The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™
Hi,

A very warm welcome to The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™ forum.

Please log in, or register to view all the forums, then settle in and start chatting with us!

Enjoy your day,

Jill Havern
Forum owner

Window open or not???

Page 1 of 2 1, 2  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Window open or not???

Post by pulch on 20.10.13 19:29

I haven't ever posted here before so sorry as I'm sure you've all discussed this a million times before. In the "reconstruction". KM said the window was open and obviously I've read that before. Once and for all was the window open? Did the PJ find it open? 

Also I what is the time line of Tanners movements? Was she away from the table for a length of time?  I keep wondering whether she was describing her self walking along the road with MM. In case SHE was spotted? And it was her taking MM somewhere? 
Sometimes I get the feeling that one of them GM or KM really do believe in the abduction, and the other knows what really happened......
 Thanks.nah

pulch

Posts : 32
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-10-20

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Window open or not???

Post by russiandoll on 20.10.13 19:33

Strangely I have just copied this over from McCannfiles as it is well worth another read , just as you asked a question about that window !


    By Dr Martin Roberts
19 March 2012

CLEAR AS CRYSTAL

Police training, no less than that of a criminologist or any other variety of crime analyst, will doubtless point up the significance of the early stages in any felony, when mistakes on the part of the guilty party are most likely. It's a characteristic of crime that has fuelled many a plot of Agatha Christie's and features heavily in the Hitchcock classic, 'Dial M for Murder.' Even Thomas Hardy's Mayor of Casterbridge is undone in the end by an error of judgement early on in the story. No matter how much time has elapsed, or how many embellishments have been added to the account of Madeleine McCann's disappearance, the solution to the puzzle most probably resides somewhere near the beginning of events as they are known to have unfolded.

Criminals are not necessarily unintelligent. They are human, however, and subject to error like anyone else. Kate McCann, in her book 'Madeleine' confirms just how smart she considers the anonymous abductor of her daughter to have been:

"It wasn't until a year later, when I was combing through the Portuguese police files, that I discovered that the note requesting our block booking was written in a staff message book, which sat on a desk at the pool reception for most of the day. This book was by definition accessible to all staff and, albeit unintentionally, probably to guests and visitors, too. To my horror, I saw that, no doubt in all innocence and simply to explain why she was bending the rules a bit, the receptionist had added the reason for our request: we wanted to eat close to our apartments as we were leaving our young children alone there and checking on them intermittently."

If not a speaker of Portuguese, he will have done remarkably well to have garnered the significance of this dining schedule, written in Portuguese, from a glance inside a staff notebook.

Persistent references over time to Paedophiles and 'rings' thereof implies that the suspect was felt to have had some 'previous,' and not to be confused with opportunists. Indeed they had been studying the McCanns' every movement apparently. According to Kate McCann, 'They'd been watching us for several days, I'm sure.' Anyone capable of adopting a methodical approach such as this is unlikely then to go on and do something absolutely dumb subsequently.

In just the same way that cardiologists are trained to recognise symptoms of cardiac disorder, so investigative police, whatever their nationality, know and understand the hallmarks of a crime. It's what they do. Just as the bed-ridden patient is not called upon to interpret the trace of the oscilloscope to which he or she is attached, police judgement in matters of criminal investigation should be respected. They can tell, for instance, if they are looking for a 'seasoned pro' following a burglary, or a rank amateur, simply from the way in which a set of drawers has been rifled (the practised burglar will waste no time, 'working' a chest of drawers from the bottom up, not top down).

So then, we have a shrewd suspect with a reasonable I.Q. But even intelligence has its limitations. No amount of studying the McCann family at play would have told him which of two bedrooms the children occupied. Smashing his
way in via the wrong window would not be the smart thing to do. And since the shutters were always down he could not have known, unless he had been invited in previously, who slept where exactly.

(Kate McCann (6 Sept., 2007): "The window to Madeleine's bedroom remained closed, but she doesn't know if it was locked, shutters and curtains drawn, and that was how it remained since the first day, night and day. She never opened it. If somebody saw the window shutters in Madeleine's room open, it was not the deponent who opened them, and she never saw them open." ).

Is it possible that manipulation of the window was the culprit's first and biggest mistake? Kate and Gerry McCann both confirmed on 4 May that Kate had discovered it disturbed the previous night:

"At 10pm, his wife Kate went to check on the children. She went into the apartment through the door using her key and saw right away that the children's bedroom door was completely open, the window was also open, the shutters raised and the curtains drawn open. The side door that opens into the living room, which as said earlier, was never locked, was closed." (Gerry McCann).

"At around 10pm, the witness came to check on the children. She went into the apartment by the side door, which was closed, but unlocked, as already said, and immediately noticed that the door to her children's bedroom was completely open, the window was also open, the shutters raised and the curtains open, while she was certain of having closed them all as she always did." (Kate McCann).

It seems so obvious. Until, that is, one gives more careful thought to the practice of abduction in this instance and the simple logistics of breaking and entering.

Kate McCann again, in 'Madeleine:'

"For a long while we would assume that the abductor had entered and exited through the window of the children's bedroom, but it is equally possible that he used the patio doors or even had a key to the front door. Perhaps he'd either come in or gone out via the window, not both; perhaps he hadn't been through it at all, but had opened it to prepare an emergency escape route if needed, or merely to throw investigators off the scent. He could have been in and out of the apartment more than once between our visits."

No one but an idiot would struggle to get in through a window only to struggle out the same way. The suspect was no fool and would have left by a door. The bedroom window was either a haphazard option or chosen because it lay on the elevation furthest from where the parents were dining. Then again so did the front door. Clarence Mitchell's remark, 'he got out of the window fairly easily,' said with all the certitude of an established fact, was a lie. Anyone attempting to climb through that window, in either direction, with or without the impediment of a child in his arms, would have had difficulty in doing so, as the police quickly established. It is also appropriate that we deal here with a few of Kate McCann's 'suppositions.'

'He could have been in and out of the apartment more than once between our visits.'

He could have made himself a cup of tea, sat and watched football on the television.

Such wild speculation flies in the face of common sense. How many 'visits' does it take to abduct a child? There was not the time in-between Gerry's 9.05 check and Jane Tanner's 'sighting' minutes later for an abductor to have made several trips to the premises. Given the window as integral to the undertaking, Gerry would have noticed this himself had it been opened earlier. By 10 May, Gerry McCann was 'fully convinced that the abduction took place during the period of time between his check at 21h05 and Matthew's visit at 21H30.' Except that in his earlier (4 May) statement to police this interval of time was punctuated mid-way by the activities of Jane Tanner:

"It is stressed that when one of the members of the group, Jane, went to her apartment to see her children, at around 9.10/9.15 pm, from behind and at a distance of about 50 metres, on the road next to the club, she saw a person carrying a child in pyjamas. Jane will be better able to clarify this situation."

So, one visit - a 'smash and grab.' But without the 'smashing' as it turned out.

'For a long while we would assume that the abductor had entered and exited through the window of the children's bedroom.'

'For a long while,' after the police had established to their satisfaction that no-one had passed through the window at all, seems to reflect a certain stubbornness on the McCanns' part. And yet, 'it is equally possible that he used the patio doors or even had a key to the front door.' Rather more likely, all things considered. But if there's an easy access way in, why contemplate a problematic way out?

'Perhaps he'd either come in or gone out via the window, not both; perhaps he hadn't been through it at all, but had opened it to prepare an emergency escape route if needed, or merely to throw investigators off the scent.'

It is at this point that involvement of the window becomes even more paradoxical. Although 'Elvis' is supposed to have left the building after Gerry McCann, he must have been present inside before him, otherwise he would surely have been noticed approaching the patio, with evil intent, by either Gerry or Jez Wilkins standing opposite the gate outside. There is no other way of accommodating Jane Tanner's 9.15 sighting of him. But if our man had some nefarious purpose in mind for the window then, being something of a forward thinker, he would have carried that purpose in with him just as assuredly as he carried Madeleine out. This means that he could either (a) open the window etc. on first entering the apartment, then pick Madeleine up from her bed, or (b) lift Madeleine up, then draw back the curtains, open the window and raise the shutters with Madeleine in his arms all the while.

It doesn't take much thinking about. But once the window was opened it would have been as obvious to Gerry as it was to Kate. More so in fact, as Gerry stood over his children while they were asleep. Kate's attention was only drawn to the room by the slamming door. If 'Elvis' had prepared an emergency escape route, it would have been done first, not last, and Gerry would have seen it, as the two are supposed to have been in the apartment at the same time, i.e., the window would already have been opened.

For the moment, however, let us play devil's advocate and rescind Kate's attribution of intelligence to the supposed felon, who simply refuses to take the easy route. He waits for Gerry to leave 5A, then springs into action, quickly opening the window, curtains and shutters (audibly to anyone outside) before snatching Madeleine up and marching out through the door (with her body back to front, according to Jane Tanner's description); not forgetting that he tidied Maddie's bed before leaving.

And he opened the window because? Gerry had left, 'Elvis' remained undiscovered, the emergency had passed and intruders do not waste time leaving 'red-herrings.'

But the window served some purpose, surely?

According to Kate McCann ('Madeleine'), Matthew Oldfield was accused by Portuguese investigators of having passed Madeleine out through the window in question. Without drawing Oldfield unnecessarily into the debate, Madeleine's passage through the window in this way is the only rational explanation for the fact that her head and her feet had changed ends by the time she was seen by Jane Tanner. Let us therefore consider what might have happened next.

'Elvis' (who is indoors) hands Madeleine to an accomplice, who, punctual to a fault, is waiting outside the window. He (the accomplice) then marches off, stage left, across the road ahead of Jane Tanner. 'Elvis' himself now leaves the building through the front door, not the patio (he, like Jane Tanner, goes unnoticed by McCann and Wilkins standing outside) and bolts like Richard Branson in the opposite direction, having gently closed the door behind him. Jane Tanner did not hear a door slam as she approached her own apartment. Nor did she see anyone sprinting down the road ahead of her as she turned the corner, although why the person actually carrying the child should merely amble away is a mystery in itself.

There being no sighting of 'Elvis' fleeing empty-handed means that there was no hand-over either, no accomplice, and no reason for the window to have been opened after all. Yet Kate and Gerry McCann each affirmed (4 May) that that is how it was discovered on the night Madeleine is said to have been 'taken:'

'The window was also open, the shutters raised and the curtains open.' Additionally, Kate herself was 'certain of having closed them all as she always did.'

Let us go back to 'square one' for just a moment. The abductor having entered via the patio, has it in mind, at least, for Madeleine to exit via the window, which he opens for the purpose - fully, having drawn back the curtains - fully, and raised the shutters - fully. No self-respecting criminal is going to make a crime more difficult to accomplish by leaving obstacles in his own path. Now, as we cruise along exploring the hypothetical relevance of an open window to the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, we might consider whether a sail is more likely to billow before a following wind or a lateral one, and whether a curtain bunched to the side of an open window will go 'whoosh' in a gentle breeze. Of course it's more likely to happen if the curtains are in the closed position as Kate describes in the opening scenes of the McCanns' very own documentary, 'Madeleine Was Here:'

"...as I went back in, the curtains of the bedroom which were drawn,... were closed,... whoosh... It was like a gust of wind, kinda, just blew them open."

If the curtains were in his way at all then 'Elvis' did not pass either Madeleine's body or his own through the window, which he would not have opened simply to let the air in. Nor would he have bothered to reset the curtains afterwards, just as he didn't close the window or lower the shutter, apparently.

Despite the presence of her fingerprints alone, Kate McCann is adamant that she did not open the window. Which leaves a Portuguese speaking visitor to the Ocean Club, who checked on a staff notebook earlier in the week, paid several visits to 5A, then checked to see that the McCanns were actually at the Tapas restaurant on the Thursday night (wouldn't you?) before arranging the scenery at their apartment that night.

As for who actually 'abducted' Madeleine McCann, and when... Well, that's another story.

......................................................................

____________________



             The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie — deliberate,
contrived and dishonest — but the myth — persistent, persuasive and
unrealistic.
~John F. Kennedy


russiandoll

Posts : 3942
Reputation : 7
Join date : 2011-09-11

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Window open or not???

Post by chillyheat on 20.10.13 19:36

I think Gerry had this all wrapped up very early on. I believe he leaned on many within the group and possibly proved to them he had important connections. His closest buddy at the time has stood back. I don't reckon its for his own protection now, Its because there was a power play in effect, and its continued to this day. That's why Madeleines scrap book was used early on....

chillyheat

Posts : 814
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2013-10-15

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Window open or not???

Post by pulch on 20.10.13 19:46

Mmmm thanks russiandoll. So was it open when the police got there? Or had they closed it because of the twins sleeping?

pulch

Posts : 32
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-10-20

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Window open or not???

Post by Smokeandmirrors on 20.10.13 19:57

@pulch wrote:Mmmm thanks russiandoll. So was it open when the police got there? Or had they closed it because of the twins sleeping?
My question too, as a long time since I read the files.

One observation is that the whole lot of them really struggled when describing their own movements, activities and other tangible aspects of the 5 days they were there, but Kate and Gerry could dwell quite happily on the minute details that they would use to say they KNEW it was an abduction.

If you could not remember which door you physically walked through, or on what day Madeleine played tennis (the famous disputed photo) would you remember a few centimetres difference in door position, particularly as alleged checks were occurring?

All the detail when deflecting attention away from yourself, no substantive detail when expected, quite rightly, to account for ones own movements.

____________________
The truth will out.

Smokeandmirrors
Moderator

Posts : 2428
Reputation : 5
Join date : 2011-07-31

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Window open or not???

Post by plebgate on 20.10.13 20:09

How can you not remember what door you walked through?  I sure would not like to be one of his patients if he cannot remember something as simple as that.

plebgate

Posts : 5441
Reputation : 1156
Join date : 2013-02-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Window open or not???

Post by pulch on 20.10.13 20:22

I just don't understand why they would make a big deal out of the door. My daughter is 4 and she ALWAYS gets up in the night. If her door was open I'd presume that she opened it! Unless of course I had given her a sedative...
If my daughter woke up and I wasn't here she would be terrified, she would look for me...and IMO that's what MM did. The dogs sniffed out of the patio door round near the swimming pool. Looked dark on the pic in the paper. Then the scent crossed the road.
Maybe she was found dead and moved. I'm babbling. But their selective memory is odd. Doors, windows, routes, checking........

pulch

Posts : 32
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-10-20

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Window open or not???

Post by chillyheat on 20.10.13 21:55

The scrapbook was written for one reason....Others began to fully understand what power was crawling over them. Gerry had them all in line within minutes. It was his daughters book being mutilated for excuses....

chillyheat

Posts : 814
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2013-10-15

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Window open or not???

Post by chillyheat on 20.10.13 22:05

@pulch wrote:I just don't understand why they would make a big deal out of the door. My daughter is 4 and she ALWAYS gets up in the night. If her door was open I'd presume that she opened it! Unless of course I had given her a sedative...
If my daughter woke up and I wasn't here she would be terrified, she would look for me...and IMO that's what MM did. The dogs sniffed out of the patio door round near the swimming pool. Looked dark on the pic in the paper. Then the scent crossed the road.
Maybe she was found dead and moved. I'm babbling. But their selective memory is odd. Doors, windows, routes, checking........
Your not babbling....Once you start thinking you are, then the ones who will put doubt in your mind will have you doubting yourself......Im babbling now lol....
What Im saying is, no matter how stupid or daft you might think it sounds to others, it does not matter. The truth usually ends coming from anywhere. Throw it all in, if some put it down or throw it off, don't panic.....Just state what you feel...Its an open forum for the truth. We all cannot agree together.
I like this forum, I don't feel like I cant throw theories out there. Get it in the pot...

chillyheat

Posts : 814
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2013-10-15

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Window open or not???

Post by StraightThinking on 21.10.13 8:23

@pulch wrote:If my daughter woke up and I wasn't here she would be terrified, she would look for me...and IMO that's what MM did
Many years ago, when I suggested this sequence of events on one of the early forums, I was subjected to so much abuse that I stopped posting under that name
It appeared to be a deliberate attempt to stifle any discussion based around the woke-and-wandered theory, and I have often wondered why
While I am reminding myself of that, may I compliment the owner and moderators on this board for the way it is run - a lively forum for debate with so much clever academic input exploring all the options, but never spiralling out of control with insults and libels as some of the others did in the past

StraightThinking

Posts : 180
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-10-16

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Window open or not???

Post by MrsC on 21.10.13 8:33

@plebgate wrote:How can you not remember what door you walked through?  I sure would not like to be one of his patients if he cannot remember something as simple as that.
Inebriated perhaps (Dutch courage)? Didn't the group drink a lot of alcohol that night?

____________________
Sooner or later in life, we will all take our own turn being in the position we once had someone else in.

*

The measure of a man's real character is what he would do if he knew he would never be found out...

Thomas Babington Macaulay

MrsC

Posts : 244
Reputation : 30
Join date : 2011-05-12

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Window open or not???

Post by pulch on 21.10.13 9:19

Thanks all.
Sometimes I think we all think too much and focus on the silly things they said under pressure. I don't see a problem with using the sticker book, they are two a penny. What happened is probably going to be a lot simpler than we think. Its probably all got way out of hand. I think they are covering up the fact they left them more than anything sinister. Just got a feeling they did sedate them but Maddie walked out. So many strange things happened, checking the twins breathing etc. But maybe they are just an odd couple.

pulch

Posts : 32
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-10-20

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Window open or not???

Post by plebgate on 21.10.13 11:18

@MrsC wrote:
@plebgate wrote:How can you not remember what door you walked through?  I sure would not like to be one of his patients if he cannot remember something as simple as that.
Inebriated perhaps (Dutch courage)? Didn't the group drink a lot of alcohol that night?
The thing about them having had a bit to drink - it doesn't appear as though any of the police noted that they were inebriated.   It has been said that there were lots of bottles of wine ordered, but with all that toing and froing I wonder how much was actually used.

No, I am afraid being inebriated (imo) does not hold as to why he would not remember what door he used.

Why wait 10 days before telling the police that he was mistaken about it.

plebgate

Posts : 5441
Reputation : 1156
Join date : 2013-02-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Window open or not???

Post by nomendelta on 21.10.13 11:29

@pulch wrote:Thanks all.
Sometimes I think we all think too much and focus on the silly things they said under pressure. I don't see a problem with using the sticker book, they are two a penny. What happened is probably going to be a lot simpler than we think. Its probably all got way out of hand. I think they are covering up the fact they left them more than anything sinister. Just got a feeling they did sedate them but Maddie walked out. So many strange things happened, checking the twins breathing etc. But maybe they are just an odd couple.
But the point about the sticker book is multi-fold...of all the things to use, the missing child's sticker book? You telling me they couldn't get something else  to write on? A book which could well turn out to be the last book the child used? The fact that they concentrated on writing a timeline rather than hunting for Maddie - I cannot think of any group of people I know that would, upon discovering one of their children is missing, would prioritise writing a timeline rather than going out looking for the child. Seriously - in those vital first hours what is more important? Searching or making sure everyone has their story straight? After all it's not like getting the story straight has helped the search in any way - we've got a whole series of discrepancies about the timeline (not the least of which is the amazing Bundleman) - so why the priority unless it was used to hide something?

The sticker book tells us a lot about their mindset and priorities that night.

nomendelta

Posts : 308
Reputation : 21
Join date : 2011-05-20

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Window open or not???

Post by joyce1938 on 21.10.13 11:34

I think I am right in saying ,that although the problem was made worse by letting all and sudry into the apartment that night , there were no finger prints found of any stranger ,just the people that  been there friends of the macs. I cant imagine with all that had to happen windows or doors blinds etc all messed with ,there was found just mothers prints ,not where they would have been if opened from outside,. I saw film of 2 ex detectives of british police ,looking and testing said window and remarked  only one set from mother from inside  as far as they could see. That should answer a few questions about who and if wndow was ysed that night. joyce1938

joyce1938

Posts : 805
Reputation : 86
Join date : 2010-04-20
Age : 77
Location : england

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Window open or not???

Post by russiandoll on 21.10.13 12:02

quote   " The sticker book tells us a lot about their mindset and priorities that night. "


 for sure it does, nomendelta.......for sure it does.

 And exactly whose idea was it......who was the controller at this stage?

____________________



             The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie — deliberate,
contrived and dishonest — but the myth — persistent, persuasive and
unrealistic.
~John F. Kennedy


russiandoll

Posts : 3942
Reputation : 7
Join date : 2011-09-11

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Window open or not???

Post by pulch on 21.10.13 12:13

I get what you mean, why do a timeline instead of looking. Totally weird. I just mean it doesn't bother me it was the sticker book. It is more strange why do it in the first place. Work out who and when they checked. Why the need to get their stories right?

pulch

Posts : 32
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-10-20

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Window open or not???

Post by nomendelta on 21.10.13 12:38

@pulch wrote:I get what you mean, why do a timeline instead of looking. Totally weird. I just mean it doesn't bother me it was the sticker book. It is more strange why do it in the first place. Work out who and when they checked. Why the need to get their stories right?
Indeed, why do it in the first place? If a kid HAD been randomly abducted as is suggested why create the timeline, especially if the checks were so regular?

I do think the sticker book aspect is important too though - many have suggested the "disappearance" was planned and many suggest that it happened two days beforehand...however that sticker book suggests that AT THAT TIME there was some kind of panic otherwise why not have a timeline planned? Why use a child's sticker book? It strikes me as being a fairly spontaneous decision thus suggesting a real panic (maybe not all were in on what really happened?) and also a need to get stories straight.

nomendelta

Posts : 308
Reputation : 21
Join date : 2011-05-20

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Window open or not???

Post by pulch on 21.10.13 14:20

Ahhh I see. Rather than find a decent piece of paper. They QUICKLY wrote on the first thing they found! Exactly in a panic. Writing where or when they checked for their own benefit wasn't going to find Maddie. Writing down where they all searched would of been more helpful. So whatever went wrong happened quickly then? I wonder if it really was 10.00 KM checked? They couldn't of cleared up the blood behind the sofa that quickly leaving behind tiny spots, could they? Where would they have disposed of the cleaning materials? I need to do some more searching on here.......

pulch

Posts : 32
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-10-20

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Window open or not???

Post by Curioser on 21.10.13 14:24

@pulch wrote:I haven't ever posted here before so sorry as I'm sure you've all discussed this a million times before. In the "reconstruction". KM said the window was open and obviously I've read that before. Once and for all was the window open? Did the PJ find it open? 

Also I what is the time line of Tanners movements? Was she away from the table for a length of time?  I keep wondering whether she was describing her self walking along the road with MM. In case SHE was spotted? And it was her taking MM somewhere? 
Sometimes I get the feeling that one of them GM or KM really do believe in the abduction, and the other knows what really happened......
 Thanks.nah
I occasionally wonder whether one organised a clean up to protect the other. But then I remember the Eddie and Keeler and the checked trousers...

____________________
I have no direct knowledge of the case. I'm just reading the files. It's all speculation. Don't sue me!

Curioser

Posts : 166
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2013-05-20

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Window open or not???

Post by pulch on 21.10.13 14:34

It is so annoying that the dogs evidence wasn't clearer!! Why behind that sofa? Would a child bleed from falling down? So many theories. Maybe any cleaning up materials were put behind the sofa??

pulch

Posts : 32
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-10-20

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Window open or not???

Post by dragonfly on 21.10.13 15:00

@russiandoll wrote:Strangely I have just copied this over from McCannfiles as it is well worth another read , just as you asked a question about that window !


    By Dr Martin Roberts
19 March 2012

CLEAR AS CRYSTAL

Police training, no less than that of a criminologist or any other variety of crime analyst, will doubtless point up the significance of the early stages in any felony, when mistakes on the part of the guilty party are most likely. It's a characteristic of crime that has fuelled many a plot of Agatha Christie's and features heavily in the Hitchcock classic, 'Dial M for Murder.' Even Thomas Hardy's Mayor of Casterbridge is undone in the end by an error of judgement early on in the story. No matter how much time has elapsed, or how many embellishments have been added to the account of Madeleine McCann's disappearance, the solution to the puzzle most probably resides somewhere near the beginning of events as they are known to have unfolded.

Criminals are not necessarily unintelligent. They are human, however, and subject to error like anyone else. Kate McCann, in her book 'Madeleine' confirms just how smart she considers the anonymous abductor of her daughter to have been:

"It wasn't until a year later, when I was combing through the Portuguese police files, that I discovered that the note requesting our block booking was written in a staff message book, which sat on a desk at the pool reception for most of the day. This book was by definition accessible to all staff and, albeit unintentionally, probably to guests and visitors, too. To my horror, I saw that, no doubt in all innocence and simply to explain why she was bending the rules a bit, the receptionist had added the reason for our request: we wanted to eat close to our apartments as we were leaving our young children alone there and checking on them intermittently."

If not a speaker of Portuguese, he will have done remarkably well to have garnered the significance of this dining schedule, written in Portuguese, from a glance inside a staff notebook.

Persistent references over time to Paedophiles and 'rings' thereof implies that the suspect was felt to have had some 'previous,' and not to be confused with opportunists. Indeed they had been studying the McCanns' every movement apparently. According to Kate McCann, 'They'd been watching us for several days, I'm sure.' Anyone capable of adopting a methodical approach such as this is unlikely then to go on and do something absolutely dumb subsequently.

In just the same way that cardiologists are trained to recognise symptoms of cardiac disorder, so investigative police, whatever their nationality, know and understand the hallmarks of a crime. It's what they do. Just as the bed-ridden patient is not called upon to interpret the trace of the oscilloscope to which he or she is attached, police judgement in matters of criminal investigation should be respected. They can tell, for instance, if they are looking for a 'seasoned pro' following a burglary, or a rank amateur, simply from the way in which a set of drawers has been rifled (the practised burglar will waste no time, 'working' a chest of drawers from the bottom up, not top down).

So then, we have a shrewd suspect with a reasonable I.Q. But even intelligence has its limitations. No amount of studying the McCann family at play would have told him which of two bedrooms the children occupied. Smashing his
way in via the wrong window would not be the smart thing to do. And since the shutters were always down he could not have known, unless he had been invited in previously, who slept where exactly.

(Kate McCann (6 Sept., 2007): "The window to Madeleine's bedroom remained closed, but she doesn't know if it was locked, shutters and curtains drawn, and that was how it remained since the first day, night and day. She never opened it. If somebody saw the window shutters in Madeleine's room open, it was not the deponent who opened them, and she never saw them open." ).

Is it possible that manipulation of the window was the culprit's first and biggest mistake? Kate and Gerry McCann both confirmed on 4 May that Kate had discovered it disturbed the previous night:

"At 10pm, his wife Kate went to check on the children. She went into the apartment through the door using her key and saw right away that the children's bedroom door was completely open, the window was also open, the shutters raised and the curtains drawn open. The side door that opens into the living room, which as said earlier, was never locked, was closed." (Gerry McCann).

"At around 10pm, the witness came to check on the children. She went into the apartment by the side door, which was closed, but unlocked, as already said, and immediately noticed that the door to her children's bedroom was completely open, the window was also open, the shutters raised and the curtains open, while she was certain of having closed them all as she always did." (Kate McCann).

It seems so obvious. Until, that is, one gives more careful thought to the practice of abduction in this instance and the simple logistics of breaking and entering.

Kate McCann again, in 'Madeleine:'

"For a long while we would assume that the abductor had entered and exited through the window of the children's bedroom, but it is equally possible that he used the patio doors or even had a key to the front door. Perhaps he'd either come in or gone out via the window, not both; perhaps he hadn't been through it at all, but had opened it to prepare an emergency escape route if needed, or merely to throw investigators off the scent. He could have been in and out of the apartment more than once between our visits."

No one but an idiot would struggle to get in through a window only to struggle out the same way. The suspect was no fool and would have left by a door. The bedroom window was either a haphazard option or chosen because it lay on the elevation furthest from where the parents were dining. Then again so did the front door. Clarence Mitchell's remark, 'he got out of the window fairly easily,' said with all the certitude of an established fact, was a lie. Anyone attempting to climb through that window, in either direction, with or without the impediment of a child in his arms, would have had difficulty in doing so, as the police quickly established. It is also appropriate that we deal here with a few of Kate McCann's 'suppositions.'

'He could have been in and out of the apartment more than once between our visits.'

He could have made himself a cup of tea, sat and watched football on the television.


Such wild speculation flies in the face of common sense. How many 'visits' does it take to abduct a child? There was not the time in-between Gerry's 9.05 check and Jane Tanner's 'sighting' minutes later for an abductor to have made several trips to the premises. Given the window as integral to the undertaking, Gerry would have noticed this himself had it been opened earlier. By 10 May, Gerry McCann was 'fully convinced that the abduction took place during the period of time between his check at 21h05 and Matthew's visit at 21H30.' Except that in his earlier (4 May) statement to police this interval of time was punctuated mid-way by the activities of Jane Tanner:


Seriously Have I read this wrong? Is that a real quote? surely not? Who did he think  he was worzel gummidge cup of tea? just get a slice of cake out as well ,while you are at it, while carrying out an abduction, maybe drinking the cup of  tea while hiding behind the childrens door?  who is this meant to be about ??? and on top of that ...........brings us back to watching football
and what did Jane tanner say that Kate said Gerry was gone along time doing?  Seriously Who is Kate meant to be talking about ? an Abductor making a brew and having a cup of tea  or Gerry having a cuppa and watching footie ?




____________________


dragonfly

Posts : 318
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2011-03-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Window open or not???

Post by Angelique on 21.10.13 15:33

dragonfly

No, no its not Kate saying this its Dr. Roberts' taking the mickey saying, he could have made a cup of tea etc. He is saying just how "ludicrous" (sorry) Kate's suggestion of more than one visit by the supposed Abductor. big grin

____________________
Things aren't always what they seem

Angelique

Posts : 1396
Reputation : 35
Join date : 2010-10-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

window closed

Post by columbostogeys on 21.10.13 15:37

It defies logic.

The window was shuttered end of. The abductor if there was one would not have been able to open it from the outside they are SECURITY shutters because of living on the ground floor for one thing.

So the abductor got into the apartment either through front door or patio door. Why would he then need to open the window for what purpose, also wouldnt that necessitate negotiating between two large travel cots and a bed and chair....

So ok he opens the window. Has anyone stood on a bed you wobble all over the place. Can you imagine trying to stand on the bed with a sleeping or drugged child ...... to do what? IF you were merely going to hand the child through a small window after lifting up noisey blinds, wouldnt you have woken up the twins, and most of PDL......sound at night really travels.....

ALSO if you had stood all over the bed by the window it would have been a mess....

Again where was the wardrobe in the childrens room where the perb was supposed to have hidden. IF its by the side of maddys bed he would have had to move maddy out of the way first, or if it was on the other wall oppposite the drawers and other cupboards it was against the bigger travel cot....

IF the window was left wide open and the child taken through the patio wouldnt the fresh air and banging of a door wake the twins up?

If the window was open, and the bedroom door left partially open, and the perb went out the patio with the child the draft would have caused a wind tunnel and shut the bedroom door....it happens to me all the time in my house, when i have the patio door open and the front door open my kitchen door will slam shut...or the front door will....

I think the window was opened quickly afterwards....on SKY at the time it come on the television one of the family said quite clearly McCanns had told them the shutters had been forced and the window opened to get in...we all believed it at first why wouldnt we....

IF they didnt open the window and gently lift the blinds the noise, then how would they explain how the perb got into the apartment as there was NO SIGNS OF A FORCED ENTRY. Even the first GNR said there was NO EVIDENCE of a forced entry and they thought they were simply looking for a child who had wondered off...not an abduction....

No the window is smoke and mirrors..........

____________________
The Dogs Dont Lie
http://eddieandkeela.blogspot.co.uk/

columbostogeys

Posts : 174
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2013-10-15

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Window open or not???

Post by dragonfly on 21.10.13 15:56

@Angelique wrote:dragonfly

No, no its not Kate saying this its Dr. Roberts' taking the mickey saying, he could have made a cup of tea etc. He is saying just how "ludicrous" (sorry) Kate's suggestion of more than one visit by the supposed Abductor. big grin
thank you for clearing that up,  It is that I've read so many quotes that I did not believe to be true that ended up sadly being real  quotes ie ,  if madeleine had an accident why would that be our fault? ask the dogs, the vile description of her images she had of madeleine allowed to be printed in a book, those are just a few , I thought that can't be real and they were! so thats why I question everything , because the unbelievable becomes believable

____________________


dragonfly

Posts : 318
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2011-03-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Page 1 of 2 1, 2  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


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