Re: Do you believe that the children were really left alone in 5a?

by Woofer 18.01.13 12:23

Must just correct about GPs visiting dead bodies. At the time of death a GP has to certify death, yes. But afterwards at the undertakers, if bodies are going to be cremated they need two doctors` signatures, so GPs have to go to the undertakers in town and check the bodies again - they might do a few at a time for which they get paid a good fee for a 2 minute job. Though I suppose there wouldn`t have been a vast amount of dead people in that area in a week. Also, IIRC, it was KM`s mother who put forward this reason. Sorry to keep the tangent off topic going but had to correct this.

by bristow 19.01.13 18:45

An old Mail article speaks about Kate visiting dead bodies.

Police also failed to realise that Mrs McCann, who is a GP, had come into
contact with six patients who died before she went on holiday.

Read more: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

by Inspectorfrost 19.01.13 19:16

bristow wrote:An old Mail article speaks about Kate visiting dead bodies.

Police also failed to realise that Mrs McCann, who is a GP, had come into
contact with six patients who died before she went on holiday.

Read more: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Quote
The dogs' reaction was also questioned following claims that they were unreliable and had been criticised in a U.S. trial.

Police also failed to realise that Mrs McCann, who is a GP, had come into contact with six patients who died before she went on holiday.
Unquote

They seriously need to make their minds up. The dogs are unreliable and mistaken or that they are reliable and scented a death scent on contaminated clothing after visiting dead people.

by bristow 19.01.13 21:33

Inspectorfrost wrote:

Quote
The dogs' reaction was also questioned following claims that they were unreliable and had been criticised in a U.S. trial.

Police also failed to realise that Mrs McCann, who is a GP, had come into contact with six patients who died before she went on holiday.
Unquote

They seriously need to make their minds up. The dogs are unreliable and mistaken or that they are reliable and scented a death scent on contaminated clothing after visiting dead people.

Dont they just Inspector, don't they just. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

by Guest 25.05.13 13:20

Everything seems to hinge on whether or not the children were left alone during dinner and where they were.

It's always struck me that the adults took shifts to look after the children during dinner as from the statements and Kate's book it seemed to be the case.

But recently I've been rethinking and it seems that the Rogatories were a blank sheet to begin with particularly after the Rothley Hotel meeting. So whatever happened during those nights is probably going to be more accurate from the earlier statements.

So looking at the statements from 4th to 11th May, I hope I haven't missed anything.

Saturday 28th May - Nobody Missing

The children accompanied the parents to dinner at the Millennium. Everyone was there.

Sunday 29th May - Matt Oldfield is ill

In his interview on May 10th Matt mentions he had intestinal problems but doesn't state he missed dinner

In her interview on 11th May Rachel mentions she and ROB and were missing on Tue & Wed night but doesn't refer to her missing husband on Sunday.

But in his interview on 10th May GM mentions that MO didn't attend dinner.

Monday 30th May - Nobody missing

Tuesday 1st June - ROB missing & it's quiz night

Russell doesn't mention it in any of his statements

Jane mentions that Rachel was ill on Wednesday and didn't attend dinner. She gives a lot of detail about Tuesday night when they won sangrea in the quiz but she fails to mention that her husband is missing.

Najoua Chekaya mentions she didn't see KM or DP at the table but there's only 1 empty chair (was it the one that she sat on or was there another?). Why doesn't she remember ROB was missing too, were there some extra people, perhaps the 10th/11th Tapas members?

Kate's phone was busy from the apartment from 22.16 to 22.27.

Pamela Fenn heard Madeleine crying from 22.30

Wednesday 2nd June - Rachel ill

Everyone seems to mention Rachel was missing.

Late night drinks at the Tapas.

KM had a strop with GM and slept in the children's room.

As GM says, confusion is good.

Were MO and ROB afraid to mention their absence for a reason or were the absences built in afterwards as a cover in case they were pursued for neglect?

Were the Paynes happy with their monitor, they asked to be seated closer to the apartment so the signal would work. But what about the noise, did they whisper to ensure the children could be heard over 9 people chatting, knives, forks, glasses, bottles, moving chairs, plates not to mention a quiz and perhaps music

Did nobody have indigestion/dizziness from the constant comings and goings, interrupted and disjointed conversations and how did they negotiate the trail after consuming all that wine?

I don't think its practical to lodge all of the children in one apartment. Some would wake others and you have the drama of getting them to sleep and moving them late at night.

by **tigger** 25.05.13 15:44

I think there's a remark by Inspector Paiva that they have evidence of all 7 (not eight) children sleeping in one room. Clarence Mitchel reacted to it saying that it would be much harder to get seven children to sleep than three. (Not if you've got Calpol it isn't).

by Guest 25.05.13 15:51

bristow wrote:An old Mail article speaks about Kate visiting dead bodies.

Police also failed to realise that Mrs McCann, who is a GP, had come into
contact with six patients who died before she went on holiday.

Read more: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Did doctor Kate have a habit of cradling dead people (dead so long the gave off cadaverine, so -say- more than one/two hours) on het lap?

And where did she stick the car keys?

Sorry, I forgot, the car keys never went to meet these six deceased people. So doctor Kate must have cradled the keys on her lap too? And crawled inside the boot of the Renault Scenic in her checkered working pants?

by **tigger** 25.05.13 16:31

From: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

THE SUN front page: “6 kids in flat with Maddie says ‘tec”

Page 6: “MADDIE TEC’S BIZARRE NEW CLAIM – 7 kids left in McCann flat as doc pals dined”

Paul Rebelo is Portugal’s “number 2 cop”. He is not Portugal’s “top man” (Mirror), but at least whoever that is can help with the case should Rebelo fails to produce a body

Jane Moore: “Keep Diana oddballs away from Diana” – one mysterious blonde looks very much like another

DAILY EXPRESS front page: “Madeleine: Seven children were sleeping in McCann apartment, claim police”

Page 9: “Another amazing claim by the police: Other couples’ children were in Madeleine’s apartment”

It is a “bombshell”. It could “destroy the credibility of the group – now dubbed the Tapas Nine” – who say their own children were in their own family apartments

Clarence Mitchell says: “If you put seven children together, you’re going to have a far harder time getting them to sleep then three”

We await a re-enactment

Says a “high-ranking Policia Judicaria officer: “Unless we are dealing with a sexual predator who had been following this little girl for quite some time, which is not probable because they had only been in the Algarve for six days, it would be highly unlikely she [Madeleine] would be chosen. In crimes of this nature, the criminals always look for younger children because they are easier to sell”

And easier to get off to sleep, right?

DAILY MAIL page 25: “Madeleine ‘was left in room with six other youngsters’”

“It’s utter rubbish,” says Clarence Mitchell

Portuguese newspaper 24 Horas tells of “significant evidence” that seven of the Tapas Nine’s eight children had been in the McCanns’ apartment on May 3
unquote

Iirc it was rather more interesting: CM apparently said that it would be harder to get six children to sleep - so seven minus one? Can't find that at the moment.

by plebgate 25.05.13 16:34

tigger wrote:From: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

THE SUN front page: “6 kids in flat with Maddie says ‘tec”

Page 6: “MADDIE TEC’S BIZARRE NEW CLAIM – 7 kids left in McCann flat as doc pals dined”

Paul Rebelo is Portugal’s “number 2 cop”. He is not Portugal’s “top man” (Mirror), but at least whoever that is can help with the case should Rebelo fails to produce a body

Jane Moore: “Keep Diana oddballs away from Diana” – one mysterious blonde looks very much like another

DAILY EXPRESS front page: “Madeleine: Seven children were sleeping in McCann apartment, claim police”

Page 9: “Another amazing claim by the police: Other couples’ children were in Madeleine’s apartment”

It is a “bombshell”. It could “destroy the credibility of the group – now dubbed the Tapas Nine” – who say their own children were in their own family apartments

Clarence Mitchell says: “If you put seven children together, you’re going to have a far harder time getting them to sleep then three”

We await a re-enactment

Says a “high-ranking Policia Judicaria officer: “Unless we are dealing with a sexual predator who had been following this little girl for quite some time, which is not probable because they had only been in the Algarve for six days, it would be highly unlikely she [Madeleine] would be chosen. In crimes of this nature, the criminals always look for younger children because they are easier to sell”

And easier to get off to sleep, right?

DAILY MAIL page 25: “Madeleine ‘was left in room with six other youngsters’”

“It’s utter rubbish,” says Clarence Mitchell

Portuguese newspaper 24 Horas tells of “significant evidence” that seven of the Tapas Nine’s eight children had been in the McCanns’ apartment on May 3
unquote

Iirc it was rather more interesting: CM apparently said that it would be harder to get six children to sleep - so seven minus one? Can't find that at the moment.

How does he know it is utter rubbish, was he there? Would he swear on oath that it is utter rubbish?

by Guest 25.05.13 17:18

tigger wrote:From: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

THE SUN front page: “6 kids in flat with Maddie says ‘tec”

Page 6: “MADDIE TEC’S BIZARRE NEW CLAIM – 7 kids left in McCann flat as doc pals dined”

Paul Rebelo is Portugal’s “number 2 cop”. He is not Portugal’s “top man” (Mirror), but at least whoever that is can help with the case should Rebelo fails to produce a body

Jane Moore: “Keep Diana oddballs away from Diana” – one mysterious blonde looks very much like another

DAILY EXPRESS front page: “Madeleine: Seven children were sleeping in McCann apartment, claim police”

Page 9: “Another amazing claim by the police: Other couples’ children were in Madeleine’s apartment”

It is a “bombshell”. It could “destroy the credibility of the group – now dubbed the Tapas Nine” – who say their own children were in their own family apartments

Clarence Mitchell says: “If you put seven children together, you’re going to have a far harder time getting them to sleep then three”

We await a re-enactment

Says a “high-ranking Policia Judicaria officer: “Unless we are dealing with a sexual predator who had been following this little girl for quite some time, which is not probable because they had only been in the Algarve for six days, it would be highly unlikely she [Madeleine] would be chosen. In crimes of this nature, the criminals always look for younger children because they are easier to sell”

And easier to get off to sleep, right?

DAILY MAIL page 25: “Madeleine ‘was left in room with six other youngsters’”

“It’s utter rubbish,” says Clarence Mitchell

Portuguese newspaper 24 Horas tells of “significant evidence” that seven of the Tapas Nine’s eight children had been in the McCanns’ apartment on May 3
unquote

Iirc it was rather more interesting: CM apparently said that it would be harder to get six children to sleep - so seven minus one? Can't find that at the moment.

It's an interesting concept. I don't personally believe newspaper stories but everything starts with a grain of truth. I don't believe there were children in 5A on 3rd or perhaps any night because the forensic evidence would have shown it and the room was too orderly. It's possible they were in another apartment. I have some doubts because with 7 children they'd probably need 2 childminders per night so possibly just as easy to leave them in their own rooms and they had a few monitors.

Imo it's about a lot more than calpol. It's a legal substance and it's use can be easily explained especially if you're a medic. Bristow has an interesting thought on whether one of the other children accidentally injured Madeleine. And the possibility that they all missed a serious injury has been brought up more than once.

I'd really like to know who used KM's phone on 1st and why.

by Guest 25.05.13 17:27

I think that IF the children [minus one] were in one apartment, it would sooner have been Paynes. The adults who were ill [one after another] could have taken turns to mind the children and the babyphone could be used to ask for assistance, if needed, without leaving them alone.

by Spaniel 25.05.13 19:55

tigger wrote:I think there's a remark by Inspector Paiva that they have evidence of all 7 (not eight) children sleeping in one room. Clarence Mitchel reacted to it saying that it would be much harder to get seven children to sleep than three. (Not if you've got Calpol it isn't).

Well done on your good memory tigger. I have to say though that Inspector Paiva was wrong in his thinking as many children can sleep at the same time as is proved through nurseries everywhere, and no noise will wake them. I have more doubts on the crying episodes from Madeleine, as that would awaken the twins to start crying too. More evidence Madeleine was alone?

I don't believe that 9 adults left their children alone, statistics must disprove this, but the thought of Madeleine being the one left alone in a locked flat, fills me with absolute horror! Is that remotely possible? I'd never contemplated before one little girl alone and the other kids cared for, possibly by a MW Nanny who was courted, then shipped off, but it makes sense.

There was an interesting post on MM, re GM walking down the street, suggesting that "walking" would mean GM came from the front door. Had he emerged from the patio doors he would have been closing the gate. I'll have to post it separately as am I'm trying to get used to W8.

Whilst I'm here, she is protecting him. Of that, I'm sure PJ got it wrong.

by Spaniel 25.05.13 20:01

From MM and jintva with thanks.
Re: Kate went back to the flat?
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] jinvta on Wed 22 May 2013, 11:45 pm

I don't remember this story at all. I don't think that there is any reference to Kate going back to the apartment as they were leaving in any of the witness statments, so perhaps it was from an interview.

I believe that it was Jane, not Gerry, that Jez saw by the shutters at around 8:30 pm.

Jez claims to have seen Gerry walking toward the tapas restaurant and assuming that he had just conducted a check based on his route.

From Jez's statement: "When I left the street, I remember seeing Gerry on the other side of the same. I believe that there was some speculation in the press regarding the circumstances of this encounter. I remember that I crossed the street to talk to Gerry. According to what I remember, Gerry was walking when I spotted him. As I mentioned previously, I assumed that he had gone to check on the children and was headed back to the Tapas Bar."

No mention of shutters, but the implication is that Gerry was coming from the front of the building and not the side gate and patio doors. For Jez to have seen Gerry walking, he must have been further up the road then their eventual meeting point, directly in front of the side gate. Had Gerry exited the patio doors, Jez would have seen him coming down the stairs and/or exiting the side gate, not walking down the road.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
jinvtaForum Addict
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Number of posts: 627
Warning:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
Registration date: 2010-01-18

by Lance De Boils 25.05.13 21:00

Maybe he never went to 5A at all. Maybe he was walking back from somewhere else...?

by Spaniel 25.05.13 21:18

Lance De Boils wrote:Maybe he never went to 5A at all. Maybe he was walking back from somewhere else...?

Just say FGS!

by **Hobs** 25.05.13 23:07

Gerry McCann:
Anybody with young children will understand that children cry;
they wake up at night.
During that week there was one night, errr… and we can't give too much
detail because it's part
of the investigation
file but there was one night where Madeleine came through and one of the
other, errr… twins were
crying,"

Oh dear gerry open mouth insert foot

You were going to say one of the OTHER CHILDREN before you realised by saying that you blew the every child was sleeping in their own apartments home alone.

There were no other sets of twins in your party or the complex as a whole, so, what we see is pausing and self correction in the process of freely edited speech.
When someone has reason to pause and correct whilst freely speaking, there is a reason to.
In this case you did an appalling job of grammar and logic.

All the children sleeping in one apartment would nullify the checks which were allegedly based on each parent checking their own children and thus everyone was running up and down like a Benny Hill chase sketch.

One adult was supposedly missing each night at dinner supposedly from illness or whatever excuse.

What was the reality is the children were never left alone as claimed, instead they were all in one apartment watched by an adult.

This instantly refutes and denies the chance of any abductor coming in and taking Maddie, there was never any opportunity nor chance.

If the children were watched by an adult and in a room with other children the allegation of abduction by stranger is no longer feasible, practical or believable.

If there was no abduction then how and why did Maddie vanish?

Since abduction as claimed is and was impossible the question is then asked which of the group including her family had access to Maddie and which of the group killed her?
The finger points immediately to kate and gerry as perpetrators of crimes against Maddie.

The finger also beomes a hand and points to the tapas 7 as aiders, abettors and accessories after the fact to her death.

We know maddie is dead as you, kate, told us in several statements.

We know Maddie is dead due to the body fluids and cadaverine found in the aparment, on clothing, cuddlecat and the hire car.
The hire car you claimed at the Levesone enquiry which contained no bodily fluids or cadaverine, yet which you earlier admitted existed and was explained away as dirty diapers, rotting meat and sweaty sandals.

You continue to insist there is no evidence of harm to Maddie when we have body fluids and cadaverine, we have a missing child.
Pray tell what is your definition of harm?
What is your definition of serious harm?

Why do you speak in an unexpected manner in regard to the evidence found by LE when innocent parents would be terrified beyond measure their child was hurt or worse when traces of their blood was found?
Why did you relax and say the dogs were giving false positives and demean their abilities when innocent parents would be demanding answers as to why the dogs reacted, what it meant in relation to their child.

Why do you demean and slander and libel the work of those searching for Maddie, refuse to co-operate and sue all involved if they disagree with you?

Innocent parents co-operate fully, praise and encourage LE.

What evidence is there to prove there was an abduction?

Why does evidence indicating a death in the apartment count as nothing?

Why do you not ask who had the hire car before you, who had access to it, could Maddie have been moved in it before you got the car?

Instead you admit there is evidence of decomposition and DNA in the fluid traces belonging to Maddie and pass it off as dirty diapers, sweaty sandals and numerous family members.

Why of the two paths parents follow in a missing child case are you following the guilty parents route and not the innocent parent route?

The crime has been committed, it cannot be undone.

It is not a case of if they will solve the case. it is when they solve the case.

The more time passes the more the twins will understand as they surf the net and read the files.

If you were to confess all then there is the chance your children will forgive you due to their age.

If you wait till later you will find them to be not so forgiving, you lied to them for many years, scared them into believing a bad man took Maddie and they could be next.
Their childhoods forever scarred and tainted.
As they grow older their willingness to forgive will decline.

Are you willing to risk being disowned by your children and banned from contact with your grandchildren?

The more you delay, obfuscate the harsher the consequences.

The public can and do forgive those to admit the truth, who confess, they however will not forgive if you continue to lie and deceive.

Think about it.

We know pretty much what happened, we may not be 100% sure on who did what, we do know however who is involved.

You and your chums have told us this in your statements, A single word kate told us Maddie was dead, the word that told me and the world was when you said we would ALL be togeather, right there you told me you knew Maddie was dead.

The brain knows the truth, it wants to tell what happened as lying is so stressful.

The brain will leak it's knowledge vis the words you chose to speak.

by Lance De Boils 25.05.13 23:34

Spaniel wrote:
Lance De Boils wrote:Maybe he never went to 5A at all. Maybe he was walking back from somewhere else...?
Just say FGS!

Sorry? What is FGS?

by Guest 25.05.13 23:39

Hobs wrote:[...] A single word Kate told us Maddie was dead, the word that told me and the world was when you said we would ALL be together, right there you told me you knew Maddie was dead.

The brain knows the truth, it wants to tell what happened as lying is so stressful.

The brain will leak it's knowledge via the words you chose to speak.

***
Yes.

by Guest 26.05.13 9:09

Lance De Boils wrote:
Spaniel wrote:
Lance De Boils wrote:Maybe he never went to 5A at all. Maybe he was walking back from somewhere else...?
Just say FGS!

Sorry? What is FGS?

I think that's "for God's sake" in teen parlance!

In other words, where do you think he was walking back from?

by aiyoyo 26.05.13 11:30

In answer to the thread question, my answer is in one word "NO".

I don't believe Maddie died that night. She died earlier, 3rd was used to stage the scene, and the twins were used in the staging.

They were sedated to avoid them disrupting their plan when they'd to be moved from apt to apt back and forth during the staging.
I believe they were not sedated when they were sent to another apt, but were sedated before taken back to 5A to avoid them being disturbed hence crying when all the rackets were going in the midst of screaming kate punching wall and lashing out, and roaring like bull Gerry going on in the background.

No Children were in 5A on the 3rd, and I don't even believe rota check took place that night, not in 5A anyway.
I believe when Russell went on his check it wasn't to 5A; rather he went to check whether ROB (reportedly often left to babysit all the children on other occasions) needed help with the babysitting.
I believe Gerry's trip back to the apt was not to check on the children rather to create witnesses alibi for their rota checks ie creating the impression they were away from the table, hence tying in with their check story. Kate went because she was penned in to raise the alarm. May 3rd was a hugh lie from start to finish.

by PrissyCrissy 26.05.13 13:14

I don't believe the children were left alone. I get the impression from Kate's mom that this would have been completely out of character for the parents. And I believe her.
Sorry I don't know how to link, but according to Jeremy Wilkins' statement, on May 2nd at the Tapas bar, he and his wife were told of the group leaving the children alone. That leads me to believe that Madeleine's death occurred before that night and the stage was being set.
There are a couple of other things in his statement which, while perhaps unimportant, I find interesting:
Gerry and Russell came to Tapas around 8:15. Jeremy stated that Gerry said Kate was putting the children to bed. Shouldn't the children have already been in bed by this time? Which leaves me wondering if Kate really went to Tapas at all that night. Did anyone outside of the group testify to her being there?
Also, Jeremy said he saw Gerry with about 7 other people when Jeremy and his wife left the Tapas. That would have been about 8:30-8:35. That conflicts with Jane's statement that they were getting to Tapas later and later, around 8:45-9:00.
"If I'm honest", at one point recently when all the stories began in the news again, I actually wondered if I'd been wrong about this case all this time. But I have to remember the odd behavior of the parents in some of the interviews. I also have to remember Lance Armstrong's brazen insistence upon being innocent when he knew he was guilty. And, of course, there's always the cadaver odor to bring me back to reality.
I personally doubt we'll ever see justice in this case because I have a feeling that the review is based on the premise that the parents are innocent. However, no one really gets by with doing wrong. If this group has been living a lie all this time, what an awful weight the guilt must be. And I for one still believe in a higher Justice.

by Guest 26.05.13 13:47

PrissyCrissy wrote:I don't believe the children were left alone. I get the impression from Kate's mom that this would have been completely out of character for the parents. And I believe her.
Sorry I don't know how to link, but according to Jeremy Wilkins' statement, on May 2nd at the Tapas bar, he and his wife were told of the group leaving the children alone. That leads me to believe that Madeleine's death occurred before that night and the stage was being set.
There are a couple of other things in his statement which, while perhaps unimportant, I find interesting:
Gerry and Russell came to Tapas around 8:15. Jeremy stated that Gerry said Kate was putting the children to bed. Shouldn't the children have already been in bed by this time? Which leaves me wondering if Kate really went to Tapas at all that night. Did anyone outside of the group testify to her being there?
Also, Jeremy said he saw Gerry with about 7 other people when Jeremy and his wife left the Tapas. That would have been about 8:30-8:35. That conflicts with Jane's statement that they were getting to Tapas later and later, around 8:45-9:00.
"If I'm honest", at one point recently when all the stories began in the news again, I actually wondered if I'd been wrong about this case all this time. But I have to remember the odd behavior of the parents in some of the interviews. I also have to remember Lance Armstrong's brazen insistence upon being innocent when he knew he was guilty. And, of course, there's always the cadaver odor to bring me back to reality.
I personally doubt we'll ever see justice in this case because I have a feeling that the review is based on the premise that the parents are innocent. However, no one really gets by with doing wrong. If this group has been living a lie all this time, what an awful weight the guilt must be. And I for one still believe in a higher Justice.

Don't know where some of that's come from, I don't think they were at the tapas restaurant? Also he says he left his apartment at 8.30 ish. to push his child around in pushchair. Here is the tapas restaurant booking for 3rd May....
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

by Lance De Boils 26.05.13 13:49

No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:
Lance De Boils wrote:
Spaniel wrote:
Lance De Boils wrote:Maybe he never went to 5A at all. Maybe he was walking back from somewhere else...?
Just say FGS!

Sorry? What is FGS?

I think that's "for God's sake" in teen parlance!

In other words, where do you think he was walking back from?

Oh I see. Well there was no need for that tone.
I have no idea where he might have been walking back from.
Someone pointed out that Gerry must have been "walking" (as opposed to coming out of the apt.) I suggested maybe he was walking back from somewhere other than the apt, ie, just because he was seen walking in the vicinity of 5A, does not mean he was ever IN 5A.
That is all.
I am surprised at Spaniel's "teenage" response.

by pennylane 26.05.13 14:37

Lance De Boils wrote:
No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:
Lance De Boils wrote:
Spaniel wrote:
Lance De Boils wrote:Maybe he never went to 5A at all. Maybe he was walking back from somewhere else...?
Just say FGS!

Sorry? What is FGS?

I think that's "for God's sake" in teen parlance!

In other words, where do you think he was walking back from?

Oh I see. Well there was no need for that tone.
I have no idea where he might have been walking back from.
Someone pointed out that Gerry must have been "walking" (as opposed to coming out of the apt.) I suggested maybe he was walking back from somewhere other than the apt, ie, just because he was seen walking in the vicinity of 5A, does not mean he was ever IN 5A.
That is all.
I am surprised at Spaniel's "teenage" response.

Good thinking Lance DB, we only have Mr Gruesome's word he'd just come out of Apt 5A, and we all know how much credence to give that! [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

by Lance De Boils 26.05.13 14:58

Indeed, pennylane. We only have Gerry's word for it and Jane's incredible insight of knowing G had just come OUT of 5A (how did she know he'd already been in there?)

In other words, Gerry could have been anywhere, especially given that Kate was apparently concerned he'd been gone some time and considered he might be watching football. (Was that the time she said that? Please correct me if I've mixed that up with another time.)

Log in for more topics