A couple of questions ...........

by suzyjohnson 07.03.13 1:59

Sorry if the answers to any of my posts seem obvious, I'm just trying to work it out a step at a time.

1) Can anyone pinpoint exactly where someone would have to have been standing in order to take the poolside photo? (the last photo)

2) If this photo was taken at 2,29pm on the afternoon of May 3rd, then this is the outfit Madeleine would have still been wearing when she was returned to the kids club at 2.40pm that afternoon - and then she would still have been wearing it at 5.30pm when she was collected, and presumably up until bath time at around 6pm? I would be interested to know if this outfit had ever been handed in to the police, because I suppose it would at least give an indication of whether Madeleine had actually changed into pyjamas and narrow down the time frame a bit.

3) I was just looking at the info given by the Smith family -
'they pass a man walking down the middle of the street, carrying a child, with the head against his left shoulder and the arms hanging down alongside the body, in light coloured or pink pyjamas, bare feet, pale skin typical of British and blond, shoulder-length hair; the girl is about 3-4 years old, about 1 meter tall' If the Smiths are certain that the girl they saw was wearing pyjamas (even though the above outfit was the same colour, although possibly not that unusual as girls tend to wear a lot of pink) then presumably whatever happened, happened after bath time.

4) Of course, not forgetting that, between these two outfits, the children were 'all dressed in white, like angels' according to David Payne

5) Because one thing always leads to another with this, I was just rereading Gerry's statement of 10/5/07, 'When he arrived at the bedroom (after Kate's 10pm check) he first noticed that the door was completely open, the window was also open to one side, the shutters almost fully raised'. So apparently, the window was left open while Kate went running back to the Tapas for help? I find that very difficult to believe, if you went into a bedroom where the window was wide open at night and children were asleep, the first thing you would do was close the window wouldn't you? You might look out onto the street through it, but then you would close it wouldn't you, almost as an automatic reaction?

by **tigger** 07.03.13 6:33

Physically, psychologically and on the shaky evidence of the only witness who allegedly saw the children that evening, I don't believe anything but a faked abduction occurred that evening.

1) opposite side of the pool?
2) the outfit (as opposed to a press airing of the pyjamas) was never seen again - It would have been ideal for the sniffer dogs who got a towel probably used by several people including Gerry.
3) If the blood and cadaver odour have to be explained by something that happened after bath time, her pyjamas wouldn't be clean. If you wish to ignore the forensic evidence of cadaver odour and blood then it's still difficult. The girl in PdL had long sleeved pyjamas on, Maddie wore short sleeved ones.
4) his evidence contradicts that of Kate in time, duration, reason for calling in and actions observed.
5) I'm not so worried about leaving the window open as putting the twins in continued/greater danger by leaving them alone again, the patio doors were open anyway.

Nothing happened to Maddie that day imo. Whatever did 'happen' occurred very early in the holiday.

by russiandoll 07.03.13 10:37

Cat Baker stated in her rogatory interview that Maddie's group went swimming afternoon of 3rd. Maddie could have carried her swimsuit into afternoon creche, meaning a bit of a work up re- changing for a 3 year old. More probable that Maddie would be sensibly wearing a swimsuit under her top and shorts, so she could easily undress for her swim and just put back on her shorts and top afterwards. Her sun top has spaghetti straps and I do not see any swimsuit straps. Another indication to me that this photo was not taken when claimed.

by suzyjohnson 08.03.13 11:36

Ok thanks Tigger and Russian Doll

Still thinking about the theory that something happened to Madeleine earlier in the week, although it sounds altogether too complicated. I can't imagine GM (or anyone else) carrying O'Brien's daughter round PdL as part of a plan, because anyone seeing him would be able to identify him.

I think that to try and cover up a death, you would either act on the spur of the moment, making rash decisions, or alternatively, you would need time to get over the initial shock to be able to think clearly, either of these possibilities means you could narrow down the possible times when an accident could have occured.

If Madeleine had an accident in the apartment on May 3rd, then I think it must have occurred between 7.20 -9.15 pm -

1) I don't think Gerry could have casually gone to play tennis if anything had happened before 6pm

2) I considered that an accident may have occurred while GM was playing tennis (did KM try to contact GM at the tennis court, but GM sent DP instead?) but if that were the case then either DP never went to the apartment at all, or Kate managed to conceal what had happened from DP (in both cases DP is lying about seeing Madeleine) or he would have returned straight to the tennis court and GM would have left immediately (not left it until 7.20pm to go back to 5A - there is an independent witness - the tennis coach - that GM finished playing tennis at 7.20pm)
.
Sorry, I have to go out, will continue later .........

by Guest 08.03.13 14:57

suzyjohnson wrote:Sorry if the answers to any of my posts seem obvious, I'm just trying to work it out a step at a time.

1) Can anyone pinpoint exactly where someone would have to have been standing in order to take the poolside photo? (the last photo)

2) If this photo was taken at 2,29pm on the afternoon of May 3rd, then this is the outfit Madeleine would have still been wearing when she was returned to the kids club at 2.40pm that afternoon - and then she would still have been wearing it at 5.30pm when she was collected, and presumably up until bath time at around 6pm? I would be interested to know if this outfit had ever been handed in to the police, because I suppose it would at least give an indication of whether Madeleine had actually changed into pyjamas and narrow down the time frame a bit.

3) I was just looking at the info given by the Smith family -
'they pass a man walking down the middle of the street, carrying a child, with the head against his left shoulder and the arms hanging down alongside the body, in light coloured or pink pyjamas, bare feet, pale skin typical of British and blond, shoulder-length hair; the girl is about 3-4 years old, about 1 meter tall' If the Smiths are certain that the girl they saw was wearing pyjamas (even though the above outfit was the same colour, although possibly not that unusual as girls tend to wear a lot of pink) then presumably whatever happened, happened after bath time.

4) Of course, not forgetting that, between these two outfits, the children were 'all dressed in white, like angels' according to David Payne

5) Because one thing always leads to another with this, I was just rereading Gerry's statement of 10/5/07, 'When he arrived at the bedroom (after Kate's 10pm check) he first noticed that the door was completely open, the window was also open to one side, the shutters almost fully raised'. So apparently, the window was left open while Kate went running back to the Tapas for help? I find that very difficult to believe, if you went into a bedroom where the window was wide open at night and children were asleep, the first thing you would do was close the window wouldn't you? You might look out onto the street through it, but then you would close it wouldn't you, almost as an automatic reaction?

Nah, she didn't close the window, Gerry did at a later stage, she says.

Not only did she leave the window & shutters op, but she failed to switch the light on at any moment, in fact refraining from doing so intentionally: " Force of habit, I suppose: taking care to avoid waking the children at all costs" (madeleine, p.72)

At all costs? Now, why would you do that if their little sister was found absent?

Might not the two poor mytes have seen or heard something, say The Abductor forcing open first the shutters from outside, then the window from outside (how?); clambering in over the window sill, landing on his feet on the bed nearest the window (footprints anyone?);

Remember, it's dark. Abductor stumbles over the unexpected cot(s), or is he carrying not only a stock of tranquillizers, syringes etc. but a flashlight to boot, by any chance? He then discovers the presence of three toddlers. How?

Well, what now, we see him mentally scratching his neck. Look what we have here! A couple of kids, let's see what we can do with them!
Just my luck that I remembered to bring some sleep inducing stuff!

Say: he fills the syringe(s), measures the quantity of the drugs to be administered and injects or orally administers the drugs to all three infants (?)

Remember all this in the pitch dark, as the door is 'as we left it, or perhaps with the flashlight between his teeth?

Also note, no one reported smelling chloroform or any such substance, not even all those experienced NHS-doctors stampeding in and accidentally destroying the crime scene.

Not one of the children wakes up being handled by Abductor (?)
What's more: he so carefully puts them back in their cots that no one notices them having been handled at all. No one reports them having been moved, or not moved: nothing unusual is seen re their positions.

Having performed this feat with the Twins, he then first drugs and then gingerly picks up Maddie McCann, and exists to Heaven knows where through Heaven knows which exit, taking both the drugs and the utensils used to drug three healthy and robust children.

All this without a sound waking up the Twins?.

Far strech of the imagination, right?

by suzyjohnson 08.03.13 18:21

........... And all within the space of three minutes (maximum) Portia

by suzyjohnson 08.03.13 19:00

Continued from earlier this afternoon .........

Clearly, the Mccann's would not have been able to carry off any deception alone on May 3rd, yet I can only think of two possible reasons why anyone else in the group would agree to support them -

1) That they felt so sorry for the Mccann's plight (they had been brought in for their medical assistance, or other reason - why did Jane say she was carrying Madeleine in the Panorama interview?) In this case they would have been witness to the couple's distress and presumably swayed by this

2) That other members of the group felt equally guilty about something

I have always wondered whether by 10pm on May 3rd, KM actually knew what had happened, perhaps events unfolded whilst she was at the Tapas and things were only explained to her by any others involved after she had discovered Madeleine missing. In this case, someone else would have opened the window a minute or two before 10pm. And KM would have been stopped from leaving the Tapas until GM got back from the beach (where he was seen by the Smith family at 9.55pm)

by **tigger** 08.03.13 19:05

From above:
I have always wondered whether by 10pm on May 3rd, KM actually knew what had happened, perhaps events unfolded whilst she was at the Tapas and things were only explained to her by any others involved after she had discovered Madeleine missing. In this case, someone else would have opened the window a minute or two before 10pm. And KM would have been stopped from leaving the Tapas until GM got back from the beach (where he was seen by the Smith family at 9.55pm) unquote

Something lost in translation? spit coffee

by Ollie1 08.03.13 19:27

But if someone else opened the window why was only Kates fingerprints found on the window and she claimed that she had never opened the window during the holiday.

by suzyjohnson 08.03.13 19:29

Tigger, I meant that is it possible that KM was unaware of any problem with Madeleine before 10pm? That, if GM had found Madeleine injured or seriously ill earlier that evening, had he called for assistance from other members of the group? Did he try and cover what had happened on impulse, taking Madeleine down to the beach (incidently, the medical centre of PdL is located in the direction of the Smith sighting, if GM intended to take his daughter there) That someone else could have opened the window, and staged an abduction, whilst GM set off down to the beach. That KM's reaction to finding her daughter missing was completely genuine? And that KM was only told what had happened to her daughter, after 10pm, before the arrival of the police?

by suzyjohnson 08.03.13 19:31

Ollie - Because whoever opened the window was careful not to leave fingerprints, whereas KM innocently left the prints when she found the window open

by **tigger** 08.03.13 19:57

suzyjohnson wrote:Tigger, I meant that is it possible that KM was unaware of any problem with Madeleine before 10pm? That, if GM had found Madeleine injured or seriously ill earlier that evening, had he called for assistance from other members of the group? Did he try and cover what had happened on impulse, taking Madeleine down to the beach (incidently, the medical centre of PdL is located in the direction of the Smith sighting, if GM intended to take his daughter there) That someone else could have opened the window, and staged an abduction, whilst GM set off down to the beach. That KM's reaction to finding her daughter missing was completely genuine? And that KM was only told what had happened to her daughter, after 10pm, before the arrival of the police?

Errrm. - No. (and re your further post about the window, someone else opened it, avoiding Kate's fingerprints left when she was leaning over the bed admiring the starry sky? - Kate's fingerprints are still there for some reason. Gloves would also have left traces and the PJ looked for these. There were none - just the fingerprints.)

by suzyjohnson 08.03.13 20:13

No Tigger, if someone else had opened the window before 10pm and before KM arrived (not leaving fingerprints) then KM's fingerprints would have still been there, if she had been the last person, after 10pm to look out of the window.

by Ollie1 08.03.13 20:30

But Kate couldn't possibly have been able to look out the window as the shutter was down, despite claims by the McCanns that it had been forced open, it was proved that the shutters had not been forced.

by suzyjohnson 08.03.13 20:37

Ollie1 - No, the shutter's weren't forced, but is there any reason why, at that stage, they couldn't have been opened along with the window (from the inside), as part of a staged abduction?

by stumo 08.03.13 20:46

suzyjohnson wrote:Ollie1 - No, the shutter's weren't forced, but is there any reason why, at that stage, they couldn't have been opened along with the window (from the inside), as part of a staged abduction?

But they never were open(ed), Only the Mcc's (and family) ever mentioned the window being open and the shutters being jemmied. It's been proven you can't open the shutters from outside and they were not damaged.

by **tigger** 08.03.13 20:49

suzyjohnson wrote:No Tigger, if someone else had opened the window before 10pm and before KM arrived (not leaving fingerprints) then KM's fingerprints would have still been there, if she had been the last person, after 10pm to look out of the window.

Read her own testimony. The shutters were never opened whilst they were there, always left down. In fact just read the testimony.

I did not say her fingerprints would not be there if someone else had opened the windows. I said that gloves leave traces too and none were found.
There was no reason to open the windows if the shutters were down in any case.
Kate's own testimony puts her in 5a at 10.00 p.m. Perhaps you should start there? Better still, why not ask her?

by bristow 08.03.13 21:04

suzyjohnson wrote:
I have always wondered whether by 10pm on May 3rd, KM actually knew what had happened, perhaps events unfolded whilst she was at the Tapas and things were only explained to her by any others involved after she had discovered Madeleine missing. In this case, someone else would have opened the window a minute or two before 10pm. And KM would have been stopped from leaving the Tapas until GM got back from the beach (where he was seen by the Smith family at 9.55pm)

I have thought along these lines too suzjohnson, it does seem to make a lot of sense.

Welcome by the way, its good and refreshing to hear new contributions. roses

by Miraflores 08.03.13 21:06

The McCanns themselves or others of the Tapas group could have raised and lowered the shutters? Who knows what they were doing, really?(They don't seem to themselves.)

by pennylane 08.03.13 21:07

bristow wrote:
suzyjohnson wrote:
I have always wondered whether by 10pm on May 3rd, KM actually knew what had happened, perhaps events unfolded whilst she was at the Tapas and things were only explained to her by any others involved after she had discovered Madeleine missing. In this case, someone else would have opened the window a minute or two before 10pm. And KM would have been stopped from leaving the Tapas until GM got back from the beach (where he was seen by the Smith family at 9.55pm)

I have thought along these lines too suzjohnson, it does seem to make a lot of sense.

Welcome by the way, its good and refreshing to hear new contributions. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

I too have had thoughts on a par with your own [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]suzyj

by suzyjohnson 08.03.13 21:22

Sorry, I can't understand the confusion here -

My argument was that someone (GM or another person) had opened the windows and the shutters just prior to 10pm from the inside of apartment 5A, to make it look as though an abductor had entered the apartment through the window, That whoever had done this had tried not to leave fingerprints (although I take your point Tigger, that wiping the window /sills would've left smears)

Following this, that KM who had been at the Tapas from around 8.30pm until 10pm, then went round to the apartment (as is in her statement) and discovered Madeleine missing and the window and shutters open, and had left her fingerprints on the window at this point.

My theory was that something had happened to Madeleine between 8.30pm and 10pm, but that KM wasn't told about this until after the decision had been taken by GM (and others) to stage an abduction, so that KM's reaction to finding Madeleine gone was entirely genuine.

I may be completely wrong with my theory, but it does fit with the known facts of the case, and with the details given in the witness statements.

by suzyjohnson 08.03.13 21:33

Hi, Bristow, Milaflores and PennyLane, just read your posts

by plebgate 08.03.13 21:35

So something happened to Maddie and Mrs. was not aware of it until after Mr. (and others) had staged an abduction. Well if that were the case why, when she was told of this staged abduction, did she not run straight to the police and have them all arrested. Something happens to your eldest daughter- you are then told of a faked abduction and you go along with it. No I can't believe that scenario.

Also why wasn't the lichen disturbed when whoever it was opened the windows and shutters?

Welcome to the forum btw.

by suzyjohnson 08.03.13 21:46

Hi plebgate

In the confusion (in Kate's mind, having discovered her daughter gone, it would be a terrible shock to hear that your daughter had been fatally injured) perhaps she was persuaded that it was better not to tell the police, either because they stood to lose their other children, or they stood to lose their good medical reputations, or because she wanted to protect Gerry, or perhaps because Kate herself had given Madeleine a sedative and the others were trying to protect her?

I don't know about the lichen, I thought that was something that would only have been disturbed had somebody actually climbed through the window.

by plebgate 08.03.13 21:54

Well if that were the case she would still be charged as an accessory and I still do not believe that she would not have shopped them. She is a medical practitioner trained to deal with shocking events and yet she could be persuaded to keep her mouth shut.
Re. the lichen, so they go to the bother of opening the window and shutters to make it look as though somebody had entered through the window but did not bother to make sure the lichen was disturbed. Strange, very strange.
Don't forget the fund.