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

Starting at the beginning - the obvious

Page 3 of 4 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: Starting at the beginning - the obvious

Post by Newintown on 02.05.12 12:11

@tuom wrote:
@tigger wrote:The twins were in the two cots when it was full of people, but as the PJ also noticed, without sheets. Sean was even then a sturdy child, who was definitely too big for a cot, so both cots could have been pushed against the bed to stop them falling out.
Then for the stage set, comatose twins int he cots in the centre of the room and suddenly the untidy bed had to be explained. Why didn't they see that the tidy bed was even more of a puzzle?

The statement of the cleaner re one of the cots being in the other bedroom. The statement from the cleaner on Wednesday - she only saw the parents, not the children. That was the second of May - a day I'm very interested in.




re: 2nd May - I was just thinking that watching all these interviews on TV (just watched the Sky one), why are they on 2nd May and not 3rd????????

Newintown

Posts : 1597
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2011-07-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Starting at the beginning - the obvious

Post by russiandoll on 02.05.12 12:48

When I posted some time back about the cots being used as bed guards in that bedroom I was doing it on an impulse after looking at the photos, without thinking it through and felt rather silly for suggesting it.....nice to see someone considering the same possibility !
It makes sense to have Maddie sleeping apart from the twins esp as it is on record that she was disturbed by them to the extent she slept with a parent one night. All you would have to do is change the positions of the cots , a matter of a minute, to set a stage prior to anyone entering that bedroom. The photo evidence suggests at least one of the children slept in the bed at the far side, very unsafe for a child waking up and moving around that obstacle course of a room.
It would account for the dog paying so much attention to the other bedroom, as well as alerting to the wardrobe, did he not also jump on the bed a lot sniffing? May be mistaken there, will check.

Am even more convinced now that MO never entered 5a for a check and gave info he was fed about the layout to the PJ.

____________________



             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 : 7
Join date : 2011-09-11

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Starting at the beginning - the obvious

Post by friedtomatoes on 02.05.12 13:10

An odd thing about Matt Oldfield's check is that according to his wife, in her rogatory interview, he wondered where Madeleine slept. So instead of poking his head around the door of the kids' bedroom, went instead to look in the parent bedroom, didn't see her but seeing it was all quiet decided all was well.

The other question is why on that single night did he do an internal check rather than the normal listening outside the kids' bedroom window?

The issue about mentioning two windows: He could have meant the window had two panes. Presumably all the flats in that row had similar and he would know what they looked like. Failing that, he couldn't possibly have seen them in the apartment seeing as the curtains were closed, neither from the outside as the shutters were down all week.

Did the PJ not tape record all the interviews. That would be handy to iron out any discrepancies and any translation issues. Having said that, weren't the statements read back to them in English and they ratified and signed them?

friedtomatoes

Posts : 591
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2012-04-24

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Starting at the beginning - the obvious

Post by Guest on 02.05.12 14:39

Could the children have slept in g and k room? Was it underneath that window the dogs alerted? Wouldn't that room be more logical to use consider its fronting the tapas bar?

k also makes a big point about the room shift in her book ...

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Starting at the beginning - the obvious

Post by Spaniel on 03.05.12 20:53

Was the first mention to an outsider of leaving the kids with checks made to Jez Wilkins on May 3rd? Y or N?

There was of course in 2011 KM declaring that in the PJ files (how did she get the full version) mention was made in the tapas reservations book (in English I presume) that their kids were left alone. No mention of checks though.

Spaniel

Posts : 743
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2012-01-24

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Starting at the beginning - the obvious

Post by tuom on 03.05.12 21:27

@Spaniel wrote:Was the first mention to an outsider of leaving the kids with checks made to Jez Wilkins on May 3rd? Y or N?

There was of course in 2011 KM declaring that in the PJ files (how did she get the full version) mention was made in the tapas reservations book (in English I presume) that their kids were left alone. No mention of checks though.



I think it was JW but am not sure of the night , must check again , did someone say they admired them for leaving the children ? I am sure I read that ?

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 03.05.12 21:38

@tuom wrote:
I think it was JW but am not sure of the night , must check again , did someone say they admired them for leaving the children ? I am sure I read that ?

That was JW's partner Bridgette O'Donnell who admired the mccanns for leaving their kids alone in an unlocked apartment every night

"He told us they were leaving theirs sleeping in the apartments. While they chatted on, I ruminated on the pros and cons of this. I admired them, in a way, for not being paranoid parents, but I decided that our apartment was too far off even to contemplate it. Our baby was too young and I would worry about them waking up."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2007/dec/14/ukcrime.madeleinemccann

jd

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

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Starting at the beginning - the obvious

Post by Spaniel on 04.05.12 10:31

Was telling Jez that he was checking on the kids, GM's excuse for being "caught"on leaving the flat? It's just that if the parents, with the exception of the Paynes, were checking three flats five times a night over four days, it makes for an awful lot of traffic and they would have been seen by both staff and the public. I've never seen mention of that.

Only one mention too of food being reheated. If they really had been checking every night, surely the Tapas staff would have remembered them as being the most troublesome diners ever! So did they only leave the table on the night of the 3rd and if so, why?

Spaniel

Posts : 743
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2012-01-24

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Starting at the beginning - the obvious

Post by russiandoll on 04.05.12 11:09

If a well -meaning member of staff wrote about the checks in a book to do the group a favour with the solid booking of a table each evening, then I think it would have been in Portuguese.
Nothing I have seen in files to confirm.
Possibly never happened, or if so, no danger as pretence of checks or none at all imo-- there was a child minder every evening from the tapas group....so much sickness in a short break and all starting so soon after arrival.

____________________



             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 : 7
Join date : 2011-09-11

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Starting at the beginning - the obvious

Post by tuom on 04.05.12 11:28

@jd wrote:
@tuom wrote:
I think it was JW but am not sure of the night , must check again , did someone say they admired them for leaving the children ? I am sure I read that ?

That was JW's partner Bridgette O'Donnell who admired the mccanns for leaving their kids alone in an unlocked apartment every night

"He told us they were leaving theirs sleeping in the apartments. While they chatted on, I ruminated on the pros and cons of this. I admired them, in a way, for not being paranoid parents, but I decided that our apartment was too far off even to contemplate it. Our baby was too young and I would worry about them waking up."
[url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2007/dec/14/ukcrime.madeleinemccann
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2007/dec/14/ukcrime.madeleinemccann[/quote[/url]]




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 friedtomatoes on 04.05.12 12:30

The mysterious note mentioning the group's kids were left alone would IMO only have had their names/ table number, not details of which flats they lived at.

friedtomatoes

Posts : 591
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2012-04-24

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Starting at the beginning - the obvious

Post by friedtomatoes on 04.05.12 12:33

Moa wrote:Could the children have slept in g and k room? Was it underneath that window the dogs alerted? Wouldn't that room be more logical to use consider its fronting the tapas bar?

k also makes a big point about the room shift in her book ...
The dog alerted outside the parents' bedroom on the verandah as well as near the wardrobe. I don't think it would matter where the kids slept as visibility was so poor and I doubt they kept their eyes glued to it all night.

friedtomatoes

Posts : 591
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2012-04-24

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Starting at the beginning - the obvious

Post by russiandoll on 04.05.12 17:26

LIGHT AND DARK IN AND AROUND 5A.

There was a description in Rachel Oldfield's R I of the area surrounding the apartment block, where street lighting was so lacking that she found walking around the front part of the block near the car park rather unnerving, when going to do her child checks.


1578 “Okay, and the route taken”?
Reply “Was up the road and then in through the car park at the back and in through the front door”.
1578 “In through the front door”?
Reply “Mmm yeah, I mean the patio doors were locked, erm yeah I didn’t really like going up there by myself, it was, like going through that car park was quite dark and there was never anyone around, it was a bit, you know made me feel a bit uneasy”.
1578 “Okay. What about the lighting there”?
Reply “Well there were lights, there were street lights along the road as you came out of the Ocean Club, erm sort of orangey you know street lights and along the main road at the back and the car park was quite dark cos there were quite a lot of trees that were sort of on that corner, erm and so the car park was quite dark and then when you actually got, you came down a ramp, or down some steps into the sort of area in front of the apartments and erm you know they were, there were sort of lights, you press a button and they come on for a certain length of time, so you know, you put those on to get to the front door, it wasn’t pitch black but I’m not keen on the dark anyway so erm”.


So little in the way of good lighting in the area of the children's bedroom.
There has been improvement since 2007, it has been reported.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-c22oGZYBOLA/Tzjyl8tSfMI/AAAAAAAAAsU/juSSz5W_cII/s200/Standing%2BNext%2Bto%2Bthe%2BWindow.jpg



As for inside the apartment...



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







Kate McCann statement, 4th May 2007.

At around 9.30pm, at the time when the witness should have gone to see her children, her friend Matt (a member of the group), who was coming to check, as well, went to the apartment where his children were staying and on his way went to the witness’s apartment. He entered the apartment through a glass sliding door at the side that was always unlocked and once inside, he had not gone into the children's bedroom. He remained at the bedroom door, listening for noise and observing the beds. He went back to the restaurant and said that everything was fine.

at the bedroom door, so, in the doorway, at or close to the threshhold?
Kate does not say that Matt told her he had not actually seen Maddie,but thought all quiet, so everything ok. This was one of the much vaunted visual not just listening checks.


Matthew Oldfield 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
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

If MO did not see Maddie, how did he know that she occupied a bed pushed against the wall?

The light had to be artficial, as it was evening.
Not inside the bedroom, so not from the table lamp on the chest of drawers.
Not from the lounge where Gerry stated a light would habitually be left on prior to his and Kate's exit for the tapas restaurant.
[ I accept this, the apartment plan shows little if any light from a dim lamp could enter the bedroom].
From outside, but not close enough to the bedroom to shine in even with shutters raised, according to RO and to photos I have seen........[please correct me if necessary !]

[/color]


Rachel O 4th May 2007

He also checked the one where Madeleine was. He went in through the patio door (the couple Gerry and Kate McCann left this door accessible for everyone during dinner) The said patio door gives access to the apartment's lounge where two doors open into the respective bedrooms.

Her husband went into the main room and, "hung about," to listen for any noise from the bedroom where the children were sleeping. He didn't switch any lights on. He could see the twins in their beds. The bedroom door was half-open. It was only later that he realised this was strange. At the time, he gave no importance to the fact.

so a light already on, as per the statement from parent/s that one of the lights would be left on in the lounge before they exited the apartment. Which lights were there to choose from? I see no ceiling light in any photos but there will have been one I am sure. There is a standard lamp visible and M O in another statement mentions a table lamp.
There is an issue here to do with seeing the children without switching any lights on.
Unless the main ceiling light was on in the lounge [and given the seating area on the plan, it would have been in this location], the McCanns would have left the standard lamp on, at the end of the lounge area. On photos this looks much closer to the bedroom than it actually is on the plan, on one plan you can see it standing next to a sideboard. Look how far away that dim light was from the bedroom and on the plan where the bedroom door is in relation to it.

Look at the recessed area where the bathroom and bedrooms are. There is no ceiling light here. It is a very dark area of the apartment. The first photo taken in daylight shows how dark it is even with the bedroom curtains open and the front door part open on what seems like a very bright sunny day.
Near this dark area is a lamp that will have a fabric shade and a max 60 watt bulb for safety reasons....... but the lamp is not opposite the bedroom and is according to the plan at quite some distance ; just how light was the room when he looked in? Could he see anything much, especially the twins breathing as is documented elsewhere?



G McCann 10th May 2007

Usually they entered the apartment, in which one of the living room lights was on, went to the children's bedroom door, which was ajar, and only peeped inside, trying to hear if the children were crying. The shutters were closed with only two or three slats open, the window was closed though he is not totally sure if it was locked, and the curtains drawn closed.

He is certain that, before leaving home, the children's bedroom was totally dark, with the window closed, but he does not know it was locked, the shutters closed but with some slats open, and the curtains also drawn closed. Asked, he mentions that during the night the artificial light coming in from the outside is very weak, therefore, without a light being lit in the living room or in the kitchen, the visibility inside the bedroom is much reduced.
He walked the normal route up to the back door, which being open he only had to slide, and while he was entering the living room, he noticed that the children's bedroom door was not ajar as he had left it but half-way open, which he thought was strange, having then thought that possibly MADELEINE had got up to go to sleep in his bedroom, so as to avoid the noise produced by her siblings. Therefore, he entered the children's bedroom and established visual contact with each of them, checking and he is certain of this, that the three were deeply asleep. He left the children's bedroom returning to place the door how he had already previously described, then went to the bathroom. Everything else was normal, the shutters, curtains and windows closed, very dark, there only being the light that came from the living room.


Gerry states that light entering from outside was weak , the room was very dark, shutters down. There was reduced visibility, but he said he saw all children. Was there enough light though? He says that the bedroom was totally dark....[ and that was with one of the lights from the lounge left on] at the start of his statement and confirms this at the end ..it was very dark , so did he/ could he see see the children?. He mentions one of a couple or a few lights, sounds like a lamp was left on. The main light in the lounge is not mentioned.
How would a light in the kitchen have illuminated the children's bedroom? See plan.



M Oldfield 10th May 2007

That he did not enter the bedroom where Madeleine and the twins were sleeping. He recalls that the bedroom door was half open, making an angle of 50 degrees. He does not know how far away he was from the bedroom door. He recalls having the perception that the window curtains – green in colour – were drawn closed but could not determine if the window was closed or open. Concerning the external blinds he clarifies that he did not see if it was closed or open. He recalls having thought that in that bedroom there was more brightness than there was in his daughter's room (where the external blinds were always fully closed), adding to have had the feeling that that light was coming from the outside – making the point that both [bedroom windows] were facing in the same direction.

Consequently, he admits the possibility of the light he was perceiving was owing to the blinds being raised, denying however that he was capable of assessing the height at which it may have been.

Consequently, he is convinced that at the time of the second check the blinds were more open than on the first check, given that he considers that the light inside the bedroom, undoubtedly coming from the outside, could not have been coming through it [the blinds] if they had been fully closed.

Following on, convinced that everything was within normality, given that he perceived no noise to make him think otherwise, and further, due to, in his mind, having managed to glimpse the two twin siblings of Madeleine inside their cots, the deponent returned to the restaurant to finish dinner.

Asked, he clarifies to not have seen Madeleine lying on the bed in the bedroom because from where he was during the check he had no sight of that bed.

This time MO does not know how far away from the threshhold he was when he checked and gives an unconvincing account of why the room seemed brighter than his own child's room, as the windows were on the same side of the buiding, it must be due to an open shutter according to him. He does not considert the interior lighting of his own apartment when he leaves his daughter asleep in her room. The light undoubtefly coming from the outside......where from exactly? Again, he gives strength to the abduction by saying he did not look into the room enough to see Maddie. Well he would say that wouldn' t he, because at 9.30 JTs abductor had well left the building.



M Oldfield Rogatory Interview 2008.

What was the lighting like around that area at that time?"

Reply "It's getting dusk, erm, by that time, but not completely dark, erm, it was not as dark as it got later on (inaudible) visibility".

"Do you remember or can you recall what the street lighting was like around there?"

Reply "There's a street light, and this is all, erm, I couldn't sort of guarantee this, but my impression is that there was, the street lights were sort of very orangey, erm, sort of fairly orangey light, I think there was one at the top corner and maybe one about halfway up on the right as you came up from the Tapas Restaurant and possibly one on that, on that back bit behind the car park, someway further along".
color]

[color=blue]So,was there a street light in a position to cast light into the bedroom? Further along from the corner at the back behind the car park. He thinks there might be a light here, then maybe another there and a possibly another one somewhere else..but he is sure, convinced that one of them shone into the bedroom[/
So I went back and did the check on five 'A', on Madeleine and the kids, erm, and went back through the patio entrance, so through the gate, through the patio doors, erm, there was, it was light enough to see through the apartment and there sort of a little table light on the right at the end of the sofa and when you walk into the room, you could see straight into it, because the door was open
[color=blue]
Here he says that a table lamp [ low wattage ] was enough to allow him to see into the bedroom. He said earlier that he did not enter, so "walking into the room" here must refer to the lounge. He then says you can see into the room from the lounge, but it is in a recessed area,it is not possible to see the bedroom door from the lounge. Maybe he is saying here that he goes into the bedroom, but that contradicts his previous statement.


Erm, I've spent a lot of time debating how far the door was open, from previous questioning, and, you know, it wasn't flat back against the wall, because that would have looked odd, it was just sort of halfway open, so it seemed slightly unusual that it should be so wide open, because you could see straight into the middle of the room from the angle that you approach it, because the, you've got sofas here and you've got a bookcase here and you have to come out, you've got sort of the wall of the bedroom and then it goes back where the bathroom is and then comes out again, so you've got to come out round this wall to sort of, not out round this wall, but you come in and the doorway is sort of recessed, so you can see pretty much straight into the room from the doorway back or certainly as soon as you get past that final wall. So it seemed odd to have that door open


Very reactive........MO has now been debating [ with himself or others?] re the position of the bedroom door. He was consistent in his 2 witness statements, why the problem? There is a photo of the childrens room taken from the window, showing that through the door you cannot see into the lounge area,a good reason for leaving the door more open than closed.....so the single source of light Gerry spoke about could illuminate the bedroom and even then, not much. MO seems to be describing a different apartment.


The McCann children were not left for the night until they had gone to sleep according to Gerry. Given that it was so dark in their room due to closed shutters and they were in a strange place at such a tender age, to help Maddie if she woke for the toilet, to avoid the twins being scared if they woke up, why did they not switch on the little table lamp in their room, on the chest of drawers?


I doubt that MO saw any children in cots that night. I do not think it is credible given the exterior and interior lighting, shutters up or not, that he could see any of the children, [he referred to shapes and bits of breathing at one stage ] from the doorway or by his own account, maybe not even at the threshhold. His not seeing Maddie had to be ,in order to support JTs sighting imo it was a fabrication. I believe that he is lying, that he was not in 5a that evening never mind at the door to the bedroom.
I doubt Gerry could see Maddie in the recovery position, even if he did go into the room, given how very dark he says it was. At the time of his check, pre abduction, shutters were down and hardly any light would enter from the lounge.
Always the doctor, could he not have said she was sleeping on her side?







____________________



             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 : 7
Join date : 2011-09-11

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Starting at the beginning - the obvious

Post by tigger on 04.05.12 17:46

What strikes me is that MO says the light came through a window. One would presume that to be the shuttered window in the bedroom. Which MO said had two windows.

RM said that her husband went in through the patio door. Which she says later I think - in the 15th May statement has the shutters down.

So now we have two windows instead of one, a bit of light through the shutters? and MO entering with an almighty noise to wake the children by raising the patio shutters. Well, that ain't gonna fly at all.

____________________
Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch'entrate.

tigger

Posts : 8112
Reputation : 25
Join date : 2011-07-20

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Starting at the beginning - the obvious

Post by Spaniel on 04.05.12 18:09

MO never set foot in the Mc's flat.

Spaniel

Posts : 743
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2012-01-24

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Starting at the beginning - the obvious

Post by friedtomatoes on 04.05.12 18:46

Much as I find Matt Oldfield's check bizarre, IF he did actually go and do a check, it's possible the light was coming through the kitchen window, the blinds of which were up. I think there is a lamp almost directly opposite the flat on the right side of the road looking up from the Tapas bar.

friedtomatoes

Posts : 591
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2012-04-24

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Starting at the beginning - the obvious

Post by russiandoll on 04.05.12 18:49

How would RM/O know the state of the shutters at that time? Will look at her statement again.
Has anyone found a photo of a street light anywhere near Maddies bedroom? I still cant find one.


Sorry for a long post, but the lighting to me demos no one could see into that bedroom properly. I think MO described the colour of the curtains....how on earth could he distinguish colours if he only saw shapes and bits of breathing re the twins who were a lot closer to him than the window[s].....no I am sure he has been fed a description and confused it with his own flat probably.

____________________



             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 : 7
Join date : 2011-09-11

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Starting at the beginning - the obvious

Post by russiandoll on 04.05.12 18:56

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

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


kitchen light would not enter the bedroom, the kitchen opens into the entrance area near front door and faces a wall.
[ see above links]

____________________



             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 : 7
Join date : 2011-09-11

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Starting at the beginning - the obvious

Post by friedtomatoes on 04.05.12 19:06

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

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


kitchen light would not enter the bedroom, the kitchen opens into the entrance area near front door and faces a wall.
[ see above links]

I might not enter the bedroom but I think it could well light the area just in front where Matt said he was standing. Here is a picture of a street lamp, the last one at the top, I think that is the one at the top of the road where Tannerman was spotted.

http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/J/IMG_0774.jpg

OK, scrap my comments. I guess no streetlight could illuminate sufficiently to see anything inside clearly at all.
big grin

friedtomatoes

Posts : 591
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2012-04-24

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Starting at the beginning - the obvious

Post by tigger on 04.05.12 19:19

@russiandoll wrote: How would RM/O know the state of the shutters at that time? Will look at her statement again.
Has anyone found a photo of a street light anywhere near Maddies bedroom? I still cant find one.


Sorry for a long post, but the lighting to me demos no one could see into that bedroom properly. I think MO described the colour of the curtains....how on earth could he distinguish colours if he only saw shapes and bits of breathing re the twins who were a lot closer to him than the window[s].....no I am sure he has been fed a description and confused it with his own flat probably.

Kate couldn't see anything, couldn't see Maddie despite the fact that Gerry says he could see all three of them. It was the same amount of light.
In Kate's case the shutters were up, the curtains were whooshing (so if the curtains were closed when Gerry was there, it would have been even darker - the shutter didn't look as if it would let any light in in any case).
So Gerry could see in the dark, shutters closed, curtains closed. X ray vision.
Kate couldn't see with the shutters up and the curtains flying around, no longer blocking the light. Fine.

____________________
Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch'entrate.

tigger

Posts : 8112
Reputation : 25
Join date : 2011-07-20

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Starting at the beginning - the obvious

Post by friedtomatoes on 04.05.12 19:23

In the documentary Maddie was here, it shows Gerry switching the light off before he closes the door after his check.

Scrap that, it doesnt mean anything. I am having one of those days.
big grin

friedtomatoes

Posts : 591
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2012-04-24

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Starting at the beginning - the obvious

Post by tigger on 04.05.12 19:35

@friedtomatoes wrote:In the documentary Maddie was here, it shows Gerry switching the light off before he closes the door after his check.

Scrap that, it doesnt mean anything. I am having one of those days.
big grin

In that clip where Gerry and Matt are wandering round 5a and Gerry is manically prompting MO - it seems clear that MO wanted to be anywhere but there, just agreeing with Gerry on the 'if only ... and it was just '. MO's face both there and on the steps of the court with the others speaks volumes. Imo Gerry's lost a tennis partner there.

____________________
Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch'entrate.

tigger

Posts : 8112
Reputation : 25
Join date : 2011-07-20

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Starting at the beginning - the obvious

Post by jd on 04.05.12 19:58

I agree that the light from the kitchen could not get into the bedroom, never enough to give any sort of lighting to the bedroom

MO misses the one thing that is crucial in their story....the wind. We know it was cold night, Tapas bar had a plastic covering all around to keep the clients warm, but crucially kate says at 10pm how the wind whooshed around, curtains blew etc which would have been the same at 9.30pm when MO was there......had the shutters been open

jd

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

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Starting at the beginning - the obvious

Post by friedtomatoes on 04.05.12 20:04

Tigger MO's performance on that documentary was dire! To think he is a doctor too.
JD, they tried to fit everything around a 9.15 abduction for some reason when the facts did not support it. And since then have been back peddling. That much is clear.

Apart from the wind, we also have changing versions of how the curtains were found. In original statements it was said on the ten o clock check they were open, or that Kate Mccann ran over and opened them, fast forward to Oprah in 2009 and the C4 documentary, they were closed but the wind opened them from a closed position to wide open. Woooosh! I wonder why they didnt flutter or woosh at 9.30? And lets not forget that that open window and shutter at 9.15 was passed by fourteen times and no one noticed.

friedtomatoes

Posts : 591
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2012-04-24

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Starting at the beginning - the obvious

Post by Guest on 04.05.12 20:14

@friedtomatoes wrote:
Moa wrote:Could the children have slept in g and k room? Was it underneath that window the dogs alerted? Wouldn't that room be more logical to use consider its fronting the tapas bar?

k also makes a big point about the room shift in her book ...
The dog alerted outside the parents' bedroom on the verandah as well as near the wardrobe. I don't think it would matter where the kids slept as visibility was so poor and I doubt they kept their eyes glued to it all night.

Ty thats interresting .. Wasn't there patio doors in that room as Well ?
In this case it doesn't matter, but f you decide to leave them alone at least you would choose the room that felt safest, and that would be their room.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Page 3 of 4 Previous  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