Starting at the beginning - the obvious

The mysterious note mentioning the group's kids were left alone would IMO only have had their names/ table number, not details of which flats they lived at.

Moa wrote: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 ...

The dog alerted outside the parents' bedroom on the verandah as well as near the wardrobe. I don't think it would matter where the kids slept as visibility was so poor and I doubt they kept their eyes glued to it all night.

LIGHT AND DARK IN AND AROUND 5A.

There was a description in Rachel Oldfield's R I of the area surrounding the apartment block, where street lighting was so lacking that she found walking around the front part of the block near the car park rather unnerving, when going to do her child checks.


1578 “Okay, and the route taken”?
Reply “Was up the road and then in through the car park at the back and in through the front door”.
1578 “In through the front door”?
Reply “Mmm yeah, I mean the patio doors were locked, erm yeah I didn’t really like going up there by myself, it was, like going through that car park was quite dark and there was never anyone around, it was a bit, you know made me feel a bit uneasy”.
1578 “Okay. What about the lighting there”?
Reply “Well there were lights, there were street lights along the road as you came out of the Ocean Club, erm sort of orangey you know street lights and along the main road at the back and the car park was quite dark cos there were quite a lot of trees that were sort of on that corner, erm and so the car park was quite dark and then when you actually got, you came down a ramp, or down some steps into the sort of area in front of the apartments and erm you know they were, there were sort of lights, you press a button and they come on for a certain length of time, so you know, you put those on to get to the front door, it wasn’t pitch black but I’m not keen on the dark anyway so erm”.


So little in the way of good lighting in the area of the children's bedroom.
There has been improvement since 2007, it has been reported.

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



As for inside the apartment...



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







Kate McCann statement, 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.

at the bedroom door, so, in the doorway, at or close to the threshhold?
Kate does not say that Matt told her he had not actually seen Maddie,but thought all quiet, so everything ok. This was one of the much vaunted visual not just listening checks.


Matthew Oldfield statement, 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

If MO did not see Maddie, how did he know that she occupied a bed pushed against the wall?
The light had to be artficial, as it was evening.
Not inside the bedroom, so not from the table lamp on the chest of drawers.
Not from the lounge where Gerry stated a light would habitually be left on prior to his and Kate's exit for the tapas restaurant.
[ I accept this, the apartment plan shows little if any light from a dim lamp could enter the bedroom].
From outside, but not close enough to the bedroom to shine in even with shutters raised, according to RO and to photos I have seen........[please correct me if necessary !]
[/color]


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.

so a light already on, as per the statement from parent/s that one of the lights would be left on in the lounge before they exited the apartment. Which lights were there to choose from? I see no ceiling light in any photos but there will have been one I am sure. There is a standard lamp visible and M O in another statement mentions a table lamp.
There is an issue here to do with seeing the children without switching any lights on.
Unless the main ceiling light was on in the lounge [and given the seating area on the plan, it would have been in this location], the McCanns would have left the standard lamp on, at the end of the lounge area. On photos this looks much closer to the bedroom than it actually is on the plan, on one plan you can see it standing next to a sideboard. Look how far away that dim light was from the bedroom and on the plan where the bedroom door is in relation to it.
Look at the recessed area where the bathroom and bedrooms are. There is no ceiling light here. It is a very dark area of the apartment. The first photo taken in daylight shows how dark it is even with the bedroom curtains open and the front door part open on what seems like a very bright sunny day.
Near this dark area is a lamp that will have a fabric shade and a max 60 watt bulb for safety reasons....... but the lamp is not opposite the bedroom and is according to the plan at quite some distance ; just how light was the room when he looked in? Could he see anything much, especially the twins breathing as is documented elsewhere?


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.


Gerry states that light entering from outside was weak , the room was very dark, shutters down. There was reduced visibility, but he said he saw all children. Was there enough light though? He says that the bedroom was totally dark....[ and that was with one of the lights from the lounge left on] at the start of his statement and confirms this at the end ..it was very dark , so did he/ could he see see the children?. He mentions one of a couple or a few lights, sounds like a lamp was left on. The main light in the lounge is not mentioned.
How would a light in the kitchen have illuminated the children's bedroom? See plan.



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.

This time MO does not know how far away from the threshhold he was when he checked and gives an unconvincing account of why the room seemed brighter than his own child's room, as the windows were on the same side of the buiding, it must be due to an open shutter according to him. He does not considert the interior lighting of his own apartment when he leaves his daughter asleep in her room. The light undoubtefly coming from the outside......where from exactly? Again, he gives strength to the abduction by saying he did not look into the room enough to see Maddie. Well he would say that wouldn' t he, because at 9.30 JTs abductor had well left the building.



M Oldfield Rogatory Interview 2008.

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".
color]

[color=blue]So,was there a street light in a position to cast light into the bedroom? Further along from the corner at the back behind the car park. He thinks there might be a light here, then maybe another there and a possibly another one somewhere else..but he is sure, convinced that one of them shone into the bedroom[/
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
[color=blue]
Here he says that a table lamp [ low wattage ] was enough to allow him to see into the bedroom. He said earlier that he did not enter, so "walking into the room" here must refer to the lounge. He then says you can see into the room from the lounge, but it is in a recessed area,it is not possible to see the bedroom door from the lounge. Maybe he is saying here that he goes into the bedroom, but that contradicts his previous statement.


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


Very reactive........MO has now been debating [ with himself or others?] re the position of the bedroom door. He was consistent in his 2 witness statements, why the problem? There is a photo of the childrens room taken from the window, showing that through the door you cannot see into the lounge area,a good reason for leaving the door more open than closed.....so the single source of light Gerry spoke about could illuminate the bedroom and even then, not much. MO seems to be describing a different apartment.


The McCann children were not left for the night until they had gone to sleep according to Gerry. Given that it was so dark in their room due to closed shutters and they were in a strange place at such a tender age, to help Maddie if she woke for the toilet, to avoid the twins being scared if they woke up, why did they not switch on the little table lamp in their room, on the chest of drawers?


I doubt that MO saw any children in cots that night. I do not think it is credible given the exterior and interior lighting, shutters up or not, that he could see any of the children, [he referred to shapes and bits of breathing at one stage ] from the doorway or by his own account, maybe not even at the threshhold. His not seeing Maddie had to be ,in order to support JTs sighting imo it was a fabrication. I believe that he is lying, that he was not in 5a that evening never mind at the door to the bedroom.
I doubt Gerry could see Maddie in the recovery position, even if he did go into the room, given how very dark he says it was. At the time of his check, pre abduction, shutters were down and hardly any light would enter from the lounge.
Always the doctor, could he not have said she was sleeping on her side?

What strikes me is that MO says the light came through a window. One would presume that to be the shuttered window in the bedroom. Which MO said had two windows.

RM said that her husband went in through the patio door. Which she says later I think - in the 15th May statement has the shutters down.

So now we have two windows instead of one, a bit of light through the shutters? and MO entering with an almighty noise to wake the children by raising the patio shutters. Well, that ain't gonna fly at all.

MO never set foot in the Mc's flat.

Much as I find Matt Oldfield's check bizarre, IF he did actually go and do a check, it's possible the light was coming through the kitchen window, the blinds of which were up. I think there is a lamp almost directly opposite the flat on the right side of the road looking up from the Tapas bar.

How would RM/O know the state of the shutters at that time? Will look at her statement again.
Has anyone found a photo of a street light anywhere near Maddies bedroom? I still cant find one.


Sorry for a long post, but the lighting to me demos no one could see into that bedroom properly. I think MO described the colour of the curtains....how on earth could he distinguish colours if he only saw shapes and bits of breathing re the twins who were a lot closer to him than the window[s].....no I am sure he has been fed a description and confused it with his own flat probably.

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


kitchen light would not enter the bedroom, the kitchen opens into the entrance area near front door and faces a wall.
[ see above links]

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


kitchen light would not enter the bedroom, the kitchen opens into the entrance area near front door and faces a wall.
[ see above links]

I might not enter the bedroom but I think it could well light the area just in front where Matt said he was standing. Here is a picture of a street lamp, the last one at the top, I think that is the one at the top of the road where Tannerman was spotted.

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

OK, scrap my comments. I guess no streetlight could illuminate sufficiently to see anything inside clearly at all.

russiandoll wrote: How would RM/O know the state of the shutters at that time? Will look at her statement again.
Has anyone found a photo of a street light anywhere near Maddies bedroom? I still cant find one.


Sorry for a long post, but the lighting to me demos no one could see into that bedroom properly. I think MO described the colour of the curtains....how on earth could he distinguish colours if he only saw shapes and bits of breathing re the twins who were a lot closer to him than the window[s].....no I am sure he has been fed a description and confused it with his own flat probably.

Kate couldn't see anything, couldn't see Maddie despite the fact that Gerry says he could see all three of them. It was the same amount of light.
In Kate's case the shutters were up, the curtains were whooshing (so if the curtains were closed when Gerry was there, it would have been even darker - the shutter didn't look as if it would let any light in in any case).
So Gerry could see in the dark, shutters closed, curtains closed. X ray vision.
Kate couldn't see with the shutters up and the curtains flying around, no longer blocking the light. Fine.

In the documentary Maddie was here, it shows Gerry switching the light off before he closes the door after his check.

Scrap that, it doesnt mean anything. I am having one of those days.

friedtomatoes wrote:In the documentary Maddie was here, it shows Gerry switching the light off before he closes the door after his check.

Scrap that, it doesnt mean anything. I am having one of those days.

In that clip where Gerry and Matt are wandering round 5a and Gerry is manically prompting MO - it seems clear that MO wanted to be anywhere but there, just agreeing with Gerry on the 'if only ... and it was just '. MO's face both there and on the steps of the court with the others speaks volumes. Imo Gerry's lost a tennis partner there.

I agree that the light from the kitchen could not get into the bedroom, never enough to give any sort of lighting to the bedroom

MO misses the one thing that is crucial in their story....the wind. We know it was cold night, Tapas bar had a plastic covering all around to keep the clients warm, but crucially kate says at 10pm how the wind whooshed around, curtains blew etc which would have been the same at 9.30pm when MO was there......had the shutters been open

Tigger MO's performance on that documentary was dire! To think he is a doctor too.
JD, they tried to fit everything around a 9.15 abduction for some reason when the facts did not support it. And since then have been back peddling. That much is clear.

Apart from the wind, we also have changing versions of how the curtains were found. In original statements it was said on the ten o clock check they were open, or that Kate Mccann ran over and opened them, fast forward to Oprah in 2009 and the C4 documentary, they were closed but the wind opened them from a closed position to wide open. Woooosh! I wonder why they didnt flutter or woosh at 9.30? And lets not forget that that open window and shutter at 9.15 was passed by fourteen times and no one noticed.

friedtomatoes wrote:

Moa wrote: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 ...

The dog alerted outside the parents' bedroom on the verandah as well as near the wardrobe. I don't think it would matter where the kids slept as visibility was so poor and I doubt they kept their eyes glued to it all night.

Ty thats interresting .. Wasn't there patio doors in that room as Well ?
In this case it doesn't matter, but f you decide to leave them alone at least you would choose the room that felt safest, and that would be their room.

As Stewie pointed out before, on the timelines they wrote on the back of Maddies sticker book, the first draft does not have MO going to check on 5A at 9.30pm. Its also interesting to note that on the other draft timeline it says only Russell O'Brien going to check at 9.30pm...not Russell O'Brien & Matt Oldfield going to check together as in the 1st draft. Why is MO totally missed on the 1st draft? (because it never happened!)

I didn't know that they cruelly 'tore' the back of Maddies sticker book to write these timelines..'hours' after Maddie had disappeared...no not seconds or minutes but tore it off 'hours' after. To the authorities, it was then an important detail at that moment in the investigation, because it revealed the little girl’s parent’s concern in protecting themselves from possible responsibilities, overshadowing the preservation of objects that belonged to the child at a moment in time when she had only been missing for a few hours.. This same overshadowing of the preservation of objects can be applied to cuddle cat when kate washed it!

In the NOTW on August 10th 2008, an article appeared about the sticker book timeline.....Notice they refer to Maddies sticker book as 'a child's' sticker book, not Maddie's. Plus they printed the timeline with without MO going into the 5A at 9.30pm!

Note of despair News of the World

10/08/2008

Scribbled by a desperate dad, this is Gerry McCann's timeline of the fateful night. It was written shortly after the kidnap as he tried to piece together clues for cops. The note, on the back of a child's sticker book, covers the 90 minutes up to Madeleine's disappearance which he cannot bear to describe. It ends "10pm - alarm raised after Kate..."

Gerry's timeline:

8.45pm. all assembled at poolside for food

9.00pm. Matt Oldfield listens at all 3 windows 5A, B, D ALL shutters down

9:15pm Gerry McCann looks at room A ? Door open to bedroom

9:20pm Jane Tanner checks 5D - [sees stranger walking carrying a child]

9.30 Russell O'Brien in 5D. Poorly daughter
l
9.55pm

10:00pm. Alarm raised after Kate

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

You can see the absolute crap the SUN, former NOTW. Mirror etc print...they should have their licenses revoked

Moa wrote:

friedtomatoes wrote:

Moa wrote: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 ...

The dog alerted outside the parents' bedroom on the verandah as well as near the wardrobe. I don't think it would matter where the kids slept as visibility was so poor and I doubt they kept their eyes glued to it all night.

Ty thats interresting .. Wasn't there patio doors in that room as Well ?
In this case it doesn't matter, but f you decide to leave them alone at least you would choose the room that felt safest, and that would be their room.

Yes there were patio doors. But I dont know why you think their bedroom would be safest.

Good spot JD that MOs check wasnt there in the first draft, still, in the second draft he is mentioned as going to check the twins, why only them? And didnt their interviews mention that Matt offered to check on Madeleine? If so, why not the twins.

friedtomatoes wrote:

Moa wrote:

friedtomatoes wrote:

Moa wrote: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 ...

The dog alerted outside the parents' bedroom on the verandah as well as near the wardrobe. I don't think it would matter where the kids slept as visibility was so poor and I doubt they kept their eyes glued to it all night.

Ty thats interresting .. Wasn't there patio doors in that room as Well ?
In this case it doesn't matter, but f you decide to leave them alone at least you would choose the room that felt safest, and that would be their room.

Yes there were patio doors. But I dont know why you think their bedroom would be safest.

Only safer in the way that it is facing the tapas area instead of the parking area. At least you would think they would feel they where closer and easier to hear if they where crying etc..
It's defently not like dining in the garden and they should never left them alone in the first place. I would never dared to leave my kids alone on Holliday to go eat in a nearby restaurant !

Moa, if the kids were in the parents room there is no way they could be heard crying from that distance and in amongst the raucous noise of the restaraunt! If that were the case they would have heard maddie and her sibling crying on the wednesday night as we are told they were. Not to mention an hour and a halfs worth of crying on the tuesday night, oops, couldnt have been them as they were checking half hourly.

friedtomatoes wrote:Moa, if the kids were in the parents room there is no way they could be heard crying from that distance and in amongst the raucous noise of the restaraunt! If that were the case they would have heard maddie and her sibling crying on the wednesday night as we are told they were. Not to mention an hour and a halfs worth of crying on the tuesday night, oops, couldnt have been them as they were checking half hourly.

I know But they could convinced themself they could..after all for them it felt like dining in their garden.

Worth reading again Dr Roberts from 25th Jan 2011 re the shutters

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

EARLY DOORS

All the world's a stage (including the Portuguese Algarve where, according to Gerry McCann, 'everyone is acting, some in big ways.'). And all the players have their exits and their entrances - doors and windows to you and me.

The Telegraph of 5 May, 2007 quoted Trish Cameron, Gerry McCann's sister, who candidly relays information passed to her by Gerry.

"They had put the kids to bed at 7pm and checked on them every half an hour as they had dinner nearby with the rest of the party. Gerry said the window was open, the shutters broken and the door, which had been locked, hanging open."

The Sun of May 5 offered a corroborative account, helpfully extended to provide additional justification for a locked apartment:

"Kate went back at 10pm to check. The front door was lying open, the window had been tampered with, the shutters had been jemmied open and Maddie was missing."

"He (Gerry) said, 'Maddie's been abducted, she's been abducted'. Nothing else was touched in the apartment, no valuables taken, no passports."

The window was obviously an aperture on the world outside. But so too was the door in this case. It had been locked. And since it was found 'hanging open' it must have been the front door hanging on its hinges, not the patio door, which slid on rails, or an interior door which did not lock at all. The merciless abductor must therefore have broken in through the window and taken the easy route out via the front door.

Several paragraphs on from Trish Cameron's regurgitation of Gerry McCann's tale, the Telegraph offers Jon Corner's complementary regurgitation of Kate's:

"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.

"First they saw one of the window shutters had been forced, and then they saw the door was open and the bed was empty - and Madeleine was gone."

The McCanns' friends and relatives were not at all reticent when it came to sharing the information given them directly, and separately, by the McCanns themselves. As both accounts appear to converge, the reader has reason to accept their accuracy. Well of course we have long known that the claim of damage to the window fittings was false, although both parents made that claim independently (John Hill, boss of the Ocean Club complex, was reported by the Sun to have insisted there was NO physical evidence Maddie had been abducted from the apartment. He said: "We are still hoping Madeleine is asleep under a bush and we'll find her soon.").

Then there is the issue of the patio doors having been unlocked after all, sparing the abductor the tedium of breaking and entering, whilst allowing him (or her) to 'get out of the window fairly easily.' But even the most cortically challenged of intruders is unlikely to enter via a door then leave through a window. Hence we have since been treated to a post hoc supposition by Kate McCann that the window may have been opened by the abductor as a 'red herring.' And the front door 'hanging open'? What was that - a blue whale?

Corner's repetition of Kate McCann's version of events is additionally problematic.

"First they saw one of the window shutters had been forced… (So they must have entered the apartment from the front, not the rear, using a key if the door was locked).

… and then they saw the door was open …(Suggesting that the front door was indeed ‘hanging open’).

…and the bed was empty - and Madeleine was gone.”

But in-between the front door and the empty bed was the bedroom door which, as we have since been told, 'was open much further than we'd left it.' Did this obvious interference with the apartment's interior pass unnoticed therefore, or was Kate, through Jon Corner, referring to the bedroom door in the first place? That must be it. The McCanns entered through the rear of the apartment, noticed the door to the children's bedroom was open and then saw the empty bed. But if that's what Kate reported then they can only have seen the damaged window shutter last, not first. Not only that. On seeing the open bedroom door (from across the apartment) they then approached the bedroom itself, but without noticing the open front door, which must have been closed after all, leaving the abductor to skidaddle through the patio doors, carrying a prostrate Madeleine across both arms (as described by Jane Tanner).

Why, indeed how, did the intruder close the patio door behind him? Matthew Oldfield, doing his post abduction check, went in through an unlocked patio door not a wide open one. Nor did he spot that 'the door, which had been locked' (according to Gerry McCann), i.e. the front door, was 'hanging open.' Though he claims not to have entered beyond said bedroom door himself, he will at least have noticed if it was open. But even if it was this door which was 'hanging open' it couldn't previously have been locked, and could not therefore have been the door to which Gerry McCann had earlier referred.

All of this inconsistency is entirely consistent - with equally inconsistent statements made to the police. In fact they are so inconsistent, both within and between deponents, that one or more must be false. The following extracts pertain to events of the Thursday unless otherwise indicated:

Gerry McCann (4 May, 2007)

'at 9.05 pm, the deponent entered the club (sic), using his key, the door being locked.'

'At around 9.30 pm, his friend MATT … went into the deponent's apartment, going in through a sliding glass door at the side of the building, which was always unlocked.'

'KATE ……went into the apartment through the door using her key.'

'The side door that opens into the living room….was never locked, was closed.'

'Reads, confirms, ratifies and signs.'

Kate McCann (4 May, 2007)

'She went into the apartment by the side door, which was closed, but unlocked.'

'Reads, confirms, ratifies and signs.'

Gerry McCann (10 May, 2007)

(Sunday) 'They left the house through the main door, that he was sure he locked, and the back door was also closed and locked.'

'Dinner ended at around 23h00.... On that day (Sunday), only the deponent and his wife entered the apartment. He is sure that they always entered through the front door, not knowing if they locked it upon leaving.'

(Wednesday) 'Apart from the deponent and his wife, he thinks that DAVID PAYNE also went to his apartment to check that his children were well, not having reported to him any abnormal situation with the children. On this day, the deponent and KATE had already left the back door closed, but not locked, to allow entrance by their group colleagues to check on the children. He clarifies that the main door was always closed but not necessarily locked with the key.'

(Thursday) 'He walked the normal route up to the back door, which being open he only had to slide.'

'Three to four minutes later MATHEW returned… having entered through the back door, given that he did not have the key and it was usual for them to enter in that way.'

'22h03, he again alerted KATE that it was time to check the children. She immediately made her way to the apartment by the usual path, having entered through the back door.'

'Reads, confirms, ratifies and signs.'

Kate McCann (6 September, 2007)

'They left through the balcony door, which they left closed but not locked. Main door was closed but not locked. She thinks it could be opened from the inside but not from the outside.'

'GERRY was the first one to check on the children, this was decided on the spot, at around 9-9:05 p.m. He got up from the table and entered the apartment through the balcony door.'

'At 9:30 p.m. ...MATTHEW...said he could check on her children...After less than ten minutes MATTHEW returned...she assumed he had checked on her children, entering through the balcony door which was closed but not locked.'

'At 10 p.m. she got up from the table, as it was her turn after having been replaced by MATT. She entered the apartment by the balcony door which was closed, but as already said, not locked.'

Reads, confirms, ratifies and signs, as do the interpreter and the defence lawyer.

One could be forgiven for thinking that police questioning was a 'multiple-choice' exercise and that, given the same template on separate days respondents may reasonably be expected to opt for different answers. A typical question might be set out as follows:

'McCanns exit the apartment leaving the front door (a) locked (b) unlocked? On their return they each enter via (a) the locked front door (b) the unlocked front door (c ) the unlocked patio door (d) separate doors?

(Hint: Be careful to take account of the day of the week in your answer. The patio door, for example, was locked on Sunday).

Some will no doubt wish to conclude that the lion's share of all this confusion is the result of misunderstandings on the part of distant interlocutors. As strange as it may seem, that different second-hand accounts should err in the same direction despite having been derived from separate independent sources, i.e. Kate and Gerry McCann, perhaps one should allow a 'casting vote;' an account by someone other than the McCanns, who was herself present in Praia Da Luz and at the end of a buffet table as opposed to a telephone. Martin Fricker and Rod Chaytor of the Daily Mirror gave this person a public voice on 5 May, 2007, barely 48 hrs after the initial announcement of Madeleine's disappearance:

A woman friend of the McCanns - one of their holiday party of nine adults and eight children - said: "We went for dinner at 8.45 p.m. in a restaurant near the apartments as we've done every night.

"A parent from each family went back to check on the children every half hour.

"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."

Well it gets no better does it. Window shutters, although merely open, (not 'smashed', as Jon Corner goes on to describe Kate as having told him later in this same report) 'can be opened from the outside.' Not when the winding mechanism's an interior fitting they can't. Unless Corner/Kate are right and the shutters were 'smashed.' But they weren't. And the door to the room was? 'Shut.' So not 'open much further than they'd left it' then.

As early as 5 May therefore, and courtesy of an anonymous member of the Tapas group, an unsuspecting world was given all the information it and the Portuguese police needed in order to progress the search for Madeleine:

'It looks as if someone has come through the window and possibly left through the door.'

The characteristics of a well executed Trompe-l'oeil are also that 'it looks as if...' In other words, a beguiling illusion.

Moa wrote:

friedtomatoes wrote:Moa, if the kids were in the parents room there is no way they could be heard crying from that distance and in amongst the raucous noise of the restaraunt! If that were the case they would have heard maddie and her sibling crying on the wednesday night as we are told they were. Not to mention an hour and a halfs worth of crying on the tuesday night, oops, couldnt have been them as they were checking half hourly.

I know But they could convinced themself they could..after all for them it felt like dining in their garden.

Well exactly it just proves they were talking cobblers from the start

Continuing around JT sighting. I have never heard of this before, it's from Stephen carpenter statement.

Between approximately a quarter past nine and half past nine we left the Tapas bar to go home, we walked across the MW reception area, crossed the road and a semi circular path to return to the apartment, were we put the children to bed and a short while later did the same ourselves. I do not remember seeing or hearing anyone during our return to the apartment. When I crossed the road outside the MW reception I remember there were cars parked, I remember taking some time to see if I could cross the road because there were cars parked to my left and I was carrying I****. They were about six metres away from me and i calculate that some (inaudible) metres from the back of Gerry's apartment, I do not remember anything about these cars, it was normal for cars to be parked there and in the morning they were no longer there. My wife mentioned on the following day that she vaguely remembered someone calling "Madeleine, Madeleine", this was after we had crossed the road from the MW reception and before entering our apartment. She does not remember where the sound came from or whether it was in an urgent tone, not paying any more attention to it and only remembered the following day when we heard about Madeleine's disappearance"

So his wife heard someone calling M's name after or around JT sighting..why would an abducter call her name ? Did she actually hear what she says ? Why have not TM highlighted this ? Have this been discussed before , if so I would be happy for a link to it

I've heard this before, that around 9.30 it was Gerry near the swimming pool calling for Madeleine, but for the life of me I can't remember where I saw it.
That would be because that should have been the original time? Jeremy Wilkins messed it up and they decided to leave it for half an hour? I've no idea how to get in inside such corkscrew minds.
JT was hanging around apparently - we can forget the time table anyway.
There's always the actual Madeleine/Maddie the substitute who might have had to be located to do the PdL run.
Wild thinking. Getting dizzy!

I still think the 2nd was originally chosen for d-day.
Moved and on the evening one thing after another went wrong? A disaster, according to Gerry. Quite so.

Tigger

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

See Fitness Instructor statement, it's on the 9.30 to 10.00 part near the beginning.

Now this is interesting as around that time, between 9.15 and 9.30 the Carpenters left the Tapas bar and were walking home and the wife remembers vaguely someone calling Madeleine. It might be nothing too.

russiandoll wrote: LIGHT AND DARK IN AND AROUND 5A.

There was a description in Rachel Oldfield's R I of the area surrounding the apartment block, where street lighting was so lacking that she found walking around the front part of the block near the car park rather unnerving, when going to do her child checks.


1578 “Okay, and the route taken”?
Reply “Was up the road and then in through the car park at the back and in through the front door”.
1578 “In through the front door”?
Reply “Mmm yeah, I mean the patio doors were locked, erm yeah I didn’t really like going up there by myself, it was, like going through that car park was quite dark and there was never anyone around, it was a bit, you know made me feel a bit uneasy”.
1578 “Okay. What about the lighting there”?
Reply “Well there were lights, there were street lights along the road as you came out of the Ocean Club, erm sort of orangey you know street lights and along the main road at the back and the car park was quite dark cos there were quite a lot of trees that were sort of on that corner, erm and so the car park was quite dark and then when you actually got, you came down a ramp, or down some steps into the sort of area in front of the apartments and erm you know they were, there were sort of lights, you press a button and they come on for a certain length of time, so you know, you put those on to get to the front door, it wasn’t pitch black but I’m not keen on the dark anyway so erm”.


So little in the way of good lighting in the area of the children's bedroom.
There has been improvement since 2007, it has been reported.

RD, just read this about the lighting at the time, from an interview with GA

"The Tapas Bar restaurant is located at the back side of the apartment and the window, as well as the main door, are located at the front of the building. In order to walk from the table to the bedroom, one needs to walk out of the Ocean Club’s inner patio, walk down a few steps, walk through reception, walk around the apartment block, enter a corridor… a walk that takes six to seven minutes. And all of the lamps on the McCanns’ apartment front had been broken for two days, which means that there was complete darkness. From the place where Maddie’s parents dined, all that one can see is half the living room window, and to get there, one needs to cross the pool area, and then walk along a row of bushes (approximately 70 metres long). Still, anyone who would be looking in, couldn’t see Maddie or her twin siblings, Sean and Amelie, on the opposite end of the house.

and this....

"According to what TV 7 Dias could establish during this visit to the resort, the scheme of checking the children’s bedrooms hides other curiosities. For example: a person who has followed the case since the first few minutes tells that a list with schedules and names of everyone who told the authorities they had peeked into the children’s bedroom was found… “It’s strange that they wrote that. It looks like a cheat sheet from a person who had been staging a theory…”, the same source says."

Is this saying the mccanns children?

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

Bumping up for RussianDoll for the lighting..Above post which Amaral says it was totally dark that night outside 5A, the lights were broken

thanks for finding that info JD.

russiandoll wrote: thanks for finding that info JD.

It makes a mockery of their statements and the lighting etc...simply it was complete darkness!