New Series of Videos - MCANN 'LIES' #1 Front Door or Patio Doors

Thanks for posting up these comments together Molly. When you read them you know just what big lies they are. the apartment was not locked, the patio door was left unlocked. The shutters were not jemmied open as was proven later, and which they admitted to. Plus it is impossible to jemmy them without causing permanent substantial damage to them. I know Ive tested them

So bearing in mind all the phone calls to F and F that night with these lies, not only do they raise serious suspicions but you ask why all the lies? What person in their right mind would ever tell all these big lies if their kid had been taken? Nobody.... as she was not taken, she was never there that night

Even to this day they are still lying about the shutters on Australian TV, despite the fact they have admitted to the PJ that they were not jemmied....still lying when we 'know' for a fact they are lying! I guess if you lie enough people will start believing you is the moto here

Its interesting to also note that they immediately started to attack the Portuguese police to the F& F, imo to take away the finger of suspicion away from them and onto the police. Probably trying to play the card that because they were British, the UK public would only be thinking like them and blame the foreign police thus deflecting the truth away from them

As well as blaming the Portuguese police, they never ever once thanked all those OC staff and other holiday guests for helping to search for Maddie that night. Not a shred of gratitude. This despite the fact that kate never went out to help search herself which....in another lie....she says on TV interviews she went out to search but in her book, she was out jumping hedges looking for her all night! which is the truth kate?

To rub salt into the wound, these poor OC staff lost their jobs after this night and considering it was the mccanns abduction story that caused these innocent people to be made redundant (in a area where there are hardly many jobs and holiday resorts are the main source of income)...did they even offer any money from the fund as compensation that their story has caused these innocent people, who did everything they could from their human kindness to help them that night, to be jobless and unable to pay the rent....like heck did they!

No instead, they are just continuing their lies and more lies and more lies...using the full force of the legal system to stamp on anyone who dares to challenge their story based on facts. And lets not forget the lies in the statements about the front door and things like a poster all ready available before the PJ even got there on May 3rd! despite having no printer and with an old photo of Maddie which derived from a memory stick...why on earth have they old photos of Maddie on a memory stick on an Algarve holiday!

Regarding the apartment: windows were closed but she doesn't know if they were locked. Veranda window closed but not locked, curtains closed. The second window in the living room was probably closed, she did not touch it and does not know if the blinds were closed. The kitchen window was probably closed but with the blinds open as there was light in the kitchen.

The window in Madeleine's room remained closed, but she doesn't know if it was locked, blinds and curtains drawn. The window remained like this since the first day, night and day. She never opened it. If somebody saw the window blinds in Madeleine's room open, it was not Kate who opened them, she never saw them open.

The window in Kate's room was closed and she admits they used the blinds, because Gerry broke them and they were repaired on the Monday; the incident occurred on Sunday.

Before they left she took some precautions: put the medicine inside a bag with a clasp in her room inside the wardrobe or the dresser. These were Calpol (paracetamol) and Nurofen (Ibuprofen), for fevers and pains, both for adults and children (liquid form for children). In this bag there was also a small pair of scissors. In the kitchen were cutting elements used to prepare the meals and which were not put out of sight. During their trips it was normal for them to take these medicines. During these holidays she never gave any medicine to her children, nor did Gerry. She now says that Gerry took medicine for acidity called Losec (omeprozole) which they also possessed.



The middle window above, where the people are walking is the second apartment window, according to Kate it was "probably" closed and she didn't know if the blinds were closed.

So after sipping their NZ wine Kate and Gerry go out, leaving their children alone having hidden the medicines. Madeleine has asked them where they were the precious night when she and Sean were crying. Front and back doors unlocked, windows probably closed.

jd wrote:Thanks for posting up these comments together Molly. When you read them you know just what big lies they are. the apartment was not locked, the patio door was left unlocked. The shutters were not jemmied open as was proven later, and which they admitted to. Plus it is impossible to jemmy them without causing permanent substantial damage to them. I know Ive tested them

Yes, JD, I have seen it on many of their later interviews. It's incredible.

jd wrote:So bearing in mind all the phone calls to F and F that night with these lies, not only do they raise serious suspicions but you ask why all the lies? What person in their right mind would ever tell all these big lies if their kid had been taken? Nobody.... as she was not taken, she was never there that night

It's just too hard to believe.

jd wrote:As well as blaming the Portuguese police, they never ever once thanked all those OC staff and other holiday guests for helping to search for Maddie that night. Not a shred of gratitude. This despite the fact that kate never went out to help search herself which....in another lie....she says on TV interviews she went out to search but in her book, she was out jumping hedges looking for her all night! which is the truth kate?

To rub salt into the wound, these poor OC staff lost their jobs after this night and considering it was the mccanns abduction story that caused these innocent people to be made redundant (in a area where there are hardly many jobs and holiday resorts are the main source of income)...did they even offer any money from the fund as compensation that their story has caused these innocent people, who did everything they could from their human kindness to help them that night, to be jobless and unable to pay the rent....like heck did they!

Yes, JD, apart from Madeleine, they are the victims, these wonderful people who turned themselves upside down and inside out to help in this appalling tragedy.

It took me a long time to get this particular piece of the puzzle clear in my head. Just another one or two posts to go, hoping to get this info straight in an ordered fashion so it might help get a perspective on the doors, the windows and the abduction story.

If kate never opened the window in maddies room then why did they only have one set of finger prints on them......HERS!

Molly wrote:

1. Entrance to OC Tapas
2. Back of Apartments
3. Where Gerry was standing, talking to Jez Wilkins
4. Where Jane was when she saw the "abductor"
5. Where she first saw the "abudctor"
6. Car park at front of apartments
7. Front entrance to Apt 5A & children's bedroom window
8. Where Jane last saw the "abductor"

Something is not right with this picture.
If Jane is mark 4 I guess she turns left at mark 7 wich is the entrence to the appartments. So why did the abducter go so much faster from mark 5 to 8 then Jane from mark 4-7 ? did he run ? and wouldnt that be suspisouce when holding a child in your arms? And how can Jane even see him at Mark 8 around the corner when she standing either at mark 4, 7 or between them ? And if she did se him at mark 8 wouldn't she then see him from behind? so why did she never describe seeing him from behind then?
I just do not believe Jane Tanner...

Add the fact Tanner changed her sighting of what the abductor looked liked 3 times....of course she is lying her face off

jd wrote:Add the fact Tanner changed her sighting of what the abductor looked liked 3 times....of course she is lying her face off

I know. And you don't have to be very brave to notice either. So why isn't the police or goverment doing anything ? Thats where I have the biggest problem , i don't understand it.
For some reason they are protected it seems..

Moa wrote:

Molly wrote:

1. Entrance to OC Tapas
2. Back of Apartments
3. Where Gerry was standing, talking to Jez Wilkins
4. Where Jane was when she saw the "abductor"
5. Where she first saw the "abudctor"
6. Car park at front of apartments
7. Front entrance to Apt 5A & children's bedroom window
8. Where Jane last saw the "abductor"

Something is not right with this picture.
If Jane is mark 4 I guess she turns left at mark 7 wich is the entrence to the appartments. So why did the abducter go so much faster from mark 5 to 8 then Jane from mark 4-7 ? did he run ? and wouldnt that be suspisouce when holding a child in your arms? And how can Jane even see him at Mark 8 around the corner when she standing either at mark 4, 7 or between them ? And if she did se him at mark 8 wouldn't she then see him from behind? so why did she never describe seeing him from behind then?
I just do not believe Jane Tanner...

I do not think you can turn left at Mark 7. I believe you have to go right round into the car park following the line that has been drawn. So she would have had to go right into the road, and there is no reason why she should not have looked at the man for a long time beyond Mark 8. As she has sketched, "was here when I got to top of road. She therefore never gave him a second glance.
But why would you give a non-existent man carrying a non-existent child in a non-existent blanket...?

PeterMac wrote:

Moa wrote:

Molly wrote:

1. Entrance to OC Tapas
2. Back of Apartments
3. Where Gerry was standing, talking to Jez Wilkins
4. Where Jane was when she saw the "abductor"
5. Where she first saw the "abudctor"
6. Car park at front of apartments
7. Front entrance to Apt 5A & children's bedroom window
8. Where Jane last saw the "abductor"

Something is not right with this picture.
If Jane is mark 4 I guess she turns left at mark 7 wich is the entrence to the appartments. So why did the abducter go so much faster from mark 5 to 8 then Jane from mark 4-7 ? did he run ? and wouldnt that be suspisouce when holding a child in your arms? And how can Jane even see him at Mark 8 around the corner when she standing either at mark 4, 7 or between them ? And if she did se him at mark 8 wouldn't she then see him from behind? so why did she never describe seeing him from behind then?
I just do not believe Jane Tanner...

I do not think you can turn left at Mark 7. I believe you have to go right round into the car park following the line that has been drawn. So she would have had to go right into the road, and there is no reason why she should not have looked at the man for a long time beyond Mark 8. As she has sketched, "was here when I got to top of road. She therefore never gave him a second glance.
But why would you give a non-existent man carrying a non-existent child in a non-existent blanket...?

I was wondering about wether she went to the top or not. I saw Mark 7 described as an entrance and therefor guessed she used that one-...

Moa wrote: I was wondering about wether she went to the top or not. I saw Mark 7 described as an entrance and therefor guessed she used that one-...

Moa, you can see better in the above picture, mark 7 is at the side of the apartment just where you see the second last red arrow but you need to continue up to the top of the road along the trees and then follow the road for the entrance, the last arrow is where point 7 really should be. Apt 5A is to the left of the final red arrow.

You can see just how isolated the back entrance is, it would be easy enough to force the lock (that isn't dead bolted according to Kate) and the window of the children's bedroom is closed but not locked either. It doesn't bring a good picture of simply dining in the back garden.

Molly wrote:

Moa wrote: I was wondering about wether she went to the top or not. I saw Mark 7 described as an entrance and therefor guessed she used that one-...

Moa, you can see better in the above picture, mark 7 is at the side of the apartment just where you see the second last red arrow but you need to continue up to the top of the road along the trees and then follow the road for the entrance, the last arrow is where point 7 really should be. Apt 5A is to the left of the final red arrow.

You can see just how isolated the back entrance is, it would be easy enough to force the lock (that isn't dead bolted according to Kate) and the window of the children's bedroom is closed but not locked either. It doesn't bring a good picture of simply dining in the back garden.

Thank you :) Still looks like a big fat JT lie :)

10/05/07

At that time she observed GM talking to an English citizen called Jez that they had met on these holidays. He played tennis with them. She doesn't know if they saw her giving the assurance that, on her part, she did not start a conversation with either of them.

She passed them knowing that GM had already been in the apartment to see the children.

She doesn't recall the position/orientation of either Jez or GM while they spoke to each other on the street, only having the perception that one was on the pavement and the other was in the road next to the other. Jez had a baby carriage, the deponent knowing that he had a small child.

Prompted, she clarified that the reason she left, following GM only 5/10 minutes later, she relates that she did it because she knew that he would only go to his apartment, reiterating that she checked her daughters regularly.

Questioned about the path she took on the way to her home, she relates that she left the reception at the entrance to the Tapas/pool area and went up the pavement to the corner, having entered the apartment by the front door, which was, as already stated, locked. The only access to the interior of the home is by that door, seeing that the windows and the sliding patio door to the lounge were locked from the inside, it being this way that they are only passable if they are opened, also from the inside.

Asked [about] the route of GM to his home when he went to check on his children, she relates that she does not know, but that she knows that he, at times, accessed the home by the glass lounge door which was only closed but not locked. She explains that this was the easiest and fastest way to enter the McCann apartment as they have a stairway up to the veranda which is next to the pavement, saving thereby half [the distance of] the route. Questioned, she relates that all the couples had to access their respective apartments by the front door, except the McCanns since they were the only ones who left the glass door unlocked.

Prompted to say if she checked the state of the windows and external blinds of the McCann children's bedroom when she went to her house, she relates that no, she did not look in that direction, hence they might already have been open without her having noticed.

1. How did Jane already know that Gerry had checked the children? He could have spent the time chatting with Jez
2. How is Jane so sure about the tiny detail of the child's floral pyjamas yet she can't remember what position Gerry & Jez were facing? She would surely remember considering she saw them but didn't offer a salutation.
3. Jane knows that Gerry won't check her kids yet Russell & Matt checked the McCann kids that night..
4. Open sorry, smashed & jemmied shutters, an open window and blowing curtains would be very difficult to miss. Surprising that Jane didn't notice this seeing as she noticed everything else about the walk (except for what direction Gerry was facing)

The big question is, where were they both coming from when they met?

...Eventually, I left one road to the other side of the street to the pool complex, between the McCann apartment and the Tapas Bar. In order to visualise this street, I believe it was the street most used by the news agencies and journalists as all the parked cars indicated during the coverage period.
When I left the street, I remember seeing Gerry on the other side of the same. I believe that there was some speculation in the press regarding the circumstances of this encounter. I remember that I crossed the street to talk to Gerry. According to what I remember, Gerry was walking when I spotted him. As I mentioned previously, I assumed that he had gone to check on the children and was headed back to the Tapas Bar.
From what I remember, the conversation happened right there on the pathway but I am not certain who was located exactly where.

Q. Relative to the time we conversed;
I am more certain of this than I am of our relative positions.
The conversation lasted for approximately three to five minutes. We spoke of the care of children and how they were getting along. He told me something like 'he was on night duty'. I explained to him that I was returning to the apartment as my son was now sleeping. I assumed that Gerry was off to dine with the group in the Tapas bar, but I cannot precisely say this came from him or if I figured this out from our previous conversations regarding the checking system for the children. I remember that Gerry told me if he had stayed another week, he would likely do as I was doing and would stay with the children one night. It appeared as though he was jealous of what I was doing, but given that he was with a big group, he felt the obligation to meet with them every night, and the chosen location was the Tapas bar. I believe that there was some sort of agreement with the tapas Bar as they appeared to have a reservation every night and it was impossible for other guests to book at spot there.
I do not know if we were face to face or side to side when this conversation occurred. As I had the pram with me I was rocking it so my son could sleep, it seems to me that I was in the downward direction, but it is possible that I was in the opposite direction.
I do not remember having seen anyone else at this time besides Gerry. After leaving each other, Gerry walked downward in the direction of the Tapas Bar and I began to walk in the other direction, up the pathway. I turned left at the crossing and passed the apartment. I did not meet anyone else during my walk and once in my apartment, I did not venture out again.

I think Jane Tanner's drawing puts them chatting directly under the living room window. Does anyone know what street the press gathered on? If Gerry was coming out from the back entrance of the apartment it would be very hard to spot Jez if he was behind him. If Jez was coming down the hill behind Gerry he could shout at him and Gerry might turn around and walk towards Jez yet Jez says he crossed the street to Gerry. If Jez was coming from the Ocean Club up the hill how would he intersect with Gerry under the living room window?

Gerry comes into the apartment via the back sliding doors. I think it gets mentioned later that he now suspects that someone was already in the apartment and they hid. Where? There's no warning for an abductor until the last moment, if the abductor is already in the children's room, where can he hide? By the time Gerry opens the sliding doors he has a clear view of anyone trying to leave the room. In the interviews he says it was hard to see Madeleine so he went up to the top of the bed. Hard to hide behind the door with the angle of the wardrobe and any movement would be immediately picked up by Gerry. Gerry had a birds eye view of the whole room when he went to the top of Madeleine's bed.

Gerry uses the bathroom and leaves the apt through the sliding doors. Somehow he bumps into Jez and they begin chatting. Meanwhile somebody opens/jemmies/smashes the shutters and Gerry hears nothing. We're later told that the abductor entered through the sliding doors. Gerry is directly outside the sliding doors, how can he not notice? The front window is only yards away Neither he nor Jez spot Jane who comes up from the Tapas and walks by them. Neither spot bundleman so which direction exactly are they both facing? And why, if jez was coming down the hill with the child in a buggy, did he immediately turn around and return the other way when Gerry leaves? The abductor then leaves through the front door, so why doesn't Gerry hear it close? What abductor in their right mind would abduct a child within yards of her father's presence? Why does the story change from the first phone calls of a locked up apartment to later on almost every window and door unlocked or possibly locked? Why do Jane, Russell and Matt pass the open shutters, the open windows and the blowing curtains without noticing?

maybe there was no need to take any notice of 5a because it was empty and children sleeping elsewhere ?
the police noticed that the twins were in cots without any bedding when they arrived, perhaps they had been returned to their room from a different apartment?
I have studied the photos of 5a and its location is a burglars dream. I can not accept that two intelligent doctors left their valuables[ including the children][ in there while it was unlocked.
and there was conveniently if I recall a member of the group unwell every night. these illnesses did not extend to the following day as far as I am aware and so that person, genuinely ill or not, could have minded all the children in one apartment, think of the beds, travel cots and living room sofas which usuall convert to beds.

imo the Jane Tanner sighting is a fabrication from start to finish. Nothing makes sense and if thats the case it cant be true.

russiandoll wrote:maybe there was no need to take any notice of 5a because it was empty and children sleeping elsewhere ?
the police noticed that the twins were in cots without any bedding when they arrived, perhaps they had been returned to their room from a different apartment?
I have studied the photos of 5a and its location is a burglars dream. I can not accept that two intelligent doctors left their valuables[ including the children][ in there while it was unlocked.
and there was conveniently if I recall a member of the group unwell every night. these illnesses did not extend to the following day as far as I am aware and so that person, genuinely ill or not, could have minded all the children in one apartment, think of the beds, travel cots and living room sofas which usuall convert to beds.

imo the Jane Tanner sighting is a fabrication from start to finish. Nothing makes sense and if thats the case it cant be true.

You're absolutely right, Russiandoll, If anyone could explain all those discrepancies in a plausible manner I'd actually listen. Because the whole story simply defies logic. But it's a great starting point for anyone who cares to begin. And a good reminder of why so many people are sceptical.

We have all tried VERY hard to understand how Jane Tanner's statement could possibly be true, or even how it could possible be "almost true" but a little bit mistaken in one or two crucial details.
But FOUR YEARS later, there is no one who can make any sense of it.
No one who can explain how any of it might have happened.
No one who can assist.

"...when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth"

Wilkins was not in that block at all, he was in block 4.

Tanner looks like she was on the 2nd floor, instead of groundfloor.

G5A's front door btw, is located underneath the tiny red roof, just to the left of the row of green trees.

PeterMac wrote:We have all tried VERY hard to understand how Jane Tanner's statement could possibly be true, or even how it could possible be "almost true" but a little bit mistaken in one or two crucial details.
But FOUR YEARS later, there is no one who can make any sense of it.
No one who can explain how any of it might have happened.
No one who can assist.

"...when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth"

It makes me wonder how the twins will make sense of it when they are old enough to understand the full story. Left alone for 5 consecutive nights with only their older sibling there to protect them and lift them both out of cots in the event of fire. Older sibling brings their absence to their attention yet they still go out to dine that night. Doors and windows unlocked or probably locked. Older sibling abducted from right under their father's nose while he was busy discussing the merits of dining in and tennis, while he was a few yards away but didn't notice anything. Friend noticing but not realizing. Left alone again to the mercy of the abductor with the open window and shutter while the mother ran for help. Left alone again while their parents jetted around the world to highlight their campaign. Paraded around the media for various photo shoots. Making sense of the bad man who stole their sister. Not to mention the various inconsistencies.

russiandoll wrote:maybe there was no need to take any notice of 5a because it was empty and children sleeping elsewhere ?
the police noticed that the twins were in cots without any bedding when they arrived, perhaps they had been returned to their room from a different apartment?
I have studied the photos of 5a and its location is a burglars dream. I can not accept that two intelligent doctors left their valuables[ including the children][ in there while it was unlocked.
and there was conveniently if I recall a member of the group unwell every night. these illnesses did not extend to the following day as far as I am aware and so that person, genuinely ill or not, could have minded all the children in one apartment, think of the beds, travel cots and living room sofas which usuall convert to beds.

imo the Jane Tanner sighting is a fabrication from start to finish. Nothing makes sense and if thats the case it cant be true.

What is puzzlijng is if her statements were consistently changed that had to be re-signed as 'true and correct', and the belief that others (IFLG and maybe control risks group) had helped her in her evolving statements then surely if it isn't fabrication how did people helping know what she saw?
If these people were involved (allegedly) in her statements then her sighting is definitely fabrication but she couldn't remember the scripts given to her hence the constant need to change her statements.

Question is" why was Tanner singled out for the 'fabricator' role? Was she the most softhearted and willing to help a friend or was she maybe a wee bit dim witted and didn't really know the impact of what she was asked to do? Why not Fiona Payne, kate's best mate? Could it be because David Payne was already given another role as 'Maddie' last sighter? and using Fiona to sight gerry is a wee bit too much coming after DP? What about the other girl in the group - the one (Rachel Oldfield?) who said surely 6 doctors would know about 'resuscitation'? Not too pally with the mccanns perhaps?

When you look at the characters and roles given to them...it becomes clear mccanns selected carefully who to play what role, and used each and every of their holiday friend for the purpose most advantageous to them.

Jane Tanner:

4078 "And did you leave your roadside door locked or was it unlocked?"
Reply "Yes, yeah well we made, as I said we made sure that was because you could dead
lock it as well and that was one of our concerns was Exxxx waking up and wandering, I
mean like I say we didn't think she would but that was probably our, you know so
she couldn't get out the actual apartment, that was err so we did make sure that was
dead locked every night."

Kate McCann:

They left by the veranda door, which they left closed but not locked. Main door was closed but not locked. She thinks it could be opened from the inside but not from the outside. She thinks she was wearing a cream coloured polar fleece with a zip, and on top a blue raincoat also with a zip. As regards Gerry, she doesn't know if he was wearing other items of clothing.


I only noticed this now. Kate is actually saying that the front door was unlocked, what was to prevent Madeleine wandering out the front door?

I guess this is because of the wind out there and it saves people locking themselves out !!!

If you have the key in your hand, then you can double lock the door.

These are their own words!
Watch:   
McCann's Irish RTE Late Late Show Interview May 13 2011

Says everything in their own words.

At 10.34 Kate is actually HAPPY that the waiters wrote down (for strangers to know, in the restaurant) that they had booked a table because the kids were sleeping alone while they dined.

What makes her so pleased? she's shifting the blame! And really happy about doing this.


When the interviewer questions them about why the public, don't believe them when they're always smiling, They don't answer! Gerry just brings up, oh the Portuguese secrecy law!!!!

At 22.40 on the video, She also again tries to say it took 4 hours!
When Gerry, says  it took the first police 20 mins to arrive, and 1 hour for the second police to arrive.
She confuses us by saying it took 4 hours really.(she means the time in between she found MM missing and the last police arrived) she fails to say some police were there already.

Then Gerry ends by saying READ THE BOOK.
Hello?  Can we read the files instead? Is it not a better idea? you don't want us to read the book for money purposes, you have that already. So it must be for INFORMATION.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WLvnfcl-Zkg
 
This is the Irish interview for anyone brave enough to watch it!

It has been analysed here before.

https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t5406-the-irish-interview-13-5-2011?highlight=irish+tv

No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WLvnfcl-Zkg
 
This is the Irish interview for anyone brave enough to watch it!

It has been analysed here before.

https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t5406-the-irish-interview-13-5-2011?highlight=irish+tv

Iirc there were two interruptions in that interview -both Gerry's phone. Signals ?