L-azzeri-lies-in-the-sun: Key Problems

Another gem from the ever ready L-azzeri-lies-in-the-sun, oh how I miss the ready wit and wisdom of our understated old friend Lazzeri  You are never forgotten..

Key Problems

"We’d never lied about anything – not to the police, not to the media, not to anyone else. But now we found ourselves in one of those tricky situations where we just didn’t seem to have a choice."

Kate McCann- 'Madeleine'

Often the McCann couple speak of the ‘missing piece of the puzzle.’

If they could only find this the mystery of how their child came to bemissing would be solved. That one piece eludes them.

But what piece are they speaking of?

1. Who removed the child from the apartment?
 
2. The time at which this happened?

3. Whether she was alive or dead when this happened?

4. If it was indeed Madeleine the Smith family saw on that night being
carried by a man who they described as resembling Gerry McCann?

5. If the person Jane Tanner the friend of the McCanns saw carrying a child was a man or a woman?


What one question out of the many left unanswered, the above being only but a small sample, do they feel if any, is the missing piece, the piece which solves/helps solve the crime?  


So many questions left unanswered in this case, so many contradictions by key witnesses, that to speak of just one piece of a puzzle being missing..?


It is curious they refer to the disappearance of their daughter as 'a puzzle.'   A puzzle with a piece missing!  A piece, which someone else holds!


Anyone in the world, as far as one can tell from Kate McCanns statements, can hold this piece.  Anyone that is, but the McCanns and their friends, those who were present on the night the child vanished without trace! They are not able to help at all.  Seems they are not keen on puzzles.


The person who holds this piece, Kate McCann has said many times, most likely will not be aware that they do, unless of course they purchase a copy of her book 'Madeleine.'  

It's unclear if it's simply the action of purchasing the book which allows the missing piece of the puzzle to surface or if the buyer has to read a chapter or two, or more scarily, read to the end, for the power of Kate's words to penetrate, prompt an until then, buried memory?   Could be one has to read the follow up too, the paperback edition for magic to happen!  


Most though don't consider the case to be a puzzle, but find the statements made by the group to be puzzling.  They simply don't add up.
 

Perhaps if the couple were to apply the same theory as they have regarding Kate's book - that it will prick someone's conscience - and take some time to read back what they have said in statements to police, listen to all of the documentaries they have made, the interviews too, they will see that things don't make a whole lot of sense.   If they could thrash this out with others, the police preferably, it may just result in some progress in this case.  They may even discover that the answer they are looking for they themselves hold, but just were not aware of it?  

If it is possible according to Kate McCann that the 'Madeleine' reading public may hold a key piece and not know it, surely it is equally possible that she may do also, and like the public just needs that little "push" to help her perhaps discover a deeply buried memory!"


No one is, I believe, looking for pieces of a puzzle, just simply seeking the truth.  

One truth!

Conflicting accounts though, make this rather difficult...

According to Gerry McCann in his first statement to police, he and his wife Kate McCann, on their respective checks of the children on the night Madeleine was reported as missing, entered the apartment by the front locked door using their key.


Days later he changed this statement to read that they had both, separately on their checks, entered by an unlocked patio door.

Something worth keeping in mind when considering the following, is, that when the McCann family went out in daytime, it was normal for them to lock the apartment.  Lock the patio door firstly (as it could only be locked from inside) and then leave by the front door, locking it after them.

Quite obviously they felt it best to secure the apartment to protect their belongings in case any 'would be' intruder paid a visit.  Clearly they did not feel it was safe in this sleepy town of Praia Da Luz during daytime hours, to leave it unlocked when they were to be absent.  And sensibly so-a very responsible thing to do to protect their belongings!


The McCanns, in the evenings, chose not to leave their children in the care of a responsible adult, but rather decided to leave them alone in the unlocked apartment.  A not sensible or responsible thing to do!  


It appears that the same concern, consideration and precautions taken in day time hours to protect their personal belongings, was not to be afforded the children.


When leaving the children alone at night the three people closest to their hearts, Madeleine, Sean and Amelie, they were to be left in an unlocked apartment.  One would have imagined at the very least, that the same security measures as in day time would have been put in place where the safety of the children was at stake.  That the need to make sure the apartment was secured would have been heightened, been paramount, when it came to this.  

The possibility of an intruder striking in this sleepy town in the dark of night, surely they estimated was greater than they had considered it to be in day time hours?  One or all three of their children could have been harmed by an intruder, not necessarily abducted, but harmed in some way.  For them to not have applied the same safety measures for their children at night, as they did in daytime for their belongings seems incredulous.

Just as they considered the harm an intruder could cause in daytime, stealing passports, damaging belongings, surely they did likewise gave same such thought to an intruder striking in the evening, stealing passports, other property, and of course, perhaps harming their children?


Or, is it possible for them not to have considered their children’s safety in the evening, yet considered belongings in daytime?  Surely not!


Is it possible they reached the conclusion the children were less at risk at night alone in an unlocked apartment, than their belongings in daytime? Surely not!


Let’s take a look…

The McCanns tell us that they left their children alone, unattended night after night while on holiday in Portugal.


Some nights, the first nights of the holiday, they say they locked the apartment when leaving the children alone. Presumably to keep them safe, prevent them wandering out into the night and of course to keep out intruders?  

On other nights, commencing later on that week, they say they left their three, under 4 year old children alone in an unlocked apartment.

Children then open to all sorts of added dangers.  Madeleine being able to exit apartment, an intruder being able to enter unhindered!


But why the sudden turn around where the safety of their children was concerned?  Why would any parent decide to place their children in a more vulnerable position than they had on previous nights?  What possible reason could there be for doing this?

Thus far they have failed to state on which night they changed theroutine, from leaving the children in a locked, to an unlocked apartment.  Failed also to give any valid reason as to why they would do this.  

For this couple to have decided to leave their children alone in the first instance with all the obvious dangers which could befall such young children, one of whom they knew was prone to waking in the night getting out of bed to look for mummy and daddy, quite beggars belief, but for them then to decide, after however many nights, two, three, of leaving them in a locked apartment that it would be “better” to leave them in an unlocked one, in a very much more vulnerable environment than they already had been doing that week, one struggles to reach understanding.  


What possible reason could there have been for two parents medical professionals, to knowingly place their children in the dangerous situation which they did, then, as the week went on, increase the levels of danger?

In their documentary (Madeleine Was Here) Gerry McCann tells his friend Mathew Oldfield that they began leaving the children in an unlocked apartment as they, he McCann and his wife Kate McCann felt that entering the apartment through the front locked door, using their key might wake their children.  

"And PART of the reason we ended up coming through the back was the noise, coming through the front door, you don’t want to disturb them, stupid now but…,"


So rather than wake their children whilst doing a check, they preferred to take their reckless behaviour towards their children a step further and place them in greater danger than they had been doing previous to routine change.  Beyond comprehension!


But what was the 'noise' coming through the front door which Gerry refers to?  


A door which creaked?  A key which squealed in the lock?  Gerry, being heavy footed on the tiled floors wearing clickety-clackety footwear? The sound of which so loud, that the children would wake?  


But we know the children didn't ever wake on any check, so their parents tell us!


Even had they roused at the sound of a key turn in the lock, surely this was not a problem for the parents?


What if, on their return to check, the children were already awake and crying and had been for some time?  What they would have done in this situation, was this not the same as what they would have done had the children woke at the sound of a key turning, a door opening?


Was the McCann couple having a night out, every night of that holiday more important to them than staying with their children, that risking the children waking at the turn of a key in the door, spoiling their night out, considered by them of greater concern, than risking their children waking and wandering outside through the unlocked door, greater than the risk of a passer-by, entering the apartment and harming all three children?

It would appear so if it caused them to further endanger their children’s lives by putting in place this new routine, a routine which is quite apparent held no benefit for the McCann children. In fact, endangering their lives.


I have often wondered how that conversation went.


Which of the two, Kate or Gerry McCann came up with this idea to leave the door unlocked and more importantly - why?  


To say as Gerry McCann did, that it was to lessen the chances of the children waking really is not a reason to place children in such obvious and greater danger.


If your children wake in the night, you attend to them comfort them, whatever is their need.  Was there some reason, physical or mental impediment that Kate and Gerry McCann suffered that would have prevented them fulfilling this basic duty of care should they have either, found the children to be awake and crying, or had they woke due to the sound of a door opening?    

How do parents make this dangerous leap, from locking their children,INSIDE the apartment - dangerous in itself - to deciding, due to a creaky front door/a noisy lock, that it was best to leave their children in an unlocked apartment for anyone who happens along to enter, and for the children to wander out?

Drastic action indeed when a few drops of oil on the door hinges would have remedied this.  A small price to pay to keep your children safe (or asleep as it appears was the McCann priority)

A small price to pay also, would have been to stay and look after the children or employ and pay if necessary, a responsible adult to care for them.

The burning question -  

If, the McCann children had not been wakened by the sound of the key turning in the door or at the sound of the front door opening at any time during that week, and the McCanns have stated this to be the case – that their children did not at any time wake on any of their checks – WHYthen would they have felt the need to change the routine?


Clearly, based on what McCanns have said, there was no need.


The patio door - the sound of this being opened and closed they may have later discovered on commencing their new routine would be a trigger for disturbing their children?  Why risk the children waking, by changing the routine (and their children waking was, it seems for the McCanns something which must be avoided at all costs) when they had established during that week, that using the front door, a tried and tested system - DID NOT WAKE/DISTURB THEM?


As they say, ‘if it isn’t broke, don’t fix it!’


As we all know though, young children can sleep through a bomb drop, but then wake sometimes for no apparent reason.  There is no fool proof system to keep them asleep, no matter which door is opened or closed, no matter what noises there are in our homes. In the most silent of nights a young child will wake.  Short of drugging our children, and hey, who would do that, there is no guarantee that a young child will sleep throughout the night. Perhaps more especially so when they are not in their usual environment, their own home.


As parents it is our responsibility to ensure that we or some other responsible adult is there when our children do wake.  Ensure they are not left alone and afraid as was the case with the young McCann children.   No child should have had to experience what they did, waking, upset, crying, no one there to comfort them.  


It makes no sense either for any parents to even think of doing this, leaving the door unlocked, which allowed not only their children, Madeleine in particular to wander out of the apartment in their absence, or for any passer-by with malice on their mind, to enter and harm in whatever way ALL three of the McCann children.


Our children trust in us to keep them safe.  The McCann parents failed their children inexcusably.


Further it makes no sense that the McCann couple say they changed their routine in this regard as, as we know, Gerry McCann, on the night Madeleine was reported as missing, did in fact enter apartment 5A through the front door, using his key to open it!  He re-enacts
exactly this, his doing so, in their documentary – Madeleine Was Here.


So why did it not matter on this night, the night Madeleine vanished if his actions woke the children?


More curious, in Gerry McCann’s first police witness statement he tells police that Kate McCann did likewise entered the apartment on her check by the front door, using her key to open it.   This statement was changed some days later, McCann then claiming that both he and his wife Kate McCann entered by an unlocked patio door.

Could parents who left three tots alone in an unlocked apartment REALLY have forgotten which door they used to enter the apartment on their checks?  How is that possible?

When one goes out for an evening whether leaving children behind or not, it is not usual to forget through which door we exited/entered our home. Nor is it usual to forget whether we used a key to un/lock the door.


Interestingly, for anyone to have entered by the front locked door would have involved passing the window of the bedroom where the McCann children slept.


This window and shutter were closed when Gerry McCann made his check.


Kate McCann on her check if she too used the front door as her husband told the police she had, could NOT then have missed noticing an open window and shutter.  

Was this the reason the story was changed from her using the front locked door, to a now unlocked patio door?

And a little food for thought – Gerry McCann entered by the front locked door.  He believed his wife had done likewise, so much so that this was the first statement he gave to police.  It would seem he believed that he and his wife Kate McCann both had failed on that new routine.  


If this couple had changed routine midweek – Why was he, Gerry entering by the front locked door and why did he believe his wife had too?  


Perhaps more bewildering, is, if both, he and his wife Kate had entered by the front locked door on that night, as Gerry McCann clearly believed to be the case, why if those two entered by this route, would Matt Oldfield who had never checked on the McCann children before that night (claiming he did not know them well enough to do so) not only have gone to check on these children, but unlike the McCann couple entered through the unlocked patio door?

Begs the question:

Was Oldfield there at all?  Was that patio door ever left unlocked on any night during that holiday?


If Kate McCann had entered by the unlocked patio entrance (and we have all witnessed her describing this in detail in their documentary, giving her 'blow by blow' account of what she “found”) how is it at all possible for Gerry McCann when first speaking with police not to have known this?


The father of the missing child, the husband of the missing child’s mother, and he was not aware, more than 12 hours after the alarm was raised by his wife, and when speaking with police, that his wife had claimed she had not entered the apartment by front locked door but by the unlocked patio door!

Perhaps more incredulous, is that at this 12 + hour mark, he didn’t know that he too had entered by this unlocked patio door he still believed he had entered the apartment by the locked front door using his key!


I wonder which of the group, set him straight?


So what exactly did Gerry McCann tell police?


Gerry McCann Statement to police 4th May 2007 11.15 am


(13 hours after Kate McCann said she found her daughter to be missing)

Thus, at 9.05 pm, the deponent entered the club, usinghis key, the door being locked, and went to the children's bedroom and noted that the twins and Madeleine were in perfect condition.  

(club = McCann holiday apt No. 5A)

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.

(side door = patio door)  


Gerry McCann Statement to police 10th May 2007

Half and hour later, without anything to remark, it being 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.

(back door = patio door)

He walked the normal route up to the back door, which being open he only had to slide, and while he was entering the living room, he noticed that the children's bedroom door was not ajar as he had left it but half-way open.  

Leaving yet again through the back door.  

Despite what he said in his PREVIOUS statements, he states NOW and with CERTAINTY that he left with KATE through the backdoor 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.



END Extract from witness Statement.  


It must be noted also that Gerry McCann said that when he saw the bedroom door open he thought that Madeleine had gone through to sleep in his bedroom to avoid the noise produced by her siblings.

How much noise does a sleeping two year old make, or two sleeping, two year old's as was the case?


For a man who can tell us and recall exactly how far open he left the children's bedroom door and to what degree it was open on his return to check on his children - seems rather astonishing that his memory then fails him as to which door he used to exit/enter the apartment/whether he locked or not the door with his key.

How odd that in their documentary he was able to speak of both the old and new routine to Matthew Oldfield his friend, yet when questioned by police he didn't know whether he was coming or going!

I believe there is a name for this condition, the Drs McCann may have heard of it too - Selective Memory!


Is it really possible that either of them, Kate or Gerry McCann could forget this?

When such planning and consideration had gone into their new routine, when they had given so much attention, focussed on NOT going through that front entrance so they tell us, so as to prevent the children from waking, a plan they had discussed and put in place, yet when questioned by police the day AFTER the child disappeared McCann tells them, that both he and his wife on their respective checks, entered by the locked front door using their keys!

Whatever happened to their new routine – entering by the unlocked patio door?  


And, did McCanns really ever leave those children in an unlocked apartment?


SO LOTS TO CONSIDER:


The Doors


Which of the THREE accounts Gerry McCann has given is the truth?


His FIRST where he states both he and his wife Kate entered by the front locked door using their keys?


His SECOND some days later where he then stated, that both he and his wife, Kate entered by the unlocked patio door?

or


His THIRD, the DOCUMENTARY made a considerable time after Madeleine's disappearance (so plenty of time to get it right) where he reverts to entering by the front locked door but his wife still enters by the unlocked patio door?


Which statement is the TRUTH if any at all?  They cannot all be true, so fair and reasonable to assume that the McCann couple lied to the police?  


Just another  one of those tricky situations where they just didn’t seem to have a choice?  



The Routine Change


Why did they change routine or say they did when there appears to have been absolutely no valid reason to have done so?


Did routine change ever take place?

Entering by the front door did not as we can see, waken their children.  

The 'noise' McCann states was only PART of their reason for changing routine.  

What was the noise?  What was the other part?  


Is it at all believable that the McCann couple could have forgotten which door they used that night or indeed on any night, at home or on holiday, with or without children being left inside?


It sounds, not only unlikely, but impossible to have done so.


We touched earlier on the possibility that the change to their story regarding which door they used on the night Madeleine vanished was to accommodate, the simple fact, had Kate McCann entered by the front locked door, she could not have missed seeing the window and shutter lying open before entering the apartment.   She claims she noticed the window to be open only AFTER having entered the apartment.


For this to be true, Kate had to have entered the apartment by a route other than the front entrance.   According to her husband Gerry McCann in his first statement to police, this did not happen!

Doing so, changing this story required also that they come up with a reason for "changing" their routine - 'the noise!'


Not exactly plausible when the children had never been wakened by any noise made by the parents as they entered the apartment or so the McCann couple have insisted!


Changing from entering by the front locked door (as was usual for them and is what Gerry first told police they both had done) to entering by the unlocked patio door, let us say opened doors for them!  


More curious is that whilst the McCann's state their children never woke at any time during their checks due to any noise (produced by the parents on entering by front door), Gerry McCann’s comments indicate that his children did in fact wake at other times in their mummy and daddy'sabsence this despite he and his wife Kate profusely protesting otherwise.

'He thought Madeleine had gotten out of bed to go through to sleep in his (he and Kate's) bedroom to avoid the noise produced by her siblings.'


Mrs Fenn, the elderly lady who said she heard crying from Apt 5A a child calling out for her daddy for over an hour on one of the nights the children were left alone...rather confirms this and explains also why Kate McCann made derogatory remarks in her book 'Madeleine' about this witness!


And the noise Gerry spoke of, the noise the twins produced at times during that holiday which disturbed Madeleine causing her to get out of bed and go to her parents bedroom - The sound of their crying?


One must therefore ask, is it not possible, highly likely in fact, that Madeleine McCann got out of bed at some point during the night of 3rd May 2007 having been disturbed by the "noise produced by her twin siblings" in order to alert her parents to their crying, just as she had done on previous nights – just as her dad, Gerry McCann said HE thought she had  when he discovered the bedroom door more open – (so not something he found to be unusual.)

When she discovered her parent's not to be at home, she climbed onto a settee to look out of the window, resulting in a fall, her injuries fatal.   Is it not more likely than this fantasy of stranger abduction for which there is not a shred of evidence, that Madeleine did in fact have an accident in the apartment - just as the police investigation in Portugal believe – followed by discovery and concealment.



I think it is obvious to all that it is most likely that Madeleine Beth McCann was NOT removed from the holiday apartment by a stranger.


It certainly look as though this poor child as the Portuguese police believe had an accident during a period when her parents were absent, when she was alone, left to care for her two year old twin siblings.


The McCanns will most probably continue to plug their 'missing piece of the puzzle' line - it pays well, helps sell 'Madeleine.'

Their far fetched tales of un/locked doors and children who never cried in their absence, we all know is where the truth lies...

Lying in the Sun
L-azzeri-lies-in-sun.com

https://l-azzeri-lies-in-the-sun.com/Key_Problems.html

Snipped from ^^^
Gerry McCann Statement to police 10th May 2007

Half and hour later, without anything to remark, it being 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.






So if we are to believe Gerry, he twice alerted Kate it was time to check the children, (9-30 and 10pm).


Matt and Russ, offered to check for her at 9-30, so shouldn't it have been Gerry who did the 10pm check.


Why didn't Matt do a check at 10pm and why didn't he offer to check the McCann's apartment again, or why didn't Kate offer to check his apartment.


By this time, Russ and Jane weren't doing any checking or the Payne's, who by their own account didn't do any checking and Rachael who never checked, so there was only the McCann's and Matt available to do any checks, and they were next door to each other.

Jane Tanner was too busy flip flap flopping outside the McCannery to do much physical checking.

9:04 by his watch. . . .(Kate's statement)
and then 10:03
Then Kate drinks the last of her wine, gets up, squeezes past the others and walks to the apartment
arrives 10:06
Dithers about in the apartment wondering whether to check the children at all (her statements later to the TV crew) then notices the angle of the door has changed from 32º to 39º.
Then alters the angle of the door back to the statutory 32º but it slams shut in her hand.
Then decides to look at the children.
Then finds Margaret not in bed.
Then looks in the bathroom and the parents' bedroom.
Then searches the entire apartment 
Then abandons the remaining children with the door left open and runs back to the Tapas bar
It is now 10:12 ?
Then the Tapas 7 trot the apartment and trash the crime scene
It is now 10:15

Don't forget taking the time to tuck the open/closed curtains that wooshed in the gusts of wind ( that no one else noticed !) behind the unmade bed and the chair ! 

That must have added another couple of minutes on ! 

Running back to the Tapas ( was she wearing her new pink trainers ?) Did she remember to shut the two gates at the top and bottom of those steep steps , those steps that good old Gerry apparently left her to go up and down with 3 small children while he went out of the front door by himself ! 
What a gent he is !