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 help us get to the truth about what really happened to Madeleine Beth McCann.


Jill Havern
Forum owner

Am I wrong? [Cuddle Cat - and the position of the door to the childrens' room]

Page 1 of 2 1, 2  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Am I wrong? [Cuddle Cat - and the position of the door to the childrens' room]

Post by frank zappa on 24.07.11 21:40

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rV9jozJWvNE&feature=player_embedded
Yes im a newbie on here but have been on the case since day one. Ihave just seen the above vidio posted on Steel Magnolia and have the following questions.
(a)Didnt Kate once say cuddle cat had been placed high on a unit within the bedroom, presumably by the abductor, when it seems here she is implying cuddle cat was on the bed.
If anyone can help with this I would be most greatful.
(b)How on eath could she have known the possition of the door, given that at least (by the timeline account) two others had visited the room ?

frank zappa

Posts : 61
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2011-07-23

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Am I wrong? [Cuddle Cat - and the position of the door to the childrens' room]

Post by Guest on 24.07.11 21:43

Hi Frank and welcome.

Your post deserves a thread of its own so hang about a mo while I move it. thumbsup

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Am I wrong? [Cuddle Cat - and the position of the door to the childrens' room]

Post by Guest on 24.07.11 21:53

Hi frank and welcome welcome

You are right in that in early reports this was what was written in some newspaper articles, but I don't know if there is actually a video of them saying that?

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Answers to F Zappa

Post by Tony Bennett on 24.07.11 22:19

@frank zappa wrote:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rV9jozJWvNE&feature=player_embedded
Yes I'm a newbie on here

Welcome

but have been on the case since day one. I have just seen the above video posted on Steel Magnolia and have the following questions.
(a)Didn't Kate once say cuddle cat had been placed high on a unit within the bedroom, presumably by the abductor, when it seems here she is implying cuddle cat was on the bed.

This appeared in some newspaper reports but there is no evidence that this was actually said by any of the McCanns.

If anyone can help with this I would be most grateful.

(b)How on eath could she have known the position of the door, given that at least (by the timeline account) two others had visited the room ?

Precisely. A good point, and one which exposes the lack of truthfulness of the McCanns in telling us about what really happened to Madeleine.

Tony Bennett
Researcher/Moderator

Posts : 14105
Reputation : 2240
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 69
Location : Harlow, Essex

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Am I wrong? [Cuddle Cat - and the position of the door to the childrens' room]

Post by PeterMac on 25.07.11 9:48

@frank zappa wrote:
(b)How on eath could she have known the position of the door, given that at least (by the timeline account) two others had visited the room ?

And she has repeated this 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."
As you suspect this is inconsistent with her other story - that Gerry and then O'B had done checks.
Only one of those stories can be right, and Katey gives us no clue.
My personal view is that it is inadvertent proof of no checks having been done, either that night, or on any other night.
There is more evidence for NO checks, (Mrs Fenn, staff in the restaurant, and so on), than there is for Checks (bits of paper ripped out of colouring books and two inconsistent time line stories which don't gell).
But what is surprising is that none of the proof readers, lawyers, or anyone else picked that up before publishing it.

____________________


PeterMac
Researcher

Posts : 10170
Reputation : 144
Join date : 2010-12-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Where was the grief?

Post by Tony Bennett on 25.07.11 10:07

@PeterMac wrote:
@frank zappa wrote:
(b)How on eath could she have known the position of the door, given that at least (by the timeline account) two others had visited the room ?

And she has repeated this 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."
As you suspect this is inconsistent with her other story - that Gerry and then O'B had done checks.
Only one of those stories can be right, and Katey gives us no clue.
My personal view is that it is inadvertent proof of no checks having been done, either that night, or on any other night.
There is more evidence for NO checks, (Mrs Fenn, staff in the restaurant, and so on), than there is for Checks (bits of paper ripped out of colouring books and two inconsistent time line stories which don't gell).
But what is surprising is that none of the proof readers, lawyers, or anyone else picked that up before publishing it.

And this was a BIG feature of the documentary/'Mockumentary', great emphasis laid on the position of the door, and of course the film of the curtains blowing wildly and the door then slamming shut. What struck me very forcibly when I watched this Mentorn/Channel 4 video was the amazingly casual way in which Dr Kate McCann referred to these events - the very moment, after all, when she was supposed to have realised that her daughter was missing. Anyone else would surely have broken down sobbing?

Tony Bennett
Researcher/Moderator

Posts : 14105
Reputation : 2240
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 69
Location : Harlow, Essex

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Am I wrong? [Cuddle Cat - and the position of the door to the childrens' room]

Post by Gillyspot on 25.07.11 13:06

In an article in the Mirror of 11th September 2007

"Cuddle Cat, which Kate says she left with Madeleine but she says was found on a shelf afterwards"

That hasn't been removed (well not yet) LOl

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2007/09/11/the-maddy-file-115875-19766330/



Gillyspot

Posts : 1470
Reputation : 3
Join date : 2011-06-13

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Am I wrong? [Cuddle Cat - and the position of the door to the childrens' room]

Post by jd on 25.07.11 13:10

There was no shelf in that room

jd

Posts : 4152
Reputation : 11
Join date : 2011-07-22

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Am I wrong? [Cuddle Cat - and the position of the door to the childrens' room]

Post by Guest on 25.07.11 13:21

honeybunch wrote:In an article in the Mirror of 11th September 2007

"Cuddle Cat, which Kate says she left with Madeleine but she says was found on a shelf afterwards"

That hasn't been removed (well not yet) LOl

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2007/09/11/the-maddy-file-115875-19766330/

Another good article you've found, thank you. thumbsup

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Am I wrong? [Cuddle Cat - and the position of the door to the childrens' room]

Post by Guest on 25.07.11 14:27

Quite a few references here to cuddle cat on high shelf...............


Maddy was alive when taken


Lori Campbell In Praia Da Luz, sundaymirror.co.uk 12/08/2007


MadMADELEINE: 100 DAYS OF HELL

Missing Madeleine McCann's favourite pink Cuddle Cat toy was taken from her arms as she slept and placed beyond her reach by her kidnapper. That is why police are certain Madeleine was snatched while she was asleep - and was NOT killed or injured in the holiday apartment.

When her mum Kate, 38, tucked Madeleine into bed, the four-year-old was cuddling the toy - but it was later found placed on a ledge that Madeleine could not have reached.

There is also further "concrete evidence" that Madeleine was still ALIVE when she left the holiday apartment. Her kidnapper had a window of just five minutes to strike - from when dad Gerry last checked on the children until family friend Jane Tanner saw a man carrying away a child she is sure was Madeleine wrapped in a blanket. The new revelations rubbish reports in Portuguese newspapers this week that she was murdered or died in an accident inside the villa. And they come as local police Chief Inspector Olegario Sousa ruled Gerry and Kate out of the inquiry - and admitted for the first time Madeleine could be dead.

Now, the Sunday Mirror can give a true picture of what happened when Kate found her daughter missing. We can reveal:

Police have specific evidence from the apartment that she was still alive

Madeleine was kidnapped as the toy she had fallen asleep with was left on a ledge placed too high for a child to reach

There was a window of less than five minutes for a kidnapper to pounce - not enough time to kill her and clean up

Police do not believe blood found in the apartment was Madeleine's as it was not consistent with signs of a struggle

The patio doors were unlocked but the intruder used the window to escape with Madeleine as the shutters were forced up.

We can also reveal that devastated Kate was reduced to tears several times by the aggressive questioning of Portuguese police this week. And yesterday the parents were hit by further cruel claims in Portuguese papers linking them to Madeleine's disappearance on May 3.

But our dramatic information confirms Madeleine was most likely to have been abducted by a stranger who had watched the family's routine for up to four days.

And it shows Portuguese police from the beginning have had firm evidence Madeleine was still alive when she was taken from the ground-floor apartment.

The McCanns were told in a secret meeting with police within days of Madeleine going missing what this evidence is. They have been unable to discuss it publicly in case it jeopardises the investigation - and have even been banned from telling close friends or family.

Kate has refused to say where she found the Cuddle Cat toy when she returned to the villa in Praia da Luz at about 10pm to find her daughter's bed empty.

But she has hinted the bedroom was left in such a way that she knew almost instantly Madeleine had been kidnapped.


Our police source said: "When Kate tucked Madeleine up in bed earlier in the evening, she had toy tightly in her arms as she did every night. So Kate was terrified when she spotted it had been left in a place too high for her to reach.

Kate also noticed the window was wide opened and the shutters jammed up. It was because of these things that she had no doubt Madeleine had been kidnapped and she ran out to scream for help."

The Sunday Mirror has been told there was a window of opportunity of less than five minutes from the last time Gerry checked on their child to the reported sighting by family friend Jane of her being carried away by a man. Our source said: "Although there has been much speculation about a 'lost hour' in which Madeleine could have been taken, it was actually less than five minutes. The kidnapping must have been meticulously planned. Police found no fingerprints or DNA on the Cuddle Cat or in the room, indicating the intruder wore gloves.

There was so little time that whoever took Madeleine must have been watching the family closely for several days so they knew exactly when to strike.

"Kate and Gerry left Madeleine and the twins Sean and Amelie alone every evening of their week-long holiday to eat dinner 50 yards away and followed the same routine of checking on them. The kidnapper would have known this."

The patio doors at the back of the apartment were left unlocked so Kate and Gerry could check on the children easily. But police are unsure if the intruder used them to slip in or if the shutters to the front window were forced open from outside. Our source added: "Whichever way the kidnapper entered, they left by the window because it was left wide open and the shutters were forced up."

Sniffer dogs flown over to Portugal last week by British police were taken into the apartment and found specks of blood missed in an initial search.

The results of DNA tests are expected this week but detectives are convinced it does not belong to Madeleine because if it was fresh, it would have been spotted when they first scoured the apartment.

But that has not stopped the Portuguese media leading a hurtful smear campaign against Kate and Gerry which reached a new low with the suggestion Madeleine was killed inside the apartment and that Kate was somehow involved.

The spiteful rumours forced Kate and Gerry to insist they would not be bullied out of Portugal. But yesterday there were more cruel accusations as they marked 100 days since Madeleine disappeared.

Portuguese newspaper Sol alleged the toddler died in the apartment before her parents went to dinner. It says British sniffer dogs picked up traces of her corpse and signs she was moved.

An "unnamed specialist" told the newspaper: "For the dogs to detect a body, it would have to stay in place where it died for a minimum of two hours."

The report also alleged the McCanns' silver Renault Scenic hire car may have been used to get rid of Madeleine's body.

A McCann spokesman yesterday dismissed the allegations as "complete nonsense".

http://www.mirror.co.uk/sunday-mirror/2007/08/12/maddy-was-alive-when-taken-98487-19613517/

*****************


How many times are we fed the info about cuddlecat on the high shelf in the above article. Brainwashing or what!!!

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Am I wrong? [Cuddle Cat - and the position of the door to the childrens' room]

Post by Guest on 25.07.11 14:50

[quote snipped]

d]]Now, the Sunday Mirror can give a true picture of what happened when Kate found her daughter missing. We can reveal:[/b]

Police have specific evidence from the apartment that she was still alive

Madeleine was kidnapped as the toy she had fallen asleep with was left on a ledge placed too high for a child to reach

There was a window of less than five minutes for a kidnapper to pounce - not enough time to kill her and clean up

Police do not believe blood found in the apartment was Madeleine's as it was not consistent with signs of a struggle

The patio doors were unlocked but the intruder used the window to escape with Madeleine as the shutters were forced up.


shame on you

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Am I wrong? [Cuddle Cat - and the position of the door to the childrens' room]

Post by Gillyspot on 27.07.11 9:54

I have found another article (now in Daily Mail) regarding magical moving Cuddle Cat. This one does state that the McCanns said it as well.

"t also emerged that Mr McCann said Cuddle Cat, his daughter's favourite toy, was "almost in the same place" as where he had last seen it.
The couple had previously said that it was found high on a ledge, at adult height, which is how they were so certain that Madeleine had been abducted.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-558574/McCanns-launch-furious-counter-attack-Portuguese-police-Maddie-tears-leak.html

So now the McCanns must NOT be certain of an abduction anymore then since Cuddle Cat was in the same place all along (& they were mistaken)?

Gillyspot

Posts : 1470
Reputation : 3
Join date : 2011-06-13

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Am I wrong[ position of cuddle cat and door to childrens room]

Post by russiandoll on 13.09.11 17:27

I also found it rather strange that Kate Mc Cann stated in her book that after entering the apartment by the patio door to check on the children she noticed the door was further ajar than left earlier...and two people had checked the bedroom prior to her visit... also she said that she pulled it to before going to check if she had left the patio door open......why do that if she was going to return to the bedroom and would have to open the door again to check on the children? Like much in this book, bizarre.

russiandoll

Posts : 3942
Reputation : 7
Join date : 2011-09-11

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Am I wrong? [Cuddle Cat - and the position of the door to the childrens' room]

Post by dentdelion on 13.09.11 17:47

In the TV program with Kate retelling events such as the billowing curtain and slamming door, she talks of seeing the bed with cuddlecat and the pink blanket on it... and no child. What happened to the pink blanket? Surely if abducting a child you would take a favourite toy and blanket as well? and to take the trouble to place on a high shelf? nah

dentdelion

Posts : 129
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2011-08-07

View user profile

Back to top Go down

you want to speak to Mr. Amaral

Post by tigger on 13.09.11 17:53

@dentdelion wrote:In the TV program with Kate retelling events such as the billowing curtain and slamming door, she talks of seeing the bed with cuddlecat and the pink blanket on it... and no child. What happened to the pink blanket? Surely if abducting a child you would take a favourite toy and blanket as well? and to take the trouble to place on a high shelf? nah

The pink blanket is very important. The next day the GNR dogs were given a towel to smell to trace Maddie. The pink blanket, photographed the previous night, was no longer there. They also suspected the towel was Gerry's as the dogs traced a short walk to the supermarket he did the previous day.

____________________
Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch'entrate.

tigger

Posts : 8112
Reputation : 26
Join date : 2011-07-20

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Am I wrong? [Cuddle Cat - and the position of the door to the childrens' room]

Post by Guest on 13.09.11 17:56

Interresting article,and it's still there thumbsup
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2007/09/11/the-maddy-file-115875-19766330/
They also say this about the DNA :

"These are sensitive tests but they have been carried out by some of the best scientists in the world. Detectives believe they fit into a wider pattern of evidence which points to the McCanns.

"There has been talk of 70 or 80 per cent matches. The FSS doesn't do that. It's either a match or it's not. It's either significant or it's not. In this case, it's significant."

(Sorry if this was supposed to be under another topic)

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Eddie barked at Cuddle Cat, but not at the bed and bedding

Post by Tony Bennett on 13.09.11 20:58

One very important point about Cuddle Cat has been omitted from this discussion so far.

These are the facts:

1. Cuddle Cat was found on the ned when the police arrived

2. Eddie the cadaver dog alerted to Cuddle Cat

3. Eddie the cadaver dog did NOT alert to the bed or bedding on the bed.

Goncalo Amaral has a big section on this in his book and he uses this as one of several indications that the crime scene in the bedroom had been arranged.

It's a key section of his book and I would thoroughly recommend all members and guests on this site to read it.

Other indications were the bed placed under the window, where it was alleged by the McCanns that the abductor entered after jemmying the shutters open (or left after coming through the unlocked patio dooor,. you pays your money and you takes your choice), and the contradictory evidence about beds or cots in the bedroom.

Compare for example Fact No. 10 on the Madeleine McCann Research Group's '50 FACTS' leaflet, which reads:

10. Gerry McCann on 4 May (the day after Madeleine went missing) said: “Yesterday, Madeleine and and the twins were put to bed in their respective beds at 7.30pm”. Yet when the police arrived at about 11.00pm, they found a bed where Madeleine was supposed to have slept and two cots. Moreover, in a magazine interview in January 2008, Gerry McCann said: “On one bed the twins lay sleeping”.

To make it easier for you to read what Goncalo Amaral says about the crime scene, here (in blue) is the relevant extract from his book: 'The Truth About A Lie':

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

Chapter 11

ANALYSIS OF A CRIME SCENE. APARTMENT 5A

It's 10am. After dealing with everyday matters, I join the team of investigators responsible for the Madeleine case. The Leicestershire police are present at these meetings, as well as José Freitas. The latter, aged 46, is descended from Portuguese people who settled in Madeira and emigrated to the United Kingdom to find work and a better standard of living. Violent crime, abduction and illegal confinement are the speciality of this high-ranking Scotland Yard officer, who joined us eighteen days into the investigation - the English authorities consider that the presence of a man who knows Portugal and its culture could facilitate the investigation. He speaks our language with a British accent: until he left - at the time of the McCanns' return to England -, he never managed to say imprensa, which he always pronounced empresa (*These two words, with similar pronunciation, are very often confused by those who do not speak fluent Portuguese, which can give rise to misunderstanding. The first means "press," and the second "business.")

We take stock of the different operations set up, then we examine the photos taken on the night of May 3rd.

The apartment is made up of two bedrooms, a lounge, a kitchen and a bathroom. What is immediately apparent is the order that prevails in the bedroom where Madeleine and the twins were supposed to have slept. There is nothing to indicate that any abductor had passed through the window.

- How high is the window ledge?

- 91 centimetres [3 feet]. There is a bed against the wall under the window, where it looks like someone had slept. At the foot of the bed, against the same wall, there is a wicker armchair. No shoe prints were found on it.

- What distance between the bed and the window ledge?

- 40 centimetres [1 ft 4 in]. But no footprints on the bed either.

- OK, so either or: either that window plays no role, or we have a case of two people, one inside and one outside.

(*These two words, with similar pronunciation, are very often confused by those who do not speak fluent Portuguese, which can give rise to misunderstanding. The first means "press," and the second "business.")

Looking more closely, the room is not as tidy as it looks. The bedroom window is protected by a shutter that only opens from the inside. A black-out curtain, that keeps out the light, comes down to the window ledge. At the sides, just brushing the floor, are two other curtains with tiebacks; they are drawn towards the centre of the window, but not completely closed.

The right-hand tieback has fallen between the foot of the bed and the wicker armchair - the back of which is stuck to the curtain. On the left, the tieback is hanging from its holder, but the curtain isn't straight, as if someone had tried to close it in a hurry. While the tiebacks should have been hooked up, none was in the correct position. Kate insists that the curtains had been completely closed, and that the abductor must have half-opened them to facilitate his escape through the window. But the tiebacks serve to hold the curtains to the sides while they are open; to close them, of course, they must be unhooked. So, it's in pulling the curtains to close them that they would inevitably be in that position. It could reasonably be thought that the abductor had tried to close the curtains after he went through; that would only have slowed him down.

Another hypothesis is to suppose that the curtains had been arranged like that after the disappearance. In that case, we would instead be dealing with an attempt at faking the crime scene.

These first observations are not the only ones that lead us to consider a set-up. The way the bed sheets were arranged but also the child's soft toy equally raise doubts.

- Do you see how the sheets are lying? You'd think the child got out by herself....or that she didn't sleep there.

- Someone could have unintentionally touched the curtains while looking for the little girl inside the apartment.

- And the soft toy she slept with? That's not in a natural position either. How would she have found it, along the pillow like that?

- The mother says that the soft toy was beside the pillow when she noticed the disappearance, which, according to her, was its usual place.

- Which means that the little girl slept without holding it? Children normally clutch their security object to fall asleep. But if that's not the case, the way it's placed doesn't seem natural. She would inevitably have moved it turning over in her sleep.

- The pink blanket is also really tidy, almost folded.

Where cases of missing children involve the close family, modification of the crime scene is common. But the comings and goings and searches inside the apartment might be the source of these changes. We have to be absolutely sure that it's not a deliberate attempt to put up a smokescreen.

- What does the father say?

- That when he came to see the children, it was all like that, the blanket and the soft toy.

We carry on looking at the photos of the bedroom: the two cots are in the middle of the room and are in the way of an adult moving around.

- Why is there nothing more than mattresses? All the bed linen has been removed. I really wonder why...

- Perhaps a child vomited or soiled the sheets, and they didn't want to leave them in that state...

- The twins only woke up when they were being transferred to the other apartment. They sleep deeply, those English children...

- OK, no joking!

- Actually, I'm not joking, I'm thinking aloud...All the same, it's extraordinary. These English little ones are on holiday; in spite of the excitement they must be feeling, they go to sleep every day at the same time. Their sleep is so deep and so calm that they are almost to be envied. [AMARAL seems to be able to deploy the English irony at times - T.B.]

We then examine the photo of the lounge. This room has three openings: two windows and a patio door that opens at the back onto a balcony, from where you can see the area with the swimming pools and restaurants and the road. It is this patio door - and not the front door - that is used when you want to get into the apartment more quickly, coming from the restaurant. We notice that the sofa, situated under one of the windows, has been moved: the back of it is crushing the thick curtains. If these were closed to keep the light out of the room, it's curious that those at the other window were left open.

- That sofa could have been moved when they searched the apartment looking for the little girl.

- It's possible, but consider: the window is 3 metres [10 feet] above the road and directly overlooks the pavement. You can bet your life that the parents were not going to leave the sofa pushed against the wall, risking seeing their children climbing onto it and falling.

- Nothing surprises me any more on the part of those parents.

- Yes, but why did they push the sofa back under the window so hastily, judging by the position of the curtains.

- No doubt it was during the searches; that could have been done by a police officer or anyone else who was present in the house.

It's the father who clarifies this point for us. He, himself, pushed the sofa against the wall because the children would not stop playing behind it. He did not consider the possibility of a fall from the window. The role of this sofa is important if you imagine the hypothesis, not of an abduction, but of an accident inside the apartment itself. If it was really away from the wall before the abduction, it may be that Madeleine had climbed onto it and fallen down the other side.

At this stage of the investigation, we have already requested the holiday photos from all of them. On the dining table, we notice a digital camera and we decide that we must acquire its contents.

- We are really going to need the photos. That would allow us to see exactly what happened during dinner, how they were seated round the table, what they drank, what they ate, how they were dressed, everything is important.

- In fact, do you know that the little girl's father got on his knees imploring the GNR police officers to help him when they arrived?

- That man, usually so cold, apparently lost control?

- ???

- Contamination... deliberately make his trousers dirty to hide compromising marks...

- I think you're watching too many thrillers. Don't forget that it's his daughter who has disappeared!

- There are two beds in the parents' bedroom, which have been pushed together; there is a wide space on the right, up to the wardrobe. One of the two beds has visibly not been occupied.

- I don't understand the point of leaving so much space on the right.

- Normally, one of the two cots was there.

- So, the couple slept in that bedroom with the twins, and Madeleine in the other? OK... But why, on that night, are the three children sleeping alone in the other bedroom?

- Not necessarily alone. In the photo, you can clearly see that the second bed, under the window, has been occupied.

- So, only one person slept in the parents' bedroom.

- The mother would have left the father to sleep alone? That could mean there was trouble between them?

- Now, they walk around hand-in-hand. And if something had happened during the holiday?

- So many issues to be clarified...Is that a little box of...pills?

- No, no, it's Band-aids.

- Where is their medication? None has been found, not even a bit of Benuron*. For doctors... (*Benuron: Medication for everyday use - paracetamol - for pain and fever).

- Perhaps they took it with them when they took the twins from the apartment. Now, it's a bit late to clear up that detail.

- The little ones weren't ill, so why were their parents eager to take the medication with them?

- Perhaps it was intentional, perhaps not...

- Or it's quite simply at the bottom of a bag, and no one thought to ask them about it.



Chapter 12

[SNIPPED]


TWO CONTRADICTORY LISTS AND A TORN UP CHILDREN'S BOOK

It is Russell O'Brien, who hands over to the first police officer to arrive on the scene, two lists written on the cover of a children's sticker album, that probably belonged to Madeleine. How come it had been torn up? A child has just disappeared and one of her books is used to write on? That pays very little consideration to...Didn't they have anything else to hand, a slip of paper or a paper napkin? Another unanswered question.

These two lists describe, hour by hour, how the evening progressed.

On the first, we read:

8.45pm - All assembled at poolside for food.
9.00pm - Matt Oldfield listens at all three windows 5A,B,D
ALL shutters down.
9.15pm - Gerry McCann looks at room A ? Door open to bedroom.
9.20pm - Jane Tanner checkS 5D - Sees stranger walking, carrying a child.
9.30pm - Russell O'Brien in 5D - poorly daughter.
9.55pm/10pm - Alarm raised after Kate
(At the bottom of this list is the name GERALD in block capitals.)

On the second list differences are noted that are not trivial.

8.45 - pool
Matt returns 9.00 - 9.05 - listened at all three.
- all shutters down.
Jerry - 9 10 - 9.15 in to room - all well
? did he check?
9.20/5 - (??) Jane checked 5D Sees stranger I child.
9.30 - Russ + ( word scored through) Matt check all three
9.35 - Matt checks door Sees twins
9.50 Russ returns
9.55 - Kate (word indecipherable) Madeleine
10.pm - Alarm raised.

The writing is irregular, the syntax unconventional and the description of comings and goings confused. Why two lists? And why, in the first, is apartment 5A left for 45 minutes without checking?

If the witness statements from employees and tourists are to be believed, once the alert was raised - the time is also vague, between 10pm and 10.30pm according to the investigators - all the dinner guests rushed to the apartment, as if there was a medical emergency.


[SNIPPED]

The existence of two lists proves that there was a debate; the differences between them probably mean that there was no interest in being accurate.

For a reason of which we are unaware, the friends have to state that Jane saw a man carrying a child at around 9.20 - 9.25pm, and between that time and the alert (towards 10pm), someone from the group went to the apartment, saw the twins in the bedroom, but cannot guarantee that Madeleine was still there. According to the second list, it is Matthew Oldfield, whom the first list says only listened at the windows of apartments 5A, 5B. and 5D; still according to that same list, he was allegedly accompanied by Russell O'Brien at around 9.30pm and saw the twins at around 9.35pm.

Matthew Oldfield's behaviour is perplexing. According to the two timelines, Gerald's statements and his own affirmations, he and Russell left the restaurant at around 9.30pm to go their respective apartments. Matthew entered his accommodation by the front door, left again that way after glancing at his children, crossed the car park and walked round the building to go into the McCanns' apartment by the rear patio door - the only one not to have been locked. He then went to the children's bedroom. In the first list, there is no mention of this visit: Matthew contented himself with listening at the windows; in the second, Russell notes that his friend saw the twins at 9.35pm.

In the course of the statement which he made to the PJ, Matthew certifies having gone to the McCann's apartment at 9.25pm, having definitely seen the twins and noticing a definite light. What he doesn't explain, is how he could pass the bedroom window twice without noticing that it was open. On the other hand, once inside, he noticed that it was. That happens to conveniently reinforce the hypothesis of an abduction and gives weight to Jane Tanner's witness statement.

- Interesting!


SNIPPED

We deduce...that the alert was bound to have been raised before 10pm. Matthew Oldfield's and Jane Tanner's witness statements contradict each other. Those of Matthew and Kate too: the latter insists that when she went into the apartment, the bedroom door banged shut, the window was wide open and the curtains were raised by the wind. However, Matthew said nothing about all of that, only "a definite light," in the bedroom. This is rather implausible: from his vantage point - the bedroom doorway -, the line of sight between the door and the window is limited to a straight line of close to 4 metres [13 feet]. Which means that if the window had been open, he would inevitably have noticed it. Why such vagueness? Another obvious mistake concerns the number of windows: he mentioned two, while in reality, there was only one. His wife repeated the same mistake when she stated that her husband had listened at two bedroom windows during his second round.

Another question concerns Jane Tanner's second visit to apartment 5D. According to what the group says, at 9.30pm, Matt Oldfield accompanied Russell O'Brien as far as his accommodation, 5D, and both heard a child crying. Russell then stayed there. When he returned to the Tapas to let Jane know that their daughter was ill, the latter went to the child's bedside, in 5D, and did not come back.

These contradictions cannot hide the reality: the safety of the children left a lot to be desired.



Chapter 13

CONTRADICTIONS OR CLUES

How do you explain the differences, from one to another, between the witness statements?


[SNIPPED]

The Oldfield and O'Brien families, who also occupied ground floor accommodation, considered their children to be in a safe place since all the doors were locked. They forgot about the patio doors opening onto a little balcony at the rear of the building, which they could not watch from their table. The McCanns did not think any differently, even though the patio door wasn't locked and that, from the restaurant, as we have already mentioned, the building could barely be made out...That means that anyone could have got into their apartment without being seen. Kate Healy has always insisted that she went into her apartment the back way while Gerry says he went through the main door, the one at the front, which he opened with his key. Jeremy W., a tourist, who was returning from a walk with his baby, confirms having spoken to him for a few minutes while he was coming out of his apartment by the garden gate, at the rear. - Why does Gerald insist that he went in the front way when it's quicker to go the back way?

- To show that his children were safe.

- Matt Oldfield assures us that the first time he went to check on the children, he contented himself with listening at the windows. He didn't hear anyone crying.

- His meal is going cold and, instead of using the back way for speed, he makes this long detour to listen at the windows at the front...?

- Yes, but don't forget that, apart from the McCanns, the others had locked their patio doors, so he would inevitably have had to go round.

- But when Matt goes with Russell, he enters his apartment round the front, comes out, walks round the building and goes into the McCanns' the back way.

- Gerald should have given him his key. He would have gone in the front way and left by the back way, thus saving a good hundred metres.

Besides these inconsistencies, several facts place in doubt the veracity of the witness statements - and the very existence of an abductor.

Everybody accessing the block from the front sees the windows of 5A, 5B and 5D very clearly: they're all on the same level, and are relatively close together. If Jane came across the abductor in the street, as she claims, that means that he was no longer in apartment 5A. As a consequence, the window which Kate says she found wide open, necessarily was at that time. But Jane was not aware of this detail and she never spoke of it. When she went back to her apartment to replace her partner Russell sitting with their daughter, she had another opportunity to notice it. But, once again, she noticed nothing.

Jane is certainly not very observant. This remark goes equally for her friends Matt and Russell: both take the same route, alongside all those windows without noticing that one of them is wide open.

Someone has to have lied. Kate Healy's statements leave a lot to be desired. This is the gist of it: she goes in, notices Madeleine's absence, the open window, the shutter raised and the curtains moving in the breeze. OK. The classic scenario of an abduction by an individual having gone in through the window, which is to some extent corroborated by Jane Tanner, since the man she saw was coming from the car park, just in front of the window in question.

Looking at what follows: Kate looks for Madeleine all over the apartment and, not finding her, goes running towards the Tapas, shouting, "We let her down!" Looking a little more closely at the facts.

The mother has just discovered:

- that there are only two children in the bedroom;

- that the window is wide open.

And she goes back to the Tapas leaving the twins alone again? In a bedroom with windows wide open, at night, when it's cold and an abductor is hanging about?

Such behaviour is hardly credible
and difficult to justify, even in the grip of panic. A mother would not react like that, she would protect her two other children and not abandon them in their turn. She could have shouted help from the veranda to alert her husband and her friends. She could also have called him on his mobile phone...We find no plausible explanation for her conduct.


REST SNIPPED

Tony Bennett
Researcher/Moderator

Posts : 14105
Reputation : 2240
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 69
Location : Harlow, Essex

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Am I wrong? [Cuddle Cat - and the position of the door to the childrens' room]

Post by PeterMac on 13.09.11 21:20

It really is refreshing for us all to go back to the beginning - back to basics - from time to time.

After four years the theories have become so complicated and convoluted that it is difficult to keep up, and more difficult for someone new to the case to find their way around.

We have to remember the role of the Silk appearing for the Crown.

His, or her, role is to place the facts before the jury in the simplest possible way, consistent with the duty to present the "whole truth", so that they can understand the issues and decide upon them. At this stage all the political intrigue; the issues of who knew whom; of who was staying in whose apartment; of why various people got involved; of why some people were duped, and some not; why some people told lies, and others just said stupid things - all become irrelevant.

The case will hinge on the simple fact of whether Madeleine Beth McCann died in the apartment, or did not.
If she did then X follows
If she did not, then Y or one of its many variants follows.

The piece out of Mr Amaral's book is a classic of the methodical, Occam's Razor, approach of a police officer.

____________________


PeterMac
Researcher

Posts : 10170
Reputation : 144
Join date : 2010-12-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Am I wrong[ position of cuddle cat and door to childrens room]

Post by russiandoll on 17.09.11 11:30

will post my thoughts on this later as I have quiite a bit to say and need to make it brIEF and to the point so not tedious to read.....I have read a couple of things which give me much pause for thought on both cuddle cat[ a hugely significant part of this case] and the door to the children's room.

russiandoll

Posts : 3942
Reputation : 7
Join date : 2011-09-11

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Am I wrong? [Cuddle Cat - and the position of the door to the childrens' room]

Post by lj on 17.09.11 16:24

@tigger wrote:
@dentdelion wrote:In the TV program with Kate retelling events such as the billowing curtain and slamming door, she talks of seeing the bed with cuddlecat and the pink blanket on it... and no child. What happened to the pink blanket? Surely if abducting a child you would take a favourite toy and blanket as well? and to take the trouble to place on a high shelf?

The pink blanket is very important. The next day the GNR dogs were given a towel to smell to trace Maddie. The pink blanket, photographed the previous night, was no longer there. They also suspected the towel was Gerry's as the dogs traced a short walk to the supermarket he did the previous day.



Or it could have been a "family" towel that they all shared, just like the toothbrush. I can imagine Gerry's smell would overpower that of Madeleine at any time.

____________________
"And if Madeleine had hurt herself inside the apartment, why would that be our fault?"  Gerry

http://pjga.blogspot.co.uk/?m=0

http://whatreallyhappenedtomadeleinemccann.blogspot.co.uk/

lj

Posts : 3281
Reputation : 153
Join date : 2009-12-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Am I wrong? [Cuddle Cat - and the position of the door to the childrens' room]

Post by Angelique on 17.09.11 16:30

TB

Thank you for posting that snipped article from Goncalo Amaral's Book on the crime-scene.

I agree it is good to read this again - the one that is really important is the crucial bit about the window - for me it says that Kate has continually lied about the window and shutters. Worst of all her Tapas friends have shown her to have lied.

"Everybody accessing the block from the front sees the windows of 5A, 5B and 5D very clearly: they're all on the same level, and are relatively close together. If Jane came across the abductor in the street, as she claims, that means that he was no longer in apartment 5A. As a consequence, the window which Kate says she found wide open, necessarily was at that time. But Jane was not aware of this detail and she never spoke of it. When she went back to her apartment to replace her partner Russell sitting with their daughter, she had another opportunity to notice it. But, once again, she noticed nothing.

Jane is certainly not very observant. This remark goes equally for her friends Matt and Russell: both take the same route, alongside all those windows without noticing that one of them is wide open."

____________________
Things aren't always what they seem

Angelique

Posts : 1396
Reputation : 36
Join date : 2010-10-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

re: cuddle cat and the door to the children's room

Post by russiandoll on 20.09.11 10:59

There is a paragraph in Kate McCann's book from which I infer she did not intend to do a visual check on her children and which directly contradicts her statement earlier in the book that the holidaying group's checks were better than those offered by the resort staff at other MW resorts who only listened at the outside of the properties [ not offered in PDL due to the sprawling village style layout of apartments] :
FROM HER BOOK :
" The children were fast asleep and being checked every thirty minutes. Even if there had been a baby-listening service it would not have given our kids as much attention as our own visits did. We were going into the apartments and looking as well as listening."

In her statement to PJ she gave a summary of her movements upon entering apt 5a at 10pm May 3 2007.

FROM PJ FILES, May 4 2007 :
[color:ad09=000000] 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.


There is slightly more detail here:

FROM THE TRANSCRIPT OF HER VIDEO RECONSTRUCTION OF HER DISCOVERY:
"I did my check about 10.00 'clock and went in through
the sliding patio doors and I just stood, actually and I thought,
oh, all quiet, and to be
honest, I MIGHT HAVE BEEN TEMPTED TO TURN AROUND THEN [ my capitals] 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. "

FROM HER BOOK :

"At 10pm I went back to the apartment myself. I entered the sitting room via the patio doors as Gerry and Matt had done, and stood there, listening, for a few seconds. All was silent. 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." [ my capitals].

Now here is where I have a problem with these last 2 statements, please forgive me if you think I am nit-picking but I can only infer one thing from them. More so than her witness statement, they imply more by what is omitted than by what is said , that the only reason she decided she would not turn around[ presumably to leave the apartment] was due to the door which was not in the habitual position that she and her husband would leave it [ lets allow her not to think for a moment that Matt had left it at this angle the previuos check]
[BTW just what was so important about the door angle at a time when it would be dark, not dusk, and when the only light entering the bedroom would be from a small [ and so low wattage and not bright] table lamp in the sitting room? Do we even know where this was situated in the room, even if it was at the closest point to the bedroom it is implausible this would have disturbed the children. I would be curious to know where it was exactly, as if it was far away and Madeleine could not reach a light switch how would she navigate her way around if she woke up? ]
The statements definitely indicate that it was not the visual check on the children that propelled her automatically towards the door, and her action once she reached the door is certainly bizarre for a person who was going to look at the occupants of the bedroom. In the last two statements, she says she narrows the angle of the door. If it was quite wide, I would assume she saw the children but she does not mention having seen them either in the reconstruction or the book. Her sole intention appears to have been simply to return the door to the position she and Gerry habitually left it.

FROM THE INTERVIEW TRANSCRIPT:

" I went to close it to about here
and then as I got to here, it suddenly slammed and
then as I opened it, it was then that I just thought, I’ll just look
at the children "
does this not boldly shout out that she only thought to do her visual check after the business with the door? The inference from all the above is surely that had she not noticed this she would have not checked on her children.

Her book describes a very strange action in my opinion, not mentioned in her statement but I guess here after all that has happened we should give the benefit of the doubt as regards her memory for detail, however if after years she recalls it for her book her memory has not acted in accordance to the way I have read memory works over time..and I always give the McCanns the benefit of the doubt, this ends up reinforcing not changing the way I view their actions and inactions, their words and omissions].

After pulling the door to : " A little surprised, I turned to see if I'd left the patio doors open and let in the breeze. RETRACING MY STEPS, I CONFIRMED THAT I HADN'T . Returning to the children's room, I opened the door a little, and as I did so, I glanced over at Madeleine's bed. I couldn't quite make her out in the dark."
Now again excuse my nit-picking.
I assumed due to Kate's earlier statement about the group's visual checking, that when she pulled the door to, despite not stating it, she had seen her children. I believe that this is a logical assumption if I accept that she is being truthful about the visual checks.

So, if she HAS SEEN her children, why pay so much attention to the patio door, which she will surely be exiting in a minute if not less now that she is reassured all is well?
In addition, why retrace her steps? What was the sight line from the children's bedroom door to the patio door? Even if partially blocked I cant see why she had to go and check them if she was due to exit 5a anyway. The only plausible reason to do this surely if is she cannot see them, so did she close the curtains to the patio door when she was planning a quick check on the kids....
Why return to the children's bedroom? I assumed from her statement about visual checks that she had already seen her chidlren by this stage.
She then states that[ having pulled the door to earlier] she returned to the room and opened the door a little. Presumably this allowed her to see less not more of the children's bedroom, so how did she only now notice the empty bed? She surely would have seen it with the door either in its origiinal position or if she had opened it wider when she was first at the bedroom entrance.
Sorry to go on.....this is but a paragraph in the book but it speaks volumes to me. It does not make any sense and therefore I doubt that it is truthful.

russiandoll

Posts : 3942
Reputation : 7
Join date : 2011-09-11

View user profile

Back to top Go down

P.S FROM RUSSIAN DOLL

Post by russiandoll on 20.09.11 18:20

The reason I mention the curtains at patio door is this: I am aware of apartment layout and that the children's bedroom door was not flush with the wall but set back in an alcove. My point is if Kate Mc had just gone as far as the entrance to that alcove she could have seen whether the patio doors were open or closed, regardless of curtains. Open= she would have seen the patio doors. Closed= she could have worked out they were closed from the fact that there was no movement of curtains,[ having just felt a draught so strong it slammed the door to her children's room].

Did the PJ not go to 5a and watch her reconstruct her movements.
Proof of a dishonest witness imo, if she was being truthful re visual checks, her actions make no sense to me. If she was truthful about these actions, there was no intention of visual checking . why RETURN to the bedroom?

another explanation, maybe she did have another check to do , in the other bedroom?

russiandoll

Posts : 3942
Reputation : 7
Join date : 2011-09-11

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Really love your posts.

Post by tigger on 20.09.11 19:15

Yes, the whole story is for dramatic effect perhaps. Wouldn't be so exciting if she'd just walked in opened the door even wider and looked at the children. No Maddie. Help.
Now we have a complete narrative: did she get her inspiration from a book? It is a literary construct to engage the empathy of the reader.

E.g. I put the car in the garage and went to close the overhead door, but before I did that I looked over my shoulder, I'd felt a draught round my ankles. At the other end of the garage the door into the house stood open, I could just see the darkness beyond it. I debated with myself but in the end left the garage door open and went towards the door, as I did so I saw the intruder and had I not left the garage door open I would never have escaped.

Is more engaging than: drove the car into the garage, saw the door into the house was open and someone coming out, so I ran away and phoned the police.

You've given me an idea, lots of theirs came from other cases and I don't rate them as original thinkers.

____________________
Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch'entrate.

tigger

Posts : 8112
Reputation : 26
Join date : 2011-07-20

View user profile

Back to top Go down

to tigger

Post by russiandoll on 21.09.11 11:21

Thanks and your own aren't so bad either....I was going to put it all in a nutshell but then I thought some won't have read the book and it was easier to show my reasoning, even if it might be flawed reasoning.
What I guess the bottom line is is this

1. why did Kate McCann go not once but twice to the children's bedroom?
2. two opposing statements can't both be true, and she certainly contradicts herself by almost boasting early on in her book about the superiority of the group's checking system then clearly demonstrating verbally [ in the video reconstruction where I have quoted the transcript] and then in writing [in her book] that visual checking was not the reason she approached the bedroom door. How will any detective trained and working in a developped country like Portugal not consider as per the statistics that the abduction is a fabricated scenario and only one of a number of possibilities to be investigated?!

There is far too much detail, detail that makes no sense given her stated purpose for entering apt 5a. Kate Mc Cann is trying to show here her great memory for events due to the fact that she created a diary not too long after her daughter disappeared. It appears to be an attempt to convince the reader that all was not as it should have been hence her movements. The devil is in the detail as they say and I think there is very simple explanation for what happened to Madeleine made confusing and byzantine by the bizarre smoke and mirrors created by the tapas bunch. Cut through the foliage and you will see the branches, this is all the PJ did in my opinion. I do not want to vilify Kate Mc Cann though, because I think this book is evidence that shows her as being a deeply disturbed individual in profound need of psychological help. If not taken at face value Im sure there are many clues in this book about what happened.

russiandoll

Posts : 3942
Reputation : 7
Join date : 2011-09-11

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Page 1 of 2 1, 2  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


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