first thing that went straight through my head and I think -- it was just disbelief. I said, she can't be there; she can't be there. And I was running to the apartment with Kate. And I've checked. And she said, I've checked, I've checked, she's not there.




Another ooops moment brought to you by gerry, the man who can't stop giving.

He tells us the first thing that went through his head indicating there would/should be at least one more in his list, yet, he doesn't tell what the second thing he thought was.


I think allows for others to think otherwise.

He uses a qualifier STRAIGHT

He has two qualifiers in the first sentence making it sensitive
A qualifier is a word which when removed, doesn't change the intent/meaning of the sentence.

 

Why does he need to tell us it went straight though his head?

How else would it go given he has just found out his daughter is allegedly missing from her bedroom?

He doesn't tell us it was disbelief, only that he thought it was disbelief.

He doesn't tell us it was disbelief; he uses a qualifier JUST.


Not only does he use a qualifier, the qualifier is a word which minimises/reduces the statement.

A strong sentence would be "The first thing that went though my head was disbelief"




Instead we have a weaker sentence with two qualifiers, incomplete list (there was no secondly) Minimising, and reduced commitment

 

Why would he need to tell us he only thought it was disbelief, just disbelief at that?

Why would he minimise his reaction?

I think -- it was just disbelief.

Does this pause indicate self-editing?

 




I said, she can't be there; she can't be there. 

Anything in the negative has to be noted and marked as sensitive.
Here he repeats it twice making it even more sensitive.

This is where he drops himself right in it.

 

She can't be there

Surely he means she can't NOT be there or the easier she MUST be there or even easier she can't be gone.

He doesn't say that though and, if he doesn't say it, I can't say it for him.
If she can't be there, where then does he say she can be?
If you look at it logically, it would read as Maddie being there when she shouldn't be.

She should have been somewhere else and was found unexpectedly back in their apartment.

This would make sense if, perhaps, she was supposed to be in another apartment perhaps being babysat by whatever missing adult whose turn it was to have a sickie and somehow got out of that apartment and made her way back to her own apartment which was 5a.
It would fit in with his she can't be there sentence since it would continue ' She can't be there... she was supposed to be in xyz'


And I was running to the apartment with Kate.

And at the beginning of a sentence indicates missing information.
What information is missing between hearing Maddie was missing and running to the apartment?

Why would he need to miss information out?
Note also the use of the word with which indicates distancing.

He is as far from kate as is possible in the sentence making it sensitive

The expected would be WE RAN to the apartment showing unity

Instead we have distancing between him and kate.

All of which make it sensitive

TO explains why something was done.
Often the subject will feel the need to explain why something happened of was done as they anticipate being asked why did you do such and such? Making it sensitive.

 

 

And I've checked. And she said, I've checked, I've checked, she's not there.

This sentence is highly sensitive.

AND at the beginning of a sentence indicates missing information.

Here we have two sentences beginning with AND.
A total of 3 consecutive sentences beginning with AND Making this highly sensitive. What information is missing and why is there a need to hide information?
Note also out of chronological order.
He is running to the apartment yet he says he also checked.
He hasn't said he/they got to the apartment and checked.
I've checked is repeated 3 times as well making it highly sensitive (3 is also the liar's number Mark McClish)
He doesn’t tell us kate said only that SHE said.
Who is SHE?

Why said and not the stronger told me?
Their child is missing, allegedly abducted yet there doesn't seem to be much urgency
 Why checked rather looked or searched which would imply some form of urgency?
What is his definition of checking?
From previous statements, their idea of checking is listening at a window or from the sitting room, not physically going into the bedroom and making sure they were safely asleep and covered given it was chilly.
As kate told us, if the door hadn't allegedly slammed (caused by non existent wind and going against the laws of physics) she wouldn't have gone into their bedroom.
 How did he check?
Where did he look?
How long did his check take?

What was asked or said to kate for her to say she had checked twice?

Who else was there apart from kate and gerry when she said I’ve checked?

What did kate's check consist of?
Where did she check?

And she said, I've checked, I've checked, she's not there.
Who is she?
She doesn't say Maddie's not there.
At least she tells us where she isn't, unlike gerry, who said she can't be there.


Out of the 48 words we have in this part:


She can't be there (4 words - 8 words total) repeated twice
She's not there is said once.

I've checked (2 words - 6 words total) repeated thrice
Out of 5 sentences we have 3 sentences beginning with AND
AND at the beginning of a sentence indicates missing information, so, we have 3 sentences that begin with missing information.
Why would gerry need to omit information?
Why would he need to omit information in regard to what happened when kate told him Maddie was missing?




 

And I ran into the bedroom. And I found it just as Kate described. And when I saw that window pushed wide open and the shutter up, which we'd left down the whole week, it was horrible. And I -- lowered the shutter and I went through the front door. And I was able to lift the shutter from outside which --

So much sensitivity here

5 sentences in total and 5 sentences beginning with AND making this super sensitive.

AND at the beginning of a sentences indicates missing information.

Why is he concealing information?
What information is he concealing?

 

And I ran into the bedroom.




AND at the beginning of a sentences indicates missing information.




He has just told us he WAS running to the apartment, he had checked, now he tells us he ran into the bedroom.




This is out of chronological order making it sensitive.




He should had said I ran to the apartment, I ran into the bedroom, I checked.




Which bedroom did he run into?




He doesn't say he ran into the children's bedroom, or their bedroom.




 




And I found it just as Kate described.




AND at the beginning of a sentences indicates missing information.




Note the qualifier JUST, a word used to minimise downwards.




Why not say I found it as kate described/said or like kate described/said?




He talks about the window and shutter but makes no mention of Maddie's bed or the twins.




 




 




And when I saw that window pushed wide open and the shutter up, which we'd left down the whole week, it was horrible.




AND at the beginning of a sentences indicates missing information.




Here he uses past tense in relation to what he saw which is tense appropriate.




Note he uses the first person singular pronoun I in relation to what he saw which is appropriate.




He then uses the pronoun WE, which indicates unity and shared co-operation in relation to the shutter, which is also, appropriate since it was something they both did.
THIS is close, THAT is distancing.
Here he distances himself from the window.
Why THAT window and not THE window?
For there to be a THAT there has to be a THIS
Note he uses a qualifier, in this case PUSHED.
A qualifier is a word that when removed, doesn’t change the meaning of the sentence.
Why does he need to tell us it was pushed wide open and not simply wide open?
Qualifiers weaken a statement.
WHICH explains why something happened, in this case the shutters being up and the window open.
He is anticipating being asked about the shutters and window being open.
What is the IT that was horrible?
What is his definition of horrible?








And I -- lowered the shutter and I went through the front door.

AND at the beginning of a sentences indicates missing information.
Given his daughter is supposedly missing allegedly abducted, why would he tamper with the crime scene?
The window and shutter are supposedly open presumably by the abductor so why would he lower the shutter from inside the bedroom thus erasing important evidence and possibly contaminating or removing vital forensic evidence such as prints, hair, skin cells or fibres?
He tells us he went out through the front door, why was it important for him to tell us it was the front door which was next to their bedroom.
Why not simply say I went outside and I was able to/ managed to lift their shutter?
Why was the front door sensitive to him?
He doesn't tell us how hard it was, how far he managed to lift it and how noisy it was.
No one else has mentioned how noisy the shutters were when being raised or lowered.
Metal shutters are by their nature noisy.




And I was able to lift the shutter from outside which...




AND at the beginning of a sentences indicates missing information.
Why were his prints not found on the outside of the shutter and kate's were?
Why did he go outside and lift the shutter up again contaminating the crime scene


This section contains 60 words
In this part we have 5 sentences
AND starts each of the 5 sentences indicating a lot of missing information.
Why would an innocent person conceal information concerning what they saw and did on finding their daughter missing, allegedly abducted.
There are 6 first person singular pronouns I where he takes ownership of what he is saying
There is one pronoun WE in relation to leaving the shutters down
There is a pause where he could be self editing when he says I-- Lowered...
Could he have been about to say something else?
There is distancing between him and kate when he says "I was running to the apartment with kate"
The expected would be WE, indicating unity and shared co-operation, yet he uses WITH which indicates he perhaps didn't want to be there
An example could be mom and I went shopping- something I enjoy doing and wanted to do.
We went shopping, which shows unity,
I went shopping with mom, shows distancing, I didn't want to go shopping.
Note the distance between I (gerry) and kate, they are as far apart as they can get in the sentence.
It indicates tension and possible relationship issues.
Having a child go missing would bring them close together at that point as they seek to find their missing child.
I would expect to see WE in relation to going back to the apartment and searching


Out of a total of 10 sentences, there are 8 sentences beginning with AND
All the sentences beginning with AND start the moment he and kate go back to the apartment.

This shows there is a lot of missing information in regard to what they actually said and did than what they have told us in this statement.
Why would there be a need to conceal information if you have nothing to hide and did nothing wrong.

I would be asking a lot of questions regarding this sensitve time, since it is clear he is not telling us everything.

Thanks Hobs!

parapono wrote:Thanks Hobs!

ditto

No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:The words "think" and "Lorraine Kelly" are a contradiction in terms!

Very good. I wonder if she will even watch it?

Gerrys version of events regarding the shutters is farcical anyone with half a brain entering a scene such as this would automatically say to everyone around them don't touch anything call the police but we are led to believe a highly educated person such as a doctor just waltzed straight in there shut the window  and  pulled the shutter down . It just would not happen and it didn't .

Even if say he had gone into auto pilot by the time it had registered what had happened and he approached the window ( navigating 2 travel cots with sleeping babies )  to pull the shutter down he would have thought shit no I shouldn't.

even when us humans find ourselves in life death situations we can think logically it is only afterwards when the adrenaline rush as gone and you actually sit down and think about what has happened  that you might then end up a gibberish mess .Then later when you look back on things wonder how the hell you coped but we do humans are highly resilient creatures especially when faced with danger .


Gerry due to the nature of his job  is used to making decisions under immense stress and also keeping a cool head so if this story was accurate Gerrys first reaction would have been 'don't touch anything call the police ' .

Tie in the fact that only Kates fingerprints were found Gerrys version could not have happened unless he had been wearing gloves which holiday makers don't tend to wear when eating their evening meal .

This whole story is like a giant piece of swiss cheese so many holes !

The McCanns are clearly masters of Quantum Physics.

The whole "abduction" is part of a bizarre Schrodinger's Cat type experiment where she is both dead and adbucted and somehow neither all at once.

jeanmonroe wrote:
G. MCCANN: "The first thing that went straight through my head and I think -- it was just disbelief. I said, she can't be there, she can't be there. And I was running to the apartment with Kate. And I've checked. And she said, I've checked, I've checked, she's not there."

The bit I've put in bold and italics above is weird! Surely he would have said, 'She must be there, she must be there.' I mean, why wouldn't he expect Madeleine be in the apartment if that's where they left her?

frost wrote:
Tie in the fact that only Kates fingerprints were found Gerrys version could not have happened unless he had been wearing gloves which holiday makers don't tend to wear when eating their evening meal .

They don't tend to move fridges around either, so...

frost wrote:Gerrys version of events regarding the shutters is farcical anyone with half a brain entering a scene such as this would automatically say to everyone around them don't touch anything call the police but we are led to believe a highly educated person such as a doctor just waltzed straight in there shut the window  and  pulled the shutter down . It just would not happen and it didn't .

Hi frost. Gerry also went outside and tried to pull the shutter up from outside.
Let me think now. Your daughter has disappeared and one of the first things you do is go outside and see if you can raise the shutter.
You don't contact the police, set up search parties, scream her name from the rooftops - no, if you're Gerry McCann you go outside and try to lift the shutter.
Why?

I recall that 2 ex detectives or policemen went from England and looked at the evidence of windows and shutters and said words to the effect ,that  finger print or fingers prints were on the outside of shutters and I think ,that they knew it was kates,does anyone else recall that ? it was on video I watched . joyce1938.

frost said ''wearing gloves which holiday makers don't tend to wear''


but some people DO take gloves on holiday-who knows whether they wear them?

parapono wrote:Thanks Hobs!

I found Hobs' blogspot earlier, I really enjoy reading her posts, fascinating:

http://tania-cadogan.blogspot.co.uk/

worriedmum wrote:frost said ''wearing gloves which holiday makers don't tend to wear''


but some people DO take gloves on holiday-who knows whether they wear them?

They are in a stationary drawer along with paper clips, rubber bands and highlighter so maybe used for changing the ink in a printer.

Nina wrote:

worriedmum wrote:frost said ''wearing gloves which holiday makers don't tend to wear''


but some people DO take gloves on holiday-who knows whether they wear them?

They are in a stationary drawer along with paper clips, rubber bands and highlighter so maybe used for changing the ink in a printer.

Yes they may.

Coo... thats a bit fastidious...

Casey5 wrote:

frost wrote:Gerrys version of events regarding the shutters is farcical anyone with half a brain entering a scene such as this would automatically say to everyone around them don't touch anything call the police but we are led to believe a highly educated person such as a doctor just waltzed straight in there shut the window  and  pulled the shutter down . It just would not happen and it didn't .

Hi frost. Gerry also went outside and tried to pull the shutter up from outside.
Let me think now. Your daughter has disappeared and one of the first things you do is go outside and see if you can raise the shutter.
You don't contact the police, set up search parties, scream her name from the rooftops - no, if you're Gerry McCann you go outside and try to lift the shutter.
Why?

Perhaps because you've just realised that this is major problem with your story, and feel compelled to check out your options for changing it?

3/4 version of events, or tailored to match evidence found IMO

Bishop Brennan wrote:

Casey5 wrote:

Hi frost. Gerry also went outside and tried to pull the shutter up from outside.

Let me think now. Your daughter has disappeared and one of the first things you do is go outside and see if you can raise the shutter.
You don't contact the police, set up search parties, scream her name from the rooftops - no, if you're Gerry McCann you go outside and try to lift the shutter.
Why?

Perhaps because you've just realised that this is major problem with your story, and feel compelled to check out your options for changing it?

Quite. But would an innocent man do that, and even if Gerry did do that why did he say he had? It's a bizarre, guilty thing to do imo.
Plus Gerry  hadn't yet started on his phone calls, and in his phone calls he told all and sundry that the shutters had been jemmied, the window opened and Madeleine taken.
If he was thinking of his options surely he would have discarded that one before he phoned his family. After all it doesn't take a genius to work out that the Ocean Club management would deny the shutters had been interfered with, as indeed they did.
So why not go with option 2 from the start?

Casey5 wrote:
Quite. But would an innocent man do that, and even if Gerry did do that why did he say he had? It's a bizarre, guilty thing to do imo.
Plus Gerry  hadn't yet started on his phone calls, and in his phone calls he told all and sundry that the shutters had been jemmied, the window opened and Madeleine taken.
If he was thinking of his options surely he would have discarded that one before he phoned his family. After all it doesn't take a genius to work out that the Ocean Club management would deny the shutters had been interfered with, as indeed they did.
So why not go with option 2 from the start?

That is of course an extremely good point.
He must have known KNOWN that his first set of lies would be found out within the first half hour.
He has told us that he inspected the shutters himself, in some detail.
Kate too knows knows that there is nothing wrong with the shutters.
In her book she had the opportunity to say
"In the children’s room, Gerry lowered the shutter at the open window, but found that it was jammed, obviously broken. . Rushing outside, he made the sickening discovery that it could be raised from this side, too, not just from inside as we’d thought, and he could see how badly damaged it was"

But she doesn't. She says
"In the children’s room, Gerry lowered the shutter at the open window. Rushing outside, he made the sickening discovery that it could be raised from this side, too, not just from inside as we’d thought. "

Why didn't he / they take the opportunity to damage the shutters at that point? They had the perfect cover, the perfect excuse,
but they seem merely to have used the excuse without taking advantage of it.