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

Sunday Express 9 Feb 2014 - MADELEINE - There REALLY WAS a COVER-UP

Page 10 of 12 Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 9, 10, 11, 12  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: Sunday Express 9 Feb 2014 - MADELEINE - There REALLY WAS a COVER-UP

Post by j.rob on 16.02.14 13:05

@canada12 wrote:Just a thought. I wonder if it was someone else's job to jemmy the shutters from the outside...and they bailed on Gerry and didn't do it. And didn't bother telling Gerry that they'd bailed. Then we get Gerry insisting that the shutters were jemmied and Kate ranting on about the window being open - according to the script they'd drawn up. Except that one little piece of the jigsaw puzzle hadn't been done.

So who might have been tasked with the job? One of the Tapas group who were doing their "checks"?

If it was one of them, it could be a kind of fail-safe detail for them. Their silence in return for Gerry's silence regarding their involvement?

Just an opinion.
This is a good point. It was a fairly elementary mistake for family members who were in the UK to be telling reporters that the shutters had been broken when it was obvious that they hadn't. And there was concrete evidence for that.

This strikes me as a major stumbling block. So was someone supposed to 'jemmy' the shutters but then bailed out?

The roles of Matt and Russell are extremely interesting. They left the dinner table at a critical time. According to Kate, she got up to check on her children at 9.30pm and at exactly the same time Matt got up and offered to check for her. Russell also got up. If you look at the witness statements, they all give slightly different accounts of this episode.

In her book Kate lays the responsibility for the 'check' firmly on Matt's shoulders. She claims that he did not go inside the children's bedroom but only stood at the door and, although he saw the twins, he did not have a view of Madeleine's bed but merely assumed that, as there was no noise or crying or sign of disturbance, everything was okay.

However Matt gives a version of events in which both he and Russell got up from the table at the same time. Kate, interestingly, does not refer to this despite its obvious importance. From Matt's statements to the police, he implies that the two of them went off together to check on their own children and then to check on the McCann children. There is definitely a sense of  'shared responsibility' for this task.

But looking at Russell's statement, he plays down any role in checking on the McCanns. Although Matt, in one of his statements, claims that he and Russell 'debated'  which apartment to go to first (in other words would they first go to the McCanns or would they check their own children) Russell wanted to check on his own child first. As the child had supposedly been sick, he stayed in the apartment. Matt checked on his child and everything was fine. The two then spoke but their witness statements appear to give conflicting accounts as to where. Matt seems to suggest he went to Russell's apartment (which would make more sense given that Russell's child was supposedly ill) and Russell said he was staying there because of the sick child. But Russell seems to suggest that he briefly left his own apartment, and went to Matt's apartment to tell him he was staying with his child who was ill. 

Either way, it appears that Russell 'bailed out' in terms of the McCann children check. (And Kate certainly does not refer to the possibility of Russell checking on her children in her book). Therefore the onus fell squarely onto Matt's shoulders. However, it also appears that Matt, while he indeed professes that he looked in on the McCann two  he managed to avoid looking at the third McCann - namely Madeleine, as he couldn't see her bed from where he was standing at the bedroom door.

So Matt did not, in actual fact,  do what Kate wrote he said he would do on page 71 of her book, namely: "He offered to look in on our three." In the event, he looked in (literally - he looked in through the half open door) on Kate's two (and in Matt's statement he describes seeing the twins chests moving, indicating they were breathing) but not on Kate's third.

Clever old Russell - didn't get lumbered with any 'looking in' through that pesky moving door, and instead had a great 'get out of jail card' as his child had, apparently, been sick all over the bed so he got Matt to do the donkey work. But Matt also managed to avoid being a first hand witness to any unpleasant discoveries by simply 'looking in' as opposed to 'looking at'. 

Kate in her book writes that it is nobodies fault that she didn't check on the children herself. Which is an odd thing to have written. If she HAD checked herself, then we are left to assume that it would have been Kate who would have discovered that Madeleine had been stolen from her bed (as indeed she apparently did, only half an hour later). Whereas by allowing Russell and Matt to do the checking, there was the possibility that one or other of them might have been the first people to witness Madeleine's disappearance, had they actually gone inside the bedroom.

And how could Kate have known in advance that neither Matt nor Russell would actually look right inside the apartment to check that all three children were inside leaving her, instead, to make the grisly discovery half an hour later at 10pm? Did Kate assume they would check on all three? Or not?


The bedroom door is most certainly a key player in the drama,  going from slightly ajar or not half way open (as they McCanns left it) to 'further ajar' (when Gerry checked at 9.05) to half open again (when Matt looked in on the McCanns two) to 'open quite wide' (when Kate checked at 10pm).

And the door may well have hidden the abductor who Kate believes may have been hiding behind the door when Gerry did the 9.05pm check.

The shutters are also major players. Matt, in his witness statement, describes how the McCann children's bedroom was lighter than his own child's bedroom which he thought was a bit strange. In other words the implication being that the shutters could have been open allowing light in from outside. In other words implying that someone had raised the shutters - the implication being that that someone could have been Madeleine's abductor.

This is quite revealing in the context of the shutters, which are clearly a key to the Madeleine mystery. Given the claims by McCann family members that the shutters had been 'jemmied' one wonders who was assigned this role, if anyone. And given that Matt gives quite a long description of how the room was lighter than he would have expected, one must assume that he is referring to the likelihood of the shutters being open when he looked into the bedroom at 9.30pm

And if the shutters WERE open at 9.30pm, as assumed by Matt's description, then that raises the likelihood of the abductor already having got into the apartment by that time. And Kate writes at length in her book about children's bedroom door having been opened wider by the abductor. And she clearly wants people to believe that an abductor had already been into the apartment when Gerry checks at 9.05 (description of the bedroom door being wider open).

And although the shutters were clearly key players on the night of the alleged abduction, by the time she wrote her book, Kate is allowing for other possibilities as to how the intruder got in and out of the apartment. Maybe through the shutters, maybe through the door, maybe in one way and out the other way. Maybe the shutters were opened by the abductor just to throw everyone off the scent.

Maybe the abductor even had keys to the apartment, she speculates and came in and/or out by the front door. 

And if the abductor did have keys that would, presumably, mean that either it was an 'inside job' abduction (eg: someone who had a set of keys to the McCann apartment - cleaner/staff member/friend) or someone had stolen the (spare or main) set of keys to the McCann apartment and/or had had copies of their apartment keys made.

This raises interesting possibilities with regard to burglaries as well as abductions, for instance. If you have the key to the apartment, you can simply let yourself in and take what you want, whether that be someone's jewelry or someone's child.

But, whichever way you look at things there are at least three key inanimate players from the very outset - the shutters, the children's bedroom door and the key to the apartment. 

And there are clearly more than a few human players. 

And although Matt must have felt awful that he didn't actually look inside the apartment enough to check on the third child, in some ways it may have been a relief that at least he wasn't the first witness to this terrible crime. And, indeed, once Jane Tanner confided in the group that she had seen Tannerman walking away with a child at around 9.15pm that could have been Madeleine, Matt must have felt a lot better. Because it meant that, even if he had looked further into the apartment to check on Madeleine, she had already been stolen. So he wouldn't have prevented the abduction as it happened before his check. And he wasn't the first hand witness to a terrible crime.

Phew! And Russell must have felt relieved that he was spared any responsibility for not noticing whether Madeleine was missing from her bed, as he had to stay in his own apartment. Double phew!

Okay, the alarm would have been raised at 9.30pm rather than 10pm so the police would have arrived a bit earlier. But seeing as neither the McCanns or their friends actually used their mobiles to call the police that evening  (in fact, poor old Matt seems to have been doing the donkey work - again! - running backwards and forwards to the Ocean Club reception like some kind of demented carrier pigeon in the days before the invention of the telephone!)

But - hang on! Didn't some of the eye-witnesses at the Ocean Club report that they heard a commotion and the news that a child had gone missing much earlier than 10pm - more like times between 9.15pm up to 9.55pm? How could that be, when Kate McCann was, according to her,  the person who discovered that Madeleine had been stolen from her bed. And she didn't check until 10pm, as clearly outlined in her book.

All  soooo confusing. And, as Kate writes in her book: "I know it's nobodies fault that I didn't I would have noticed that the door was not how we'd left it - something that nobody could have expected to be apparent to Matt - and raised the alarm sooner."

But, suppose it was 'somebodies' fault? What would that mean?

j.rob

Posts : 2243
Reputation : 225
Join date : 2014-02-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Sunday Express 9 Feb 2014 - MADELEINE - There REALLY WAS a COVER-UP

Post by j.rob on 16.02.14 13:15

Still, even if Russell did bail out, at least Jane Tanner managed to get Matt out of a hole! And seeing as it could never been proven whether she had actually seen the abductor, she was on relatively safe territory. And it sowed a very strong seed for a random mystery abductor who stole Madeleine from her bed that night and who disappeared into the night and who could be - practically anywhere in the whole wide world! Kept a lot of people mighty busy for a very long time. Not to mention lined quite a few people's pockets. 

And cost the gormless old public a fortune in taxes! Not to mention nearly (but not quite) managed to discredit an entire countries police force. And may, in actual fact, lead to the discrediting of another countries police force

Who would have thought it!

j.rob

Posts : 2243
Reputation : 225
Join date : 2014-02-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Sunday Express 9 Feb 2014 - MADELEINE - There REALLY WAS a COVER-UP

Post by Newintown on 16.02.14 13:19

j.rob at 1.05 p.m.

I've copied this para from your post -

So Matt did not, in actual fact,  do what Kate wrote he said he would do on page 71 of her book, namely: "He offered to look in on our three." In the event, he looked in (literally - he looked in through the half open door) on Kate's two (and in Matt's statement he describes seeing the twins chests moving, indicating they were breathing) but not on Kate's third.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * *

There is no way that Matt could have seen the twin in the right hand cot unless he walked into the bedroom as the end of the cot has a solid wooden panel as shown on the photos taken by the PJ of the apartment.  He would have had to walk into the bedroom and peer over the end of the cot to see that twin's chest moving.

It was obviously something thought up at the last moment to cover why Madeleine was actually not seen in her bed by anyone who was supposed to be checking the apartment, oh what a tangled web they weave, as they must have all known that Madeleine was not in her bed.

____________________
Laurie Levenson, Quoted in the Guardian ........

"Never trust an eyewitness whose memory gets better over time"


Newintown

Posts : 1597
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2011-07-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Sunday Express 9 Feb 2014 - MADELEINE - There REALLY WAS a COVER-UP

Post by wjk on 16.02.14 13:40

@Newintown wrote:j.rob at 1.05 p.m.

I've copied this para from your post -

So Matt did not, in actual fact,  do what Kate wrote he said he would do on page 71 of her book, namely: "He offered to look in on our three." In the event, he looked in (literally - he looked in through the half open door) on Kate's two (and in Matt's statement he describes seeing the twins chests moving, indicating they were breathing) but not on Kate's third.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * *

There is no way that Matt could have seen the twin in the right hand cot unless he walked into the bedroom as the end of the cot has a solid wooden panel as shown on the photos taken by the PJ of the apartment.  He would have had to walk into the bedroom and peer over the end of the cot to see that twin's chest moving.

It was obviously something thought up at the last moment to cover why Madeleine was actually not seen in her bed by anyone who was supposed to be checking the apartment, oh what a tangled web they weave, as they must have all known that Madeleine was not in her bed.
And am I right in thinking that the first thing he would have seen as he opened the door would have been madeleine's bed? It was against the wall as you walked in (or looked in).

wjk

Posts : 126
Reputation : 3
Join date : 2012-11-04

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Sunday Express 9 Feb 2014 - MADELEINE - There REALLY WAS a COVER-UP

Post by Newintown on 16.02.14 13:43

@wjk wrote:
@Newintown wrote:j.rob at 1.05 p.m.

I've copied this para from your post -

So Matt did not, in actual fact,  do what Kate wrote he said he would do on page 71 of her book, namely: "He offered to look in on our three." In the event, he looked in (literally - he looked in through the half open door) on Kate's two (and in Matt's statement he describes seeing the twins chests moving, indicating they were breathing) but not on Kate's third.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * *

There is no way that Matt could have seen the twin in the right hand cot unless he walked into the bedroom as the end of the cot has a solid wooden panel as shown on the photos taken by the PJ of the apartment.  He would have had to walk into the bedroom and peer over the end of the cot to see that twin's chest moving.

It was obviously something thought up at the last moment to cover why Madeleine was actually not seen in her bed by anyone who was supposed to be checking the apartment, oh what a tangled web they weave, as they must have all known that Madeleine was not in her bed.
And am I right in thinking that the first thing he would have seen as he opened the door would have been madeleine's bed? It was against the wall as you walked in (or looked in).

Yes, that's what I was getting at.  Matt would have had to walk into the bedroom to see the twin in the cot on the right hand side of the room (because of the wooden panel obscuring his view of the twin) therefore he would have seen Madeleine's bed on the left hand side of the door as he opened it.

Well, actually he would have seen Madeleine's bed on the left hand side when he opened the door whether he walked into the room or not or just looked in.  The door opened to the right so he would have had a clear view of Madeleine's bed to the left.

____________________
Laurie Levenson, Quoted in the Guardian ........

"Never trust an eyewitness whose memory gets better over time"


Newintown

Posts : 1597
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2011-07-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Sunday Express 9 Feb 2014 - MADELEINE - There REALLY WAS a COVER-UP

Post by Tangled Web on 16.02.14 13:47

@Newintown wrote:j.rob at 1.05 p.m.

I've copied this para from your post -

So Matt did not, in actual fact,  do what Kate wrote he said he would do on page 71 of her book, namely: "He offered to look in on our three." In the event, he looked in (literally - he looked in through the half open door) on Kate's two (and in Matt's statement he describes seeing the twins chests moving, indicating they were breathing) but not on Kate's third.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * *

There is no way that Matt could have seen the twin in the right hand cot unless he walked into the bedroom as the end of the cot has a solid wooden panel as shown on the photos taken by the PJ of the apartment.  He would have had to walk into the bedroom and peer over the end of the cot to see that twin's chest moving.

It was obviously something thought up at the last moment to cover why Madeleine was actually not seen in her bed by anyone who was supposed to be checking the apartment, oh what a tangled web they weave, as they must have all known that Madeleine was not in her bed.


Also, the door opened to the right and Madeleine's bed would be seen first, directly ahead and the twins cots would then be seen further to the right. It would be impossible not to see Madeleine's bed on opening the door. It defies logic. Again.

Tangled Web

Posts : 303
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-11-22

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Sunday Express 9 Feb 2014 - MADELEINE - There REALLY WAS a COVER-UP

Post by Newintown on 16.02.14 13:52

@Tangled Web wrote:
@Newintown wrote:j.rob at 1.05 p.m.

I've copied this para from your post -

So Matt did not, in actual fact,  do what Kate wrote he said he would do on page 71 of her book, namely: "He offered to look in on our three." In the event, he looked in (literally - he looked in through the half open door) on Kate's two (and in Matt's statement he describes seeing the twins chests moving, indicating they were breathing) but not on Kate's third.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * *

There is no way that Matt could have seen the twin in the right hand cot unless he walked into the bedroom as the end of the cot has a solid wooden panel as shown on the photos taken by the PJ of the apartment.  He would have had to walk into the bedroom and peer over the end of the cot to see that twin's chest moving.

It was obviously something thought up at the last moment to cover why Madeleine was actually not seen in her bed by anyone who was supposed to be checking the apartment, oh what a tangled web they weave, as they must have all known that Madeleine was not in her bed.


Also, the door opened to the right and Madeleine's bed would be seen first, directly ahead and the twins cots would then be seen further to the right. It would be impossible not to see Madeleine's bed on opening the door. It defies logic. Again.

Yes, Madeleine's bed was to the left of the door so when Matt opened the door (which opened to the right) he must have been able to see the bed whether he went into the room or just stood at the doorway.

____________________
Laurie Levenson, Quoted in the Guardian ........

"Never trust an eyewitness whose memory gets better over time"


Newintown

Posts : 1597
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2011-07-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Sunday Express 9 Feb 2014 - MADELEINE - There REALLY WAS a COVER-UP

Post by worriedmum on 16.02.14 13:57

There were two single beds in that room. At what point did Matt know which one Madeleine was sleeping in ?Bearing in mind it was apparently lighter than he expected? Because the first in his line of sight, IMO, was the one beneath the window-where all the light coming in showed it empty. Wouldn't he then check to see if there was another bed? Phew! Here it is. Oh but hang on-it's empty too........

worriedmum

Posts : 1632
Reputation : 251
Join date : 2012-01-17

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Sunday Express 9 Feb 2014 - MADELEINE - There REALLY WAS a COVER-UP

Post by wjk on 16.02.14 14:03

@Newintown wrote:
@wjk wrote:
@Newintown wrote:j.rob at 1.05 p.m.

I've copied this para from your post -

So Matt did not, in actual fact,  do what Kate wrote he said he would do on page 71 of her book, namely: "He offered to look in on our three." In the event, he looked in (literally - he looked in through the half open door) on Kate's two (and in Matt's statement he describes seeing the twins chests moving, indicating they were breathing) but not on Kate's third.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * *

There is no way that Matt could have seen the twin in the right hand cot unless he walked into the bedroom as the end of the cot has a solid wooden panel as shown on the photos taken by the PJ of the apartment.  He would have had to walk into the bedroom and peer over the end of the cot to see that twin's chest moving.

It was obviously something thought up at the last moment to cover why Madeleine was actually not seen in her bed by anyone who was supposed to be checking the apartment, oh what a tangled web they weave, as they must have all known that Madeleine was not in her bed.
And am I right in thinking that the first thing he would have seen as he opened the door would have been madeleine's bed? It was against the wall as you walked in (or looked in).

Yes, that's what I was getting at.  Matt would have had to walk into the bedroom to see the twin in the cot on the right hand side of the room (because of the wooden panel obscuring his view of the twin) therefore he would have seen Madeleine's bed on the left hand side of the door as he opened it.

Well, actually he would have seen Madeleine's bed on the left hand side when he opened the door whether he walked into the room or not or just looked in.  The door opened to the right so he would have had a clear view of Madeleine's bed to the left.
Agree 100% There is no way he couldn't see Madeleine's bed, whether he walked in or just stood at the partially open door.

wjk

Posts : 126
Reputation : 3
Join date : 2012-11-04

View user profile

Back to top Go down

information

Post by worriedmum on 16.02.14 14:21

From Matthew Oldfield's Rogatory interview,
[color:1df0=000000]So I approached the room but I didn't actually go in because you could see the twins in the cots and one of the, you could see the twins in the cots because they're in with, sort of the cots were in the middle of the room with sort of a gap of about sort of maybe a foot between the two, the cots had sort of got that fabric end and sort of a mesh side, so you could see the sides and you could see them, erm, see them breathing and there were two there and it was all completely quiet. And the other things you could see in the room, there was a, there was another bed at the back underneath the window at the far side and you could see the end of the bed, another bed here. And because I was looking for, you know, well people say, well why didn't you go in the room, why didn't you check on Madeleine, you were, you said you'd go and check, but it was just that, we were just satisfying ourselves that nobody was upset and awake and crying, we didn't expect that if I checked each three beds somebody, it just wasn’t sort of something that you thought about, you just thought, you know, is somebody, you know, upset, do they want their mum or something, you can say, you know, somebody might have vomited and you wouldn't know about it, but there was, you know, nobody was awake, you thought, if something, just one, it'd be, it'd sort of feel a bit odd, you know, from the draughts, you know, when Kate went in something about the door shutting, there was, I presume, a through draught. So I just sort of went towards the doorway, I didn't step over the threshold, I didn't see Madeleine and I didn't check, I turned round and came back out, said all was quiet when I got back to the table and then we went on with food.[color:1df0=000000]''

worriedmum

Posts : 1632
Reputation : 251
Join date : 2012-01-17

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Sunday Express 9 Feb 2014 - MADELEINE - There REALLY WAS a COVER-UP

Post by jeanmonroe on 16.02.14 14:41

Yes, Madeleine's bed was to the left of the door so when Matt opened the door (which opened to the right) he must have been able to see the bed whether he went into the room or just stood at the doorway.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Three posters have highlighted the door to the kids room was hung on the RIGHT hand side of the door frame and OPENED to the RIGHT.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

I posted on both the CW programmes, UK and German, on the day they were broadcast that both programmes portrayed the door to the kids room hanging on the LEFT of the door frame opening to the LEFT.

Now WHY would TWO professional programme makers both make the EXACT same 'mistake'?

They had all the 'files, statements, lots of videos of the apartment, and INSIDE the apartment, BEFORE their 'broadcasts' YET still 'managed' to get the door on the WRONG side of the door frame!

WHY?

My personal 'favourite' is to make it 'appear' that M. Oldfield couldn't 'see' Madeleines bed because with the door opening to the LEFT, as portrayed in BOTH CW's, the door would 'block' off Madeleine's bed completely from MO's 'sight'

Now WHY would BOTH CW's want the viewing public to 'believe' that?

The BBC CW cost almost £750,000-£1 million to 'make' yet they get which side of the door frame the door was hanging WRONG!

NO WAY!

They diliberately did it for a 'reason'

All we have got to do is figure out WHY both CW's did that.

Despite them both having access to the apartment layout from the INSIDE and seeing for themselves the door hanging to the RIGHT.

Thus not 'obscuring' Madeleine's bed from anyone's 'sight'

BTW. The 2 CW's programmes dipicting the door on the LEFT totally contradicts/demolishes Kate McCann's dipicted 'demonstration' of HOW she 'closed' the kids room door 'from the RIGHT' and how the door slammed shut, from her RIGHT, in her OWN 'version' of events in the 'Mockumentary' the McCanns had made with the help of Emma Loach!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhACS6ck-Dw

First 1 minute 33 secs all you need to know about KM and door 'hanging' to the RIGHT.

NOT as both CW's showed, 'hanging' to the LEFT! (to give MO an 'excuse' for not seeing Madeleine's bed?)

WHY would both programmes do THAT?

jeanmonroe

Posts : 5133
Reputation : 886
Join date : 2013-02-07

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Sunday Express 9 Feb 2014 - MADELEINE - There REALLY WAS a COVER-UP

Post by justathought on 16.02.14 14:52

@worriedmum wrote:From Matthew Oldfield's Rogatory interview,
[color:7fc7=000000]So I approached the room but I didn't actually go in because you could see the twins in the cots and one of the, you could see the twins in the cots because they're in with, sort of the cots were in the middle of the room with sort of a gap of about sort of maybe a foot between the two, the cots had sort of got that fabric end and sort of a mesh side, so you could see the sides and you could see them, erm, see them breathing and there were two there and it was all completely quiet. And the other things you could see in the room, there was a, there was another bed at the back underneath the window at the far side and you could see the end of the bed, another bed here. And because I was looking for, you know, well people say, well why didn't you go in the room, why didn't you check on Madeleine, you were, you said you'd go and check, but it was just that, we were just satisfying ourselves that nobody was upset and awake and crying, we didn't expect that if I checked each three beds somebody, it just wasn’t sort of something that you thought about, you just thought, you know, is somebody, you know, upset, do they want their mum or something, you can say, you know, somebody might have vomited and you wouldn't know about it, but there was, you know, nobody was awake, you thought, if something, just one, it'd be, it'd sort of feel a bit odd, you know, from the draughts, you know, when Kate went in something about the door shutting, there was, I presume, a through draught. So I just sort of went towards the doorway, I didn't step over the threshold, I didn't see Madeleine and I didn't check, I turned round and came back out, said all was quiet when I got back to the table and then we went on with food.[color:7fc7=000000]''
Putting things in perspective as to the validity of MO's so called "check".
We have someone whom has been entrusted with ensuring three young children were safe and well. MO allegedly takes the trouble to access the apartment and walks to the bedrooms entrance. However for some strange reason , then does not take a "small step" literally, to ensure that Madeleine is safe. Does not even take the trouble to crane his neck around the bedroom door. Irrespective of this could well have seen Madeleine's bed from his alleged vantage point. 
MO's evidence is vitally important to the case, he was the last person whom could have seen Madeleine alive. Not least now that JT's sighting has been disproved. He therefore would seem a prime candidate to be reinterviewed by SY/PJ once again. If this has not already been done. As well as GM, given his 9.05pm "check"?

justathought

Posts : 141
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2012-07-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Sunday Express 9 Feb 2014 - MADELEINE - There REALLY WAS a COVER-UP

Post by Guest on 16.02.14 15:08

@wjk wrote:
@Newintown wrote:j.rob at 1.05 p.m.

I've copied this para from your post -

So Matt did not, in actual fact,  do what Kate wrote he said he would do on page 71 of her book, namely: "He offered to look in on our three." In the event, he looked in (literally - he looked in through the half open door) on Kate's two (and in Matt's statement he describes seeing the twins chests moving, indicating they were breathing) but not on Kate's third.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * *

There is no way that Matt could have seen the twin in the right hand cot unless he walked into the bedroom as the end of the cot has a solid wooden panel as shown on the photos taken by the PJ of the apartment.  He would have had to walk into the bedroom and peer over the end of the cot to see that twin's chest moving.

It was obviously something thought up at the last moment to cover why Madeleine was actually not seen in her bed by anyone who was supposed to be checking the apartment, oh what a tangled web they weave, as they must have all known that Madeleine was not in her bed.
And am I right in thinking that the first thing he would have seen as he opened the door would have been madeleine's bed? It was against the wall as you walked in (or looked in).
IF you'd first switched on a light -any light- in any one room of the apartment

There is no mention of that at all IMO;

Also: MO admits seeing the bed near the window.
Is it likely he saw a bed but he did not see the emptiness of that bed?

Nowhere has he said he spotted something in/on that bed;

Is it credible, can any normal human being believe, that he would have gone over to the Big Round Table, sat himself down and would have said:

1.I saw two cots, two children, their little chests heaving, breathing;

2.and I also noticed the bed near the window was empty

KH/GM: "And what about our Maddie Matt, how was she?"

MO: Maddie who? Uh?

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Sunday Express 9 Feb 2014 - MADELEINE - There REALLY WAS a COVER-UP

Post by jeanmonroe on 16.02.14 15:19

I think the plan of the McCanns was that JT was to 'see Madeleine' being 'carried' off and MO was to 'discover' her 'gone' thus totally ruling themselves out as the LAST 'people' to see Madeleine. Ergo, her 'disappearance' had absolutely 'nothing to do with US'

Because 2(TWO) 'independant witnesses' were the LAST to have 'seen/seen her gone from her bed'

With 'friends' like the McCanns why would JT/MO need enemies?  winkwink winkwink

jeanmonroe

Posts : 5133
Reputation : 886
Join date : 2013-02-07

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Sunday Express 9 Feb 2014 - MADELEINE - There REALLY WAS a COVER-UP

Post by Guest on 16.02.14 15:39

BTW

What a remarkable coincidence that in the only room where a small child was the victim of a disappearance just moments before or after, the very man volunteering to check on her safety omitted to look for her? 

Statistically, how are the odds on the trusted, professional volunteer-watchman ONLY neglecting his self-sought SINGLE assignment with the ONLY child which disappeared?

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Sunday Express 9 Feb 2014 - MADELEINE - There REALLY WAS a COVER-UP

Post by worriedmum on 16.02.14 15:46

Just looking at the picture above again,I am surprised Matt didn't say ' I thought she was in the bed under the window'.
To paraphrase Kate,''I looked at the bed and I couldn't quite make it out, was that the bedding or was that Madeleine..''

Matt would have seen bedding rumpled and his view obscured by two cots.

SO

I repeat, AT WHAT POINT DID MATT KNOW WHICH BED MADELEINE WAS SLEEPING IN?

Also,
HOW COULD MATT 'MAKE OUT THE TWINS BREATHING' BUT KATE COULDN'T TELL IF IT WAS' MADELEINE OR THE COVERS'? 

The bed looks tidier on other pictures, with the covers neatly folded back. Which would fit in with Gerry's version of Madeleine lying on top of the covers?

worriedmum

Posts : 1632
Reputation : 251
Join date : 2012-01-17

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Sunday Express 9 Feb 2014 - MADELEINE - There REALLY WAS a COVER-UP

Post by DurhamGuy1967 on 16.02.14 15:52

I've read lots about this and never realised the variety of layout plans for 4a. 

I found this on http://www.mccannfiles.com/id21.html  The caption says..."This is the 1st picture to show the interior of Madeleine's bedroom, from where she was allegedly abducted. The picture was taken through the front window after the police had completed their forensic investigation"
Where is the door? 

DurhamGuy1967

Posts : 138
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2013-10-20

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Sunday Express 9 Feb 2014 - MADELEINE - There REALLY WAS a COVER-UP

Post by Woofer on 16.02.14 15:59

@ Durham Guy - the door swings back behind the end of the wardrobes.  GA didn`t think an intruder could fit behind the door and obviously didn`t think anyone could fit in the wardrobe.

Woofer

Posts : 3390
Reputation : 12
Join date : 2012-02-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Sunday Express 9 Feb 2014 - MADELEINE - There REALLY WAS a COVER-UP

Post by DurhamGuy1967 on 16.02.14 16:01

@Woofer wrote:@ Durham Guy - the door swings back behind the end of the wardrobes.  GA didn`t think an intruder could fit behind the door and obviously didn`t think anyone could fit in the wardrobe.
yep see that now

DurhamGuy1967

Posts : 138
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2013-10-20

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Sunday Express 9 Feb 2014 - MADELEINE - There REALLY WAS a COVER-UP

Post by Guest on 16.02.14 16:26

@DurhamGuy1967 wrote:I've read lots about this and never realised the variety of layout plans for 4a. 

I found this on http://www.mccannfiles.com/id21.html  The caption says..."This is the 1st picture to show the interior of Madeleine's bedroom, from where she was allegedly abducted. The picture was taken through the front window after the police had completed their forensic investigation"
Where is the door? 
Is this really the childrens' bedroom?

Where are the cots?

Whence the baby-chair?

How come the bedding is all askew?

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Sunday Express 9 Feb 2014 - MADELEINE - There REALLY WAS a COVER-UP

Post by diatribe on 16.02.14 17:32

@j.rob wrote:



but I think it is true that Madeleine may well have been removed ('taken') from the apartment that evening. The McCanns were behind what happened but it doesn't mean they necessarily physically removed Madeleine or her body. Maybe the chaos that ensued, before the police arrived, provided a cover for a person to scuttle away, perhaps, carrying Madeleine.

But who and for what reason would a friend or acquaintance agree to participate in a criminal enterprise with the McCanns. It couldn't have been for money because at the time the McCanns were financially strapped for cash. None of their associates would have been criminally minded, let alone had any previous dealings with the police, thereby making them extremely vulnerable to the slightest pressure exerted by the aforementioned. Lets have it right, as was the case with the Krays, there wasn't a staunch henchman such as George Foreman on hand to dispose of a body.

Would you put your trust in a straight person to dispose of a body for you with any confidence. The McCann's friends weren't people with vast criminal experience who had grown up together on the mean streets of South London, they were university graduates from middle class backgrounds who'd scream like stuck pigs at the very thought of a few hrs. in police custody. Gerry McCann's entire cavalier attitude of 'Prove it if you can' oozes confidence that Madeleine's body will never be discovered and that type of confidence doesn't emanate from a person who knows that his destiny lays in the hands of others who could expose him at any time.

As previously stated, there is no honour amongst friends any more than there is with thieves and with the amount of money and offers of immunity from prosecution, you can bet your last cent that had anyone possessed such information, the McCanns would have been offered up as sacrificial lambs many moons ago.There are only two people on this planet who know for certain that Madeleine is dead and where her remains are interred. They are the same two who are perpetually attempting to convince the world and his wife that she is still alive. Whilst this illusion is maintained, it makes it more difficult for the authorities to instigate charges against them and also keeps their donation fund ticking over.

diatribe

Posts : 602
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-11-15
Location : London

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Sunday Express 9 Feb 2014 - MADELEINE - There REALLY WAS a COVER-UP

Post by Tangled Web on 16.02.14 18:14

@Portia wrote:
@DurhamGuy1967 wrote:I've read lots about this and never realised the variety of layout plans for 4a. 

I found this on http://www.mccannfiles.com/id21.html  The caption says..."This is the 1st picture to show the interior of Madeleine's bedroom, from where she was allegedly abducted. The picture was taken through the front window after the police had completed their forensic investigation"
Where is the door? 
Is this really the childrens' bedroom?

Where are the cots?

Whence the baby-chair?

How come the bedding is all askew?

It looks like a different room to me too.

Tangled Web

Posts : 303
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-11-22

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Sunday Express 9 Feb 2014 - MADELEINE - There REALLY WAS a COVER-UP

Post by Newintown on 16.02.14 18:29

@Tangled Web wrote:
@Portia wrote:
@DurhamGuy1967 wrote:I've read lots about this and never realised the variety of layout plans for 4a. 

I found this on http://www.mccannfiles.com/id21.html  The caption says..."This is the 1st picture to show the interior of Madeleine's bedroom, from where she was allegedly abducted. The picture was taken through the front window after the police had completed their forensic investigation"
Where is the door? 
Is this really the childrens' bedroom?

Where are the cots?

Whence the baby-chair?

How come the bedding is all askew?

It looks like a different room to me too.

It is a different room.  Worriedmum at 3.46 p.m. has posted a photo of Madeleine's and the twins' room as taken by the Police on 3rd/4th May 2007.

This is the link to the photos taken -

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id155.html

ETA: taken out reference to inner window as it could be a mirror.

____________________
Laurie Levenson, Quoted in the Guardian ........

"Never trust an eyewitness whose memory gets better over time"


Newintown

Posts : 1597
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2011-07-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Sunday Express 9 Feb 2014 - MADELEINE - There REALLY WAS a COVER-UP

Post by Guest on 16.02.14 18:32

I thought that was a mirror (not window partition)  as there was a chest of drawers there originally I think, and it was over that.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

there was a cover up

Post by travis macbickle on 16.02.14 18:36

@diatribe wrote:
@j.rob wrote:



but I think it is true that Madeleine may well have been removed ('taken') from the apartment that evening. The McCanns were behind what happened but it doesn't mean they necessarily physically removed Madeleine or her body. Maybe the chaos that ensued, before the police arrived, provided a cover for a person to scuttle away, perhaps, carrying Madeleine.

But who and for what reason would a friend or acquaintance agree to participate in a criminal enterprise with the McCanns. It couldn't have been for money because at the time the McCanns were financially strapped for cash. None of their associates would have been criminally minded, let alone had any previous dealings with the police, thereby making them extremely vulnerable to the slightest pressure exerted by the aforementioned. Lets have it right, as was the case with the Krays, there wasn't a staunch henchman such as George Foreman on hand to dispose of a body.

Would you put your trust in a straight person to dispose of a body for you with any confidence. The McCann's friends weren't people with vast criminal experience who had grown up together on the mean streets of South London, they were university graduates from middle class backgrounds who'd scream like stuck pigs at the very thought of a few hrs. in police custody. Gerry McCann's entire cavalier attitude of 'Prove it if you can' oozes confidence that Madeleine's body will never be discovered and that type of confidence doesn't emanate from a person who knows that his destiny lays in the hands of others who could expose him at any time.

As previously stated, there is no honour amongst friends any more than there is with thieves and with the amount of money and offers of immunity from prosecution, you can bet your last cent that had anyone possessed such information, the McCanns would have been offered up as sacrificial lambs many moons ago.There are only two people on this planet who know for certain that Madeleine is dead and where her remains are interred. They are the same two who are perpetually attempting to convince the world and his wife that she is still alive. Whilst this illusion is maintained, it makes it more difficult for the authorities to instigate charges against them and also keeps their donation fund ticking over.
freddie foreman,george foreman was a champion boxer and  is a very nice guy by all accounts!

travis macbickle

Posts : 51
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-11-27
Age : 69
Location : nyc

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Page 10 of 12 Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 9, 10, 11, 12  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


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