Re: Starting at the beginning - the obvious

by **Nina** 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.

by jd 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

by jd 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

by Guest 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 ?

by **tigger** 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.

by **tigger** 02.05.12 8:39

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

by Guest 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

by russiandoll 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.

by **tigger** 02.05.12 9:04

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

by **tigger** 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.

by Guest 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.

by tuom 02.05.12 10:51

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

Morning ! I cannot get the above link to work , is it me [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

by jd 02.05.12 10:53

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

Morning ! I cannot get the above link to work , is it me [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Yes, the link is working good for me

by jd 02.05.12 11:04

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

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"..???????

by Guest 02.05.12 11:11

jd wrote:
tigger wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

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............??

by jd 02.05.12 11:13

But they were in the cots not the bed?

by Guest 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?

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

by **tigger** 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.

by tuom 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.

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

by Newintown 02.05.12 12:11

tuom wrote:
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.

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

re: 2nd May - I was just thinking that watching all these interviews on TV (just watched the Sky one), why are they on 2nd May and not 3rd????????

by russiandoll 02.05.12 12:48

When I posted some time back about the cots being used as bed guards in that bedroom I was doing it on an impulse after looking at the photos, without thinking it through and felt rather silly for suggesting it.....nice to see someone considering the same possibility !
It makes sense to have Maddie sleeping apart from the twins esp as it is on record that she was disturbed by them to the extent she slept with a parent one night. All you would have to do is change the positions of the cots , a matter of a minute, to set a stage prior to anyone entering that bedroom. The photo evidence suggests at least one of the children slept in the bed at the far side, very unsafe for a child waking up and moving around that obstacle course of a room.
It would account for the dog paying so much attention to the other bedroom, as well as alerting to the wardrobe, did he not also jump on the bed a lot sniffing? May be mistaken there, will check.

Am even more convinced now that MO never entered 5a for a check and gave info he was fed about the layout to the PJ.

by friedtomatoes 02.05.12 13:10

An odd thing about Matt Oldfield's check is that according to his wife, in her rogatory interview, he wondered where Madeleine slept. So instead of poking his head around the door of the kids' bedroom, went instead to look in the parent bedroom, didn't see her but seeing it was all quiet decided all was well.

The other question is why on that single night did he do an internal check rather than the normal listening outside the kids' bedroom window?

The issue about mentioning two windows: He could have meant the window had two panes. Presumably all the flats in that row had similar and he would know what they looked like. Failing that, he couldn't possibly have seen them in the apartment seeing as the curtains were closed, neither from the outside as the shutters were down all week.

Did the PJ not tape record all the interviews. That would be handy to iron out any discrepancies and any translation issues. Having said that, weren't the statements read back to them in English and they ratified and signed them?

by Guest 02.05.12 14:39

Could the children have slept in g and k room? Was it underneath that window the dogs alerted? Wouldn't that room be more logical to use consider its fronting the tapas bar?

k also makes a big point about the room shift in her book ...

by Spaniel 03.05.12 20:53

Was the first mention to an outsider of leaving the kids with checks made to Jez Wilkins on May 3rd? Y or N?

There was of course in 2011 KM declaring that in the PJ files (how did she get the full version) mention was made in the tapas reservations book (in English I presume) that their kids were left alone. No mention of checks though.

by tuom 03.05.12 21:27

Spaniel wrote:Was the first mention to an outsider of leaving the kids with checks made to Jez Wilkins on May 3rd? Y or N?

There was of course in 2011 KM declaring that in the PJ files (how did she get the full version) mention was made in the tapas reservations book (in English I presume) that their kids were left alone. No mention of checks though.

I think it was JW but am not sure of the night , must check again , did someone say they admired them for leaving the children ? I am sure I read that ?

by jd 03.05.12 21:38

tuom wrote:
I think it was JW but am not sure of the night , must check again , did someone say they admired them for leaving the children ? I am sure I read that ?

That was JW's partner Bridgette O'Donnell who admired the mccanns for leaving their kids alone in an unlocked apartment every night

"He told us they were leaving theirs sleeping in the apartments. While they chatted on, I ruminated on the pros and cons of this. I admired them, in a way, for not being paranoid parents, but I decided that our apartment was too far off even to contemplate it. Our baby was too young and I would worry about them waking up."
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

by Spaniel 04.05.12 10:31

Was telling Jez that he was checking on the kids, GM's excuse for being "caught"on leaving the flat? It's just that if the parents, with the exception of the Paynes, were checking three flats five times a night over four days, it makes for an awful lot of traffic and they would have been seen by both staff and the public. I've never seen mention of that.

Only one mention too of food being reheated. If they really had been checking every night, surely the Tapas staff would have remembered them as being the most troublesome diners ever! So did they only leave the table on the night of the 3rd and if so, why?

by russiandoll 04.05.12 11:09

If a well -meaning member of staff wrote about the checks in a book to do the group a favour with the solid booking of a table each evening, then I think it would have been in Portuguese.
Nothing I have seen in files to confirm.
Possibly never happened, or if so, no danger as pretence of checks or none at all imo-- there was a child minder every evening from the tapas group....so much sickness in a short break and all starting so soon after arrival.

by tuom 04.05.12 11:28

jd wrote:
tuom wrote:
I think it was JW but am not sure of the night , must check again , did someone say they admired them for leaving the children ? I am sure I read that ?

That was JW's partner Bridgette O'Donnell who admired the mccanns for leaving their kids alone in an unlocked apartment every night

"He told us they were leaving theirs sleeping in the apartments. While they chatted on, I ruminated on the pros and cons of this. I admired them, in a way, for not being paranoid parents, but I decided that our apartment was too far off even to contemplate it. Our baby was too young and I would worry about them waking up."
[url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2007/dec/14/ukcrime.madeleinemccann

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

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

Latest topics