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 4 of 4 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: Starting at the beginning - the obvious

Post by jd on 04.05.12 20:19

As Stewie pointed out before, on the timelines they wrote on the back of Maddies sticker book, the first draft does not have MO going to check on 5A at 9.30pm. Its also interesting to note that on the other draft timeline it says only Russell O'Brien going to check at 9.30pm...not Russell O'Brien & Matt Oldfield going to check together as in the 1st draft. Why is MO totally missed on the 1st draft? (because it never happened!)

I didn't know that they cruelly 'tore' the back of Maddies sticker book to write these timelines..'hours' after Maddie had disappeared...no not seconds or minutes but tore it off 'hours' after. To the authorities, it was then an important detail at that moment in the investigation, because it revealed the little girl’s parent’s concern in protecting themselves from possible responsibilities, overshadowing the preservation of objects that belonged to the child at a moment in time when she had only been missing for a few hours.. This same overshadowing of the preservation of objects can be applied to cuddle cat when kate washed it!

In the NOTW on August 10th 2008, an article appeared about the sticker book timeline.....Notice they refer to Maddies sticker book as 'a child's' sticker book, not Maddie's. Plus they printed the timeline with without MO going into the 5A at 9.30pm!

Note of despair News of the World

10/08/2008

Scribbled by a desperate dad, this is Gerry McCann's timeline of the fateful night. It was written shortly after the kidnap as he tried to piece together clues for cops. The note, on the back of a child's sticker book, covers the 90 minutes up to Madeleine's disappearance which he cannot bear to describe. It ends "10pm - alarm raised after Kate..."

Gerry's timeline:

8.45pm. all assembled at poolside for food

9.00pm. Matt Oldfield listens at all 3 windows 5A, B, D ALL shutters down

9:15pm Gerry McCann looks at room A ? Door open to bedroom

9:20pm Jane Tanner checks 5D - [sees stranger walking carrying a child]

9.30 Russell O'Brien in 5D. Poorly daughter
l
9.55pm

10:00pm. Alarm raised after Kate





You can see the absolute crap the SUN, former NOTW. Mirror etc print...they should have their licenses revoked

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 friedtomatoes on 04.05.12 20:19

Moa wrote:
@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.
Yes there were patio doors. But I dont know why you think their bedroom would be safest.

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 20:24

Good spot JD that MOs check wasnt there in the first draft, still, in the second draft he is mentioned as going to check the twins, why only them? And didnt their interviews mention that Matt offered to check on Madeleine? If so, why not the twins.
shit happens

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 20:24

@friedtomatoes wrote:
Moa wrote:
@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.
Yes there were patio doors. But I dont know why you think their bedroom would be safest.

Only safer in the way that it is facing the tapas area instead of the parking area. At least you would think they would feel they where closer and easier to hear if they where crying etc..
It's defently not like dining in the garden and they should never left them alone in the first place. I would never dared to leave my kids alone on Holliday to go eat in a nearby restaurant !

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Starting at the beginning - the obvious

Post by friedtomatoes on 04.05.12 20:30

Moa, if the kids were in the parents room there is no way they could be heard crying from that distance and in amongst the raucous noise of the restaraunt! If that were the case they would have heard maddie and her sibling crying on the wednesday night as we are told they were. Not to mention an hour and a halfs worth of crying on the tuesday night, oops, couldnt have been them as they were checking half hourly.

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 20:43

@friedtomatoes wrote:Moa, if the kids were in the parents room there is no way they could be heard crying from that distance and in amongst the raucous noise of the restaraunt! If that were the case they would have heard maddie and her sibling crying on the wednesday night as we are told they were. Not to mention an hour and a halfs worth of crying on the tuesday night, oops, couldnt have been them as they were checking half hourly.

I know But they could convinced themself they could..after all for them it felt like dining in their garden.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Starting at the beginning - the obvious

Post by jd on 04.05.12 21:04

Worth reading again Dr Roberts from 25th Jan 2011 re the shutters

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id356.html

EARLY DOORS

All the world's a stage (including the Portuguese Algarve where, according to Gerry McCann, 'everyone is acting, some in big ways.'). And all the players have their exits and their entrances - doors and windows to you and me.

The Telegraph of 5 May, 2007 quoted Trish Cameron, Gerry McCann's sister, who candidly relays information passed to her by Gerry.

"They had put the kids to bed at 7pm and checked on them every half an hour as they had dinner nearby with the rest of the party. Gerry said the window was open, the shutters broken and the door, which had been locked, hanging open."

The Sun of May 5 offered a corroborative account, helpfully extended to provide additional justification for a locked apartment:

"Kate went back at 10pm to check. The front door was lying open, the window had been tampered with, the shutters had been jemmied open and Maddie was missing."

"He (Gerry) said, 'Maddie's been abducted, she's been abducted'. Nothing else was touched in the apartment, no valuables taken, no passports."

The window was obviously an aperture on the world outside. But so too was the door in this case. It had been locked. And since it was found 'hanging open' it must have been the front door hanging on its hinges, not the patio door, which slid on rails, or an interior door which did not lock at all. The merciless abductor must therefore have broken in through the window and taken the easy route out via the front door.

Several paragraphs on from Trish Cameron's regurgitation of Gerry McCann's tale, the Telegraph offers Jon Corner's complementary regurgitation of Kate's:

"She just blurted out that Madeleine had been abducted. She told me, 'They have broken the shutter on the window and taken my little girl.'

"They had left the apartment locked while they were having their meal, but when they went back the last time they saw the damage.

"First they saw one of the window shutters had been forced, and then they saw the door was open and the bed was empty - and Madeleine was gone."

The McCanns' friends and relatives were not at all reticent when it came to sharing the information given them directly, and separately, by the McCanns themselves. As both accounts appear to converge, the reader has reason to accept their accuracy. Well of course we have long known that the claim of damage to the window fittings was false, although both parents made that claim independently (John Hill, boss of the Ocean Club complex, was reported by the Sun to have insisted there was NO physical evidence Maddie had been abducted from the apartment. He said: "We are still hoping Madeleine is asleep under a bush and we'll find her soon.").

Then there is the issue of the patio doors having been unlocked after all, sparing the abductor the tedium of breaking and entering, whilst allowing him (or her) to 'get out of the window fairly easily.' But even the most cortically challenged of intruders is unlikely to enter via a door then leave through a window. Hence we have since been treated to a post hoc supposition by Kate McCann that the window may have been opened by the abductor as a 'red herring.' And the front door 'hanging open'? What was that - a blue whale?

Corner's repetition of Kate McCann's version of events is additionally problematic.

"First they saw one of the window shutters had been forced… (So they must have entered the apartment from the front, not the rear, using a key if the door was locked).

… and then they saw the door was open …(Suggesting that the front door was indeed ‘hanging open’).

…and the bed was empty - and Madeleine was gone.”

But in-between the front door and the empty bed was the bedroom door which, as we have since been told, 'was open much further than we'd left it.' Did this obvious interference with the apartment's interior pass unnoticed therefore, or was Kate, through Jon Corner, referring to the bedroom door in the first place? That must be it. The McCanns entered through the rear of the apartment, noticed the door to the children's bedroom was open and then saw the empty bed. But if that's what Kate reported then they can only have seen the damaged window shutter last, not first. Not only that. On seeing the open bedroom door (from across the apartment) they then approached the bedroom itself, but without noticing the open front door, which must have been closed after all, leaving the abductor to skidaddle through the patio doors, carrying a prostrate Madeleine across both arms (as described by Jane Tanner).

Why, indeed how, did the intruder close the patio door behind him? Matthew Oldfield, doing his post abduction check, went in through an unlocked patio door not a wide open one. Nor did he spot that 'the door, which had been locked' (according to Gerry McCann), i.e. the front door, was 'hanging open.' Though he claims not to have entered beyond said bedroom door himself, he will at least have noticed if it was open. But even if it was this door which was 'hanging open' it couldn't previously have been locked, and could not therefore have been the door to which Gerry McCann had earlier referred.

All of this inconsistency is entirely consistent - with equally inconsistent statements made to the police. In fact they are so inconsistent, both within and between deponents, that one or more must be false. The following extracts pertain to events of the Thursday unless otherwise indicated:

Gerry McCann (4 May, 2007)

'at 9.05 pm, the deponent entered the club (sic), using his key, the door being locked.'

'At around 9.30 pm, his friend MATT … went into the deponent's apartment, going in through a sliding glass door at the side of the building, which was always unlocked.'

'KATE ……went into the apartment through the door using her key.'

'The side door that opens into the living room….was never locked, was closed.'

'Reads, confirms, ratifies and signs.'

Kate McCann (4 May, 2007)

'She went into the apartment by the side door, which was closed, but unlocked.'

'Reads, confirms, ratifies and signs.'

Gerry McCann (10 May, 2007)

(Sunday) 'They left the house through the main door, that he was sure he locked, and the back door was also closed and locked.'

'Dinner ended at around 23h00.... On that day (Sunday), only the deponent and his wife entered the apartment. He is sure that they always entered through the front door, not knowing if they locked it upon leaving.'

(Wednesday) 'Apart from the deponent and his wife, he thinks that DAVID PAYNE also went to his apartment to check that his children were well, not having reported to him any abnormal situation with the children. On this day, the deponent and KATE had already left the back door closed, but not locked, to allow entrance by their group colleagues to check on the children. He clarifies that the main door was always closed but not necessarily locked with the key.'

(Thursday) 'He walked the normal route up to the back door, which being open he only had to slide.'

'Three to four minutes later MATHEW returned… having entered through the back door, given that he did not have the key and it was usual for them to enter in that way.'

'22h03, he again alerted KATE that it was time to check the children. She immediately made her way to the apartment by the usual path, having entered through the back door.'

'Reads, confirms, ratifies and signs.'

Kate McCann (6 September, 2007)

'They left through the balcony 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.'

'GERRY was the first one to check on the children, this was decided on the spot, at around 9-9:05 p.m. He got up from the table and entered the apartment through the balcony door.'

'At 9:30 p.m. ...MATTHEW...said he could check on her children...After less than ten minutes MATTHEW returned...she assumed he had checked on her children, entering through the balcony door which was closed but not locked.'

'At 10 p.m. she got up from the table, as it was her turn after having been replaced by MATT. She entered the apartment by the balcony door which was closed, but as already said, not locked.'

Reads, confirms, ratifies and signs, as do the interpreter and the defence lawyer.

One could be forgiven for thinking that police questioning was a 'multiple-choice' exercise and that, given the same template on separate days respondents may reasonably be expected to opt for different answers. A typical question might be set out as follows:

'McCanns exit the apartment leaving the front door (a) locked (b) unlocked? On their return they each enter via (a) the locked front door (b) the unlocked front door (c ) the unlocked patio door (d) separate doors?

(Hint: Be careful to take account of the day of the week in your answer. The patio door, for example, was locked on Sunday).

Some will no doubt wish to conclude that the lion's share of all this confusion is the result of misunderstandings on the part of distant interlocutors. As strange as it may seem, that different second-hand accounts should err in the same direction despite having been derived from separate independent sources, i.e. Kate and Gerry McCann, perhaps one should allow a 'casting vote;' an account by someone other than the McCanns, who was herself present in Praia Da Luz and at the end of a buffet table as opposed to a telephone. Martin Fricker and Rod Chaytor of the Daily Mirror gave this person a public voice on 5 May, 2007, barely 48 hrs after the initial announcement of Madeleine's disappearance:

A woman friend of the McCanns - one of their holiday party of nine adults and eight children - said: "We went for dinner at 8.45 p.m. in a restaurant near the apartments as we've done every night.

"A parent from each family went back to check on the children every half hour.

"Someone checked at 9.15. But when Kate went later Madeleine had gone.

"The window shutters, which had been closed since we arrived on Saturday, were open along with the window. They can be opened from the outside.

"The window opens on to a car park. The door to the room was shut. It looks as if someone has come through the window and possibly left through the door."

Well it gets no better does it. Window shutters, although merely open, (not 'smashed', as Jon Corner goes on to describe Kate as having told him later in this same report) 'can be opened from the outside.' Not when the winding mechanism's an interior fitting they can't. Unless Corner/Kate are right and the shutters were 'smashed.' But they weren't. And the door to the room was? 'Shut.' So not 'open much further than they'd left it' then.

As early as 5 May therefore, and courtesy of an anonymous member of the Tapas group, an unsuspecting world was given all the information it and the Portuguese police needed in order to progress the search for Madeleine:

'It looks as if someone has come through the window and possibly left through the door.'

The characteristics of a well executed Trompe-l'oeil are also that 'it looks as if...' In other words, a beguiling illusion.

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 friedtomatoes on 04.05.12 21:11

Moa wrote:
@friedtomatoes wrote:Moa, if the kids were in the parents room there is no way they could be heard crying from that distance and in amongst the raucous noise of the restaraunt! If that were the case they would have heard maddie and her sibling crying on the wednesday night as we are told they were. Not to mention an hour and a halfs worth of crying on the tuesday night, oops, couldnt have been them as they were checking half hourly.

I know But they could convinced themself they could..after all for them it felt like dining in their garden.

Well exactly it just proves they were talking cobblers from the start

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 05.05.12 16:44

Continuing around JT sighting. I have never heard of this before, it's from Stephen carpenter statement.

Between approximately a quarter past nine and half past nine we left the Tapas bar to go home, we walked across the MW reception area, crossed the road and a semi circular path to return to the apartment, were we put the children to bed and a short while later did the same ourselves. I do not remember seeing or hearing anyone during our return to the apartment. When I crossed the road outside the MW reception I remember there were cars parked, I remember taking some time to see if I could cross the road because there were cars parked to my left and I was carrying I****. They were about six metres away from me and i calculate that some (inaudible) metres from the back of Gerry's apartment, I do not remember anything about these cars, it was normal for cars to be parked there and in the morning they were no longer there. My wife mentioned on the following day that she vaguely remembered someone calling "Madeleine, Madeleine", this was after we had crossed the road from the MW reception and before entering our apartment. She does not remember where the sound came from or whether it was in an urgent tone, not paying any more attention to it and only remembered the following day when we heard about Madeleine's disappearance"

So his wife heard someone calling M's name after or around JT sighting..why would an abducter call her name ? Did she actually hear what she says ? Why have not TM highlighted this ? Have this been discussed before , if so I would be happy for a link to it smilie

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Starting at the beginning - the obvious

Post by tigger on 05.05.12 17:18

I've heard this before, that around 9.30 it was Gerry near the swimming pool calling for Madeleine, but for the life of me I can't remember where I saw it.
That would be because that should have been the original time? Jeremy Wilkins messed it up and they decided to leave it for half an hour? I've no idea how to get in inside such corkscrew minds.
JT was hanging around apparently - we can forget the time table anyway.
There's always the actual Madeleine/Maddie the substitute who might have had to be located to do the PdL run.
Wild thinking. Getting dizzy!

I still think the 2nd was originally chosen for d-day.
Moved and on the evening one thing after another went wrong? A disaster, according to Gerry. Quite so.

____________________
Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch'entrate.

tigger

Posts : 8114
Reputation : 38
Join date : 2011-07-20

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Starting at the beginning - the obvious

Post by friedtomatoes on 05.05.12 17:27

Tigger

http://themaddiecasefiles.com/topic111.html

See Fitness Instructor statement, it's on the 9.30 to 10.00 part near the beginning.

Now this is interesting as around that time, between 9.15 and 9.30 the Carpenters left the Tapas bar and were walking home and the wife remembers vaguely someone calling Madeleine. It might be nothing too.

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 jd on 15.05.12 3:08

@russiandoll wrote: 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.

RD, just read this about the lighting at the time, from an interview with GA

"The Tapas Bar restaurant is located at the back side of the apartment and the window, as well as the main door, are located at the front of the building. In order to walk from the table to the bedroom, one needs to walk out of the Ocean Club’s inner patio, walk down a few steps, walk through reception, walk around the apartment block, enter a corridor… a walk that takes six to seven minutes. And all of the lamps on the McCanns’ apartment front had been broken for two days, which means that there was complete darkness. From the place where Maddie’s parents dined, all that one can see is half the living room window, and to get there, one needs to cross the pool area, and then walk along a row of bushes (approximately 70 metres long). Still, anyone who would be looking in, couldn’t see Maddie or her twin siblings, Sean and Amelie, on the opposite end of the house.

and this....

"According to what TV 7 Dias could establish during this visit to the resort, the scheme of checking the children’s bedrooms hides other curiosities. For example: a person who has followed the case since the first few minutes tells that a list with schedules and names of everyone who told the authorities they had peeked into the children’s bedroom was found… “It’s strange that they wrote that. It looks like a cheat sheet from a person who had been staging a theory…”, the same source says."

Is this saying the mccanns children?

http://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2009/04/crime-without-punishment.html

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 jd on 15.05.12 16:44

Bumping up for RussianDoll for the lighting..Above post which Amaral says it was totally dark that night outside 5A, the lights were broken

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 16.05.12 0:15

thanks for finding that info JD.

____________________



             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 16.05.12 0:47

@russiandoll wrote: thanks for finding that info JD.

It makes a mockery of their statements and the lighting etc...simply it was complete darkness!

jd

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

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Page 4 of 4 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


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