Discussion of ***FACTS OF THE DAY***

by Smokeandmirrors 03.05.13 21:31

Currently running on the Breaking News Section is a LOCKED topic called FACTS OF THE DAY.

This is the inspiration of a respected member of the forum who is very good at research. The idea is, each day, to have a fully sourced and referenced fact or item of interest, and hopefully (!!) occurring in chronological order as the story has unfolded over the last six years. We'll test it out over a week or so, as it may be a useful thing to have on archive too.

The reason it is locked is so that each individual referenced item just stands alone - with no inference, comment or daft emoticons! Just a snippet from the PJ files, or the book, or direct quotation from a television item, that sort of thing.

There won't be any items from an "undisclosed source" or a "source close to the investigation" so there is no room for rumour, myth and speculation!

Just a simple fact, a bit like "Quote of the day" which can be freely lifted and discussed in the debate section if anyone feels inspired to do so.

Thanks!!

by Nina 03.05.13 23:04

May I please clarify if the following is correct please? The BACK door is the sliding glass patio door, that could only be locked from the inside, and if it was completely closed could not be opened from the outside, or could it be opened if closed unless actually physically locked, and do we know how it would be locked?
The FRONT door, is the wooden door leading from the car park and is at the side of the bedroom window of the children's bedroom. This has to be locked with a key, rather a large and unusual shaped key?

by Smokeandmirrors 04.05.13 6:29

Nina wrote:May I please clarify if the following is correct please? The BACK door is the sliding glass patio door, that could only be locked from the insideYes, and if it was completely closed could not be opened from the outside, or could it be opened if closed unless actually physically locked, and do we know how it would be locked?I don't know. Patio doors, in my experience have various handles and mechanisms. If they are implying it can only be locked from inside, it MAY have been one of the ones that has a lever on the inside, but that is just a guess
The FRONT door, is the wooden door leading from the car park and is at the side of the bedroom window of the children's bedroomYes. This has to be locked with a key, rather a large and unusual shaped key?

I don't know about this, but it implies that "closed" is not "locked" from the statement. A guess again, but the door MAY be one where it has a handle and not a yale type lock that "clicks" locked when the door is pulled shut. Perhaps it has more of a chubb style mechanism

This is taken from the witness statement of 10th May 2007:

Despite what he said in his previous statements, he states now and with certainty, that he left with KATE through the back door which he consequently closed but did not lock, given that that is only possible from the inside. Concerning the front door, although he is certain that it was closed, it is unlikely that it was locked, because they left through the back door.

My view is that the doors significance is a result of the shutters being declared smashed, broken or jemmied in the first round of family statements, as opposed to merely "open", and then the subsequent retraction by CM and statements from OC staff, and ultimately the forensic report that ONLY had Kate's fingerprints on it and no dust/lichen disturbance, which given the height of the window would be impossible altogether if someone had gone through it.

If, in the first statements, the McCanns declared that they couldn't be 100% sure which door they went through on a particular occasion, given that they might have used both doors frequently at various times over the week with all the ins and outs during the day, I do not think it would have stood out as odd, particularly if a big panic had just occurred and you were in shock, frightened, confused etc. I think these things stand out because the each statement is definite sounding with added detail. i.e.. in the first statement, he not only states he went in the front door, but adds that he used a key. If we think about it, unless asked specifically if you used a key, it is not the sort of thing one feels the need to mention, given that it would be obvious. How many of us are able to enter our fronts doors without using a key?

A bit like saying, "I opened the window using the handle/window latch". You don't, you just say I opened the window. I suppose it depends how much you want someone to believe that you did what you said you did.

by **tigger** 04.05.13 7:38

From Dr. Roberts' 'Early doors' McCannfiles.com

(abstracts from official statements)

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.'

by Smokeandmirrors 04.05.13 8:01

Hmmm… so if in the initial, first account both Kate and Gerry said they went through the wooden front door, when actually they always used the sliding patio door Just reread Tiggers post with the statement that Gerry always used the front door - boy, am I getting confused now!, it begs the question of why, in this particular instance, they wished initially, to distance themselves from the sliding patio door. It is obvious why this stance had to be abandoned almost immediately, but why the need NOT to place themselves at the patio door on the last check each of them made on the Thursday (Kate's only check ever, if I understand correctly).

I do not think it is to deflect from the fact that leaving babies in an unlocked apartment is unsafe, indeed it is equally unsafe to leave them in a locked apartment, for the reason they gave, fire.

It could be also the reason why initially, the first reaction was to insist the shutters were "smashed" and that was the point of entry and exit. For Tanners sighting to have been true, the window HAD to be the point of exit, as Jez and Gerry were standing n such a position that negates the possibility of the patio door or the wooden door being the point of exit. For Bundleman to have been seen where he was, the window was the ONLY possibility, and we know from forensic reports and by the physical logistics of the height of the window to the ground, layout of furniture, undisturbed lichen dust etc that this DID NOT happen.

There was a NEED to distance the event from the patio door in the first instance. Why? Who else MIGHT have been seen, for example, exiting the patio door, and for what reason would the McCanns not wish to be associated with that potential sighting? If the patio door had been the normal point of entry for the whole holiday, and the night of the 3rd, we are led to believe is the FIRST night that another person checked, by the patio door, why would Kate and Gerry initially claim that on that ONE fateful night they BOTH entered through a different door, before changing their mind such a short time later?

On the night in question :
Kate and Gerry left through the door
Matthew went in to check through the sliding door
Gerry went in through the sliding door
Kate went in through the sliding door
Payne earlier visited the apartment for an uncertain length of time …yes you guessed it…the sliding door.

What a busy evening that door had.

And another thing, when Payne went to the apartment, the sliding door is a strange choice. When you visit anothers residence, one would generally knock on the front door.

So, all that activity in and out of the patio door, up and down that flight of steps, people checking that had not checked previously on that ONE evening does rather stand out, doesn't it?

by Nina 04.05.13 9:56

And the sliding door leads to a terrace area with steep drops, though the opening of said terrace by the street has a grill over it. Also steep steps with a baby gate on the top step. All obstacles to be overcome when entering by the sliding glass door. Didn't GA mention something about children dropping like ripe fruit?

by Guest 04.05.13 10:51

Nina wrote:And the sliding door leads to a terrace area with steep drops, though the opening of said terrace by the street has a grill over it. Also steep steps with a baby gate on the top step. All obstacles to be overcome when entering by the sliding glass door. Didn't GA mention something about children dropping like ripe fruit?

***
Yes, he did.

by Guest 04.05.13 13:24

Smokeandmirrors wrote:

This is taken from the witness statement of 10th May 2007:

Despite what he said in his previous statements, he states now and with certainty, that he left with KATE through the back door which he consequently closed but did not lock, given that that is only possible from the inside. Concerning the front door, although he is certain that it was closed, it is unlikely that it was locked, because they left through the back door.

To me this is the line where everything comes tumbling down for them. We should believe:

1. Despite all the doors being open an abductor jemmied the shutters (that weren't damaged) and made off with Madeleine in the space of a minute or so - exiting through same window without touching the window or sill gliding over the bed that wasn't touched in any way.
2. Not only did the couple leave 3 children unattended but they also left the front door unlocked so that any or all of the 3 could simply walk out the door onto the street and disappear.
3. Despite the front door being open Kate was immediately certain that Madeleine didn't use it but instead was abducted.

by suzyjohnson 04.05.13 13:40

To clarify -

The front / main door of 5A leads out to the car park (the side furthest away from the Tapas restaurant and the same side of the building as the children's bedroom window) It has an unusual time of cross key (which I think it is possible to either lock or double lock. Once double locked no one would be able to use this door unless they were in possession of the key?)

The side / patio / back door leads from the lounge to the stairs down to the gate at the side of 5A. GM met Jeremy Wilkins just outside this gate. The patio door only locks from the inside.

Initially GM states (4th May) that he went in to check by the front door using his key.

If that were the case then GM would have walked past the patio door entrance and around the corner to in order to use the front door.

Presumably he did this because, at this time 9.05pm, either the patio door was locked, or GM believed it to have been locked?
Note that if the front door and patio door were both locked, then there was no way in for an abductor, except the window.

By 10th May GM had remembered that, actually, the patio door was open, because both he had KM had left through it to go to the Tapas.
So GM must have forgotten that this door was open when he walked right round to the front door at 9.05pm?
MO however was told that it was open because he went in by this door to check the children at 9.30pm

JT states she saw the abductor at 9.15pm (while GM was talking to JW by the gate)
If the abductor used the window to go in and out, then the window must have been open at this time.

GM was in 5A (and the children's room) from just after 9.05pm, he didn't see the window open then.
He left the apartment shortly before 9.15pm. Neither GM nor JW heard anyone opening or breaking shutters or a window.
So ....... the abductor must have been in 5A before GM arrived.
If the front door was locked (for which GM needed a key) the abductor must have gone in through the patio door (the one GM later remembered was closed but not locked)

by Nina 04.05.13 14:02

suzyjohnson wrote:To clarify -

The front / main door of 5A leads out to the car park (the side furthest away from the Tapas restaurant and the same side of the building as the children's bedroom window) It has an unusual time of cross key (which I think it is possible to either lock or double lock. Once double locked no one would be able to use this door unless they were in possession of the key?)

The side / patio / back door leads from the lounge to the stairs down to the gate at the side of 5A. GM met Jeremy Wilkins just outside this gate. The patio door only locks from the inside.

Initially GM states (4th May) that he went in to check by the front door using his key.

If that were the case then GM would have walked past the patio door entrance and around the corner to in order to use the front door.

Presumably he did this because, at this time 9.05pm, either the patio door was locked, or GM believed it to have been locked?
Note that if the front door and patio door were both locked, then there was no way in for an abductor, except the window.

By 10th May GM had remembered that, actually, the patio door was open, because both he had KM had left through it to go to the Tapas.
So GM must have forgotten that this door was open when he walked right round to the front door at 9.05pm?
MO however was told that it was open because he went in by this door to check the children at 9.30pm

JT states she saw the abductor at 9.15pm (while GM was talking to JW by the gate)
If the abductor used the window to go in and out, then the window must have been open at this time.

GM was in 5A (and the children's room) from just after 9.05pm, he didn't see the window open then.
He left the apartment shortly before 9.15pm. Neither GM nor JW heard anyone opening or breaking shutters or a window.
So ....... the abductor must have been in 5A before GM arrived.
If the front door was locked (for which GM needed a key) the abductor must have gone in through the patio door (the one GM later remembered was closed but not locked)

So where in the apartment was he hiding?

by Smokeandmirrors 04.05.13 14:47

suzyjohnson wrote:To clarify -

The front / main door of 5A leads out to the car park (the side furthest away from the Tapas restaurant and the same side of the building as the children's bedroom window) It has an unusual time of cross key (which I think it is possible to either lock or double lock. Once double locked no one would be able to use this door unless they were in possession of the key?)

The side / patio / back door leads from the lounge to the stairs down to the gate at the side of 5A. GM met Jeremy Wilkins just outside this gate. The patio door only locks from the inside.

Initially GM states (4th May) that he went in to check by the front door using his key.

If that were the case then GM would have walked past the patio door entrance and around the corner to in order to use the front door.

Presumably he did this because, at this time 9.05pm, either the patio door was locked, or GM believed it to have been locked?
Note that if the front door and patio door were both locked, then there was no way in for an abductor, except the window.

By 10th May GM had remembered that, actually, the patio door was open, because both he had KM had left through it to go to the Tapas.
So GM must have forgotten that this door was open when he walked right round to the front door at 9.05pm?
MO however was told that it was open because he went in by this door to check the children at 9.30pm

JT states she saw the abductor at 9.15pm (while GM was talking to JW by the gate)
If the abductor used the window to go in and out, then the window must have been open at this time.

GM was in 5A (and the children's room) from just after 9.05pm, he didn't see the window open then.
He left the apartment shortly before 9.15pm. Neither GM nor JW heard anyone opening or breaking shutters or a window.
So ....... the abductor must have been in 5A before GM arrived.
If the front door was locked (for which GM needed a key) the abductor must have gone in through the patio door (the one GM later remembered was closed but not locked).

That summary is the same as my understanding having read the statement.

The only thing that is a grey area is the front door being closed but not locked part of the witness statements. Not knowing what kind of door mechanism it is we don't know, from the way the story has been told, whether one needed a key to enter.

On the one hand, Gerry said he used a key to enter the front door.
Later he changes his statement to say it was closed but not locked.
If it was not locked, then why would one need a key to enter?

This is murky. Peter, if you read this, can you tell me if you got a look at this door when you were in PdL?

by **PeterMac** 04.05.13 15:13

Yes.
The door has a cruciform key but this is irrelevant. It is merely slightly stronger and less likely to get broken or bent.

The mechanism is like a "Yale" lock. When you close the door, it locks automatically, but there is no handle on the outside to operate the mechanism, so yo need a key.
You can also 'double lock' it by turning the key in the lock once the door has closed, which throws a further couple of centimetres of metal bolt into the door jamb. This increases security. Many people have front doors which operate in roughly this manner. Nip down to the shops, slam it shut. Go away on holiday - double lock it.

In either position you can open the door from the inside by operating the mechanism itself, without a key

If you see what I mean !

by Nina 04.05.13 15:17

Smokeandmirrors wrote:
suzyjohnson wrote:To clarify -

The front / main door of 5A leads out to the car park (the side furthest away from the Tapas restaurant and the same side of the building as the children's bedroom window) It has an unusual time of cross key (which I think it is possible to either lock or double lock. Once double locked no one would be able to use this door unless they were in possession of the key?)

The side / patio / back door leads from the lounge to the stairs down to the gate at the side of 5A. GM met Jeremy Wilkins just outside this gate. The patio door only locks from the inside.

Initially GM states (4th May) that he went in to check by the front door using his key.

If that were the case then GM would have walked past the patio door entrance and around the corner to in order to use the front door.

Presumably he did this because, at this time 9.05pm, either the patio door was locked, or GM believed it to have been locked?
Note that if the front door and patio door were both locked, then there was no way in for an abductor, except the window.

By 10th May GM had remembered that, actually, the patio door was open, because both he had KM had left through it to go to the Tapas.
So GM must have forgotten that this door was open when he walked right round to the front door at 9.05pm?
MO however was told that it was open because he went in by this door to check the children at 9.30pm

JT states she saw the abductor at 9.15pm (while GM was talking to JW by the gate)
If the abductor used the window to go in and out, then the window must have been open at this time.

GM was in 5A (and the children's room) from just after 9.05pm, he didn't see the window open then.
He left the apartment shortly before 9.15pm. Neither GM nor JW heard anyone opening or breaking shutters or a window.
So ....... the abductor must have been in 5A before GM arrived.
If the front door was locked (for which GM needed a key) the abductor must have gone in through the patio door (the one GM later remembered was closed but not locked).

That summary is the same as my understanding having read the statement.

The only thing that is a grey area is the front door being closed but not locked part of the witness statements. Not knowing what kind of door mechanism it is we don't know, from the way the story has been told, whether one needed a key to enter.

On the one hand, Gerry said he used a key to enter the front door.
Later he changes his statement to say it was closed but not locked.
If it was not locked, then why would one need a key to enter?

This is murky. Peter, if you read this, can you tell me if you got a look at this door when you were in PdL?

I have a door like the one in PdL, I am in Spain. it has a knob on it that is fixed, it doesn't turn to open the door it is merely a fixed knob to take hold of to pull the door closed from the outside. If I pull my door closed from the outside I cannot get back in as it is locked. To double lock it I need the key to double turn the locking mechanism.
So when we are at home we keep a key in the outside keyhole just in case somehow the door gets closed. It once did. Fortunately the shed was unlocked so we had access to tools and had to remove the lock from the outside.

by Nina 04.05.13 15:18

PeterMac wrote:Yes.
The door has a cruciform key but this is irrelevant. It is merely slightly stronger and less likely to get broken or bent.

The mechanism is like a "Yale" lock. When you close the door, it locks automatically, but there is no handle on the outside to operate the mechanism, so yo need a key.
You can also 'double lock' it by turning the key in the lock once the door has closed, which throws a further couple of centimetres of metal bolt into the door jamb. This increases security. Many people have front doors which operate in roughly this manner. Nip down to the shops, slam it shut. Go away on holiday - double lock it.

In either position you can open the door from the inside by operating the mechanism itself, without a key

If you see what I mean !

You explained it so much better than I did PeterMac thumbup

by Smokeandmirrors 04.05.13 15:38

Thanks Peter.

So Gerry's statement that the door was closed but not locked is slightly misleading, as anyone approaching the door who did not have a key could not have got in, and would find it "locked" to all meaningful intents and purposes, even if it wasn't double locked.

A potential abductor had NO involvement with the window as forensic examinations have proven (lichen undisturbed on frame and given the height of the window from the ground outside, passing through the window either in or out, has been factually ruled out by scientific evidence.

And according to the Tapas story, they could see the patio balcony from the restaurant (and this forms part of their justification for leaving the children in the apartment), much reducing if not completely eliminating this as a potential entry point, and the front door inaccessible UNLESS one had a key.

So how is the abductor supposed to have first, secreted himself into the apartment unseen and then out again, hindered by carrying a child, and at a time when there were various Tapas members and Jeremy Wilkins in the near vicinity, and how did he suddenly emerge at a position to be seen by Jane Tanner where the only possible entry/exit route was the window, which scientific fact has eliminated from the investigation?

Even if there had been TWO people involved, and one had carefully handed a sleeping Madeleine to an accomplice through an open window, this does not explain how he got out of the apartment unseen when the father was standing outside.

This issue has been discussed ad nauseum, and over the years these facts have been chewed over relentlessly, but from an investigative point of view given the information in the public domain, this high risk strategy affording at most a couple of minutes possible opportunity, seems a risk too far for even the most rabid and determined child snatcher, and renders the whole proposition implausible.

And if the perpetrator had been watching the McCann's apartment as they claim, on the night that Mrs Fenn heard the crying for an hour and a half, or any other night when the checks were less frequent he would have had a far greater opportunity.

Indeed, if it was a carefully planned grab as has been suggested, the abductor picked the moment in time which was the busiest the checking system had ever been at any time in the entire holiday. There was barely a moment when someones Tapas wasn't getting cold that night with all the manic activity, so the notion that on that night of all nights, the abductor would take a deep breath, set 2 minutes on his stopwatch, and set about committing a successful abduction takes the odds of probability into the order of billions to one.

by Nina 04.05.13 16:02

Good summary Smokeandmirrors thumbup

I suppose they only way anyone could get in was through the little gate creep low up the steps unfasten the baby gate, again keeping very low, continuing with this stoop slide open the patio door and enter. Then pick up a sleeping Madeleine, turn heraround so JT gets the correct view and let himself out of the wooden door and pull it closed with the fixed knob. Turn left then right, across the car park, turn right through the car entry and walk briskly just in time for JT's flopping up the road.
And all this without been seen, except for that perchance sighting, the only evidence of an abduction.

by **tigger** 04.05.13 16:32

From the book "Madeleine'.

4th May:
page 86
At about nine o’clock we all went out on to Rua Dr Agostinho da Silva
to find out what was going on and to look out for the PJ. The GNR patrol was still in evidence, although again, there didn’t seem to be much sense of urgency. So what had the police been doing? It was hard to tell. According to the PJ files, to which we did not have access until August 2008, two patrol dogs were brought to Praia da Luz at 2am on 4 May and four search-and-rescue dogs at 8am. I don’t remember seeing any police dogs until the morning, and if there were any specific police searches overnight, they were not apparent. The only searches I was aware of were those carried out by ourselves, fellow guests and the Mark Warner staff.
According to the files, the tracker dogs did not go out until 11pm on 4 May. At some point in the first twenty-four hours (I could not say when exactly, but probably that morning) I recall one of the GNR patrol officers asking us for some of Madeleine’s clothing or belongings to enable these dogs to identify her scent. I fetched the pink princess blanket she took to bed with her every night, which they took, and some of her clothes, which they didn’t.
unquote

According to the PJ files 11 GNR officers arrived between 11.00 pm on the 3rd and 2.00 on the 4th. These carried on with their searches throughout the night.

According to the PJ files - there were two patrol dogs at 2.00 am. on the 4th - four hours after the alarm was raised and 3 hours and twenty minutes after the police were called.
Four search and rescue dogs at 8. am.
Tracker dogs at 11.00 pm. Who had come from Lisbon over 200 miles away.

by **tigger** 04.05.13 16:37

From the book 'Madeleine':

"Dave asked if we should get the media involved to increase awareness and recruit more help. The reply was swift and unambiguous. 'No media! No media!’" (p.78).

"Dave, ... sent an e-mail to Sky News alerting them to the abduction of our daughter. (p.79).

"...Rachael had contacted a friend of hers at the BBC seeking help and advice..." (p.80).

"Jon Corner...was circulating photographs and video footage of Madeleine to the police, Interpol and broadcasting and newspaper news desks. This was in accordance with the standard advice of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children in the US, which advocates getting an image of a missing child into the public domain as soon as possible." (p.86).
unquote

Rachel Mampilly rogatory interview

1578 “The contact between yourself and, and Kath”.
Reply “Mmm”.
1578 “Was all on the fourth, starting at one forty two in the morning”.
Reply “Okay”.
1578 “Where you called her number”.
Reply “Mmm”.
1578 “She called you back at one fifty eight”.
Reply “Mmm yeah”.
1578 “For about, well nearly seven minutes and she called you back again two twenty two am”.
Reply “Right, I mean I called her initially to, cos I didn’t have their home number, I just had Kath’s mobile, so to try and get hold of James and then she said yeah, he, he wasn’t at home cos of the Elections, so she said she’d get in touch with him and then call me back, or somebody would call me back, so she called me back and I think I remember then giving her details of where we were and you know how old Madeleine was and that sort of thing and then I think she passed that on again to, to James, erm and then obviously, then must have rang me back then and just said, I think maybe on her last phone call she might have rung me back and said somebody from News 24 would call me, erm or, or that James would call me or something, cos I did speak to James on the night as well I think, erm but I spoke I think a few times to some, to somebody from the BBC News 24, erm so those conversations”.

So around 01.42 am Rachel phoned a BBC connection on the 4th. Less than four hours after Maddie disappeared.
Errrm .. and the McCanns shouting 'no media?'

by **tigger** 04.05.13 16:40

From the book by G. Amaral: 'The truth of the lie' -

At ten in the morning, twelve hours after the disappearance, the British Consul to Portimão comes to the Department of Criminal Investigation. We inform him of the actions taken up to then and the next stages being considered. He doesn't seem satisfied. Someone hears him on the telephone saying that the judiciary police are doing nothing. Now, that's strange! Why that untruth? What objective does he have in mind? Giving another dimension to the case? I have no idea, but this is not the time for conjecture; we have to concentrate on our work, of finding the little girl.
unquote

by Smokeandmirrors 04.05.13 16:44

How she would know what was going on through the night whilst tucked up in the apartment and not out searching herself is anyones guess. 60 people including several police officers and sniffer dogs were out all night. If she had to wait til it was light, why shouldn't everyone else have made that choice? And if the parent doesn't go out searching, why the heck should anyone else? It is this attitude of Kate's and the way she expresses it which makes me feel very cross. Her comments may have some validity if it were demonstrated that she ever did more than have a cursory glance around for about an hour. How dare she slag off anyone who was out all night looking for her child, including the police who were off-duty.

by suzyjohnson 04.05.13 17:05

Sorry Nina, I was trying to reason why GM had altered his statements. I think at first he said he went in by the front door because he didn't want to be accused of neglect for leaving the patio door open. However, it soon became obvious that he would have to change his statement, either because KM and MO said otherwise, or most probably because GM realised the JT sighting meant that the abductor had no way to get into the property.

Smokeandmirrors, re your summary: an abductor could just have easily left 5A through the front door as through the window, both were on the side of the apartment facing the car park.

Nina, an abductor going into 5A through the patio door didn't need to go along the road and through the gate, it would also be possible to use the passageway behind the apartments, although you would need to walk almost right up to the gate to go up the steps.

Everyone, it might be an idea to label discussions on facts of the day with the date or something, as the discussions will overlap each other and get confusing.

by **tigger** 05.05.13 16:46

1) Allegedly: Kate told Fiona and JT that Sean and Madeleine had cried. Statements made in rogs. april 08

2)Statement 4/5/07 M asked why K hadn’t come when twins were crying.

Statement 4/5/07 Gerry: M asked why G hadn’t come when twins were crying.

Request 5/5/07 to LPO Markley to make the PJ aware of the crying.

3)Statement 10/5/07 Gerry - M and Sean. (is there a statement from K same day kept back?)

4)Statement 6/9/07 Kate - Madeleine alone.

ad 1) Dr. Roberts: A crying shame.
And those episodes of retelling in hindsight? They took place at the dinner table on Thursday night, i.e. before Madeleine's absence had been noted. That is not hindsight at all, but foresight, the all-important observation being made to friends first, the police afterwards (by both parents on 4 May, Gerry again on 10 May, Kate once more on 6 September and Gerry on the 7th).

ad 2)(Dr. Roberts) -witness statement by Leicestershire Police Officer Stephen Markley, made on 25 April, 2008, in relation to his activities as family communication officer while working in Portugal with the McCanns. The key aspect (for present purposes) of his statement is as follows:

"However, in relation to the above, I would like to add the following: At about 20.00 on Saturday 5th May 2007, I arrived at the apartment where Kate and Gerry were staying, with other officers. During the meeting Gerald and Kate had a number of questions to which they wanted follow up and responses from the PJ.
(This makes the arrival of these officers - I believe in total three LPO officers - quite early and hard at work by this time. 5th May )

"One of these questions was that they wanted the PJ to be aware of was Madeleine's revelation about Wednesday night, when she said that she was left alone during the night. She told Kate and Gerry that she remembered the twins crying and that she wanted to know why neither her mother nor her father had gone to the room to see what was happening."

It's only when this desire is set against the fact that they had already (4 May) twice told the PJ themselves about the incident, that their request to Officer Markley on the 5th appears overly insistent.

ad 3) A week later, when advisors are on the scene as well as PR advice, Gerry changes it to Madeleine and Sean.

ad 4) It was reported by the McCanns themselves in their 'one year on' documentary of 30 April, 2008, and in their interview with Dermot Murhaghan for Sky News a day later.

Kate says : Madeleine asked about crying alone.

Same interview Gerry says: ..there was one night that Madeleine had come through and one of the twins was crying ......

Now the essential part of the crying is that Maddie asked about it the following morning.
It’s imo one of the questions answered before they are asked:
Was Maddie alive on Thursday morning? Because if she was alive then, it is proof positive she was alive up to then.

It seems to me that it’s an evolving lie. The important part was Maddie speaking. Not who or why there was crying.
As the narrative regarding paedophiles evolved (quite quickly - being watched etc.) the change made by Gerry on the 10th is telling me that the story is now being added for extra drama. Madeleine, the lead player, is added.
By September they’re going the whole hog and the twins aren’t even mentioned.
Fiona and JT would says what they were told to say at the rogatories, there is no proof that she actually mentioned the crying on the 3rd. I

So I think it was the twins crying on the 1st.
They moved it to the second to have the conversation on the 3rd.
The 2nd being the day which is hardly mentioned in the book (Dr. Roberts, 30 days).

Then Gerry gets it wrong in the Sky interview and goes back to his version of the 4th, because he doesn’t even say Maddie was crying - but says she came 'through' - a medical term imo.

Mrs. Fenn only made her statement about the 75 minutes of crying on the 1st sometime in August. She also stated that she had never mentioned it to the McCanns so as not to upset them.
It was leaked to the press around the time they were made arguidos. They were very upset about it I believe.

So the crying - whoever did it is a moveable feast - seems to be of importance to the McCanns. But imo it is meant to be a short period of crying as they allegedly checked the children at least every half hour. They certainly had not expected Mrs. Fenn at this late date to give this statement and to be so precise about the length and the time of the incident.

It seems to me the crying incident was to allow the possibility that a paedophile might have been in the apartment on the 2nd, I believe that suggestion has been made in the past.
The 'conversation' with Maddie on the morning of the 3rd and another reported remark of Maddie that evening give us the only two reported conversations of Maddie that whole week. Both on the Thursday and to have these conversations she had to be alive.

The many changes in the story don't help.

by **PeterMac** 05.05.13 17:06

suzyjohnson wrote:Sorry Nina, I was trying to reason why GM had altered his statements. I think at first he said he went in by the front door because he didn't want to be accused of neglect for leaving the patio door open. However, it soon became obvious that he would have to change his statement, either because KM and MO said otherwise, or most probably because GM realised the JT sighting meant that the abductor had no way to get into the property.
But also because this would have taken him past the smashed and jemmied shutters and the open window.

Smokeandmirrors, re your summary: an abductor could just have easily left 5A through the front door as through the window, both were on the side of the apartment facing the car park.
Easier to use the front door in fact, if it is "one the latch" it can be opened from the inside.

Nina, an abductor going into 5A through the patio door didn't need to go along the road and through the gate, it would also be possible to use the passageway behind the apartments, although you would need to walk almost right up to the gate to go up the steps.
The footpath behind the apartments runs along the bottom of the gardens of the ground floor apartments, immediately behind the wall, the other side of which is the Ocean Club pool with lawns and so on. But this footpath spits out onto the road between the reception to the Tapas area and the little gate at the bottom of the steps up to the balcony of 5a.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
You see it here, Reception, footpath, gate.
You could only get into the garden by climbing over the wall. Immediately below the red circle is the wall of the pool complex with brown tiles on top, then the footpath, and then the wall to the garden of 5A
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

by Smokeandmirrors 05.05.13 17:27

So, if a hypothetical abductor had been watching and knew that the ins-and-outs of the manic checking on the 3rd was all done via the patio,
and since Matthew had also joined in the checking frenzy that evening, plus the fact that the steps / gate are directly onto the pavement, it makes it most unlikely that that would be the chosen entry or exit point, because the steps and the wall etc would act as a trap should someone pop up unexpectedly. In fact, the time of day would make it all the more likely that he would be caught on the stair-trap, as Matthew throws in another element to be aware of, as well as people entering or leaving the club area for reception/evening creche and so on. Plus other holiday makers being on their balconies or in the gardens etc. who would after a few days of the McCanns yo-yo like activity throughout the preceding days, be roughly aware of who was staying in the apartment. I think this can more or less be eliminated as point of entry.

ETA: The abductor would also need to factor in the other Tapas group who were back and forth too, right past the steps, adding another 3 people at least into the "beware of" category.

Eliminate the window, and all you are left with is the front door, for which you'd need a key, which only leaves someone connected to the Ocean Club.

I can't think of another scenario the more one looks at the facts.

by **PeterMac** 05.05.13 17:48

It is, in short, Ludicrous.
At every level.
What is of concern is the number of people have never bothered to turn their minds to this.
Carter-Ruck have, probably sensibly and deliberately, excluded themselves from any consideration of the facts. That is not their concern. Money is.
Perhaps, though, the superior and incisive mind of Adrienne, QC, turned the tide, and led to the sudden costs climb down we saw the other day.
Perhaps she took C-R by the shoulders and gave them a good shake.
Perhaps she told them she could never accept a brief, realising what she then must have done.
I dont know, but the final agreed costs were not even sufficient to cover her bill.