The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™
Hi,

A very warm welcome to The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™ forum.

Please log in, or register to view all the forums, then settle in and start chatting with us!

Enjoy your day,

Jill Havern
Forum owner

Richard D. Hall's latest film June 2015

Page 2 of 2 Previous  1, 2

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: Richard D. Hall's latest film June 2015

Post by Tony Bennett on 19.11.15 19:51

@cedwards2 wrote:I've been lurking for a while and I'm fairly sure I remember the Richard Hall video being held up as a worthy piece of work (which it may well be - I've only watched some of it)?

REPLY: I hope you will soon find time to watch all of it.

I confess I may have forgotten (or never known) but I got a bit confused at what I think he was inferring around the discovery of the arrangement of the room after the "abduction".  It seemed to me that he was arguing that, based on the crime scene photos, the argument about the blind/windows/curtains portrayed by the McCanns was a proven lie?

Well...isn't there evidence - or at least accepted testimony - that...Gerry went outside and fiddled with the blinds? How, therefore, can Richard Hall (RDH from now) infer that the blinds were not in the position Kate McCann says they were at the "whooosh" time? 

REPLY: Looking at your posts on this thread today @ cedwards2 this is my summary:

1. In another post you have accused Richard Hall of deliberately lying

2. This is because you say that Gerry McCann's claims about moving the shutters up and down are, to quote you, 'accepted testimony'

3. BlueBag has pointed out that none of Gerry McCann's fingerprints were found on the shutters

4. Now a question:  Do you accept that all of the McCanns' statements in this case are truthful and must be held up as 'accepted testimony

5. Now a police report, one to which Richard Hall refers to extensively in his 4-hour film, the interim report by Inspector Tavares de Almeida, 10 September 2007, in which these two sections appear:

QUOTE

Misinformation:


The group’s initial informal statements given during the initial stages of the investigation immediately introduced the abduction hypothesis. But even simple things were the subject of misinformation:

was the window open or closed?

was the shutter up or down?

was the balcony door open or closed?

was the front door merely shut or locked with a key?

Strong evidence that the crime scene was altered:

There is strong evidence that the crime scene was altered, and some furniture was moved around. Those changes are indications that the abduction was a stage-managed simulation.

UNQUOTE




Do you now wish to reconsider your claim that Richard Hall 'lied'?
   


____________________

                            "Maddie's Jammies. Where is Maddie?" - Amelie, May 2007 -  "Maddie's Jammies. Where is Maddie?"


Tony Bennett
Researcher/Moderator

Posts : 13955
Reputation : 2141
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 69
Location : Harlow, Essex

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Richard D. Hall's latest film June 2015

Post by Verdi on 19.11.15 20:18

@Get'emGoncalo wrote:  Candyfloss banned many members from here before she left...most of whom are now welcome members over on her own forum.

That speaks volumes - the exiled, most of whom appear to have no objective but to destroy the reputations of your goodself, Tony Bennett and CMoMM as a whole.

Now, why would that be I ask myself - as if I don't already know.

____________________
The secret of life is honesty and fair dealing. If you can fake that, you've got it made" - Groucho Marx

Verdi

Posts : 3527
Reputation : 2053
Join date : 2015-02-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Richard D. Hall's latest film June 2015

Post by BlueBag on 19.11.15 21:13

@Verdi wrote:@Get'emGoncalo wrote:  Candyfloss banned many members from here before she left...most of whom are now welcome members over on her own forum.

That speaks volumes - the exiled, most of whom appear to have no objective but to destroy the reputations of your goodself, Tony Bennett and CMoMM as a whole.

Now, why would that be I ask myself - as if I don't already know.

In all of this... my utmost respect goes to Tony, Peter and the many members of this forum who keep their heads whilst all around are talking s**t (Copyright BB 2015).

BlueBag

Posts : 3419
Reputation : 1267
Join date : 2014-06-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Richard D. Hall's latest film June 2015

Post by sami on 19.11.15 21:32

cedwards wrote:
I confess I may have forgotten (or never known) but I got a bit confused at what I think he was inferring around the discovery of the arrangement of the room after the "abduction".  It seemed to me that he was arguing that, based on the crime scene photos, the argument about the blind/windows/curtains portrayed by the McCanns was a proven lie?

Well... isn't there evidence - or at least accepted testimony - that Dianne Webster (?) and Gerry went outside and fiddled with the blinds? How, therefore, can Richard Hall (RDH from now) infer that the blinds were not in the position Kate McCann says they were at the "whooosh" time?  It's possible that they were and were subsequently moved before the arrival of the photographer, no?  Also the trapped curtains may not have been trapped at the time, but only when the room was searched/messed with when throwing furniture around looking for a missing toddler?  I'm not sure I'd be that careful about the layout of furniture in such circumstances.


They claim they walked into the room, window open, blind up and curtains whooshing.......if the blind was up then clearly it was capable of being moved in that direction, why were they "checking" it "could", they say it WAS.

If I walk through an open door, I don't go back and close it just to check that it opens.

sami

Posts : 962
Reputation : 48
Join date : 2012-04-08

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Richard D. Hall's latest film June 2015

Post by BlueBag on 19.11.15 21:40

@sami wrote:

If I walk through an open door, I don't go back and close it just to check that it opens.
And certainly not when you have no idea when it happened and if your abducted daughter is just down the road or around the corner.

This is one of a big number of red flags.

Senseless.

I'm sure Operation Grange are on top of this and have questioned them... oh wait...

BlueBag

Posts : 3419
Reputation : 1267
Join date : 2014-06-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Richard D. Hall's latest film June 2015

Post by cedwards2 on 19.11.15 21:52

*sigh* I just made a really long post trying to explain my point and it got lost as my login period had timed out. :-(  Look, I'm not after a fight. I'm just like to question everything and that includes the McCann fairytales as well as any documentary maker who, in my opinion, has simply made a fallacious argument by stating that KM & GM are proven liars just because a photo doesn't match their description. He may well be right - I have no idea and nor does anyone else - but he cannot logically make that step as it's possible that someone else moved things after the event. I'm not saying they did, it doesn't matter if they did, it's just logically possible that they did, therefore it cannot be proven that KM and GM were lying on this occasion and from those facts.  He can suspect it of course, but he cannot state it as fact.

Why test the blind? Seriously?  Didn't we do this one to death about 3 years ago?  The argument was that this type of blind COULD NOT be lifted from the outside. I was a vehement about this as everyone else. I scoffed at GM's claims about lifting the blind. "not possible," I chortled, "what an absolute idiot."  Then I saw Pete's video of him lifting the blind up from outside... That was a revelatory moment!  Yes, it was possible to lift it!  Doesn't mean that's what happened as the noise would have been immense and there were no prop marks on it, but that's not the point. GM simply said he went outside to test if the blind could be lifted simply because he was under the impression it couldn't be when it was lowered.  I shared that opinion right up until I saw Pete's video.  I realise it's also possible that the mechanism may have been damaged since 2007, but it just showed me that to blindly accept things without proof could ultimately result in looking foolish.

If you only want people in here that will agree with all the pet theories, then it's pointless carrying this on.  It is possible to have a reasonable discussion about this though without resorting to claims of McCann sympathy I would hope.  I don't think that every single thing they've said is a lie, but by golly they've got a whole lot of questions that they should be answering as their story as it stands cannot possibly have happened as they claim - I agree with most of you on that point at least.

cedwards2

Posts : 10
Reputation : 5
Join date : 2015-11-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Richard D. Hall's latest film June 2015

Post by BlueBag on 19.11.15 21:54

No Gerry fingerprints.

No Gerry lifting the blind.

And ...

"Oh daughter missing... I'll just test this shutter..."

BlueBag

Posts : 3419
Reputation : 1267
Join date : 2014-06-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Richard D. Hall's latest film June 2015

Post by cedwards2 on 19.11.15 22:03

@BlueBag wrote:No Gerry fingerprints.

No Gerry lifting the blind.

And ...

"Oh daughter missing... I'll just test this shutter..."

How wide is the bottom of the shutter?  Weren't there inconclusive prints?  Couldn't it be possible that he tried the shutter?  If it's possible then it cannot be said with certainty that the photos match the state at the time the "disappearance" was discovered, right?

I can't say for certaint that I wouldn't have run outside to try lifting the blinds - especially if I thought they couldn't possibly be lifted.  I don't think that GM did touch the blinds but I think DW and someone else - probably RO'B - did mess around with them at some point just to see it it could be done.  You are missing the point I'm trying to make. You cannot state with certainty that the crime scene photos match the scene at the time - it's a logical impossibility to be certain - therefore a firm inference cannot be made. That's all there is to it.

cedwards2

Posts : 10
Reputation : 5
Join date : 2015-11-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Richard D. Hall's latest film June 2015

Post by aquila on 19.11.15 22:14

@cedwards2 wrote:
@BlueBag wrote:No Gerry fingerprints.

No Gerry lifting the blind.

And ...

"Oh daughter missing... I'll just test this shutter..."

How wide is the bottom of the shutter?  Weren't there inconclusive prints?  Couldn't it be possible that he tried the shutter?  If it's possible then it cannot be said with certainty that the photos match the state at the time the "disappearance" was discovered, right?

I can't say for certaint that I wouldn't have run outside to try lifting the blinds - especially if I thought they couldn't possibly be lifted.  I don't think that GM did touch the blinds but I think DW and someone else - probably RO'B - did mess around with them at some point just to see it it could be done.  You are missing the point I'm trying to make. You cannot state with certainty that the crime scene photos match the scene at the time - it's a logical impossibility to be certain - therefore a firm inference cannot be made. That's all there is to it.
Cutting to the chase though - how many fingerprints were found on the shutter?

aquila

Posts : 7952
Reputation : 1174
Join date : 2011-09-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Richard D. Hall's latest film June 2015

Post by jeanmonroe on 19.11.15 22:37

And GM would 'try' the shutter, from outside, thus 'altering' the 'crime scene' because........?

He had already 'raised and lowered' the shutter from INSIDE G5A and was, so he tells us, 'surprised' how 'silent and easily raised and lowered the shutter 'operation' was'

WHY would GM 'touch and contaminate and alter' ANYTHING at a 'crime scene'? (BEFORE the arrival of police officers)

WHY did KM 'tell' JC in the UK, five hours AFTER the 'event', (at 10:00pm) at 3:00am, 4th May 2007, that 'the shutter was SMASHED'? (by the 'child stealing burglator', presumeably)

I 'wonder' why GM, (or anyone else), did NOT 'notice' how 'SMASHED' the shutter was, when he was lowering and raising it, from inside the apartment and 'outside' immediately upon his 'return' to the apartment at 10:00pm, 3rd May 2007..

Weird huh?

jeanmonroe

Posts : 5128
Reputation : 883
Join date : 2013-02-07

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Richard D. Hall's latest film June 2015

Post by notlongnow on 19.11.15 22:46

I know we may all act slightly different to each other on finding ourselves at a crime scene.
I really would expect that drs would understand the importance of not disturbing evidence of one though,especially as they were convinced MM had been taken.

The lady who found Jill Dando knew this from 9 minutes & 25 seconds;


notlongnow

Posts : 481
Reputation : 45
Join date : 2013-10-16

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Can this extract from PeterMac's e-book shed any light on the issue raised by cedwards2 about an extract from Richard Hall's film?

Post by Tony Bennett on 19.11.15 23:47

@ cedwards2      We haven't actually been told by you what Richard Hall's alleged 'glaring error' was.

Can you give us a link to the film, tell us how many minutes into his film the 'glaring error' is - or perhaps provide a transcript of what you maintain is his 'glaring error'. Without knowing precisely what the alleged 'glaring error' is, neither Richard Hall nor any of us know which words you find so objectionable. Thank you.

In the meantime, this extract from PeterMac's e-book might help us a little bit:

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

QUOTE

      
We examine Kate's claim that the door slammed, and when she went in the curtains “Whooshed” open.

In 2008 Kate McCann gave an interview in which she described graphically what happened when she entered the apartment
for her check, and discovered Madeleine to be missing.

“I did my check about ten o’clock and went in through the sliding patio doors, and I just stood actually, and I thought, uh,
all quiet. And to be honest, I might have been tempted to turn round then, but I just noticed that the door, the bedroom
door where the three children were sleeping, was open much further than we’d left it.

"I went to close it to about here, and then as I got to here, it suddenly . . . slammed, and as I opened it, it was then, that I
just thought I’ll just look at the children.

"I see Sean and Amelie in the cot . . . .

"I was looking at Madeleine’s bed which is here, and it was dark and I was looking and I was thinking is that, is that
Madeleine or is that the bedding and I couldn't quite make her out, and it sounds really stupid now, but at the time I was
just thinking I didn’t want to put the light on because I didn't want to wake them, and literally as I went back in, the
curtains of the bedroom which were drawn, [demonstrates with both forearms together] that were closed, “wheesh’ like a
gust of wind kind of blew them open.


"And cuddle cat was still there, and the pink blanket was still there. I knew straight away that, err, she’d been . . . taken,
yer know.” [1]

We notice a number of significant points in this interview.
• We are told that the door was open “further than we had left it”, but on the video it is clear and demonstrated that
this did not mean fully open.
• We are told that the curtains were fully closed, and this is demonstrated on the video by the forearms being held
vertically in front of the body and together
• We are told that the curtains blew into the room.


There are problems with this version of events.

If the curtains had blown up in the manner described they would have fallen back onto the bed, and have been lying
across the bedclothes and across the chair

The photos taken by the PJ show clearly that the curtains are hanging down, and held firmly, one trapped down the side
of the bed against the wall, and the other behind the wicker chair. The folds in each curtain are clearly flattened against
the wall by the furniture.

The bed is unmade. It is alleged that Kate had slept in this bed the night before.

The photos show the windows closed. They are of the type that lock together automatically when closed, and require a
finger inserted into the black mechanism in the centre to release the catch. They also show the shutters in the almost
closed position closed position

And the photos also show the curtains half closed, the left curtain slightly more closed than the right one.

From Kate’s police statement, dated 4th May we learn,

“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, and immediately noticed that the door to her children's bedroom was completely
open, the window was also open, the shutters raised and the curtains open, while she was certain of having closed them
all as she always did.” [4]

Gerry’s statement of 4th May does contain hearsay evidence, but as husband and wife they have obviously spoken
between themselves, and the statement can be taken at face value.

“At 10pm, his wife Kate went to check on the children. She went into the apartment through the door using her key and
saw right away that the children’s bedroom door was completely open, the window was also open, the shutters raised and
the curtains drawn open. The side door that opens into the living room, which as said earlier, was never locked, was
closed.” [5]

In Gerry’s 10th May statement we find

“The deponent ran into the apartment accompanied by the rest of the group who, at the time, were seated at the table.
[2]. [3]

However,

When he arrived at the bedroom he first noticed that the door was completely open, the window was also open to one side,
the shutters almost fully raised, the curtains drawn back, MADELEINE’s bed was empty but the twins continued sleeping in
their cots. He clarifies that according to what KATE told him, that was the scenario that she found when she entered the
apartment.

Then he closed the shutters, made his way to the outside and tried to open them, which he managed to do, much to his
surprise given that he thought that that was only possible from the inside. “ [6]

Kate made the first half of a statement on 6th September, but it was adjourned late at night, to be resumed the following
day. It was at this point that the events of late evening of 3rd May were about to to be discussed.

The following day Kate immediately exercised her right to remain silent as arguida and said nothing more of evidential
interest. The more detailed analysis of her story was therefore never undertaken.

So
• in the original statements the curtains were drawn back, or fully open.
• in the police photos they are half drawn.
• In the subsequent explanation they are fully closed


In addition the windows are sliding, so only one half can be open, that pane moving in front of the other. A gust of wind
would therefore disturb only one curtain.

But now let us examine the story around the children’s bedroom door.

In her police statement of 4th May, which was then confirmed, albeit in hearsay form in both of Gerry’s statements, she
says, explicitly, “. . .the children’s bedroom door was completely open”. The same form of words is used by Gerry. “the
door was completely open”. and he clarifies that this is what he was told by Kate.

But months later the story of the slamming door, and the door left open a bit more than we had left it, is told to journalists
as in the video [q.v.], and it is this version which appears in the book.

p. 71 “Then I noticed that the door to the children’s bedroom was open quite wide, not how we had left it. At first I assumed
that Matt must have moved it. I walked over and gently began to pull it to. Suddenly it slammed shut, as if caught by a
draught.” [7]


Leaving aside for a moment the clear indication in that passage, and in the video, [see transcript] that Kate had no
intention of looking in at the children, this is clearly at odds with all the police statements so far given, which emphasise
and repeat that the door was “completely open”

What are the possible ways of understanding this paradox ?

The first option is that Kate immediately started rearranging the room, but in this case did not make the bed, which was still
unmade from the previous night.

It is of interest to note that she had not even pulled the bed straight when she got up, or when she made Madeleine's bed,
which is neat and tidy in the photos, with the corner neatly turned down, giving at least the appearance that no one had
slept in it, and certainly that no one had been unceremoniously removed from it. [8]


But she must have tucked the curtains back down the crack between the bed and the wall, certainly having to move the
bed out to do so, and made sure they were hanging properly, before pushing it back against the wall before the police
arrived.
 

She must also have done this before returning to the Tapas bar to give the alert, as none of the friends mention any such
activity.

Again she must also have partially closed the curtains, since both statements insist that the curtains were “open”, “drawn
open” or “drawn back”. and in the photos they are not.


The second option is that the curtains did not "whoosh".

And if the curtains did not "Whoosh" then the door did not slam.

It is important to remember that it was not reported in either of Gerry’s statements, nor in Kate’s statement that the
curtains blew open or that the door slammed. This detail was only reported by Kate to journalists several months later.

The weather that night was mild, with a light breeze,. In Faro it was recorded as reaching only Force 3. At 10pm only
14.4kph. This is the bottom end of Force 3. [9]

Beaufort Force 3 Gentle breeze 12–19 km/h (3–5 m/s)
Leaves and small twigs constantly moving, light flags extended. [10]

Might that be enough to slam a door ? Or to whoosh a curtain trapped behind a bed ?

Neither Kate nor Gerry mentions closing the window.

In her statement Kate does not mention Gerry’s closing and opening the shutters.

In view of the evidence of the above, one is surely entitled to question the “official account” or indeed any of them, in that
they seem unsupported by evidence.


References
1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhACS6ck-Dw&feature=player_embedded
See 1:15 onwards

2 http://mccannfiles.com/id155.html

3 http://mccannfiles.com/id155.html

4 Witness statement of Kate Marie Healy, 4th May 2007,
Processos Vol I, pages 58-65
http://mccannfiles.com/id192.html#sta4

5 Witness statement of Gerald Patrick McCann, 4th May 2007,
Processos Vol I, pages 34 - 41
http://mccannfiles.com/id192.html#sta1

6 Witness statement of Gerald Patrick McCann, 10th May 2007.
Processos Vol I, pages 891-903 http://mccannfiles.com/id192.html#sta3

7 ‘”madeleine’”, Kate McCann, Random Press, 2011, at p. 71

8 http://mccannfiles.com/id155.html

9 http://www.wunderground.com

10 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beaufort_scale

____________________

                            "Maddie's Jammies. Where is Maddie?" - Amelie, May 2007 -  "Maddie's Jammies. Where is Maddie?"


Tony Bennett
Researcher/Moderator

Posts : 13955
Reputation : 2141
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 69
Location : Harlow, Essex

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Richard D. Hall's latest film June 2015

Post by The Rooster on 20.11.15 5:56

Hi Tony do you have a link to Peter Macs eBook please, I would be very interested in reading it. Many thanks.

____________________
F J Leghorn
"DOO-Dah! DOO-Dah-Day!"

The Rooster

Posts : 379
Reputation : 36
Join date : 2011-04-12
Age : 70
Location : Virginia

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Richard D. Hall's latest film June 2015

Post by Tony Bennett on 20.11.15 7:14

@The Rooster wrote:Hi Tony do you have a link to PeterMac's eBook please, I would be very interested in reading it. Many thanks.
Link on this thread @ The Rooster

http://freepdfhosting.com/9099bef539.pdf

Anyone seriously interested in the disappearance of Madeleine McCann should read it

____________________

                            "Maddie's Jammies. Where is Maddie?" - Amelie, May 2007 -  "Maddie's Jammies. Where is Maddie?"


Tony Bennett
Researcher/Moderator

Posts : 13955
Reputation : 2141
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 69
Location : Harlow, Essex

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Richard D. Hall's latest film June 2015

Post by worriedmum on 20.11.15 17:33

Thank you Tony for posting the extract from PeterMac's e-book. It really helps to see the information and quotes  in a list, so that we can see how the account of what happened has changed.

Going back to the shutters, I am surprised that Gerry tried to lift the shutters when he could have been tearing up and down the street, shouting Madeleine's name  and so on. I don't think it would come high on my list if my child had just been discovered missing.  If the shutters are noisy, it raises again the question as to why the twins didn't wake up when Gerry lifted them. Maybe there was too  much noise in the apartment...

I still find it difficult to understand why /how an abductor would raise noisy shutters in view of a well-lit car park overlooked by other buildings, when , as Kate assures us in Jon Corner's documentary, 'they'd been watching us..'-if this is true, why did they not enter through the unlocked patio doors which were partially hidden from view by a hedge? And then IIRC, Kate later offers the suggestion that the raised shutters were maybe 'a red herring'. I would be very interested to know , from any police offcers  past or present, if they have ever come across the laying of 'red herrings' except in television detective programmes.

Finally, and for no particular reason except that I've only just discovered this among the emoticons, window.

worriedmum

Posts : 1625
Reputation : 246
Join date : 2012-01-17

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Richard D. Hall's latest film June 2015

Post by deafoldbat on 21.11.15 10:30

Interesting comments from someone who joined this forum 3 days ago!

"Didn't we do this one to death about 3 years ago?  The argument was that this type of blind COULD NOT be lifted from the outside. I was as vehement about this as everyone else. I scoffed at GM's claims about lifting the blind. "not possible," I chortled, "what an absolute idiot."  Then I saw Pete's video of him lifting the blind up from outside... That was a revelatory moment! " 


confused

deafoldbat

Posts : 85
Reputation : 13
Join date : 2013-05-19
Location : Kent, UK

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Richard D. Hall's latest film June 2015

Post by joyce1938 on 21.11.15 11:18

The blind could be pushed up to a certain position and no more, would not stay up if not supported.  You could tell that from Petermac's film he made when there, and when let go it rattled down pretty loudly.   He felt, I believe, it couldn't be wide open enough to allow anyone to get in, would need someone else to hold it , even if trying to use it.  Joyce1938

joyce1938

Posts : 805
Reputation : 86
Join date : 2010-04-20
Age : 77
Location : england

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Richard D. Hall's latest film June 2015

Post by Nina on 21.11.15 12:29

@joyce1938 wrote:The blind could be pushed up to a certain position and no more, would not stay up if not supported.  You could tell that from Petermac's film he made when there, and when let go it rattled down pretty loudly.   He felt, I believe, it couldn't be wide open enough to allow anyone to get in, would need someone else to hold it , even if trying to use it.  Joyce1938
The blind will only stay  up if either opened with the pulley from the  inside, or, pushed up  manually and propped  up  with bricks or wood resting on the outer sill.
PeterMac managed to push the blind up but it  wouldn't stay up as  it had merely pushed into itself and not around  the roller,  hence it came down again.

____________________
Not one more cent from me.

Nina

Posts : 2626
Reputation : 215
Join date : 2011-06-16

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Richard D. Hall's latest film June 2015

Post by Guest on 21.11.15 12:58

If posters/readers use the search facility for "Shutters", you will find eight threads on the topic - hope this helps.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Richard D. Hall's latest film June 2015

Post by DENNISSALLY on 11.06.16 0:50

@BlueBag wrote:Why weren't Gerry's prints found on the shutter?

Great point, I always wondered that myself as didn't GM say he went outside to see if he could open the shutters from the outside on the 3rd of May ! I'm not sure how high that window in the bedroom was but I think anyone who has children will tell you they have a habit of putting their hands all over windows. From experience I can honestly say many a time I have told them to stop smudging the windows and the bed Kate said she slept in after a supposedly row with GM was directly below the windows and Madeleine I would say jumped about on that bed and more than likely had her small hands on that window too. However, if think it was only KM fingerprints on the window they found.

DENNISSALLY

Posts : 92
Reputation : 117
Join date : 2016-04-14
Location : Ireland Co Donegal

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Page 2 of 2 Previous  1, 2

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum