The duplicate key theory

by Liz Eagles 14.02.12 22:00

When you go to a holiday resort there are cleaners with keys, there is a reception with a key, there is a key waiting for you to enter and leave your apartment. Claiming that someone had a duplicate key to the room is really scraping the barrel for me. Of course there are duplicate keys! There are also sometimes master keys. Even when an apartment is empty it has to be maintained and cleaned. The clarifying point for me is a question I asked about whether there was a safe in the apartment and was informed the safes were in reception (who also have duplicate keys no doubt).

I really find the 'oh gosh someone may have had a duplicate key' complete nonsense, especially for educated people who produced their valuables (I'm not talking about the kids here) when asked by PJ. Those same folk allegedly left the patio doors open (also allegedly in case of fire - so we are to imagine Madeleine could lift out her twin siblings from their cots and struggle with a door and rescue them) I'd like Pat Brown to look into the locks of all the doors on the apartment and investigate the keys.

I'm sure that's already on Pat's list.

by **sharonl** 14.02.12 22:33

Here is a reminder of what Goncalo Amaral had to say on the subject of the door locks

starting at 540 on the video

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

by Liz Eagles 14.02.12 23:02

[quote="sharonl"]Here is a reminder of what Goncalo Amaral had to say on the subject of the door locks

starting at 540 on the video

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

Thanks for that sharonl, it would still be good IMO for Pat Brown to investigate the locks. A second opinion is always good and who knows perhaps the locks have miraculously been changed if you get my meaning. It would be very interesting to see what has changed since captured photographic evidence.

by jd 14.02.12 23:39

Wasn't Malinka's mother a cleaner there?

by T4two 15.02.12 0:58

In the beginning the word went out to family and friends and people with influence that the shutter had been 'smashed' or jemmied and the window forced open. This was important to get the abduction tale immediately accepted, without the sort of annoying questions such as, "But how do you know she's been abducted?" or platitudes like, "She's probably just woken up and gone looking for you. Don't worry, I'm sure she'll be found soon..." No time for long explanations then; shutter smashed or jemmied + window forced + child gone = abduction. Thus it was possible to mobilize family and friends, including those people with influence, quickly; so quickly in fact that the story was all over the media the very next morning.

Of course it didn't take long before the information started to trickle into the media reporting, that the shutter had not in fact been smashed or the window forced. This was what the police had ascertained; no sign of a break in. This was a fact that couldn't be denied, so the story had to change or be modified. But how to change the story to fit the facts and still come up with a convincing argument that it must have been an abduction? OK, so we left the patio doors unlocked, so there was no sign of a forced entry because the abductor came in through the patio doors , however the shutter was up and the window was open which means that the abductor must have opened them to make his escape. This is how we knew immediately that it was an abduction. This modified story has been in place for several years now, during which time it has been embellished and expanded upon on numerous occasions. Unfortunately, this version always leaves them open to the criticism that they were completely irresponsible, not only leaving the children alone in the apartment, but in an unlocked apartment to boot.

IMO therefore, this latest version about the possibility of a duplicate key being used, which after a tenuous introduction some time ago, has now re-appeared with a vengeance, is being put out with the sole purpose of eliminating this last criticism about leaving the children in an unlocked apartment. The logic is clear; if a duplicate key was used to enter through the front door, the fact that the patio doors were left unlocked had no bearing whatsoever on the abduction, ergo the parents cannot be criticised for leaving the patio doors unlocked, because the abduction would have happened anyway. Just why an abductor would have accessed the apartment through the front door using a duplicate key and left with the child through the window is I suppose a minor detail. In fact it's such a minor detail that it has never seemed to bother the parents or their family and friends or the people with influence or even the media before, when it was just as illogical that the abductor should have entered through the unlocked patio door and left via the window. I'll be watching out for the readers' letters to the Mail, Express and others in which the argument is put forward that leaving the patio doors unlocked did not place the children in danger because the abductor used a duplicate key and the abduction would have happened anyway. I'm sure the PR people have their letter writers at the ready.

by Liz Eagles 15.02.12 7:08

T4two I agree. IMO the daft thing is that it doesn't take a rocket scientist to work out that there are always duplicate keys to holiday apartments. So we've gone from 'jemmied' shutters to 'unlocked' patio doors to 'duplicate key'.

As far as the patio doors and the front door are concerned it would be very interesting to test how easily a child of nearly four could open them by simply asking a child of nearly four to prove that. If it shows to be very difficult/nigh on impossible that blows the idea that the patio doors were left open in case of fire and begs the question why they were left open. If the front door mechanism was double locked that would mean it couldn't be opened from the inside - but I'm not clear on the type of lock so I am theorising here. I can't get my head around the fact that you would not only leave three defenceless children alone night after night in an apartment in a foreign country to go out with your mates but you could leave a patio door open and then try to explain that away without having to take responsibility.

As with all things in this case, nothing much adds up. What does add up IMO is that there are three ways to get into/out of that apartment and when one wasn't passing muster the next one was rolled out.

by **tigger** 15.02.12 7:23

Every time Gerry is asked to explain the 'neglect' and the open patio door - the park-sized gardens he's used to, he always seems a little indignant to have to do so. Looks to me as if it seemed a perfectly good plan to him and it really is annoying to have to explain it once again to us pea-brains.
Didn't the front door figure a week later? Something about it making too much noise it would wake up the children.
A timeline of the front door/window/patio door would be very interesting. That is, the changing statements over the years.

by dentdelion 15.02.12 7:29

Perhaps they gave the front door key to a third party to enable Madeleine to be taken discretely that way. So the patio door was left open to allow for the checking routine.

As for fire excuse to leave door open..... I see it as being to facilitate rescuers to quickly access the children in case of fire rather than for them to escape themselves.

When we holiday, we ask for second key so we can come and go independently. Usually no problem especially the hotel cards or maybe an extra deposit.

by happychick 15.02.12 7:38

If Kate and Gerry left the patio door unlocked 'in case of fire' then surely they would have had to tell Maddie why the door was being left open so that in the case of fire she would immediately know what to do to save herself and her baby brother and sister rather than faff around trying to open shutters and windows. Every second counts.

And if Maddie was old enough to take all that on board then she was surely old enough to consider that someone might come in through the unlocked door and try to harm her and her siblings.

No wonder poor Maddie had trouble sleeping - waiting for a fire to break out or for someone to break in - and had to be sedated. Would she have woken up if a fire broke out if she was sedated? The twins didn't wake up when the apartment was full of people milling around. As if Maddie's responsibility wasn't huge enough for a 3 year old, to do it under sedation would require special skill.

by jd 15.02.12 9:48

I agree that the duplicate key is totally fantasy and far fetched. Taking it on face value, then if this phantom 'abductor' had a duplicate key then this would mean it was an inside job. Mark Warner/Ocean Club, Cleaners etc would all be brought into question...and pre planned and which the phantom 'abductor' would know the door would be under a light that the neighbours could all see

by **tigger** 15.02.12 10:24

happychick wrote:If Kate and Gerry left the patio door unlocked 'in case of fire' then surely they would have had to tell Maddie why the door was being left open so that in the case of fire she would immediately know what to do to save herself and her baby brother and sister rather than faff around trying to open shutters and windows. Every second counts.

And if Maddie was old enough to take all that on board then she was surely old enough to consider that someone might come in through the unlocked door and try to harm her and her siblings.

No wonder poor Maddie had trouble sleeping - waiting for a fire to break out or for someone to break in - and had to be sedated. Would she have woken up if a fire broke out if she was sedated? The twins didn't wake up when the apartment was full of people milling around. As if Maddie's responsibility wasn't huge enough for a 3 year old, to do it under sedation would require special skill.

So the open patio door is either:
for firemen to come in -
but not for children to come out (in case of fire or other events) (because that could not happen according to TM) -
'they know their daughter well enough to know she wouldn't go off on her own' (not litt.. quote) always seemed a most impersonal statement re your child.
Quite a conundrum - the door needed to be both open and closed. Quantum theory at its best.

by C.Edwards 15.02.12 10:57

I can add something to this particular line of questioning. Last year me & my sister had a brief and lively debate with the nice folk at pfa2 about this. The theory which was put forward then (which, to be honest, I've not heard mentioned too much since from what I can recall?) is that the "abductor" didn't necessarily go out of the window. Apparently they raised the shutters from the inside (but quietly, so as not to alert anyone nearby that they were being raised...) and then gently pushed open the window in order to check if anyone was standing nearby and would see their escape with Madeleine.

It was pointed out to the purveyors of this convenient plan that the window was projected forward from the front door in such a way as to render the view from this window useless, but this just led to a barrage of insults and then both of us getting banned. I think they went on to say that maybe the abductor went as far as opening the window and shutters to make his escape and THEN realised it wasn't a good plan so decided against it after all.

This is, to me, a prime example of pro-McCann convenient retrofitting.

At first the apartment is locked and the abductor comes in through the shutters and window
This is shown to be impossible, so suddenly the patio door is remembered as being unlocked
Hang on, why is the window/shutters open? Ah, the abductor got out that way!
Oh, wait, there's no physical evidence and it would be pointless and counterproductive for any abductor to do this, we need a better reason
The abductor, in his tiny window of opportunity, took time to carefully and quietly open the shutters and open the window in order to take a look around to see if he would be seen, forgetting to realise that he couldn't see around the corner anyway
Then the parents are criticised for leaving an open apartment with their kids in so they invent the "duplicate key" myth in order to make it, in their eyes, irrelevant whether they left the flat open or not as the nasty abductor would have got in anyway

Any of it *may* have had the faint whiff of plausibility about it if it had turned up in accounts/explanations before it was needed to quickly counter a previous "account of the truth" which had just been proven unlikely or even impossible. As it is, it's like the evolving string of excuses made up by a naughty child caught in the act as each whopper is torn apart under scrutiny.

by jd 15.02.12 11:28

Would she have woken up if a fire broke out if she was sedated? The twins didn't wake up when the apartment was full of people milling around

How so very true!!!!!!!!

by sijm 15.02.12 22:01

On the Mcintyre post I think I have gone into detail to prove how it is impossible that there was an abductor, had he worked alone or with and accomplice or entered the apartment throught the window or the front door, he would have made his get away with Madeleine's head resting on his right arm.

Jane Tanner stated she saw the abductor stride across to her right as she walked up the road and in her photo-fit the abductor carries the child with her legs draped over his right arm, this would have been impossible if he had lifted her out of the bed at the position she was laid at.

by Nina 15.02.12 22:19

sijm wrote:On the Mcintyre post I think I have gone into detail to prove how it is impossible that there was an abductor, had he worked alone or with and accomplice or entered the apartment throught the window or the front door, he would have made his get away with Madeleine's head resting on his right arm.

Jane Tanner stated she saw the abductor stride across to her right as she walked up the road and in her photo-fit the abductor carries the child with her legs draped over his right arm, this would have been impossible if he had lifted her out of the bed at the position she was laid at.

Agree all the way, unless, she was in the other bed by the window or she was in her parents room. Anyway of no consequence because she wasn't abducted.

by sijm 15.02.12 22:34

Thank you Nina.

If you excuse me for being a little blunt I will add only one thing, If everyone just stopped at saying (there was no abduction) that would not help prove it.

If the case is to be reopened, the lawyers against the McCanns must be able to break down their alibis and accounts of what occurred that evening.[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

by Gillyspot 16.02.12 7:04

I bet the McCanns wished Donal had shared the duplicate key theory with them before 3rd May 2007. It would have saved them so much trouble. big grin

by **tigger** 16.02.12 8:13

PeterMac: Back to the beginning - McCann's lies (Sticky Topic)
PeterMac on Sun Nov 06, 2011 11:11 am

It is refreshing once in a while to go right back to the start and to pick away at what was said, ’until it bleeds’. In this case it becomes a ‘reductio ad absurdam’

Let us once again look at the physical structure of the apartment

There are only three possible points of entry
1 Front door
2 Front window (into children’s bedroom)
3 Patio doors

From the statements of GM and KM and Jez and JT, and forensic teams

1 Front door is locked.
2 Front window shutters were not jemmied or forced
Therefore it must be -
3 Unlocked patio door

Possible points of exit
1 Front door
2 Front window (into children’s bedroom)
3 Patio doors

Take them one by one
1 Front door - it is locked
2 Front window - no forensic signs of exit. Lichen etc. is undisturbed
3 Patio door - GM and Jez are in the lane outside and JT sees bundleman crossing the road at the top of the road whilst all three of them are in the lane.

And from the timing of JT’s statement, if we accept any of the above, Bundleman MUST have been in the apartment whilst GM was there.
(So incidentally any idea of chloroform or other similar Disney-fantasy magic knock-out gas can be discounted)

unquote

I've just lifted this from the first page of the above sticky topic as if so neatly lists the possibilities.
The first pages deal with the door/window sage.

quote: PeterMac
GM statement 4 May 2007
"Thus, at 9.05pm, Gerry entered the apartment using his key, the door being locked, ..."
At 10.00pm,. Kate went to check on the children. She went into the apartment using her key, and saw.. SNIP. The doors were locked except the one at the back as already noted above [in MO's statement]

Unquote.

by aiyoyo 16.02.12 10:42

tigger wrote: PeterMac: Back to the beginning - McCann's lies (Sticky Topic)
PeterMac on Sun Nov 06, 2011 11:11 am

It is refreshing once in a while to go right back to the start and to pick away at what was said, ’until it bleeds’. In this case it becomes a ‘reductio ad absurdam’

Let us once again look at the physical structure of the apartment

There are only three possible points of entry
1 Front door
2 Front window (into children’s bedroom)
3 Patio doors

From the statements of GM and KM and Jez and JT, and forensic teams

1 Front door is locked.
2 Front window shutters were not jemmied or forced
Therefore it must be -
3 Unlocked patio door

Possible points of exit
1 Front door
2 Front window (into children’s bedroom)
3 Patio doors

Take them one by one
1 Front door - it is locked
2 Front window - no forensic signs of exit. Lichen etc. is undisturbed
3 Patio door - GM and Jez are in the lane outside and JT sees bundleman crossing the road at the top of the road whilst all three of them are in the lane.

And from the timing of JT’s statement, if we accept any of the above, Bundleman MUST have been in the apartment whilst GM was there.
(So incidentally any idea of chloroform or other similar Disney-fantasy magic knock-out gas can be discounted)

unquote

I've just lifted this from the first page of the above sticky topic as if so neatly lists the possibilities.
The first pages deal with the door/window sage.

quote: PeterMac
GM statement 4 May 2007
"Thus, at 9.05pm, Gerry entered the apartment using his key, the door being locked, ..."
At 10.00pm,. Kate went to check on the children. She went into the apartment using her key, and saw.. SNIP. The doors were locked except the one at the back as already noted above [in MO's statement]

Unquote.

Who purports the "duplicate key" theory BTW?

IF they mean front door key, then front door is found locked according to Gerry and Kate, hence couldnt have been point of entry.
Besides if the abductor had a front door key, wouldnt it be reasonable to think he would unlock the door ready for his quick exit even if he didn't enter from the front door? Moreover if he'd a key why exist from the window which is mccanns constant element in this open window/shutter saga?

by **tigger** 16.02.12 16:21

I think what TM are doing is to switch all the 'evidence' back to the early days, back to the shutters etc. Somehow I think that's because of the SY investigation. This time they're going to try and stick to the original story, because that's what's on record - not all the endless changes are on official record. I have no idea if the many videos - the book etc. count as evidence.

by rainbow-fairy 16.02.12 16:52

Just a quick comment - I'm not sure why it could be construed as any less neglectful, leaving the children in an unlocked apartment as the abductor had a key, meaning the 'abduction' would've been nothing to do with the unlocked patio doors???

If we believe the McCanns story (I don't) that they left the children alone, locked doors or unlocked, they are still 100% culpable as had themselves or a babysitter been present the 'abduction' couldn't have happened! Unless, of course, said 'abductor' entered apt with key and took Maddie at gunpoint!

This duplicate key rubbish is a desperate attempt to re-write history and steer attention away from themselves (again). It just doesn't work, for many reasons. If the 'abductor' had a key, and had been 'watching the family' as Kate claims, then why wait til May 3rd when allegedly checks had increased? Why would they do a 'dry run' the night before? If they'd got in unnoticed they wouldn't leave without the booty, surely? It's not like they were waiting for a car or anything...[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

No, it makes no sense at all, like 99.9% of the McCanns spoutings. I don't believe the McCanns ever left the children alone, nor do I think they ever left the apartment unlocked...

The most telling comment for me..... 'No valuables were taken' - er,[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] ???

Surely your much-wanted, 'much-loved' children would be the most important things in that apartment, end of.

by Kololi 16.02.12 17:12

Doors locked or unlocked wouldn't have really mattered when considering their accountability as educated parents had those three children burned that night in a fire would it?

by rainbow-fairy 16.02.12 17:49

Kololi wrote:Doors locked or unlocked wouldn't have really mattered when considering their accountability as educated parents had those three children burned that night in a fire would it?

Exactly, Kololi.

If you believe they left the children, then they were negligent and accountable for whatever befell her, end of.[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]