The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™
Welcome to 'The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann' forum 🌹

Please log in, or register to view all the forums, then settle in and help us get to the truth about what really happened to Madeleine Beth McCann.

Please note that when you register your username must be different from your email address!

Am I wrong? [Cuddle Cat - and the position of the door to the childrens' room]

Page 1 of 2 1, 2  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: Am I wrong? [Cuddle Cat - and the position of the door to the childrens' room]

Post by Angelique on 17.09.11 16:30

TB

Thank you for posting that snipped article from Goncalo Amaral's Book on the crime-scene.

I agree it is good to read this again - the one that is really important is the crucial bit about the window - for me it says that Kate has continually lied about the window and shutters. Worst of all her Tapas friends have shown her to have lied.

"Everybody accessing the block from the front sees the windows of 5A, 5B and 5D very clearly: they're all on the same level, and are relatively close together. If Jane came across the abductor in the street, as she claims, that means that he was no longer in apartment 5A. As a consequence, the window which Kate says she found wide open, necessarily was at that time. But Jane was not aware of this detail and she never spoke of it. When she went back to her apartment to replace her partner Russell sitting with their daughter, she had another opportunity to notice it. But, once again, she noticed nothing.

Jane is certainly not very observant. This remark goes equally for her friends Matt and Russell: both take the same route, alongside all those windows without noticing that one of them is wide open."

____________________
Things aren't always what they seem
avatar
Angelique

Posts : 1396
Reputation : 37
Join date : 2010-10-19

Back to top Go down

re: cuddle cat and the door to the children's room

Post by russiandoll on 20.09.11 10:59

There is a paragraph in Kate McCann's book from which I infer she did not intend to do a visual check on her children and which directly contradicts her statement earlier in the book that the holidaying group's checks were better than those offered by the resort staff at other MW resorts who only listened at the outside of the properties [ not offered in PDL due to the sprawling village style layout of apartments] :
FROM HER BOOK :
" The children were fast asleep and being checked every thirty minutes. Even if there had been a baby-listening service it would not have given our kids as much attention as our own visits did. We were going into the apartments and looking as well as listening."

In her statement to PJ she gave a summary of her movements upon entering apt 5a at 10pm May 3 2007.

FROM PJ FILES, May 4 2007 :
[color:ad09=000000] 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.


There is slightly more detail here:

FROM THE TRANSCRIPT OF HER VIDEO RECONSTRUCTION OF HER DISCOVERY:
"I did my check about 10.00 'clock and went in through
the sliding patio doors and I just stood, actually and I thought,
oh, all quiet, and to be
honest, I MIGHT HAVE BEEN TEMPTED TO TURN AROUND THEN [ my capitals] but I just
noticed that the door, the bedroom
door where the three children were sleeping, was open much
further than we’d left it. "

FROM HER BOOK :

"At 10pm I went back to the apartment myself. I entered the sitting room via the patio doors as Gerry and Matt had done, and stood there, listening, for a few seconds. All was silent. Then I noticed that the door to the children's bedroom was open quite wide, not how we had left it. At first I assumed that Matt must have moved it. I WALKED OVER AND GENTLY BEGAN TO PULL IT TO. SUDDENLY IT SLAMMED SHUT, AS IF CAUGHT BY A DRAUGHT." [ my capitals].

Now here is where I have a problem with these last 2 statements, please forgive me if you think I am nit-picking but I can only infer one thing from them. More so than her witness statement, they imply more by what is omitted than by what is said , that the only reason she decided she would not turn around[ presumably to leave the apartment] was due to the door which was not in the habitual position that she and her husband would leave it [ lets allow her not to think for a moment that Matt had left it at this angle the previuos check]
[BTW just what was so important about the door angle at a time when it would be dark, not dusk, and when the only light entering the bedroom would be from a small [ and so low wattage and not bright] table lamp in the sitting room? Do we even know where this was situated in the room, even if it was at the closest point to the bedroom it is implausible this would have disturbed the children. I would be curious to know where it was exactly, as if it was far away and Madeleine could not reach a light switch how would she navigate her way around if she woke up? ]
The statements definitely indicate that it was not the visual check on the children that propelled her automatically towards the door, and her action once she reached the door is certainly bizarre for a person who was going to look at the occupants of the bedroom. In the last two statements, she says she narrows the angle of the door. If it was quite wide, I would assume she saw the children but she does not mention having seen them either in the reconstruction or the book. Her sole intention appears to have been simply to return the door to the position she and Gerry habitually left it.

FROM THE INTERVIEW TRANSCRIPT:

" I went to close it to about here
and then as I got to here, it suddenly slammed and
then as I opened it, it was then that I just thought, I’ll just look
at the children "
does this not boldly shout out that she only thought to do her visual check after the business with the door? The inference from all the above is surely that had she not noticed this she would have not checked on her children.

Her book describes a very strange action in my opinion, not mentioned in her statement but I guess here after all that has happened we should give the benefit of the doubt as regards her memory for detail, however if after years she recalls it for her book her memory has not acted in accordance to the way I have read memory works over time..and I always give the McCanns the benefit of the doubt, this ends up reinforcing not changing the way I view their actions and inactions, their words and omissions].

After pulling the door to : " A little surprised, I turned to see if I'd left the patio doors open and let in the breeze. RETRACING MY STEPS, I CONFIRMED THAT I HADN'T . Returning to the children's room, I opened the door a little, and as I did so, I glanced over at Madeleine's bed. I couldn't quite make her out in the dark."
Now again excuse my nit-picking.
I assumed due to Kate's earlier statement about the group's visual checking, that when she pulled the door to, despite not stating it, she had seen her children. I believe that this is a logical assumption if I accept that she is being truthful about the visual checks.

So, if she HAS SEEN her children, why pay so much attention to the patio door, which she will surely be exiting in a minute if not less now that she is reassured all is well?
In addition, why retrace her steps? What was the sight line from the children's bedroom door to the patio door? Even if partially blocked I cant see why she had to go and check them if she was due to exit 5a anyway. The only plausible reason to do this surely if is she cannot see them, so did she close the curtains to the patio door when she was planning a quick check on the kids....
Why return to the children's bedroom? I assumed from her statement about visual checks that she had already seen her chidlren by this stage.
She then states that[ having pulled the door to earlier] she returned to the room and opened the door a little. Presumably this allowed her to see less not more of the children's bedroom, so how did she only now notice the empty bed? She surely would have seen it with the door either in its origiinal position or if she had opened it wider when she was first at the bedroom entrance.
Sorry to go on.....this is but a paragraph in the book but it speaks volumes to me. It does not make any sense and therefore I doubt that it is truthful.
avatar
russiandoll

Posts : 3942
Reputation : 13
Join date : 2011-09-11

Back to top Go down

P.S FROM RUSSIAN DOLL

Post by russiandoll on 20.09.11 18:20

The reason I mention the curtains at patio door is this: I am aware of apartment layout and that the children's bedroom door was not flush with the wall but set back in an alcove. My point is if Kate Mc had just gone as far as the entrance to that alcove she could have seen whether the patio doors were open or closed, regardless of curtains. Open= she would have seen the patio doors. Closed= she could have worked out they were closed from the fact that there was no movement of curtains,[ having just felt a draught so strong it slammed the door to her children's room].

Did the PJ not go to 5a and watch her reconstruct her movements.
Proof of a dishonest witness imo, if she was being truthful re visual checks, her actions make no sense to me. If she was truthful about these actions, there was no intention of visual checking . why RETURN to the bedroom?

another explanation, maybe she did have another check to do , in the other bedroom?
avatar
russiandoll

Posts : 3942
Reputation : 13
Join date : 2011-09-11

Back to top Go down

Really love your posts.

Post by tigger on 20.09.11 19:15

Yes, the whole story is for dramatic effect perhaps. Wouldn't be so exciting if she'd just walked in opened the door even wider and looked at the children. No Maddie. Help.
Now we have a complete narrative: did she get her inspiration from a book? It is a literary construct to engage the empathy of the reader.

E.g. I put the car in the garage and went to close the overhead door, but before I did that I looked over my shoulder, I'd felt a draught round my ankles. At the other end of the garage the door into the house stood open, I could just see the darkness beyond it. I debated with myself but in the end left the garage door open and went towards the door, as I did so I saw the intruder and had I not left the garage door open I would never have escaped.

Is more engaging than: drove the car into the garage, saw the door into the house was open and someone coming out, so I ran away and phoned the police.

You've given me an idea, lots of theirs came from other cases and I don't rate them as original thinkers.

____________________
Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch'entrate.
avatar
tigger

Posts : 8114
Reputation : 48
Join date : 2011-07-20

Back to top Go down

to tigger

Post by russiandoll on 21.09.11 11:21

Thanks and your own aren't so bad either....I was going to put it all in a nutshell but then I thought some won't have read the book and it was easier to show my reasoning, even if it might be flawed reasoning.
What I guess the bottom line is is this

1. why did Kate McCann go not once but twice to the children's bedroom?
2. two opposing statements can't both be true, and she certainly contradicts herself by almost boasting early on in her book about the superiority of the group's checking system then clearly demonstrating verbally [ in the video reconstruction where I have quoted the transcript] and then in writing [in her book] that visual checking was not the reason she approached the bedroom door. How will any detective trained and working in a developped country like Portugal not consider as per the statistics that the abduction is a fabricated scenario and only one of a number of possibilities to be investigated?!

There is far too much detail, detail that makes no sense given her stated purpose for entering apt 5a. Kate Mc Cann is trying to show here her great memory for events due to the fact that she created a diary not too long after her daughter disappeared. It appears to be an attempt to convince the reader that all was not as it should have been hence her movements. The devil is in the detail as they say and I think there is very simple explanation for what happened to Madeleine made confusing and byzantine by the bizarre smoke and mirrors created by the tapas bunch. Cut through the foliage and you will see the branches, this is all the PJ did in my opinion. I do not want to vilify Kate Mc Cann though, because I think this book is evidence that shows her as being a deeply disturbed individual in profound need of psychological help. If not taken at face value Im sure there are many clues in this book about what happened.
avatar
russiandoll

Posts : 3942
Reputation : 13
Join date : 2011-09-11

Back to top Go down

Blacksmith articles

Post by tigger on 21.09.11 11:59

Hi Russiandoll, I think your reasoning is very sound. Unfortunately I cannot find it in myself to feel pity for this couple, in any case it would be nothing compared to the pity they feel for themselves.
But Blacksmith called the book the longest suicide note in history and he may be right.

Very early on, Gerry was asked how long they were going to stay in Portugal. Both of them had said they were not going home without Maddie.
Gerry told the journalist that the twins weren't due to start school for another 3/4 years. Why stay in Portugal when both had said that Maddie was probably out of the country within 24 hours of her disappearance?
IMO they had an entire lifestyle in mind, they would become ambassadors for lost children,this and the fund would provide for them. They could buy a villa in the Algarve and sell the Rothley house. They thought it was a good idea, they were able to justify their actions for themselves, but it all backfired.

The publicity was engendered by them, this is another lie in the book. "no publicity'. Sky news was informed before the police were alerted. The news was on the Telegraph website by 12.01, which was a mere 2 hours after Maddie was gone.
Then there was the narrative we discussed earlier: Cuddle Cat on a high ledge (Kate is so unobservant that she confused the two bedrooms, theirs did have a ledge, the children's bedroom didn't) the shutters, the open window. The blanket on the bed. Means: Maddie has been taken!
They must have thought it was enough to tell the police these things, they certainly don't seem to have expected the investigation they got.


It is really strange, everybody knows where they were when they first heard about 9/11. In fact far more detail of your surroundings, the people there etc will stay with you than would be the case if nothing happened.
Personal disasters, car accidents, are seared into you memory. The feelings you had at the time, the wave of panice, the details of everything around you. It's all missing with the McCanns and they've been lying for a very long time now.
I think Kate started her diary many weeks after 3/5, as much as 5 or 6 weeks later. She says she took notes before that.

I would highly recommend you to read Dr. Ludke's interview, it's a topic here. Very good article.


____________________
Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch'entrate.
avatar
tigger

Posts : 8114
Reputation : 48
Join date : 2011-07-20

Back to top Go down

Re: Am I wrong? [Cuddle Cat - and the position of the door to the childrens' room]

Post by Guest on 21.09.11 12:47

tigger wrote:

It is really strange, everybody knows where they were when they first heard about 9/11. In fact far more detail of your surroundings, the people there etc will stay with you than would be the case if nothing happened.
Personal disasters, car accidents, are seared into you memory. The feelings you had at the time, the wave of panice, the details of everything around you. It's all missing with the McCanns and they've been lying for a very long time now.
I think Kate started her diary many weeks after 3/5, as much as 5 or 6 weeks later. She says she took notes before that.

I would highly recommend you to read Dr. Ludke's interview, it's a topic here. Very good article.


Good point, everybody knows where they were that day ( 9/11) In my country every year on that date all the newspaper online has this topic, where were you and what were you doing 9 / 11..
I also experienced a few traumatic events in my life, and I can promise you I remember every little detail from that moment , those hours and that day.. When you lie you wont and therefor the story change as it goes...
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

thanks tigger

Post by russiandoll on 21.09.11 19:33

Yes Dr Ludke wrote a great article and I read it last week. I am finding it difficult to believe the whole lifestyle thing was preplanned unless the child has been abducted by arrangement, is being cared for and the entire thing is the biggest scam on earth.
It appears though I have read a lot I am not as well informed as you, could you please lets know what you believe about the disappearance? Do you think there has been a homicide or an accident and the parents have decided to cash in? I cant find words for them if that is so.
Maybe pity was the wrong word to use in this context, I had a gut feeling after reading an especially heart rending account of a dream where she is holding her missing daughter that she was recalling a more dreadful event that had actually happened. I think she is very psychologically unstable as a result of her loss I think she is bereaved and that she and her husband have maybe decided to launch something to help children as a way to assuage the guilt felt due to what happened.
It is my sincere hope that a forensic psychologist working alongside the police analyses the book because I am convinced the clues, the small overlooked detail, the final jigsaw pieces, are to be found here if it is not read and taken at face value. Omissions, distortions and lies, chapter heading, opening and closing of chapters all say something in my opinion.
avatar
russiandoll

Posts : 3942
Reputation : 13
Join date : 2011-09-11

Back to top Go down

Orchestrated is possibly the right word?

Post by tigger on 21.09.11 21:05

russiandoll wrote:Yes Dr Ludke wrote a great article and I read it last week. I am finding it difficult to believe the whole lifestyle thing was preplanned unless the child has been abducted by arrangement, is being cared for and the entire thing is the biggest scam on earth.
It appears though I have read a lot I am not as well informed as you, could you please lets know what you believe about the disappearance? Do you think there has been a homicide or an accident and the parents have decided to cash in? I cant find words for them if that is so.
Maybe pity was the wrong word to use in this context, I had a gut feeling after reading an especially heart rending account of a dream where she is holding her missing daughter that she was recalling a more dreadful event that had actually happened. I think she is very psychologically unstable as a result of her loss I think she is bereaved and that she and her husband have maybe decided to launch something to help children as a way to assuage the guilt felt due to what happened.
It is my sincere hope that a forensic psychologist working alongside the police analyses the book because I am convinced the clues, the small overlooked detail, the final jigsaw pieces, are to be found here if it is not read and taken at face value. Omissions, distortions and lies, chapter heading, opening and closing of chapters all say something in my opinion.

There are several possibilities. For me just two.
1. It was 'letting it happen on purpose' e.g. not making an effort to avoid a likely fatal accident or giving the right treatment.
2. I don't think either of them physically killed her.I simply can't see either of them doing that. But she died probably violently and they both know exactly how and when it happened. We can't dismiss the blood (spray?) and the dogs.

Now Maddie was to go to school that year. There is a possibility that that could not be allowed because there might be a risk of her talking too much? I also think she was not a healthy child, there was something wrong with her from the start. Bags under the eyes, right side of face a little droopy. A screamer, could throw a tantrum, didn't sleep well, etc. She wasn't stunningly pretty either and Kate seems fixated on beauty.

They do not seem to feel guilty about her death, they've justified their actions. Yes, I too think that they were convinced that becoming 'celebrities' working for lost children, they were redeemed.
But Kate was unstable before the holiday and possibly for a very long time before that. Because she had no relationship to speak of with Maddie. I would think that the marriage wasn't what she hoped it would be. Children don't solve those problems. There is also little true or loving relationship with the twins IMO. Gerry would expect to be number one and did go off on golfing weekends on his own. I don't think she is grieving for Maddie at all, it wasn't a great loss to her. She is becoming more unstable because their plan failed and she doesn't like the life she is made to live instead. Basically, I suppose she doesn't know what to do and I don't think the marriage will be any help by now.

Hope I'm making sense here, but being careful. IMO definitely early date of 'accident' or death. 30th at the latest. In the topic on Burgau, which is new to me, it seems the family made a trip to Sagres, but some photos may have been taken in a house in Burgau. The blue eyeshadow photo, where she looks drugged. I really can't say what I think about that here. The Sagres trip was not mentioned in the book? They went back to PdL and I would think she died soon after that.

There was just way too much in place to quickly for it to have been an accident. 'It didn't happen like that' Kate has said, ' it happened under other circumstances, I know, I was there.' Gerry said: ' the circumstances were such that I could not physically have been there.' On record, see Dr. Roberts, Kate knows, Gerry wasn't there. Lying is so difficult!


It wasn't meant to be like this. They should be based in the Algarve, jetting around the world to help various charities, living off the Fund and their 'work' and they had made Maddie into the most beautiful and adored little girl in the world.
For one thing, I would think that Gerry wanted to be as far away from his family as possible. I find it psychologically interesting that he must have been dying his hair for a very long time, I saw a photo of him at 8 yrs. old with bright red hair. That doesn't turn brown, just goes grey earlier than other colours. So dying his hair probably from his twenties onward means for me that he distances himself from his roots. He is the best educated one of the family.
They are both social climbers but their accents let them down. I don't think they're mixing in the society where they'd like to be. (Long phone call with Cherie Blair etc. in the book, name dropping, J.K.Rowling etc. ).

We may be furious at this continuing miscarriage of justice, but they seem doomed to travel the world repeating the story by rote.
They have to promote the book/fund and this is the only way to do it. Kate doesn't dare to do the usual signing in Harrods etc. Gerry cancelled a bike ride for charity. They're afraid and I think that Clarrie left a slowly sinking ship.

____________________
Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch'entrate.
avatar
tigger

Posts : 8114
Reputation : 48
Join date : 2011-07-20

Back to top Go down

Was Maddie Ever There?

Post by jd on 21.09.11 22:13

Do you think its possible that Maddie never went on this holiday at all? Maddie possibly died 6 or so months previous in the UK, and needing money the Mccanns arranged with NOTW to set up an abduction story that would run and run so they all cash in? (Been done many times before with other stories)

They could have gone to PDL the previous year and got that poolside pic. Its very odd that there are virtually no pics from the holiday of Maddie, no Maddie with the twins, no Maddie with parents, infact NONE OF MADDIE WITH MUMMY KATE....just a few very suspicious odd looking ones that are highly suspicious of being photoshopped. Did GM screw up and had to go back to the UK to get the poolside pic? (forgot to take it with him)...would totally explain the fund being set up within 9 days, it was already being set up weeks/months before 3rd May 2007, be good to know the date this was first applied for. There are many other reasons why this all makes sense.....Most stories/scams are very simple, its all about making money, thats it

Its just those dogs that make this theory fall down.....

____________________
Who pulled the strings?...THE SYMINGTONS..And the Scottish connections...Look no further if you dare
avatar
jd

Posts : 4151
Reputation : 23
Join date : 2011-07-22

Back to top Go down

JD Yes.

Post by tigger on 22.09.11 7:32

Quite possible. But not NOTW I think. They obviously sorted out how to get the publicity and the 'help'. They were well up on the laws of Portugal and had contacts/friends there.
But I'm also quite interested in the Zaival Beach and Burgau on the 30th of April. If they were at Zaival or Burgau in April that year? Never came back with Maddie? Because in the PJ files there are only four boarding passes for the McCanns on the 28th April.
Problem of course is the cadaver odour and the blood in the flat. I can't see how to fit that in.
I think Gerry, who seems to think highly of himself, was the planner. It's not proof, but when I saw him standing in front of that easel, his body language and the whole feel I got was of a plan long delayed and finally set in motion. Time to shine for him with the wider agenda. Like you, I think it was always the money, the celebrity, the lifestyle. Shame about the accents.
Without the enormous protection (and I still think it came right from the top with a few key people here and there) they'd have been sunk in days. They must have had Moriarty on speed dial.

Then 2007 was when the financial world started to crumble, the McCann story must by now have made as much money for the media as Diana did.


____________________
Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch'entrate.
avatar
tigger

Posts : 8114
Reputation : 48
Join date : 2011-07-20

Back to top Go down

Re: Am I wrong? [Cuddle Cat - and the position of the door to the childrens' room]

Post by jd on 22.09.11 7:51

tigger wrote: Because in the PJ files there are only four boarding passes for the McCanns on the 28th April.
Problem of course is the cadaver odour and the blood in the flat. I can't see how to fit that in.

I didn't know this about 4 boarding passes on the 28th April....very interesting. Can you find the link to it? I'll have a search through the PJ files too

I agree the cadaver odour and the blood is the stumbling block....at the moment!

If only I could say what I know about NOTW/Sun, you would understand why I 'all but know' how they collude into making stories with one motivation in making money for all parties concerned, and this has all the hallmarks and in my eyes the proof too

____________________
Who pulled the strings?...THE SYMINGTONS..And the Scottish connections...Look no further if you dare
avatar
jd

Posts : 4151
Reputation : 23
Join date : 2011-07-22

Back to top Go down

I'll check it out.

Post by tigger on 22.09.11 8:33

jd wrote:
tigger wrote: Because in the PJ files there are only four boarding passes for the McCanns on the 28th April.
Problem of course is the cadaver odour and the blood in the flat. I can't see how to fit that in.

I didn't know this about 4 boarding passes on the 28th April....very interesting. Can you find the link to it? I'll have a search through the PJ files too

I agree the cadaver odour and the blood is the stumbling block....at the moment!

If only I could say what I know about NOTW/Sun, you would understand why I 'all but know' how they collude into making stories with one motivation in making money for all parties concerned, and this has all the hallmarks and in my eyes the proof too

There is a photograph from the PJ files which shows this, I'll find as soon as I have time.

____________________
Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch'entrate.
avatar
tigger

Posts : 8114
Reputation : 48
Join date : 2011-07-20

Back to top Go down

again thanks to tigger

Post by russiandoll on 22.09.11 10:12

I am so glad I joined this forum. What though can we practically do to assist in getting this case reopened and all aspects of it thoroughly investigated/reinvestigated?
You have given me a lot to think about tigger and others on this site. The whole thing has become so surreal that I wondered one evening if its the case that their lack of expected emotion [ no thats not me using myself as a yardstick and annoying Kate but psychologists' evaluation of their strange behaviour] meant that they know their daughter is fine, the coloboma was fake so she would not be recognised and that the child is alive and part of the most outrageous hoax and financial scam ever conducted.
The dogs dont lie though and this specualtion has to stop there for me.

Surely detectives will investigate all the photographs/lack of them ? If the likes of us untrained people can see their version of what happened has more holes than a colander, those trained professionals are going to be going through it all with a fine tooth comb? I will be even more ashamed of my country if this does not happen.

Something struck me as really wrong. The book's index is missing 2 of the most prominent items regarding her beloved daughter.
Cuddle Cat, the little girl's alleged favourite toy , is not indexed, although Anfield is, Anfield being a Liverpool suburb featuring in Kate's background history. Cuddle Cat features on more occasions than Anfield, is much more significant in terms of her daughter , yet has no mention as a reasonable reader would expect.

Coloboma is not indexed either, this because it is not mentioned at all in the book, not so much as a passing reference to her daughter's most distinguishing physical feature. This is incredible considering the photo on the book cover which harks back to its being the main recognition factor in her child's appearance.

It all stinks to high heaven. Please advise, what can I/we practically do to help in the fight to get this child justice?
avatar
russiandoll

Posts : 3942
Reputation : 13
Join date : 2011-09-11

Back to top Go down

Re: Am I wrong? [Cuddle Cat - and the position of the door to the childrens' room]

Post by Guest on 22.09.11 10:36

Was looking for the passport in the PJ files, and found this

On 3rd May 2007 around 21h40 Madeleine McCann disappeared from a floor level apartment at "Aideamento Turistico Ocean Club?.
She was on holidays with her parents and at the moment of disappearance, the child was alone in the apartment.

And a little further down the page it says this
Date and Time of Disappearance: 03-05-2007 at about 22.40, Ocean Club, Praia da Luz


The twins where with her, wouldn't that be an importen factor for the police to write down? And wasn't it 2115 Jane saw the abductor? Wouldn't that also be an important fact to mention from the police (if they believed her) ? And they have two times for her disaperence, with an hour difference, none of them is 2115...
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Am I wrong? [Cuddle Cat - and the position of the door to the childrens' room]

Post by Guest on 22.09.11 10:38

tigger wrote:
jd wrote:
tigger wrote: Because in the PJ files there are only four boarding passes for the McCanns on the 28th April.
Problem of course is the cadaver odour and the blood in the flat. I can't see how to fit that in.

I didn't know this about 4 boarding passes on the 28th April....very interesting. Can you find the link to it? I'll have a search through the PJ files too

I agree the cadaver odour and the blood is the stumbling block....at the moment!

If only I could say what I know about NOTW/Sun, you would understand why I 'all but know' how they collude into making stories with one motivation in making money for all parties concerned, and this has all the hallmarks and in my eyes the proof too

There is a photograph from the PJ files which shows this, I'll find as soon as I have time.

Can't see anything related to boarding passes but can see this which is the luggage tags for the Mccann's inbound flight. There are two larger labels dated 28/4/07 and four small ones dated 10/4/07 - not sure exactly what these are but the date is weird..

There's also this which is the flights looks like it's faxed from Faro airport. Again not sure how to read this as at first glance looks odd - the dates and flight numbers for the mccann's are different for each family member... need to study it a bit more but would be good to get opinion from anyone who knows better than me how to read this ....

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MADELINE.htm



http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P11/11_VOLUME_XIa_Page_2962.jpg
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Am I wrong? [Cuddle Cat - and the position of the door to the childrens' room]

Post by Guest on 22.09.11 10:42

[quote="Stewie"][quote="tigger"][quote="jd"]

Why is there a questionmark on one of the Paynes child,Scarlet Payne? Is that because of the age?
And why do all of the Mccanns have different reservation dates and also different travel dates ?The paynes all got the same date on their reservation date and travel date??
And on whats look like the travel back date, Data/Voo the mccanns says 05.06.2007 and the others 05.05.2007 ??

Is this their flight dates? Or is it the booking for the OC or the restaurant? At first I asumed it was their flight dates, and then i got unsure and no I just dont know :) Anyway the dates are all different in the mccann group , and not in the other ones...

Also I appoligise if this has been discussed and clearified before :)
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Am I wrong? [Cuddle Cat - and the position of the door to the childrens' room]

Post by Guest on 22.09.11 11:26

The blurb with the fax says it is the return flights...

Don't understand the dates either - for the group that return their dates are sequential - eg. Matthew 17/5 , E o'Brien 18/5, E o'Brien 19/5 so unless the children travelled alone it must just be some peculiarity of the printing... though don't know why.
On the outward journey there should be 17 people but there are only 15. Dianne Webster and the Oldfield child are missing from the list... Maybe they only searched for certain names which could explain Dianne's absence from the list but why is the Oldfield child not listed - the child is 19months but can't be the age because E O'Brien is 18months but is listed.

For the group that returned, again Dianne Webster is not listed. Russell O'Brien isn't listed so not clear when he returned. The Oldfield child is still not listed but instead we have "2 bebes" - 2 babies? So Jane Tanner returns with her two children but Russell doesn't. Then the Oldfield/Mamphilly's return with 2 babies? Where did this extra baby come from?

Quote:
Fax

To: Chief Inspector Tavares de Almeida

From: SPI Faro Airport Inspector Nunes Barroso

Date: 28-09-2007

Subject: McCann Group Travel

I attach the table relating to the return of the McCann group. In some situations it was not possible to determine the number of suitcases or their weight as their airline companies do not have a register for these items.

With best regards

Inspector Barroso

Table can be seen in here

(The group travelled with 7 suitcases) Quote
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Am I wrong? [Cuddle Cat - and the position of the door to the childrens' room]

Post by Guest on 22.09.11 13:37

Stewie wrote:The blurb with the fax says it is the return flights...

Don't understand the dates either - for the group that return their dates are sequential - eg. Matthew 17/5 , E o'Brien 18/5, E o'Brien 19/5 so unless the children travelled alone it must just be some peculiarity of the printing... though don't know why.

Think I can explain the dates and flight numbers. Suspect this info was done in Excel spreadsheet and in excel if you type a number and drag the cell down to fill in the cells beneath with the same info, excel can fill i t in as a series rather than just repeat the cell contents. so if the cell is a date 28/4/07 and you fill in calls below it can fill as a series so you will get 29/4/07 , 30/4/07 etc . it has done the same with flight numbers - w5531 for gerry gets filled as a series so becomes ww5532, ww5533, ww5534 etc.

Russell's missing from these return flights though the phone records say he stops pinging in portugal on 17 may when he is presumed to have returned home.
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Am I wrong? [Cuddle Cat - and the position of the door to the childrens' room]

Post by Guest on 22.09.11 13:51

Stewie wrote:
Stewie wrote:The blurb with the fax says it is the return flights...

Don't understand the dates either - for the group that return their dates are sequential - eg. Matthew 17/5 , E o'Brien 18/5, E o'Brien 19/5 so unless the children travelled alone it must just be some peculiarity of the printing... though don't know why.

Think I can explain the dates and flight numbers. Suspect this info was done in Excel spreadsheet and in excel if you type a number and drag the cell down to fill in the cells beneath with the same info, excel can fill i t in as a series rather than just repeat the cell contents. so if the cell is a date 28/4/07 and you fill in calls below it can fill as a series so you will get 29/4/07 , 30/4/07 etc . it has done the same with flight numbers - w5531 for gerry gets filled as a series so becomes ww5532, ww5533, ww5534 etc.

Russell's missing from these return flights though the phone records say he stops pinging in portugal on 17 may when he is presumed to have returned home.

That could be it if it wasnt for the fact that the numbers goes 17-18-19-20-22-21...on the Tanner/obrien/oldfield..
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Am I wrong? [Cuddle Cat - and the position of the door to the childrens' room]

Post by Guest on 22.09.11 13:59

Moa wrote:

That could be it if it wasnt for the fact that the numbers goes 17-18-19-20-22-21...on the Tanner/obrien/oldfield..

Yeah thought about that.. Think that the Mamphilly record was moved to be last afterwards. For the returning group they were all on the same flight into gatwick except for Rachel who went via Monarch to Luton. So think she was moved to be the last record so the others were grouped together and all have the same comment in the ob5 column.
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Am I wrong? [Cuddle Cat - and the position of the door to the childrens' room]

Post by Guest on 22.09.11 14:06

Stewie wrote:
Moa wrote:

That could be it if it wasnt for the fact that the numbers goes 17-18-19-20-22-21...on the Tanner/obrien/oldfield..

Yeah thought about that.. Think that the Mamphilly record was moved to be last afterwards. For the returning group they were all on the same flight into gatwick except for Rachel who went via Monarch to Luton. So think she was moved to be the last record so the others were grouped together and all have the same comment in the ob5 column.

If this is what they did, why hasn't the same happened on the Payne booking? they are the same date, and why has the mccann travelback date 05.06.2007?
And also why are Kate and Gerry signed up with full names(including Middle name) and not the children?
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Am I wrong? [Cuddle Cat - and the position of the door to the childrens' room]

Post by Guest on 22.09.11 14:23

Moa wrote:
Stewie wrote:
Moa wrote:

That could be it if it wasnt for the fact that the numbers goes 17-18-19-20-22-21...on the Tanner/obrien/oldfield..

Yeah thought about that.. Think that the Mamphilly record was moved to be last afterwards. For the returning group they were all on the same flight into gatwick except for Rachel who went via Monarch to Luton. So think she was moved to be the last record so the others were grouped together and all have the same comment in the ob5 column.

If this is what they did, why hasn't the same happened on the Payne booking? they are the same date, and why has the mccann travelback date 05.06.2007?
And also why are Kate and Gerry signed up with full names(including Middle name) and not the children?

don't know with the Payne booking - maybe those were copied and pasted. Excel definitely behaves in this way as it happens to me all the time and drives me nuts. Think it more likely than children travelling on their own...even though the group seemed to think the children were fine to be left alone in unlocked apartments.... big grin


It definitely doesn't explain the travel back date for mccann's that looks like 5 june.. or why the names aren't in full. or why Russell is missing or who the 2 babies are.. still lots unanswered as usual...
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Am I wrong? [Cuddle Cat - and the position of the door to the childrens' room]

Post by Guest on 22.09.11 14:28

Stewie wrote:
Moa wrote:
Stewie wrote:
Moa wrote:

That could be it if it wasnt for the fact that the numbers goes 17-18-19-20-22-21...on the Tanner/obrien/oldfield..

Yeah thought about that.. Think that the Mamphilly record was moved to be last afterwards. For the returning group they were all on the same flight into gatwick except for Rachel who went via Monarch to Luton. So think she was moved to be the last record so the others were grouped together and all have the same comment in the ob5 column.

If this is what they did, why hasn't the same happened on the Payne booking? they are the same date, and why has the mccann travelback date 05.06.2007?
And also why are Kate and Gerry signed up with full names(including Middle name) and not the children?

don't know with the Payne booking - maybe those were copied and pasted. Excel definitely behaves in this way as it happens to me all the time and drives me nuts. Think it more likely than children travelling on their own...even though the group seemed to think the children were fine to be left alone in unlocked apartments.... big grin


It definitely doesn't explain the travel back date for mccann's that looks like 5 june.. or why the names aren't in full. or why Russell is missing or who the 2 babies are.. still lots unanswered as usual...

It happens to me to in Excell...And maybe that is why, still as you point out, still lots unanswered as usul, creche records, booking and so on...And funny how an extra kid keeps popping up here and there..Also a few sentence in her book I found strange :
The party would consist of David, Fiona, Lilly, who was two, and Scarlett nearly a year old. Matt and Rachel and their toddler Grace, Jane and Russel with Ella who, coming up to four, was almost the same age as Madeleine, and Evie, another toddler, the five of us and and Fi's mum Dianne.

See how she describes everyone with name, age, and then suddenly in between "another toddler, "
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

"Another toddler"

Post by Guest on 22.09.11 17:23

I think that this statement is simply a little ambiguous. I take it to mean that Evie and "another toddler" are one and the same. The other toddler in question is Grace Oldfield - Kate is linking children of about the same age as these two are.



Something that good old Carter-Ruck failed to clarify but, compared to their letting the gem on page 129 go unamended, it's only a minor lapse.
avatar
Guest
Guest


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