The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™
Hello!

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.

When posting please be mindful that this forum is primarily about the death of a three year old girl.

Regards,

Jill Havern
Forum owner

Starting at the beginning - the obvious

Page 1 of 4 1, 2, 3, 4  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Starting at the beginning - the obvious

Post by Guest on 30.04.12 19:36

There are so Much information, theories, opinions etc in this case that it is sometimes good to start from the beginning again.

The first thing making me look deeper into this case was the JT sighting of the abducter. The fact that the person she says she saw was carrying her with the feets toward JT means she had to be not only liftet but also turned the other way. The time frame of 3-5 minutes also puzzeled me. The TM obviously believe that JT saw the abducter .

But , if that is to believe, than the abducter did not enter the window,it didn't show signs if break in, jammed etc ,and G and another man was right down the street , quiet evening, I'm sure they would have heard the jammied shutters. And the window was closed when G made his last check his almost sure of.

The abducter could not have entered trough the patio doors , because G and The man was chatting close to the gate , close enough for an abducter not to enter there , close enough for them to hear ?

The man coud not have hidden in apartment, first of all if he was in there why would he be in another room but the kids room ? If someone came he wouldn't hear it before the doors open and then it's no time to enter another room, and from what we seen there is no where to hide behind the door or elsewhere in the children's room..

So the only way would have been the front door with a key. So someone has the key to that apartment , waits around God knows how long, for a family that leaves their children alone ,so they can snatch it ? In a Holliday apartment with childcare service ? Sounds clever, surprised there aren't more children beeing abducted from there . Why would an abducter choose a place like that , take that chance,leave no traces what so ever ?

There are so many things surrounding the JT sighting. I find it hard to believe, if story is true, that they cling so hard and defend this evidence as much as they to. As the key sighting of the case. It's just not logical in any way, and how did he even get time to take her ? and why do they want us to believe JT saw the man, when her sighting really is not much trustworthy at all.

In an interview posted by tigger earlier on here, where JT says SHE carried her straight over the arms. Why does she say that ? Isn't that a very strange toung slip in such a story if it where to be true ? So did she carried her then, seeing G and J , that's why G crossed road to talk to him, stopping him from going further. in fear of J spotting JT carrying the child , they come up with this story that she went by and saw a man witha child. Unluckily J didn't see her at the top, and he didn't see her passing by either. Probably not but the head starts to spin thinking of this case big grin

And if G and J didn't see JT how do we know that G hadnt just started to talk to J ,but stood there already for 3 min or more ? Because G says so ? How lucky that he looked at his watch and his daughter thinking how lucky he was, just minutes before she allegedly got abducted. And meeting someone that gives him an alibi also at that very moment, even his friend get lucky enough to see the abductor with Madeleine , all this has to clear them , how lucky in this tragedy incident. How much worse would they have been in with out this elements ?

What do other people on here think is the important obviouse clues in this case ? Obviouse body language and how they say and answer things gives a good clue as well IMO .

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Starting at the beginning - the obvious

Post by tuom on 30.04.12 21:51

Moa wrote:There are so Much information, theories, opinions etc in this case that it is sometimes good to start from the beginning again.

The first thing making me look deeper into this case was the JT sighting of the abducter. The fact that the person she says she saw was carrying her with the feets toward JT means she had to be not only liftet but also turned the other way. The time frame of 3-5 minutes also puzzeled me. The TM obviously believe that JT saw the abducter .

But , if that is to believe, than the abducter did not enter the window,it didn't show signs if break in, jammed etc ,and G and another man was right down the street , quiet evening, I'm sure they would have heard the jammied shutters. And the window was closed when G made his last check his almost sure of.

The abducter could not have entered trough the patio doors , because G and The man was chatting close to the gate , close enough for an abducter not to enter there , close enough for them to hear ?

The man coud not have hidden in apartment, first of all if he was in there why would he be in another room but the kids room ? If someone came he wouldn't hear it before the doors open and then it's no time to enter another room, and from what we seen there is no where to hide behind the door or elsewhere in the children's room..

So the only way would have been the front door with a key. So someone has the key to that apartment , waits around God knows how long, for a family that leaves their children alone ,so they can snatch it ? In a Holliday apartment with childcare service ? Sounds clever, surprised there aren't more children beeing abducted from there . Why would an abducter choose a place like that , take that chance,leave no traces what so ever ?

There are so many things surrounding the JT sighting. I find it hard to believe, if story is true, that they cling so hard and defend this evidence as much as they to. As the key sighting of the case. It's just not logical in any way, and how did he even get time to take her ? and why do they want us to believe JT saw the man, when her sighting really is not much trustworthy at all.

In an interview posted by tigger earlier on here, where JT says SHE carried her straight over the arms. Why does she say that ? Isn't that a very strange toung slip in such a story if it where to be true ? So did she carried her then, seeing G and J , that's why G crossed road to talk to him, stopping him from going further. in fear of J spotting JT carrying the child , they come up with this story that she went by and saw a man witha child. Unluckily J didn't see her at the top, and he didn't see her passing by either. Probably not but the head starts to spin thinking of this case

And if G and J didn't see JT how do we know that G hadnt just started to talk to J ,but stood there already for 3 min or more ? Because G says so ? How lucky that he looked at his watch and his daughter thinking how lucky he was, just minutes before she allegedly got abducted. And meeting someone that gives him an alibi also at that very moment, even his friend get lucky enough to see the abductor with Madeleine , all this has to clear them , how lucky in this tragedy incident. How much worse would they have been in with out this elements ?

What do other people on here think is the important obviouse clues in this case ? Obviouse body language and how they say and answer things gives a good clue as well IMO .



Great post Moa , timing is everything in this "sighting" IMO if a child had been "abducted" then it would not be peacefully asleep , it would certainly be somewhat distressed , JT makes the "sighting" almost "normal" , I don't think so !!! BTW off topic do you have a link to a bigger picture from your profile MMC looks quite ill in that picture IMO

tuom

Posts : 530
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2012-03-20

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Starting at the beginning - the obvious

Post by jd on 30.04.12 22:20

The jane tanner sighting is flawed. When Matthew Oldfield went into the apartment at 9.30pm (after jane tanner sighting & Maddie was taken) he saw nothing suspicious and the window was closed. gerry also confirms this from his statement on 4th May 2007 "At about 21.30 his friend Matt (member of the group) went to the apartment, where his children were and on his way went to the witness' apartment, entering by means of a glass sliding door that was always unlocked and was located laterally to the building. He entered the bedroom, he observed the twins and he did not even notice whether Madeleine was there" as everything was calm, the shutters were closed and the door to the bedroom was ajar as usual. "After that Matt returned to the restaurant."

kate says the shutters were up when she went in at 10pm (we've all seen the reconstruction of the door whooshing open etc), so this can only mean the abduction took place between 9.30 and 10pm, not at 9.15pm re jane tanner sighting. This only gives credit to the Smith sighting. The only other possible scenario is that the abductor went back some 20 mins later after abducting Maddie..... to open the window and shutters, this of course is preposterous and totally unrealistic.

jane tanner should be arrested for trying to get an innocent man put in jail for abduction. Her 'sighting' is a total lie

jd

Posts : 4152
Reputation : 17
Join date : 2011-07-22

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Starting at the beginning - the obvious

Post by Guest on 01.05.12 7:09

Yes, and with all this in mind there has to be a why, why is this sighting taken as seriously by the police and TM ? I'm sure the police are not that stupid believing JT for real ? And if TM really thought their daughter was abducted why cling to the least likely clue ?

I think it's very obviouse because of JT that their child never got abducted and they know, but then I have to believe that police knows that to. British police.

So why do they get away with it ?whats so f#%# special about K and G ?


Tuom:
I don't have a bigger photo, google picture her name along with forget me not and you will find it ..

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Starting at the beginning - the obvious

Post by russiandoll on 01.05.12 9:37

Moa.......for you ... clapping

Something I thought about last night, a seemingly trivial issue compared to JT sighting but one which suddenly shouted out at me, something I am looking at closely today.
What were the checkers actually able to see in the childrens' bedroom, when they went to do the visual checks on the children [ a step better than the MW checks in other resorts, the listening from outside, so said Kate...they had a visual check on the children].
I was looking at lighting outside 5a, statements from K and G about lighting inside as they left for their meal and statements of those checking re- light and dark on May 3rd. Add in the permanently closed shutter and the position of the bedroom in relation to the light which was left on in the lounge....oh and the bulb wattage.
Not proof of anything other than a lie if I am remotely correct in my thinking.
My question is why lie?
Should I start a new section for this ? Not what did they see in that bedroom...what could they see? Because I would be really interested in your opinions.

____________________



             The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie — deliberate,
contrived and dishonest — but the myth — persistent, persuasive and
unrealistic.
~John F. Kennedy


russiandoll

Posts : 3942
Reputation : 9
Join date : 2011-09-11

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Starting at the beginning - the obvious

Post by russiandoll on 01.05.12 10:11

JT statement 4th May 2007 :
She passed by them knowing that Gerry had already been in the apartment (1) to check his children. [ how exactly did she KNOW this ?]

JT statement 10th May 2007 :

She passed them knowing that Gerald McCann had already been in the apartment to see the children.[ again how did she KNOW ?]


JT R I 8th May 2008:

“So your intention as you are walking up the road was just to check on Ella and Evie?”
Reply “Yeah, yeah, just to check on them”.
4078 “Just your two?”
Reply “Yeah, nobody else. Because, well Gerry was there, so I thought he’d just checked.

Allowing for memory worsening over time, in this case approx a year...I still do not understand how she knew Gerry had checked. Time elapsed since he left and she saw him might make her conclude this, but it is not knowledge of a fact. Also Gerry might have been facing the tapas area not the top of the street [ conveniently having his back to the abductor so he could not see what JT saw].... but that is not reason enough to be sure he was returning from, rather than going to do his check.

____________________



             The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie — deliberate,
contrived and dishonest — but the myth — persistent, persuasive and
unrealistic.
~John F. Kennedy


russiandoll

Posts : 3942
Reputation : 9
Join date : 2011-09-11

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Starting at the beginning - the obvious

Post by dentdelion on 01.05.12 11:23

How much light would have been cast from outside into the bedroom with the shutters raised and curtains drawn back? Surely this was something immediately noticeable to anyone 'checking' from inside the apartment? if only to secure the window to prevent the cold night air/secure children from climbing out. Would not the additional light from outside be sufficient to help view occupants of beds? But Kate did not notice anything amiss until the door slammed, no extra light coming from window... and then when she looked properly into the room after the slammed door, she could not make out whether Madeleine was in the bed. I would have had as a first thought that the child had climbed out that window.....and run out to look in that direction calling for help as I went.

dentdelion

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

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Starting at the beginning - the obvious

Post by Nina on 01.05.12 11:53

@dentdelion wrote:How much light would have been cast from outside into the bedroom with the shutters raised and curtains drawn back? Surely this was something immediately noticeable to anyone 'checking' from inside the apartment? if only to secure the window to prevent the cold night air/secure children from climbing out. Would not the additional light from outside be sufficient to help view occupants of beds? But Kate did not notice anything amiss until the door slammed, no extra light coming from window... and then when she looked properly into the room after the slammed door, she could not make out whether Madeleine was in the bed. I would have had as a first thought that the child had climbed out that window.....and run out to look in that direction calling for help as I went.

If the shutters are completely closed no light would be in the room other than a lamp lit in the bedroom, or, if the bedroom door was open then whatever light from the lounge area would light the bedroom. However anyone standing in the doorway would of coures block some of this available light.
If the shutters are down but not completely in that the slats are not closed then there are little holes along that would allow some light, and air in from outside.
Light entering the room would also depend on sunlight, street lights, shade from tree, car headlights going past at night.
Add to the shutters are the curtains. There was a sheer curtain and a thicker curtain, these in turn will defuse any light.
We have shutters just like these and our bedroom window faces east so the dawn and sunrise lightens the room considerably as we don't have them fully locked. The guest bedrooms though face west so these rooms are much darker for longer, ah that is why our visitors get up very late yes

____________________
Not one more cent from me.

Nina

Posts : 2696
Reputation : 240
Join date : 2011-06-16

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Starting at the beginning - the obvious

Post by dentdelion on 01.05.12 13:10

I was thinking more of going with the story of the " raised shutter, open window, billowing curtains" and how much extra light that would have cast into the room in addition to light from the living area of the apartment. I would imagine also that having walking by night fromt the tapas and entered the dimly lit apartment, their eyes would have adjusted to the poorer light conditions and be better able to see.

dentdelion

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

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Starting at the beginning - the obvious

Post by Guest on 01.05.12 14:28

@russiandoll wrote: JT statement 4th May 2007 :
She passed by them knowing that Gerry had already been in the apartment (1) to check his children. [ how exactly did she KNOW this ?]

JT statement 10th May 2007 :

She passed them knowing that Gerald McCann had already been in the apartment to see the children.[ again how did she KNOW ?]


JT R I 8th May 2008:

“So your intention as you are walking up the road was just to check on Ella and Evie?”
Reply “Yeah, yeah, just to check on them”.
4078 “Just your two?”
Reply “Yeah, nobody else. Because, well Gerry was there, so I thought he’d just checked.

Allowing for memory worsening over time, in this case approx a year...I still do not understand how she knew Gerry had checked. Time elapsed since he left and she saw him might make her conclude this, but it is not knowledge of a fact. Also Gerry might have been facing the tapas area not the top of the street [ conveniently having his back to the abductor so he could not see what JT saw].... but that is not reason enough to be sure he was returning from, rather than going to do his check.

FML , im sick and wrote a long reply for you RD on my iPad, and I was just about to finish and the whole #%}|%}>}> thing disappeared ARRRRRGGGGGG. sad

Almost crying now in self pitty , just to put me totally in misery I have to stay in bed and its summer outside aaagh

Will be back after calming down ....

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Starting at the beginning - the obvious

Post by tuom on 01.05.12 14:51

@russiandoll wrote: Moa.......for you ...

Something I thought about last night, a seemingly trivial issue compared to JT sighting but one which suddenly shouted out at me, something I am looking at closely today.
What were the checkers actually able to see in the childrens' bedroom, when they went to do the visual checks on the children [ a step better than the MW checks in other resorts, the listening from outside, so said Kate...they had a visual check on the children].
I was looking at lighting outside 5a, statements from K and G about lighting inside as they left for their meal and statements of those checking re- light and dark on May 3rd. Add in the permanently closed shutter and the position of the bedroom in relation to the light which was left on in the lounge....oh and the bulb wattage.
Not proof of anything other than a lie if I am remotely correct in my thinking.
My question is why lie?
Should I start a new section for this ? Not what did they see in that bedroom...what could they see? Because I would be really interested in your opinions.



According to the bewk pg 100/101 it was light enough for Gerry to see MMC and to have that moment about how he was so lucky etc...

tuom

Posts : 530
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2012-03-20

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Starting at the beginning - the obvious

Post by Guest on 01.05.12 15:01

@russiandoll wrote: Moa.......for you ...

Something I thought about last night, a seemingly trivial issue compared to JT sighting but one which suddenly shouted out at me, something I am looking at closely today.
What were the checkers actually able to see in the childrens' bedroom, when they went to do the visual checks on the children [ a step better than the MW checks in other resorts, the listening from outside, so said Kate...they had a visual check on the children].
I was looking at lighting outside 5a, statements from K and G about lighting inside as they left for their meal and statements of those checking re- light and dark on May 3rd. Add in the permanently closed shutter and the position of the bedroom in relation to the light which was left on in the lounge....oh and the bulb wattage.
Not proof of anything other than a lie if I am remotely correct in my thinking.
My question is why lie?
Should I start a new section for this ? Not what did they see in that bedroom...what could they see? Because I would be really interested in your opinions.

I brought my laptop to bed with me, starting over trying to write my post , luckily even if im sick it do not stop me from starting over , after a little shouting and calming down

Well if we take Kates word for it, they did not acually visiually check their childre. She says so in the mocumentary that she was about to close the door, without seeing them, but then the door slammed and first then she looked in on them, and even then she had to look for a while to be able to make out of M was in the bed or not. And if the door slammed on her, how could she see the curtains go woosh at the very same time? I guess the wooshing was the cause of the door slamming, and she do say that the door slammed and THEN she saw the curtains go woosh...

I guess this says a lot about the lighting and their "visual" checks.

So if G then as he says looked at her, and how beautiful she was and how lucky he was, their had to be some light unless he has a super night vision 90 % better than Kates night vision. Or he would have had to enter the room and be very close to the bed to see her, and if he did he would defently noticed if there was someone else in the room. Wich he didnt. because what he tells is most like not the truth.

And also whats puzzeled me, if we go with TM story, the window would have been open atleast for 45 minutes before K arrive, and then wasnt she lucky that the door slammed just at that very moment when she stood in the door about to close it and go away without seeing her kids. Why did the door not close from the wind from the windows any time before in those 45 minutes it has to have been opend according to their story? Incredible luck, because if the door hadnt slammed and the curtain wooshed, they probably wouldnt noticed her gone until the next morning, and then ofcourse they could not have blamed the police for not doing their job, securing the boarders etc.

And how lucky for G to meet J just at the same time as their very own friend sees the abducter carrying M away. Without two independent witnesses just at that very moment, they would have had a hell of a lot worse time fighting their innocent.

And the man Jt says she saw will never come forward because he do not exist, but they use that as a proof of their story that it is because he is the abducter he never came forward..

Also if there really was an abduction, and the clues in the files that might point in that direction( others observations of a car etc ), does not strengthen JT sighting in anyway at all, still this is their key evidence, and K and G has absolutly no doubt that she saw M beeing carried away. So even when everything points in the direction that JT sighting could not have been the abducter, this is what they choose to believe in anyway.. And for me that tells a lot , how important that G's alibi is for him. They desperatly needs Gerrys chat to J to be an alibi combined with JT sighting..

I always leaned mostly on the theory that it was an accident and cover up in fear , because they know they would have been judged.
But that does not explain why they are beeing protected by the british police. As I beleive they have to be, because any people who can read and think for them self can easily pick apart JT sighting....And from what I read about the SY review, they seem to believe JT too..Atleast they are not questioning her sighting publicly..

I think we can just keep it in this section RD, if we manage :)

Where would K and G be today without all this elements taking place that evening ? My guess is in jail shouting:

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Starting at the beginning - the obvious

Post by jd on 01.05.12 15:12

Why did the door not close from the wind from the windows any time before in those 45 minutes it has to have been opend according to their story?

At 9.30pm the window and shutters were closed when Matt Oldfield went into the apartment

jd

Posts : 4152
Reputation : 17
Join date : 2011-07-22

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Starting at the beginning - the obvious

Post by Guest on 01.05.12 15:18

@jd wrote:
Why did the door not close from the wind from the windows any time before in those 45 minutes it has to have been opend according to their story?

At 9.30pm the window and shutters were closed when Matt Oldfield went into the apartment


Exacly so if we believe him we can not believe JT and vice verca..Someone is lying obviously. And for me JT sighting is just making them look more guilty, still its for them the most important lead. The reason has to be really good , really important to them. They desperatly need us to believe it..

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Starting at the beginning - the obvious

Post by jd on 01.05.12 15:37

Moa wrote:
@jd wrote:
Why did the door not close from the wind from the windows any time before in those 45 minutes it has to have been opend according to their story?

At 9.30pm the window and shutters were closed when Matt Oldfield went into the apartment


Exacly so if we believe him we can not believe JT and vice verca..Someone is lying obviously. And for me JT sighting is just making them look more guilty, still its for them the most important lead. The reason has to be really good , really important to them. They desperatly need us to believe it..

Of course but jane tanner messed it up! gerry mccann also states in his own statement of 4th May that when matt oldfield was in the apartment at 9.30pm that the shutters were closed

I think later in the one of the C4 documentaries jane tanner tried to make it up with the 'football comment' but again she messed it up!

jd

Posts : 4152
Reputation : 17
Join date : 2011-07-22

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Starting at the beginning - the obvious

Post by russiandoll on 01.05.12 15:41

I might be going down a dead end with this, but want to post the statements of the 3 checking that evening and look at the plan of the apartment. I cannot copy over photos, for now will provide links and then hope somebody can soon put the photos here so they are all together, will be much more easy to look and comment. If anyone can post photos, could you please do so? Many thanks..........in the meantime, here are some links. Hope they work


http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/press/14-May8/image002.jpg

http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/maddysroom.jpg

http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/press/14-May8/image001.jpg

http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/z/Apartment-plan.jpg

http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/P9/09_VOLUME_IXa_Page_2310.jpg




____________________



             The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie — deliberate,
contrived and dishonest — but the myth — persistent, persuasive and
unrealistic.
~John F. Kennedy


russiandoll

Posts : 3942
Reputation : 9
Join date : 2011-09-11

View user profile

Back to top Go down

p.s.

Post by russiandoll on 01.05.12 15:44

Should have statements with highlighted areas and my qs re them posted in about 30 minutes.

____________________



             The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie — deliberate,
contrived and dishonest — but the myth — persistent, persuasive and
unrealistic.
~John F. Kennedy


russiandoll

Posts : 3942
Reputation : 9
Join date : 2011-09-11

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Starting at the beginning - the obvious

Post by jd on 01.05.12 15:49






jd

Posts : 4152
Reputation : 17
Join date : 2011-07-22

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Starting at the beginning - the obvious

Post by Guest on 01.05.12 15:56

@jd wrote:
Moa wrote:
@jd wrote:
Why did the door not close from the wind from the windows any time before in those 45 minutes it has to have been opend according to their story?

At 9.30pm the window and shutters were closed when Matt Oldfield went into the apartment


Exacly so if we believe him we can not believe JT and vice verca..Someone is lying obviously. And for me JT sighting is just making them look more guilty, still its for them the most important lead. The reason has to be really good , really important to them. They desperatly need us to believe it..

Of course but jane tanner messed it up! gerry mccann also states in his own statement of 4th May that when matt oldfield was in the apartment at 9.30pm that the shutters were closed

Or was it Matt unknowingly messing up for them ? Was his cheking in their apartment not a part of their plan? If we go for Matt telling the truth , G and JT had to change their lie to fit him ? So G repeats Matt observation because he knows it too be true, and for once dont have to lie, at the same time feeling very secure having J as his alibie for that time? So he didnt really care that it didnt fit in with JT sighting, just more confusing added, and we know G likes that confusing.. That would also mean Matt wasnt in on what ever happened before and after? Just thinking out loud now...

IMO JT is lying, so I see no reason for M to lie and say they where closed. If he was in on it their story surronding this would been more waterproof.

Is it possibly that only some of the T7 knows? And if is it possible that the knowers are not couples, like JT and DP ?`If some or all are hiding something, we would automaticcly assume that some of the couples would know something, not that person or that person... if you can follow my thinking and bad english here

Or maybe JT just messed it up, or they just needed it to be at that time because G had an alibi chatting with J ?

If someone has a link for the interview with JT where she tells how SHE was carrying that child that night, I would appriciate if you could post it on this thread

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Starting at the beginning - the obvious

Post by Guest on 01.05.12 15:58

@russiandoll wrote:Should have statements with highlighted areas and my qs re them posted in about 30 minutes.


Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Starting at the beginning - the obvious

Post by russiandoll on 01.05.12 16:09

jd....thanks for posting those photos so quickly.........the links are working but it saves a lot of hassle thumbup

please tell how to do it.....I never can !

____________________



             The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie — deliberate,
contrived and dishonest — but the myth — persistent, persuasive and
unrealistic.
~John F. Kennedy


russiandoll

Posts : 3942
Reputation : 9
Join date : 2011-09-11

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Starting at the beginning - the obvious

Post by jd on 01.05.12 16:21

No probs RD...To post them click on the 'image' icon on the top menu bar (it looks like a TV imo & left to the grey chain link icon), then in the box that will appear copy and paste the link to the photo e.g.. http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/press/14-May8/image002.jpg

jd

Posts : 4152
Reputation : 17
Join date : 2011-07-22

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Starting at the beginning - the obvious

Post by russiandoll on 01.05.12 16:23

I will try !
but for now can I ask another favour ? I forgot one....can you put this with the others so they are all together? Sorry for the messing around !
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/press/48april11/mail-16-4-11-bed.jpg

____________________



             The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie — deliberate,
contrived and dishonest — but the myth — persistent, persuasive and
unrealistic.
~John F. Kennedy


russiandoll

Posts : 3942
Reputation : 9
Join date : 2011-09-11

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Starting at the beginning - the obvious

Post by Guest on 01.05.12 16:32

Moa wrote:
@jd wrote:
Why did the door not close from the wind from the windows any time before in those 45 minutes it has to have been opend according to their story?

At 9.30pm the window and shutters were closed when Matt Oldfield went into the apartment


Exacly so if we believe him we can not believe JT and vice verca..Someone is lying obviously. And for me JT sighting is just making them look more guilty, still its for them the most important lead. The reason has to be really good , really important to them. They desperatly need us to believe it..


In his first statement MO says he seems to think the shutters were open because of the amount of light coming in. However, the question is did he ever go in the bedroom because of the description he gives, ie. 2 windows in the childrens bedroom, so again another question, he never actually says which window had the shutter open. Which of course you think he would, seeing as he mentions this in the statement........................

MO statement 4th May 2007

At around 21h25, the interviewee went into his apartment and Madeleine's apartment to check on the children. He states that the door of the bedroom quarters, that was occupied by Madeleine and the twins, was half-open and that there was enough light in the bedroom for him to see the twins in their cots. That he couldn't see the bed occupied by Madeleine, but as it was all quiet, he deduced that she was sleeping. That the light in question was from an artificial source but not inside the bedroom, rather from outside through the bedroom window. That it seemed to him that the shutters of the bedroom window were open without knowing if the window was also open.
The apartment has two bedrooms, a lounge, a small kitchen and a bathroom. The couple's bedroom has a window which is visible from the restaurant. The children's bedroom windows look out on the road outside the tourist complex. Then the interviewee went back to the restaurant.

He states that the bedroom has two windows. The twins occupy two cots placed in the middle of the room and Madeleine occupies a bed pushed against the wall, facing the wall which has the two windows that look out onto the outside of the complex. That the door through which he entered the apartment was closed but not locked. That he doesn't know if it is usual for Madeleine's parents to leave the door closed but not locked in so far as that door is visible from the restaurant.


http://www.mccannfiles.com/id261.html#tap3

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Starting at the beginning - the obvious

Post by Guest on 01.05.12 16:37

candyfloss wrote:
Moa wrote:
@jd wrote:
Why did the door not close from the wind from the windows any time before in those 45 minutes it has to have been opend according to their story?

At 9.30pm the window and shutters were closed when Matt Oldfield went into the apartment


Exacly so if we believe him we can not believe JT and vice verca..Someone is lying obviously. And for me JT sighting is just making them look more guilty, still its for them the most important lead. The reason has to be really good , really important to them. They desperatly need us to believe it..


In his first statement MO says he seems to think the shutters were open because of the amount of light coming in. However, the question is did he ever go in the bedroom because of the description he gives, ie. 2 windows in the childrens bedroom, so again another question, he never actually says which window had the shutter open. Which of course you think he would, seeing as he mentions this in the statement........................

MO statement 4th May 2007

At around 21h25, the interviewee went into his apartment and Madeleine's apartment to check on the children. He states that the door of the bedroom quarters, that was occupied by Madeleine and the twins, was half-open and that there was enough light in the bedroom for him to see the twins in their cots. That he couldn't see the bed occupied by Madeleine, but as it was all quiet, he deduced that she was sleeping. That the light in question was from an artificial source but not inside the bedroom, rather from outside through the bedroom window. That it seemed to him that the shutters of the bedroom window were open without knowing if the window was also open.
The apartment has two bedrooms, a lounge, a small kitchen and a bathroom. The couple's bedroom has a window which is visible from the restaurant. The children's bedroom windows look out on the road outside the tourist complex. Then the interviewee went back to the restaurant.

He states that the bedroom has two windows. The twins occupy two cots placed in the middle of the room and Madeleine occupies a bed pushed against the wall, facing the wall which has the two windows that look out onto the outside of the complex. That the door through which he entered the apartment was closed but not locked. That he doesn't know if it is usual for Madeleine's parents to leave the door closed but not locked in so far as that door is visible from the restaurant.


http://www.mccannfiles.com/id261.html#tap3

Thank You candyfloss :)

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Page 1 of 4 1, 2, 3, 4  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


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