New Series of Videos - MCANN 'LIES' #1 Front Door or Patio Doors

Stella wrote:Exactly Moa, the whole apartment was like an echo chamber. All noises would be heightened, in a small confined place. What type of shoes was Kate wearing?, noisy flippy flops like Jane or high heels?

Using the patio door was never a quieter option, just a lame excuse.

Didn't Gerry in his first statement claim to have used the locked front door, then changed this?

Lord, hope she didn't use high heels, what a scary thought

Yes he did say that at first and changed it later on.

Another thing that puzzles me are the beds. Why is it only the bed that Kate said she slept in that looks used? Madeleines bed looks like noone has slept in it..
And if they where so scared that the children would wake up, why did they not put Madeleine in the bed farest apart from the door? The one under the window. I mean they felt it was a safe enough place to leave them all alone so why didn't they put her in that bed instead?
i
Did Madeleine and the twins go to bed at the same time? Or did Madeleine stay up longer? Where I live its normal to let the oldest child stay up maybe 30 min longer or something. Depending on age gap, but I think Maddie beeing almost 2 years older should stay up a little longer than her siblings.

Maddie allegedly was very tired that night, so after bedtime story on her bed (all 4 of them, yet we still have a very tidy bed), Kate claims to have said good night to them all at the same time.

How any child could have slept through all that commotion, god knows. Other people usually get their showers out the way before children go to bed, so as not to disturb them.

Stella wrote:Maddie allegedly was very tired that night, so after bedtime story on her bed (all 4 of them, yet we still have a very tidy bed), Kate claims to have said good night to them all at the same time.

How any child could have slept through all that commotion, god knows. Other people usually get their showers out the way before children go to bed, so as not to disturb them.

What night was it that she showered before the kids got to bed and David P came by ? I thought it was the evening of the 3 ? Or am I mistaken ? since it is mentioned in the case I thought it was mentioned because it happened the last night, If not why the heck did they tell it anyway? what relevance would it have to the case at all really?

Moa, the evening of the third yes by her own (book) account. Maybe she mentioned it to show the kids werent really left alone? Even if that was "by accident"?

Yes that was the 3rd, DP saw Kate in a towel, but this is where it gets confusing.

From Kates' 6th September Arguido Statement:

It was around 7:15PM when they put the children to bed and checked they were sleeping, she says she is sure of this.

As the children were asleep, she dried her hair and put on make up. Gerry maybe had a shower and they sat on one of the sofas in the living room, she doesn't know which. She had a glass of wine, poured by Gerry, and he had wine or beer. The wine was from New Zealand, white.

Stella wrote:Yes that was the 3rd, DP saw Kate in a towel, but this is where it gets confusing.

From Kates' 6th September Arguido Statement:

It was around 7:15PM when they put the children to bed and checked they were sleeping, she says she is sure of this.

As the children were asleep, she dried her hair and put on make up. Gerry maybe had a shower and they sat on one of the sofas in the living room, she doesn't know which. She had a glass of wine, poured by Gerry, and he had wine or beer. The wine was from New Zealand, white.

If you read gerrys, he says he took the shower, then later changed it to a bath, then changed to kate took a shower, but I think it ended up gerry taking a shower! (I think). They just do not know do they!!!

except they both agree they drunk new zealand wine!....poor little maddie to have such parents like these two

Moa wrote:
Did Madeleine and the twins go to bed at the same time? Or did Madeleine stay up longer? Where I live its normal to let the oldest child stay up maybe 30 min longer or something. Depending on age gap, but I think Maddie beeing almost 2 years older should stay up a little longer than her siblings.

This is what (Aunt) Janet Kennedy said in her witness statement about the children's bedtime routine at home:

"[size=9]Madeleine would normally go to bed around 19:30 ' 20:00 and Sean
and Amelie around 18:30 ' 19:00. As already mentioned, together
Kate and Gerry were very precise about sleep time"

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

They do seem to have strayed from this routine in Praia Da Luz though. From what I've read Madeleine was put to bed the same time as the twins.

jd wrote:

Stella wrote:Yes that was the 3rd, DP saw Kate in a towel, but this is where it gets confusing.

From Kates' 6th September Arguido Statement:

It was around 7:15PM when they put the children to bed and checked they were sleeping, she says she is sure of this.

As the children were asleep, she dried her hair and put on make up. Gerry maybe had a shower and they sat on one of the sofas in the living room, she doesn't know which. She had a glass of wine, poured by Gerry, and he had wine or beer. The wine was from New Zealand, white.

If you read gerrys, he says he took the shower, then later changed it to a bath, then changed to kate took a shower, but I think it ended up gerry taking a shower! (I think). They just do not know do they!!!

except they both agree they drunk new zealand wine!....poor little maddie to have such parents like these two

Yep, all confusion over showers and when, yet they can agree on a bottle of white !!

There was definately at least one occasion where Kate had a bath/shower whilst the three children were with her and awake, although because the accounts appear to vary it is hard to say on which date. I find it extraordinary that anyone would do that as the children could have been up to all sorts and quite possibly have come to harm while she was busy with soap in her ears! NO WAY should three small children be left unattended whilst one showers, it's almost worse than leaving them asleep. When Gerry mentioned leaving them alone was no different from leaving them inside whilst outside mowing the lawn (sorry not to pinpoint the exact source), again it was a NO WAY situation. With the noise of a mower and with three tinies being out of sight and earshot, anything could happen. It sounds like they thought it all perfectly normal behaviour and most parents know the "bad stuff" happens in a split second.

I'm sure this has been well covered but I can't get it out of my head. Gerry goes into the apartment and uses the bathroom for "several Minutes" having checked the sleeping children. He goes back out the front door and locks it, he heads towards the tapas bar when he meets Jez. They stop and chat. Next comes Jane Tanner coming up the road, passing Gerry & Jez and here she sees eggman/bundleman.

We now know that the "abductor" didn't leave through the window and I think the McCann's accept this. The "abductor" would need to leave through the patio doors but how does he do that when he must exit down the steps and onto the road with sleeping Madeleine? He has to come directly into the path of Gerry, Jez and Jane. There doesn't seem to be a second exit to the rear path (which he could walk down and double back to get in line for Jane's sighting. It looks like the white wall is high and looking up that path there doesn't seem to be a second exit from that apartment onto the laneway.

Nowhere in any of the statements made on 4th from anyone does it mention that the front door had been opened, you needed a key to open from the inside. Where would the "abductor" get a key and why would he bother locking the door behind him? Maybe I'm missing something but how could the public buy this story?

It is, as you observe, absolutely impossible.
It is, in fact, a lie.

Molly wrote:I'm sure this has been well covered but I can't get it out of my head. Gerry goes into the apartment and uses the bathroom for "several Minutes" having checked the sleeping children. He goes back out the front door and locks it, he heads towards the tapas bar when he meets Jez. They stop and chat. Next comes Jane Tanner coming up the road, passing Gerry & Jez and here she sees eggman/bundleman.

We now know that the "abductor" didn't leave through the window and I think the McCann's accept this. The "abductor" would need to leave through the patio doors but how does he do that when he must exit down the steps and onto the road with sleeping Madeleine? He has to come directly into the path of Gerry, Jez and Jane. There doesn't seem to be a second exit to the rear path (which he could walk down and double back to get in line for Jane's sighting. It looks like the white wall is high and looking up that path there doesn't seem to be a second exit from that apartment onto the laneway.

Nowhere in any of the statements made on 4th from anyone does it mention that the front door had been opened, you needed a key to open from the inside. Where would the "abductor" get a key and why would he bother locking the door behind him? Maybe I'm missing something but how could the public buy this story?

Well said Molly and this fact could not be highlighted enough, in my opinion.

Molly wrote:I'm sure this has been well covered but I can't get it out of my head. Gerry goes into the apartment and uses the bathroom for "several Minutes" having checked the sleeping children. He goes back out the front door and locks it, he heads towards the tapas bar when he meets Jez. They stop and chat. Next comes Jane Tanner coming up the road, passing Gerry & Jez and here she sees eggman/bundleman.

We now know that the "abductor" didn't leave through the window and I think the McCann's accept this. The "abductor" would need to leave through the patio doors but how does he do that when he must exit down the steps and onto the road with sleeping Madeleine? He has to come directly into the path of Gerry, Jez and Jane. There doesn't seem to be a second exit to the rear path (which he could walk down and double back to get in line for Jane's sighting. It looks like the white wall is high and looking up that path there doesn't seem to be a second exit from that apartment onto the laneway.

Nowhere in any of the statements made on 4th from anyone does it mention that the front door had been opened, you needed a key to open from the inside. Where would the "abductor" get a key and why would he bother locking the door behind him? Maybe I'm missing something but how could the public buy this story?

Well said Molly, this is indeed cannot be highlighted enough. Why have the police missed these facts

Ok, I am wrong about the front door being locked, I think. Nowhere in the evidence does it say that Gerry actually locked the door after his check. The front door has a dual locking system, if you don't physically lock the door from the outside the deadbolt won't be activated and it can be opened from the inside. Here is his first witness statement:

04/05/07 GM Statement translated by Natalia de Almeida. @ 11.15am

...at about 21.05 the witness came to the Club, entered the room using his respective key, the door being locked, went to his children's bedroom and checked that the twins were fine, as was Madeleine. "He then went to the WC" where he remained for a few moments, left, and bumped into a person he had played tennis with and who had a child's push chair, he was also British, he had a short conversation with him, "returning after that to the restaurant." At about 21.30 his friend Matt (member of the group) went to the apartment, where his children were and on his way went to the witness' apartment, entering by means of a glass sliding door that was always unlocked and was located laterally to the building. He entered the bedroom, he observed the twins and he did not even notice whether Madeleine was there"
as everything was calm, the shutters were closed and the door to the bedroom was ajar as usual. "After that Matt returned to the restaurant."
At about 22.00 it was his wife Kate who went to check on the children. She entered the apartment by the door using the key and saw immediately that the door to the children's bedroom was completely open, the window was also open, the blinds were raised and the curtains were drawn open.

..."the witness came to the Club": There is a typo where either he came to the apartment or he came from the club.

..."He entered the room using his respective key": I think this should say he entered the apartment using his respective key however the respective key sounds very definite to me as in he used the front door which required a key as opposed to using the back door which didn't require a key and "the door being locked" qualifying that it must be the front door because he later states that the back door was unlocked but closed.

Putting myself in Gerry's position for a minute I'm puzzled that he mentions meeting Jez. It seems to me that even at this point scarcely 12 hours after his daughter is missing he's creating an alibi/enforcing that he has a witness placing him at the apartment. I would expect Gerry to be more focused on whether he left the apartment secure and more definite about whether or not he deadbolted the front door, it was the one area of the apartment that was exposed.

He's very definite that Matt used the back sliding door that was unlocked

Then he states that Kate used the key to enter the apartment so this has to be through the front door. He doesn't have to answer for Kate, she will after all be making her own statement. If he's unsure all he has to say is that he doesn't know. They have only one key so you would infer from what he says here that he would have given her the key before she left the tapas bar.

Lovely post Molly! I think there were probably at least two keys, that would make sense in view of the fact that couples might come back at different times. So Kate might have had a key as well. And 'respective' as you say, probably only refers to the fact that the key belongs to that door. So I think what the statement says is that Gerry opened the door with his key which appertained to this door.

We all know that this statement is a lie. Since making it they have retracted from entering the front door and it was infact the unlocked patio door.....why are they lying in this police statement?

And why is it that their friends check on the Mccann kids.... but neither Mccann has ever checked in on their friends kids? Not only is it gerry (not kate until that one time) that goes for a check but he only seems to check his own kids and nobody elses, yet his friends check his! They all seem to be checking the Mccann kids

tigger wrote:Lovely post Molly! I think there were probably at least two keys, that would make sense in view of the fact that couples might come back at different times. So Kate might have had a key as well. And 'respective' as you say, probably only refers to the fact that the key belongs to that door. So I think what the statement says is that Gerry opened the door with his key which appertained to this door.

That's a fair point, Tigger, thanks. I was swayed by the fact that the Payne's only had one key between three of them. However lets be fair and assume that Gerry & Kate each had a key. And lets also keep an open mind on Gerry's Jez statement because as an observant poster pointed out, the PJ's could well have asked Gerry if anyone saw him at the apartment. So what we have so far is Gerry's statement on 04/05/07 at 11.15 am stating that he entered the apartment via the front door using his respective key, the door being locked and further stating that Kate also entered the apartment using a key which would also have to be via the front door.

jd wrote:We all know that this statement is a lie. Since making it they have retracted from entering the front door and it was infact the unlocked patio door.....why are they lying in this police statement?

Yes, JD, 6 days later there is a different account:

10/05/07 GM statement translated by Alice Dias Homem

----- He is certain that, before leaving home the children's bedroom was totally dark, with the window closed, but he does not know it was locked, the external blinds closed but with some slats open, and the curtains also drawn closed. Asked, he relates that during the night the artificial light coming in from the outside is very weak, because, without a light being on in the lounge or the kitchen, the visibility inside the bedroom is much reduced. Despite what he said in his previous statements, he states now and with certainty, that he left with KATE by the rear door which he consequently closed but did not lock given that that is only possible from the inside. Referring to the front door, while he is certain that it was closed it is unlikely that it was locked as [because] they had left by the rear door.

Now we have an unlocked front door, an unlocked back door, uncertainty whether the bedroom window is locked or not and some slats are open in the bedroom blinds.

jd wrote:And why is it that their friends check on the Mccann kids.... but neither Mccann has ever checked in on their friends kids? Not only is it gerry (not kate until that one time) that goes for a check but he only seems to check his own kids and nobody elses, yet his friends check his! They all seem to be checking the Mccann kids

It's very curious JD. Matt & Russell were especially helpful to the McCann's that night. Particularly when Russell had his own difficulties at that point with a sick child.

There's a lot of information here in the McCann files showing what people were told regarding missing Madeleine: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Trish Cameron:

"When Kate checked, she came out screaming. Maddy had gone. The door was open and the window in the bedroom and shutters were jemmied open. Nothing had been touched and no valuables taken.

"They think someone must have come in the window and gone out the door with her."

Jon Corner:

Jon Corner, a close friend of Mrs McCann and godparent of the twins, said Kate telephoned him in the middle of the night distraught.
He said: "She just blurted out that Madeleine had been abducted. She told me, 'They have broken the shutter on the window and taken my little girl.'

"They had left the apartment locked while they were having their meal, but when they went back the last time they saw the damage."

"She's also very upset that the police don't seem to be doing more to find Madeleine. She thinks there's too little happening."

Jill Renwick:

Jill Renwick, a family friend, told GMTV at 7:45am, on the morning of 04 May, that the distraught parents were certain that Madeline had been abducted. "They were just watching the hotel room and going back every half-hour."

Ms Renwick said: "Poor Kate and Gerry don't know where to turn. She's obviously been taken as she couldn't have gone out on her own and the shutters had been forced open."

Speaking to the BBC later, Ms Renwick said the McCanns, who had been holidaying with three other British families, had felt let down by police in Portugal. "I spoke to them this morning and they said the police had done nothing overnight and they felt as if they'd been left on their own. They just don't know where to turn."

However, the manager at the Mark Warner resort, John Hill said the police had been doing all they could. He said around 60 staff and guests at the complex had searched until 4.30am while police notified border police, Spanish police and airports.

Female Tapas Friend:

"Someone checked at 9.15. But when Kate went later Madeleine had gone.

"The window shutters, which had been closed since we arrived on Saturday, were open along with the window. They can be opened from the outside.

"The window opens on to a car park. The door to the room was shut. It looks as if someone has come through the window and possibly left through the door."

Philomena McCann

the tag line created on 05/05/07 "....they want to leave nothing unturned"

Mark Warner

Mark Warner, the holiday firm which runs the luxury resort, claimed last night there was no sign of a break in at the ground floor apartment overlooking the sea. But Brian Healy, Madeleine's maternal grandfather, told the Guardian his son-in-law had phoned him shortly after returning to the apartment from a nearby restaurant to find Madeleine had disappeared.

Brian Healy

"Gerry told me when they went back the shutters to the room were broken, they were jemmied up and she was gone," said Mr Healy. "She'd been taken from the chalet. The door was open."

So within those first few hours while the police and public searched PDL from 10pm until 4am the McCann's phoned their family and friends through the night. Most of the content was similar:

1. Madeleine had been abducted
2. The apartment had been broken into, the shutters were smashed and jemmied
3. The door was open - inferring that the apartment had been locked tight
4. The Portuguese Police were doing nothing and the McCann's were desperate for help

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

1. Entrance to OC Tapas
2. Back of Apartments
3. Where Gerry was standing, talking to Jez Wilkins
4. Where Jane was when she saw the "abductor"
5. Where she first saw the "abudctor"
6. Car park at front of apartments
7. Front entrance to Apt 5A & children's bedroom window
8. Where Jane last saw the "abductor"

Thanks for posting up these comments together Molly. When you read them you know just what big lies they are. the apartment was not locked, the patio door was left unlocked. The shutters were not jemmied open as was proven later, and which they admitted to. Plus it is impossible to jemmy them without causing permanent substantial damage to them. I know Ive tested them

So bearing in mind all the phone calls to F and F that night with these lies, not only do they raise serious suspicions but you ask why all the lies? What person in their right mind would ever tell all these big lies if their kid had been taken? Nobody.... as she was not taken, she was never there that night

Even to this day they are still lying about the shutters on Australian TV, despite the fact they have admitted to the PJ that they were not jemmied....still lying when we 'know' for a fact they are lying! I guess if you lie enough people will start believing you is the moto here

Its interesting to also note that they immediately started to attack the Portuguese police to the F& F, imo to take away the finger of suspicion away from them and onto the police. Probably trying to play the card that because they were British, the UK public would only be thinking like them and blame the foreign police thus deflecting the truth away from them

As well as blaming the Portuguese police, they never ever once thanked all those OC staff and other holiday guests for helping to search for Maddie that night. Not a shred of gratitude. This despite the fact that kate never went out to help search herself which....in another lie....she says on TV interviews she went out to search but in her book, she was out jumping hedges looking for her all night! which is the truth kate?

To rub salt into the wound, these poor OC staff lost their jobs after this night and considering it was the mccanns abduction story that caused these innocent people to be made redundant (in a area where there are hardly many jobs and holiday resorts are the main source of income)...did they even offer any money from the fund as compensation that their story has caused these innocent people, who did everything they could from their human kindness to help them that night, to be jobless and unable to pay the rent....like heck did they!

No instead, they are just continuing their lies and more lies and more lies...using the full force of the legal system to stamp on anyone who dares to challenge their story based on facts. And lets not forget the lies in the statements about the front door and things like a poster all ready available before the PJ even got there on May 3rd! despite having no printer and with an old photo of Maddie which derived from a memory stick...why on earth have they old photos of Maddie on a memory stick on an Algarve holiday!

Regarding the apartment: windows were closed but she doesn't know if they were locked. Veranda window closed but not locked, curtains closed. The second window in the living room was probably closed, she did not touch it and does not know if the blinds were closed. The kitchen window was probably closed but with the blinds open as there was light in the kitchen.

The window in Madeleine's room remained closed, but she doesn't know if it was locked, blinds and curtains drawn. The window remained like this since the first day, night and day. She never opened it. If somebody saw the window blinds in Madeleine's room open, it was not Kate who opened them, she never saw them open.

The window in Kate's room was closed and she admits they used the blinds, because Gerry broke them and they were repaired on the Monday; the incident occurred on Sunday.

Before they left she took some precautions: put the medicine inside a bag with a clasp in her room inside the wardrobe or the dresser. These were Calpol (paracetamol) and Nurofen (Ibuprofen), for fevers and pains, both for adults and children (liquid form for children). In this bag there was also a small pair of scissors. In the kitchen were cutting elements used to prepare the meals and which were not put out of sight. During their trips it was normal for them to take these medicines. During these holidays she never gave any medicine to her children, nor did Gerry. She now says that Gerry took medicine for acidity called Losec (omeprozole) which they also possessed.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

The middle window above, where the people are walking is the second apartment window, according to Kate it was "probably" closed and she didn't know if the blinds were closed.

So after sipping their NZ wine Kate and Gerry go out, leaving their children alone having hidden the medicines. Madeleine has asked them where they were the precious night when she and Sean were crying. Front and back doors unlocked, windows probably closed.

jd wrote:Thanks for posting up these comments together Molly. When you read them you know just what big lies they are. the apartment was not locked, the patio door was left unlocked. The shutters were not jemmied open as was proven later, and which they admitted to. Plus it is impossible to jemmy them without causing permanent substantial damage to them. I know Ive tested them

Yes, JD, I have seen it on many of their later interviews. It's incredible.

jd wrote:So bearing in mind all the phone calls to F and F that night with these lies, not only do they raise serious suspicions but you ask why all the lies? What person in their right mind would ever tell all these big lies if their kid had been taken? Nobody.... as she was not taken, she was never there that night

It's just too hard to believe.

jd wrote:As well as blaming the Portuguese police, they never ever once thanked all those OC staff and other holiday guests for helping to search for Maddie that night. Not a shred of gratitude. This despite the fact that kate never went out to help search herself which....in another lie....she says on TV interviews she went out to search but in her book, she was out jumping hedges looking for her all night! which is the truth kate?

To rub salt into the wound, these poor OC staff lost their jobs after this night and considering it was the mccanns abduction story that caused these innocent people to be made redundant (in a area where there are hardly many jobs and holiday resorts are the main source of income)...did they even offer any money from the fund as compensation that their story has caused these innocent people, who did everything they could from their human kindness to help them that night, to be jobless and unable to pay the rent....like heck did they!

Yes, JD, apart from Madeleine, they are the victims, these wonderful people who turned themselves upside down and inside out to help in this appalling tragedy.

It took me a long time to get this particular piece of the puzzle clear in my head. Just another one or two posts to go, hoping to get this info straight in an ordered fashion so it might help get a perspective on the doors, the windows and the abduction story.

If kate never opened the window in maddies room then why did they only have one set of finger prints on them......HERS!

Molly wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

1. Entrance to OC Tapas
2. Back of Apartments
3. Where Gerry was standing, talking to Jez Wilkins
4. Where Jane was when she saw the "abductor"
5. Where she first saw the "abudctor"
6. Car park at front of apartments
7. Front entrance to Apt 5A & children's bedroom window
8. Where Jane last saw the "abductor"

Something is not right with this picture.
If Jane is mark 4 I guess she turns left at mark 7 wich is the entrence to the appartments. So why did the abducter go so much faster from mark 5 to 8 then Jane from mark 4-7 ? did he run ? and wouldnt that be suspisouce when holding a child in your arms? And how can Jane even see him at Mark 8 around the corner when she standing either at mark 4, 7 or between them ? And if she did se him at mark 8 wouldn't she then see him from behind? so why did she never describe seeing him from behind then?
I just do not believe Jane Tanner...

Add the fact Tanner changed her sighting of what the abductor looked liked 3 times....of course she is lying her face off

jd wrote:Add the fact Tanner changed her sighting of what the abductor looked liked 3 times....of course she is lying her face off

I know. And you don't have to be very brave to notice either. So why isn't the police or goverment doing anything ? Thats where I have the biggest problem , i don't understand it.
For some reason they are protected it seems..

Moa wrote:

Molly wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

1. Entrance to OC Tapas
2. Back of Apartments
3. Where Gerry was standing, talking to Jez Wilkins
4. Where Jane was when she saw the "abductor"
5. Where she first saw the "abudctor"
6. Car park at front of apartments
7. Front entrance to Apt 5A & children's bedroom window
8. Where Jane last saw the "abductor"

Something is not right with this picture.
If Jane is mark 4 I guess she turns left at mark 7 wich is the entrence to the appartments. So why did the abducter go so much faster from mark 5 to 8 then Jane from mark 4-7 ? did he run ? and wouldnt that be suspisouce when holding a child in your arms? And how can Jane even see him at Mark 8 around the corner when she standing either at mark 4, 7 or between them ? And if she did se him at mark 8 wouldn't she then see him from behind? so why did she never describe seeing him from behind then?
I just do not believe Jane Tanner...

I do not think you can turn left at Mark 7. I believe you have to go right round into the car park following the line that has been drawn. So she would have had to go right into the road, and there is no reason why she should not have looked at the man for a long time beyond Mark 8. As she has sketched, "was here when I got to top of road. She therefore never gave him a second glance.
But why would you give a non-existent man carrying a non-existent child in a non-existent blanket...?

PeterMac wrote:

Moa wrote:

Molly wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

1. Entrance to OC Tapas
2. Back of Apartments
3. Where Gerry was standing, talking to Jez Wilkins
4. Where Jane was when she saw the "abductor"
5. Where she first saw the "abudctor"
6. Car park at front of apartments
7. Front entrance to Apt 5A & children's bedroom window
8. Where Jane last saw the "abductor"

Something is not right with this picture.
If Jane is mark 4 I guess she turns left at mark 7 wich is the entrence to the appartments. So why did the abducter go so much faster from mark 5 to 8 then Jane from mark 4-7 ? did he run ? and wouldnt that be suspisouce when holding a child in your arms? And how can Jane even see him at Mark 8 around the corner when she standing either at mark 4, 7 or between them ? And if she did se him at mark 8 wouldn't she then see him from behind? so why did she never describe seeing him from behind then?
I just do not believe Jane Tanner...

I do not think you can turn left at Mark 7. I believe you have to go right round into the car park following the line that has been drawn. So she would have had to go right into the road, and there is no reason why she should not have looked at the man for a long time beyond Mark 8. As she has sketched, "was here when I got to top of road. She therefore never gave him a second glance.
But why would you give a non-existent man carrying a non-existent child in a non-existent blanket...?

I was wondering about wether she went to the top or not. I saw Mark 7 described as an entrance and therefor guessed she used that one-...

Moa wrote: I was wondering about wether she went to the top or not. I saw Mark 7 described as an entrance and therefor guessed she used that one-...

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Moa, you can see better in the above picture, mark 7 is at the side of the apartment just where you see the second last red arrow but you need to continue up to the top of the road along the trees and then follow the road for the entrance, the last arrow is where point 7 really should be. Apt 5A is to the left of the final red arrow.

You can see just how isolated the back entrance is, it would be easy enough to force the lock (that isn't dead bolted according to Kate) and the window of the children's bedroom is closed but not locked either. It doesn't bring a good picture of simply dining in the back garden.