The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™
Hello!

A very warm welcome to The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™ forum.

Please log in, or register to view all the forums, then settle in and help us get to the truth about what really happened to Madeleine Beth McCann. Please note that your username should be different from your email address!

When posting please be mindful that this forum is primarily about the death of a three year old girl.

(Please note: if you register with the sole intention of disrupting or spamming, please don't expect to be a member for too long.)

Many thanks,

Jill Havern
Forum owner

Starting at the beginning - the obvious

Page 2 of 4 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: Starting at the beginning - the obvious

Post by Guest on 01.05.12 16:54

Here is MO's explanation of the 2 windows he mentions in his first statement on 4th May taken from the Rogatory interview with the British police.............

Reply "The shutters, we didn't open all week, because there's kind of no point. I mean, we went in that bedroom for G**** to sleep during that day, it needed to be dark and kept it at an even temperature, there was no point putting it up and down. I know the, one of the things I said in my statement, when we talk about the Thursday, was where the two windows were only the one, and I thought the two were on this bedroom rather than this one and so, you know, I said, you go through, but there's actually two more, apparently two on those, they showed me a photograph of that. So that's something I know that I got mistaken by, I thought there were two on next door, because I don't think I'd ever noticed it because I think because we'd never pulled up the shutters, they were always sort of down, we just didn't interfere with those".

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id219.html


I can't understand why on earth, when MO mentioned 2 windows in that first statement, the PJ didn't immediately jump on that and ask which window had the shutter up? How would he have answered that?
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Starting at the beginning - the obvious

Post by russiandoll on 01.05.12 17:13

I am having no success so far finding something else I would like to post, so for now some statements from those checking 5a on the fateful evening.

LIGHT AND DARK IN 5A.


Kate McCann 4th May 2007.

At around 9.30pm, at the time when the witness should have gone to see her children, her friend Matt (a member of the group), who was coming to check, as well, went to the apartment where his children were staying and on his way went to the witness’s apartment. He entered the apartment through a glass sliding door at the side that was always unlocked and once inside, he had not gone into the children's bedroom. He remained at the bedroom door, listening for noise and observing the beds. He went back to the restaurant and said that everything was fine.



Matthew Oldfield 4th May 2007

At around 21h25, the interviewee went into his apartment and Madeleine's apartment to check on the children. He states that the door of the bedroom quarters, that was occupied by Madeleine and the twins, was half-open and that there was enough light in the bedroom for him to see the twins in their cots. That he couldn't see the bed occupied by Madeleine, but as it was all quiet, he deduced that she was sleeping. That the light in question was from an artificial source but not inside the bedroom, rather from outside through the bedroom window
He states that the bedroom has two windows. The twins occupy two cots placed in the middle of the room and Madeleine occupies a bed pushed against the wall



Rachel O 4th May 2007

He also checked the one where Madeleine was. He went in through the patio door (the couple Gerry and Kate McCann left this door accessible for everyone during dinner) The said patio door gives access to the apartment's lounge where two doors open into the respective bedrooms.

Her husband went into the main room and, "hung about," to listen for any noise from the bedroom where the children were sleeping. He didn't switch any lights on. He could see the twins in their beds. The bedroom door was half-open. It was only later that he realised this was strange. At the time, he gave no importance to the fact.


G McCann 10th May 2007

Usually they entered the apartment, in which one of the living room lights was on, went to the children's bedroom door, which was ajar, and only peeped inside, trying to hear if the children were crying. The shutters were closed with only two or three slats open, the window was closed though he is not totally sure if it was locked, and the curtains drawn closed.

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 shutters closed but with some slats open, and the curtains also drawn closed. Asked, he mentions that during the night the artificial light coming in from the outside is very weak, therefore, without a light being lit in the living room or in the kitchen, the visibility inside the bedroom is much reduced.
He walked the normal route up to the back door, which being open he only had to slide, and while he was entering the living room, he noticed that the children's bedroom door was not ajar as he had left it but half-way open, which he thought was strange, having then thought that possibly MADELEINE had got up to go to sleep in his bedroom, so as to avoid the noise produced by her siblings. Therefore, he entered the children's bedroom and established visual contact with each of them, checking and he is certain of this, that the three were deeply asleep. He left the children's bedroom returning to place the door how he had already previously described, then went to the bathroom. Everything else was normal, the shutters, curtains and windows closed, very dark, there only being the light that came from the living room.



M Oldfield 10th May 2007

That he did not enter the bedroom where Madeleine and the twins were sleeping. He recalls that the bedroom door was half open, making an angle of 50 degrees. He does not know how far away he was from the bedroom door. He recalls having the perception that the window curtains – green in colour – were drawn closed but could not determine if the window was closed or open. Concerning the external blinds he clarifies that he did not see if it was closed or open. He recalls having thought that in that bedroom there was more brightness than there was in his daughter's room (where the external blinds were always fully closed), adding to have had the feeling that that light was coming from the outside – making the point that both [bedroom windows] were facing in the same direction.

Consequently, he admits the possibility of the light he was perceiving was owing to the blinds being raised, denying however that he was capable of assessing the height at which it may have been.

Consequently, he is convinced that at the time of the second check the blinds were more open than on the first check, given that he considers that the light inside the bedroom, undoubtedly coming from the outside, could not have been coming through it [the blinds] if they had been fully closed.

Following on, convinced that everything was within normality, given that he perceived no noise to make him think otherwise, and further, due to, in his mind, having managed to glimpse the two twin siblings of Madeleine inside their cots, the deponent returned to the restaurant to finish dinner.

Asked, he clarifies to not have seen Madeleine lying on the bed in the bedroom because from where he was during the check he had no sight of that bed.




M Oldfield R I
What was the lighting like around that area at that time?"

Reply "It's getting dusk, erm, by that time, but not completely dark, erm, it was not as dark as it got later on (inaudible) visibility".

"Do you remember or can you recall what the street lighting was like around there?"

Reply "There's a street light, and this is all, erm, I couldn't sort of guarantee this, but my impression is that there was, the street lights were sort of very orangey, erm, sort of fairly orangey light, I think there was one at the top corner and maybe one about halfway up on the right as you came up from the Tapas Restaurant and possibly one on that, on that back bit behind the car park, someway further along".

So I went back and did the check on five 'A', on Madeleine and the kids, erm, and went back through the patio entrance, so through the gate, through the patio doors, erm, there was, it was light enough to see through the apartment and there sort of a little table light on the right at the end of the sofa and when you walk into the room, you could see straight into it, because the door was open
Erm, I've spent a lot of time debating how far the door was open, from previous questioning, and, you know, it wasn't flat back against the wall, because that would have looked odd, it was just sort of halfway open, so it seemed slightly unusual that it should be so wide open, because you could see straight into the middle of the room from the angle that you approach it, because the, you've got sofas here and you've got a bookcase here and you have to come out, you've got sort of the wall of the bedroom and then it goes back where the bathroom is and then comes out again, so you've got to come out round this wall to sort of, not out round this wall, but you come in and the doorway is sort of recessed, so you can see pretty much straight into the room from the doorway back or certainly as soon as you get past that final wall. So it seemed odd to have that door open,




____________________



             The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie — deliberate,
contrived and dishonest — but the myth — persistent, persuasive and
unrealistic.
~John F. Kennedy

avatar
russiandoll

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

Back to top Go down

Re: Starting at the beginning - the obvious

Post by Nina on 01.05.12 17:55

If this type of shutter is down but not fully so the line upon line of tiny holes are open and visible along the length between each slat then from a darkened room any light from outside be it streetlights at night or daylight shows as just that row upon row of little light spots.
So If it is very dark at the window then the shutters are fully down, if it is very light then the shutter is up, if down but not locked fully down then the rows of light spots.
Actually all this light level is very obvious even with curtains closed.
I live in an area where there are no street lights, on account of there being no streets titter so at night even by moonlight I can see the rows of dots.
So if it was very dark the shutters were down. If there were the very visible light dots, the shutter was down but not in it;s locked position, if it was light the shutter was either fully raised or partial, but if partial that too would have been obvious.
I will not say imo, as it is not opinion it is fact.

____________________
Not one more cent from me.
avatar
Nina

Posts : 2831
Reputation : 315
Join date : 2011-06-16
Age : 74

Back to top Go down

Re: Starting at the beginning - the obvious

Post by jd on 01.05.12 18:09

One thing to remember is the apartments are small but they talk like it was a castle, stand at the door of your bedroom with it half open and you see and sense if the window is open or not. You know if the curtains are drawn or not. MO could see the twins and the twins were in effect in front of the window, so if he can see the twins he can see the window. The fact he can just see the twins will be the light from the main part of the apartment going into the dark bedroom rather the light from the window emanating from inside the room. Gerry mccann says in his 4th May statement that 'the shutters were closed when MO went in at 9.30' ...now their ever evolving statements change to light, no light, door 50% angles....its just the normal reactive changes to their original story to make it try and fit to what they have been caught out with. kate gave us her graphic reconstruction of the wind in the apartment and the whoosh of the door, MO would certainly have felt this wind and whooshing around the apartment if the window was open when he was there regardless of the lighting. Their very first statements are the most telling of the fabricated story they are telling, and gerry not only mentions the shutters down but jane tanner saw someone at 9.15, they wrote the same timeline on Maddies sticker book. The plan from the start was to sell the abduction from jane tanner sighting but they have made a complete oversight with their times and shutters, especially kate with her whooshing reconstruction

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

Posts : 4152
Reputation : 20
Join date : 2011-07-22

Back to top Go down

Re: Starting at the beginning - the obvious

Post by Guest on 01.05.12 20:10

@jd wrote:One thing to remember is the apartments are small but they talk like it was a castle, stand at the door of your bedroom with it half open and you see and sense if the window is open or not. You know if the curtains are drawn or not. MO could see the twins and the twins were in effect in front of the window, so if he can see the twins he can see the window. The fact he can just see the twins will be the light from the main part of the apartment going into the dark bedroom rather the light from the window emanating from inside the room. Gerry mccann says in his 4th May statement that 'the shutters were closed when MO went in at 9.30' ...now their ever evolving statements change to light, no light, door 50% angles....its just the normal reactive changes to their original story to make it try and fit to what they have been caught out with. kate gave us her graphic reconstruction of the wind in the apartment and the whoosh of the door, MO would certainly have felt this wind and whooshing around the apartment if the window was open when he was there regardless of the lighting. Their very first statements are the most telling of the fabricated story they are telling, and gerry not only mentions the shutters down but jane tanner saw someone at 9.15, they wrote the same timeline on Maddies sticker book. The plan from the start was to sell the abduction from jane tanner sighting but they have made a complete oversight with their times and shutters, especially kate with her whooshing reconstruction


JD I'm with you on the first statements being the most important with subsequent ones trying to lever in new stuff to fit with what has been uncovered or shown to be questionable...

On 4 May statement Matt says he checked at 905 and 925 (with Gerry checking at 915). On the sticker book timelines, both timelines have the 905 check but the second sticker book does not have the 925 check by Matt - it just has the 905 check. The second sticker book looks like it is the final one because it has the Gerald signature and is in neater writing,

I wonder if they did the first timeline as a rough draft on what the sequence of events was supposed to be, then they finessed it in the second timeline, gerry signs it and this is the timeline that was supposed to the be "official" one and the one they all stuck to...

So the official sequence is Matt checks at 905, Gerry at 915, Janes sees bundle man. Then there are no more checks until Kate's check , and the windows are open and shutters up.

Maybe the PJ were only supposed to get the second timeline, but as they also got the first one, Matt had to now include the 925 check to fit with the first timeline in his statement... but this means that we now have the inconsistency where if he checked at 925 this is after Jane's sighting and so the window should have been open and shutters up..


Also found the last sentence in his statement interesting:

"The interviewee thinks that it is a kidnapping with the intention to demand a ransom from the parents, because these are people who are very comfortable financially."
Kidnapping because they had money? Thought they were struggling with the mortgage?
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Starting at the beginning - the obvious

Post by Nina on 01.05.12 20:17

And how would a prospective kidnapper know they were comfortable financially? They don't speak like landed gentry. they don't dress in swish clothes, though Madeleine bless her did have a Gap and Monsoon outfit, but all other clothing I have ever seen them wearing doesn't shout 'money'. So is it because they are doctors? And how would anyone ever know they are doctors unless they constantly speak in loud voices about medical matters?
Grasping at straws with this one Matt lad.

____________________
Not one more cent from me.
avatar
Nina

Posts : 2831
Reputation : 315
Join date : 2011-06-16
Age : 74

Back to top Go down

Re: Starting at the beginning - the obvious

Post by jd on 01.05.12 20:21

I totally agree Stewie, this all makes total sense of it all. I often wondered why they wrote 2 timelines and this explains it

This last sentence is interesting "....because these are people who are very comfortable financially" How the heck would he know what an abductors financial status was?....unless he has knowledge!

I think I may have misread this meaning they were financially well off. Even so how would an abductor know how wealthy the mccanns were? They were just a family of NHS doctors after all
avatar
jd

Posts : 4152
Reputation : 20
Join date : 2011-07-22

Back to top Go down

Re: Starting at the beginning - the obvious

Post by jd on 01.05.12 21:09

Stewie wrote:On 4 May statement Matt says he checked at 905 and 925 (with Gerry checking at 915). On the sticker book timelines, both timelines have the 905 check but the second sticker book does not have the 925 check by Matt - it just has the 905 check. The second sticker book looks like it is the final one because it has the Gerald signature and is in neater writing,

I wonder if they did the first timeline as a rough draft on what the sequence of events was supposed to be, then they finessed it in the second timeline, gerry signs it and this is the timeline that was supposed to the be "official" one and the one they all stuck to...

So the official sequence is Matt checks at 905, Gerry at 915, Janes sees bundle man. Then there are no more checks until Kate's check , and the windows are open and shutters up.

Maybe the PJ were only supposed to get the second timeline, but as they also got the first one, Matt had to now include the 925 check to fit with the first timeline in his statement... but this means that we now have the inconsistency where if he checked at 925 this is after Jane's sighting and so the window should have been open and shutters up..

I think it is clear that their whole story of abduction they planned to sell was centred around the jane tanner sighting with MO backing up. They just simply messed it all up to put it politely

I can see why the PJ feel they can solve this with a reconstruction
avatar
jd

Posts : 4152
Reputation : 20
Join date : 2011-07-22

Back to top Go down

Re: Starting at the beginning - the obvious

Post by Guest on 02.05.12 7:19

@russiandoll wrote: I am having no success so far finding something else I would like to post, so for now some statements from those checking 5a on the fateful evening.

LIGHT AND DARK IN 5A.



Rachel O 4th May 2007

He also checked the one where Madeleine was. He went in through the patio door (the couple Gerry and Kate McCann left this door accessible for everyone during dinner) The said patio door gives access to the apartment's lounge where two doors open into the respective bedrooms.

Her husband went into the main room and, "hung about," to listen for any noise from the bedroom where the children were sleeping. He didn't switch any lights on. He could see the twins in their beds. The bedroom door was half-open. It was only later that he realised this was strange. At the time, he gave no importance to the fact.



The first line in bold, is that from the statement or did you add it ? If that's what she said, and they did they own check, why would K and G leave the door accessible for everyone ? Why would everyone check on their kid ? K and g didn't check other kids. So everyone checked their own kid and mccanns kid while the McCann only checked their own kid, and why would their kids need to be checked so often by everyone ?
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Starting at the beginning - the obvious

Post by tigger on 02.05.12 7:56

@jd wrote:
Stewie wrote:On 4 May statement Matt says he checked at 905 and 925 (with Gerry checking at 915). On the sticker book timelines, both timelines have the 905 check but the second sticker book does not have the 925 check by Matt - it just has the 905 check. The second sticker book looks like it is the final one because it has the Gerald signature and is in neater writing,

I wonder if they did the first timeline as a rough draft on what the sequence of events was supposed to be, then they finessed it in the second timeline, gerry signs it and this is the timeline that was supposed to the be "official" one and the one they all stuck to...

So the official sequence is Matt checks at 905, Gerry at 915, Janes sees bundle man. Then there are no more checks until Kate's check , and the windows are open and shutters up.

Maybe the PJ were only supposed to get the second timeline, but as they also got the first one, Matt had to now include the 925 check to fit with the first timeline in his statement... but this means that we now have the inconsistency where if he checked at 925 this is after Jane's sighting and so the window should have been open and shutters up..

I think it is clear that their whole story of abduction they planned to sell was centred around the jane tanner sighting with MO backing up. They just simply messed it all up to put it politely

I can see why the PJ feel they can solve this with a reconstruction

I can't forget that Gerry told his family 'It's a disaster, it's a disaster!'. Which imo is something gone wrong.

Thanks to Stewie et al, first time I've understood the two timelines! Now don't forget that Rachel O said the shutters on the patio window were down as well! Which makes an absolute hash of the quiet entering and leaving to check or the safety exit for Madeleine.
So now that MO messes up sees and extra window - describes the inside of another flat altogether and Rachel insists the patio shutters were down, it looks as if the Oldfields really weren't in on any plan.

From MO PJ interview on the 15th May 2007:
The window shutters of the McCann's apartment were closed. The patio door that they used to enter the apartment also had its shutter closed. In order to enter they had to raise the shutter.


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

Posts : 8114
Reputation : 40
Join date : 2011-07-20

Back to top Go down

Re: Starting at the beginning - the obvious

Post by tigger on 02.05.12 8:39

And here's a brilliant resume with lots of references from AnnaEsse at MM.
You'll love this Moa!

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

Posts : 8114
Reputation : 40
Join date : 2011-07-20

Back to top Go down

Re: Starting at the beginning - the obvious

Post by Guest on 02.05.12 8:58

@tigger wrote:And here's a brilliant resume with lots of references from AnnaEsse at MM.
You'll love this Moa!

Did u forget a link ? smilie
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Starting at the beginning - the obvious

Post by russiandoll on 02.05.12 9:01

Rachel O 4th May 2007

He also checked the one where Madeleine was. He went in through the patio door (the couple Gerry and Kate McCann left this door accessible for everyone during dinner) The said patio door gives access to the apartment's lounge where two doors open into the respective bedrooms.

Her husband went into the main room and, "hung about," to listen for any noise from the bedroom where the children were sleeping. He didn't switch any lights on. He could see the twins in their beds. The bedroom door was half-open. It was only later that he realised this was strange. At the time, he gave no importance to the fact.

Moa- everything is copied from the PJ files, this was Rachel's statement and police transcript. The bold is to highlight what I find interesting...
As for my own words they are still to be posted! Yesterday I copied all the statemtents from my recent post and after each one, typed in my comments and questions........and it did not save....I was so annoyed! An hour's effort lost, so back to it this morning.
I will do it again but will make it a bit briefer will bullet points as I am very busy.....basically I think given what is said by the checkers, seeing the children was near impossible esp for MO who conveniently did not try to see Maddie and deliberately in his statements placed himself near the door, remaining in a position where she was out of view. Very convenient. If he had seen Maddie at 9.30 JT's sighting is blown right out of the water as we all know and this had to be sold to everyone..hence the elaborate descriptions of the 3 checks that night. Way too detailed .
With the photos and plans of 5a and lighting conditions inside and outside the bedroom area, I doubt they could see much at all.....without switching an extra light on, which they never did.
I do not believe MO ever went inside 5a and was fed a description of the apartment before he made his witness statement.

____________________



             The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie — deliberate,
contrived and dishonest — but the myth — persistent, persuasive and
unrealistic.
~John F. Kennedy

avatar
russiandoll

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

Back to top Go down

Re: Starting at the beginning - the obvious

Post by tigger on 02.05.12 9:04


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

Posts : 8114
Reputation : 40
Join date : 2011-07-20

Back to top Go down

Re: Starting at the beginning - the obvious

Post by tigger on 02.05.12 9:08

Sorry, brain took a short holiday...

RD - I've seen it proposed elsewhere that he described his own apartment, But from the above link you may find a lot more info.
It certainly looks to me as if the basic information on pretty well everything has to be in question. Even the allocation of the beds and bedrooms.

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

Posts : 8114
Reputation : 40
Join date : 2011-07-20

Back to top Go down

Re: Starting at the beginning - the obvious

Post by Guest on 02.05.12 9:44

@tigger wrote:Sorry, brain took a short holiday...

RD - I've seen it proposed elsewhere that he described his own apartment, But from the above link you may find a lot more info.
It certainly looks to me as if the basic information on pretty well everything has to be in question. Even the allocation of the beds and bedrooms.

thumbsup
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Starting at the beginning - the obvious

Post by tuom on 02.05.12 10:51




Morning ! I cannot get the above link to work , is it me
avatar
tuom

Posts : 531
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2012-03-20

Back to top Go down

Re: Starting at the beginning - the obvious

Post by jd on 02.05.12 10:53

@tuom wrote:



Morning ! I cannot get the above link to work , is it me

Yes, the link is working good for me
avatar
jd

Posts : 4152
Reputation : 20
Join date : 2011-07-22

Back to top Go down

Re: Starting at the beginning - the obvious

Post by jd on 02.05.12 11:04


In an interview with Vanity Fair magazine, published on January 10th 2008, this is how Gerry McCann describes the scene in the children's bedroom when it was discovered that Madeleine was missing.

"It wasn’t until Kate walked into the villa at 10 and felt a sickening breeze—the front window had been jimmied open—that she realized something terrible had happened. “The scene was stark,” Gerry tells me. On one bed the twins lay sleeping. In the next lay only the plush cat toy Madeleine was never without."

If kate felt this 'sickening breeze' at 10pm (because the window had been jemmied open) then why didn't matt oldfield feel this sickening breeze at 9.30pm?

"On one bed the twins lay sleeping"..???????

avatar
jd

Posts : 4152
Reputation : 20
Join date : 2011-07-22

Back to top Go down

Re: Starting at the beginning - the obvious

Post by Guest on 02.05.12 11:11

@jd wrote:

In an interview with Vanity Fair magazine, published on January 10th 2008, this is how Gerry McCann describes the scene in the children's bedroom when it was discovered that Madeleine was missing.

"It wasn’t until Kate walked into the villa at 10 and felt a sickening breeze—the front window had been jimmied open—that she realized something terrible had happened. “The scene was stark,” Gerry tells me. On one bed the twins lay sleeping. In the next lay only the plush cat toy Madeleine was never without."

If kate felt this 'sickening breeze' at 10pm (because the window had been jemmied open) then why didn't matt oldfield feel this sickening breeze at 9.30pm?

"On one bed the twins lay sleeping"..???????



That makes sense. Beds were pushed apart in the childrens bedroom, so that both would be against walls. So the children don't have as much chance of falling out. Could the cots have been placed alongside the bed, to stop them falling out the other side?

Of course it would make it impossible for the abductor to get in without treading on the children so............??
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Starting at the beginning - the obvious

Post by jd on 02.05.12 11:13

But they were in the cots not the bed?
avatar
jd

Posts : 4152
Reputation : 20
Join date : 2011-07-22

Back to top Go down

Re: Starting at the beginning - the obvious

Post by Guest on 02.05.12 11:16

@jd wrote:But they were in the cots not the bed?

So we are told yes. There was no bedding in the cots. The twins were still there weren't they when the first GNR police arrived, I am sure I have read a statement where he says he couldn't understand them staying sound asleep whilst everyone was running around, lights switched on etc. Where was the bedding?
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Starting at the beginning - the obvious

Post by tuom on 02.05.12 11:20

candyfloss wrote:
@jd wrote:But they were in the cots not the bed?

So we are told yes. There was no bedding in the cots. The twins were still there weren't they when the first GNR police arrived, I am sure I have read a statement where he says he couldn't understand them staying sound asleep whilst everyone was running around, lights switched on etc. Where was the bedding?



The sleeping twins will always be a mystery to me , as a mother I know that if a door slams shut , children will be disturbed from their sleep, there must be someother reason why they slept all the way through the mayham, the whoosing , the crowd in the apartment ?
avatar
tuom

Posts : 531
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2012-03-20

Back to top Go down

Re: Starting at the beginning - the obvious

Post by tigger on 02.05.12 11:21

The twins were in the two cots when it was full of people, but as the PJ also noticed, without sheets. Sean was even then a sturdy child, who was definitely too big for a cot, so both cots could have been pushed against the bed to stop them falling out.
Then for the stage set, comatose twins int he cots in the centre of the room and suddenly the untidy bed had to be explained. Why didn't they see that the tidy bed was even more of a puzzle?

The statement of the cleaner re one of the cots being in the other bedroom. The statement from the cleaner on Wednesday - she only saw the parents, not the children. That was the second of May - a day I'm very interested in.

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

Posts : 8114
Reputation : 40
Join date : 2011-07-20

Back to top Go down

Re: Starting at the beginning - the obvious

Post by tuom on 02.05.12 11:23

@tigger wrote:The twins were in the two cots when it was full of people, but as the PJ also noticed, without sheets. Sean was even then a sturdy child, who was definitely too big for a cot, so both cots could have been pushed against the bed to stop them falling out.
Then for the stage set, comatose twins int he cots in the centre of the room and suddenly the untidy bed had to be explained. Why didn't they see that the tidy bed was even more of a puzzle?

The statement of the cleaner re one of the cots being in the other bedroom. The statement from the cleaner on Wednesday - she only saw the parents, not the children. That was the second of May - a day I'm very interested in.



avatar
tuom

Posts : 531
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2012-03-20

Back to top Go down

Page 2 of 4 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


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