Starting at the beginning - the obvious

There are so Much information, theories, opinions etc in this case that it is sometimes good to start from the beginning again.

The first thing making me look deeper into this case was the JT sighting of the abducter. The fact that the person she says she saw was carrying her with the feets toward JT means she had to be not only liftet but also turned the other way. The time frame of 3-5 minutes also puzzeled me. The TM obviously believe that JT saw the abducter .

But , if that is to believe, than the abducter did not enter the window,it didn't show signs if break in, jammed etc ,and G and another man was right down the street , quiet evening, I'm sure they would have heard the jammied shutters. And the window was closed when G made his last check his almost sure of.

The abducter could not have entered trough the patio doors , because G and The man was chatting close to the gate , close enough for an abducter not to enter there , close enough for them to hear ?

The man coud not have hidden in apartment, first of all if he was in there why would he be in another room but the kids room ? If someone came he wouldn't hear it before the doors open and then it's no time to enter another room, and from what we seen there is no where to hide behind the door or elsewhere in the children's room..

So the only way would have been the front door with a key. So someone has the key to that apartment , waits around God knows how long, for a family that leaves their children alone ,so they can snatch it ? In a Holliday apartment with childcare service ? Sounds clever, surprised there aren't more children beeing abducted from there . Why would an abducter choose a place like that , take that chance,leave no traces what so ever ?

There are so many things surrounding the JT sighting. I find it hard to believe, if story is true, that they cling so hard and defend this evidence as much as they to. As the key sighting of the case. It's just not logical in any way, and how did he even get time to take her ? and why do they want us to believe JT saw the man, when her sighting really is not much trustworthy at all.

In an interview posted by tigger earlier on here, where JT says SHE carried her straight over the arms. Why does she say that ? Isn't that a very strange toung slip in such a story if it where to be true ? So did she carried her then, seeing G and J , that's why G crossed road to talk to him, stopping him from going further. in fear of J spotting JT carrying the child , they come up with this story that she went by and saw a man witha child. Unluckily J didn't see her at the top, and he didn't see her passing by either. Probably not but the head starts to spin thinking of this case

And if G and J didn't see JT how do we know that G hadnt just started to talk to J ,but stood there already for 3 min or more ? Because G says so ? How lucky that he looked at his watch and his daughter thinking how lucky he was, just minutes before she allegedly got abducted. And meeting someone that gives him an alibi also at that very moment, even his friend get lucky enough to see the abductor with Madeleine , all this has to clear them , how lucky in this tragedy incident. How much worse would they have been in with out this elements ?

What do other people on here think is the important obviouse clues in this case ? Obviouse body language and how they say and answer things gives a good clue as well IMO .

Moa wrote:There are so Much information, theories, opinions etc in this case that it is sometimes good to start from the beginning again.

The first thing making me look deeper into this case was the JT sighting of the abducter. The fact that the person she says she saw was carrying her with the feets toward JT means she had to be not only liftet but also turned the other way. The time frame of 3-5 minutes also puzzeled me. The TM obviously believe that JT saw the abducter .

But , if that is to believe, than the abducter did not enter the window,it didn't show signs if break in, jammed etc ,and G and another man was right down the street , quiet evening, I'm sure they would have heard the jammied shutters. And the window was closed when G made his last check his almost sure of.

The abducter could not have entered trough the patio doors , because G and The man was chatting close to the gate , close enough for an abducter not to enter there , close enough for them to hear ?

The man coud not have hidden in apartment, first of all if he was in there why would he be in another room but the kids room ? If someone came he wouldn't hear it before the doors open and then it's no time to enter another room, and from what we seen there is no where to hide behind the door or elsewhere in the children's room..

So the only way would have been the front door with a key. So someone has the key to that apartment , waits around God knows how long, for a family that leaves their children alone ,so they can snatch it ? In a Holliday apartment with childcare service ? Sounds clever, surprised there aren't more children beeing abducted from there . Why would an abducter choose a place like that , take that chance,leave no traces what so ever ?

There are so many things surrounding the JT sighting. I find it hard to believe, if story is true, that they cling so hard and defend this evidence as much as they to. As the key sighting of the case. It's just not logical in any way, and how did he even get time to take her ? and why do they want us to believe JT saw the man, when her sighting really is not much trustworthy at all.

In an interview posted by tigger earlier on here, where JT says SHE carried her straight over the arms. Why does she say that ? Isn't that a very strange toung slip in such a story if it where to be true ? So did she carried her then, seeing G and J , that's why G crossed road to talk to him, stopping him from going further. in fear of J spotting JT carrying the child , they come up with this story that she went by and saw a man witha child. Unluckily J didn't see her at the top, and he didn't see her passing by either. Probably not but the head starts to spin thinking of this case [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

And if G and J didn't see JT how do we know that G hadnt just started to talk to J ,but stood there already for 3 min or more ? Because G says so ? How lucky that he looked at his watch and his daughter thinking how lucky he was, just minutes before she allegedly got abducted. And meeting someone that gives him an alibi also at that very moment, even his friend get lucky enough to see the abductor with Madeleine , all this has to clear them , how lucky in this tragedy incident. How much worse would they have been in with out this elements ?

What do other people on here think is the important obviouse clues in this case ? Obviouse body language and how they say and answer things gives a good clue as well IMO .

Great post Moa , timing is everything in this "sighting" IMO if a child had been "abducted" then it would not be peacefully asleep , it would certainly be somewhat distressed , JT makes the "sighting" almost "normal" , I don't think so !!! BTW off topic do you have a link to a bigger picture from your profile MMC looks quite ill in that picture IMO

The jane tanner sighting is flawed. When Matthew Oldfield went into the apartment at 9.30pm (after jane tanner sighting & Maddie was taken) he saw nothing suspicious and the window was closed. gerry also confirms this from his statement on 4th May 2007 "At about 21.30 his friend Matt (member of the group) went to the apartment, where his children were and on his way went to the witness' apartment, entering by means of a glass sliding door that was always unlocked and was located laterally to the building. He entered the bedroom, he observed the twins and he did not even notice whether Madeleine was there" as everything was calm, the shutters were closed and the door to the bedroom was ajar as usual. "After that Matt returned to the restaurant."

kate says the shutters were up when she went in at 10pm (we've all seen the reconstruction of the door whooshing open etc), so this can only mean the abduction took place between 9.30 and 10pm, not at 9.15pm re jane tanner sighting. This only gives credit to the Smith sighting. The only other possible scenario is that the abductor went back some 20 mins later after abducting Maddie..... to open the window and shutters, this of course is preposterous and totally unrealistic.

jane tanner should be arrested for trying to get an innocent man put in jail for abduction. Her 'sighting' is a total lie

Yes, and with all this in mind there has to be a why, why is this sighting taken as seriously by the police and TM ? I'm sure the police are not that stupid believing JT for real ? And if TM really thought their daughter was abducted why cling to the least likely clue ?

I think it's very obviouse because of JT that their child never got abducted and they know, but then I have to believe that police knows that to. British police.

So why do they get away with it ?whats so f#%# special about K and G ?


Tuom:
I don't have a bigger photo, google picture her name along with forget me not and you will find it ..

Moa.......for you ...

Something I thought about last night, a seemingly trivial issue compared to JT sighting but one which suddenly shouted out at me, something I am looking at closely today.
What were the checkers actually able to see in the childrens' bedroom, when they went to do the visual checks on the children [ a step better than the MW checks in other resorts, the listening from outside, so said Kate...they had a visual check on the children].
I was looking at lighting outside 5a, statements from K and G about lighting inside as they left for their meal and statements of those checking re- light and dark on May 3rd. Add in the permanently closed shutter and the position of the bedroom in relation to the light which was left on in the lounge....oh and the bulb wattage.
Not proof of anything other than a lie if I am remotely correct in my thinking.
My question is why lie?
Should I start a new section for this ? Not what did they see in that bedroom...what could they see? Because I would be really interested in your opinions.

JT statement 4th May 2007 :
She passed by them knowing that Gerry had already been in the apartment (1) to check his children. [ how exactly did she KNOW this ?]

JT statement 10th May 2007 :

She passed them knowing that Gerald McCann had already been in the apartment to see the children.[ again how did she KNOW ?]


JT R I 8th May 2008:

“So your intention as you are walking up the road was just to check on Ella and Evie?”
Reply “Yeah, yeah, just to check on them”.
4078 “Just your two?”
Reply “Yeah, nobody else. Because, well Gerry was there, so I thought he’d just checked.

Allowing for memory worsening over time, in this case approx a year...I still do not understand how she knew Gerry had checked. Time elapsed since he left and she saw him might make her conclude this, but it is not knowledge of a fact. Also Gerry might have been facing the tapas area not the top of the street [ conveniently having his back to the abductor so he could not see what JT saw].... but that is not reason enough to be sure he was returning from, rather than going to do his check.

How much light would have been cast from outside into the bedroom with the shutters raised and curtains drawn back? Surely this was something immediately noticeable to anyone 'checking' from inside the apartment? if only to secure the window to prevent the cold night air/secure children from climbing out. Would not the additional light from outside be sufficient to help view occupants of beds? But Kate did not notice anything amiss until the door slammed, no extra light coming from window... and then when she looked properly into the room after the slammed door, she could not make out whether Madeleine was in the bed. I would have had as a first thought that the child had climbed out that window.....and run out to look in that direction calling for help as I went.

dentdelion wrote:How much light would have been cast from outside into the bedroom with the shutters raised and curtains drawn back? Surely this was something immediately noticeable to anyone 'checking' from inside the apartment? if only to secure the window to prevent the cold night air/secure children from climbing out. Would not the additional light from outside be sufficient to help view occupants of beds? But Kate did not notice anything amiss until the door slammed, no extra light coming from window... and then when she looked properly into the room after the slammed door, she could not make out whether Madeleine was in the bed. I would have had as a first thought that the child had climbed out that window.....and run out to look in that direction calling for help as I went.

If the shutters are completely closed no light would be in the room other than a lamp lit in the bedroom, or, if the bedroom door was open then whatever light from the lounge area would light the bedroom. However anyone standing in the doorway would of coures block some of this available light.
If the shutters are down but not completely in that the slats are not closed then there are little holes along that would allow some light, and air in from outside.
Light entering the room would also depend on sunlight, street lights, shade from tree, car headlights going past at night.
Add to the shutters are the curtains. There was a sheer curtain and a thicker curtain, these in turn will defuse any light.
We have shutters just like these and our bedroom window faces east so the dawn and sunrise lightens the room considerably as we don't have them fully locked. The guest bedrooms though face west so these rooms are much darker for longer, ah that is why our visitors get up very late

I was thinking more of going with the story of the " raised shutter, open window, billowing curtains" and how much extra light that would have cast into the room in addition to light from the living area of the apartment. I would imagine also that having walking by night fromt the tapas and entered the dimly lit apartment, their eyes would have adjusted to the poorer light conditions and be better able to see.

russiandoll wrote: JT statement 4th May 2007 :
She passed by them knowing that Gerry had already been in the apartment (1) to check his children. [ how exactly did she KNOW this ?]

JT statement 10th May 2007 :

She passed them knowing that Gerald McCann had already been in the apartment to see the children.[ again how did she KNOW ?]


JT R I 8th May 2008:

“So your intention as you are walking up the road was just to check on Ella and Evie?”
Reply “Yeah, yeah, just to check on them”.
4078 “Just your two?”
Reply “Yeah, nobody else. Because, well Gerry was there, so I thought he’d just checked.

Allowing for memory worsening over time, in this case approx a year...I still do not understand how she knew Gerry had checked. Time elapsed since he left and she saw him might make her conclude this, but it is not knowledge of a fact. Also Gerry might have been facing the tapas area not the top of the street [ conveniently having his back to the abductor so he could not see what JT saw].... but that is not reason enough to be sure he was returning from, rather than going to do his check.

FML , im sick and wrote a long reply for you RD on my iPad, and I was just about to finish and the whole #%}|%}>}> thing disappeared ARRRRRGGGGGG.

Almost crying now in self pitty , just to put me totally in misery I have to stay in bed and its summer outside

Will be back after calming down ....

russiandoll wrote: Moa.......for you ... [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Something I thought about last night, a seemingly trivial issue compared to JT sighting but one which suddenly shouted out at me, something I am looking at closely today.
What were the checkers actually able to see in the childrens' bedroom, when they went to do the visual checks on the children [ a step better than the MW checks in other resorts, the listening from outside, so said Kate...they had a visual check on the children].
I was looking at lighting outside 5a, statements from K and G about lighting inside as they left for their meal and statements of those checking re- light and dark on May 3rd. Add in the permanently closed shutter and the position of the bedroom in relation to the light which was left on in the lounge....oh and the bulb wattage.
Not proof of anything other than a lie if I am remotely correct in my thinking.
My question is why lie?
Should I start a new section for this ? Not what did they see in that bedroom...what could they see? Because I would be really interested in your opinions.

According to the bewk pg 100/101 it was light enough for Gerry to see MMC and to have that moment about how he was so lucky etc...[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

russiandoll wrote: Moa.......for you ... [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Something I thought about last night, a seemingly trivial issue compared to JT sighting but one which suddenly shouted out at me, something I am looking at closely today.
What were the checkers actually able to see in the childrens' bedroom, when they went to do the visual checks on the children [ a step better than the MW checks in other resorts, the listening from outside, so said Kate...they had a visual check on the children].
I was looking at lighting outside 5a, statements from K and G about lighting inside as they left for their meal and statements of those checking re- light and dark on May 3rd. Add in the permanently closed shutter and the position of the bedroom in relation to the light which was left on in the lounge....oh and the bulb wattage.
Not proof of anything other than a lie if I am remotely correct in my thinking.
My question is why lie?
Should I start a new section for this ? Not what did they see in that bedroom...what could they see? Because I would be really interested in your opinions.

I brought my laptop to bed with me, starting over trying to write my post , luckily even if im sick it do not stop me from starting over , after a little shouting and calming down [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Well if we take Kates word for it, they did not acually visiually check their childre. She says so in the mocumentary that she was about to close the door, without seeing them, but then the door slammed and first then she looked in on them, and even then she had to look for a while to be able to make out of M was in the bed or not. And if the door slammed on her, how could she see the curtains go woosh at the very same time? I guess the wooshing was the cause of the door slamming, and she do say that the door slammed and THEN she saw the curtains go woosh...

I guess this says a lot about the lighting and their "visual" checks.

So if G then as he says looked at her, and how beautiful she was and how lucky he was, their had to be some light unless he has a super night vision 90 % better than Kates night vision. Or he would have had to enter the room and be very close to the bed to see her, and if he did he would defently noticed if there was someone else in the room. Wich he didnt. because what he tells is most like not the truth.

And also whats puzzeled me, if we go with TM story, the window would have been open atleast for 45 minutes before K arrive, and then wasnt she lucky that the door slammed just at that very moment when she stood in the door about to close it and go away without seeing her kids. Why did the door not close from the wind from the windows any time before in those 45 minutes it has to have been opend according to their story? Incredible luck, because if the door hadnt slammed and the curtain wooshed, they probably wouldnt noticed her gone until the next morning, and then ofcourse they could not have blamed the police for not doing their job, securing the boarders etc.

And how lucky for G to meet J just at the same time as their very own friend sees the abducter carrying M away. Without two independent witnesses just at that very moment, they would have had a hell of a lot worse time fighting their innocent.

And the man Jt says she saw will never come forward because he do not exist, but they use that as a proof of their story that it is because he is the abducter he never came forward..

Also if there really was an abduction, and the clues in the files that might point in that direction( others observations of a car etc ), does not strengthen JT sighting in anyway at all, still this is their key evidence, and K and G has absolutly no doubt that she saw M beeing carried away. So even when everything points in the direction that JT sighting could not have been the abducter, this is what they choose to believe in anyway.. And for me that tells a lot , how important that G's alibi is for him. They desperatly needs Gerrys chat to J to be an alibi combined with JT sighting..

I always leaned mostly on the theory that it was an accident and cover up in fear , because they know they would have been judged.
But that does not explain why they are beeing protected by the british police. As I beleive they have to be, because any people who can read and think for them self can easily pick apart JT sighting....And from what I read about the SY review, they seem to believe JT too..Atleast they are not questioning her sighting publicly..

I think we can just keep it in this section RD, if we manage :)

Where would K and G be today without all this elements taking place that evening ? My guess is in jail shouting: [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Why did the door not close from the wind from the windows any time before in those 45 minutes it has to have been opend according to their story?

At 9.30pm the window and shutters were closed when Matt Oldfield went into the apartment

jd wrote:

Why did the door not close from the wind from the windows any time before in those 45 minutes it has to have been opend according to their story?

At 9.30pm the window and shutters were closed when Matt Oldfield went into the apartment

Exacly so if we believe him we can not believe JT and vice verca..Someone is lying obviously. And for me JT sighting is just making them look more guilty, still its for them the most important lead. The reason has to be really good , really important to them. They desperatly need us to believe it..

Moa wrote:

jd wrote:

Why did the door not close from the wind from the windows any time before in those 45 minutes it has to have been opend according to their story?

At 9.30pm the window and shutters were closed when Matt Oldfield went into the apartment

Exacly so if we believe him we can not believe JT and vice verca..Someone is lying obviously. And for me JT sighting is just making them look more guilty, still its for them the most important lead. The reason has to be really good , really important to them. They desperatly need us to believe it..

Of course but jane tanner messed it up! gerry mccann also states in his own statement of 4th May that when matt oldfield was in the apartment at 9.30pm that the shutters were closed

I think later in the one of the C4 documentaries jane tanner tried to make it up with the 'football comment' but again she messed it up!

I might be going down a dead end with this, but want to post the statements of the 3 checking that evening and look at the plan of the apartment. I cannot copy over photos, for now will provide links and then hope somebody can soon put the photos here so they are all together, will be much more easy to look and comment. If anyone can post photos, could you please do so? Many thanks..........in the meantime, here are some links. Hope they work


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

Should have statements with highlighted areas and my qs re them posted in about 30 minutes.

jd wrote:

Moa wrote:

jd wrote:

Why did the door not close from the wind from the windows any time before in those 45 minutes it has to have been opend according to their story?

At 9.30pm the window and shutters were closed when Matt Oldfield went into the apartment

Exacly so if we believe him we can not believe JT and vice verca..Someone is lying obviously. And for me JT sighting is just making them look more guilty, still its for them the most important lead. The reason has to be really good , really important to them. They desperatly need us to believe it..

Of course but jane tanner messed it up! gerry mccann also states in his own statement of 4th May that when matt oldfield was in the apartment at 9.30pm that the shutters were closed

Or was it Matt unknowingly messing up for them ? Was his cheking in their apartment not a part of their plan? If we go for Matt telling the truth , G and JT had to change their lie to fit him ? So G repeats Matt observation because he knows it too be true, and for once dont have to lie, at the same time feeling very secure having J as his alibie for that time? So he didnt really care that it didnt fit in with JT sighting, just more confusing added, and we know G likes that confusing.. That would also mean Matt wasnt in on what ever happened before and after? Just thinking out loud now...

IMO JT is lying, so I see no reason for M to lie and say they where closed. If he was in on it their story surronding this would been more waterproof.

Is it possibly that only some of the T7 knows? And if is it possible that the knowers are not couples, like JT and DP ?`If some or all are hiding something, we would automaticcly assume that some of the couples would know something, not that person or that person... if you can follow my thinking and bad english here [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Or maybe JT just messed it up, or they just needed it to be at that time because G had an alibi chatting with J ?

If someone has a link for the interview with JT where she tells how SHE was carrying that child that night, I would appriciate if you could post it on this thread [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

russiandoll wrote:Should have statements with highlighted areas and my qs re them posted in about 30 minutes.

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

jd....thanks for posting those photos so quickly.........the links are working but it saves a lot of hassle

please tell how to do it.....I never can !

No probs RD...To post them click on the 'image' icon on the top menu bar (it looks like a TV imo & left to the grey chain link icon), then in the box that will appear copy and paste the link to the photo e.g.. [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

I will try !
but for now can I ask another favour ? I forgot one....can you put this with the others so they are all together? Sorry for the messing around !
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Moa wrote:

jd wrote:

Why did the door not close from the wind from the windows any time before in those 45 minutes it has to have been opend according to their story?

At 9.30pm the window and shutters were closed when Matt Oldfield went into the apartment

Exacly so if we believe him we can not believe JT and vice verca..Someone is lying obviously. And for me JT sighting is just making them look more guilty, still its for them the most important lead. The reason has to be really good , really important to them. They desperatly need us to believe it..

In his first statement MO says he seems to think the shutters were open because of the amount of light coming in. However, the question is did he ever go in the bedroom because of the description he gives, ie. 2 windows in the childrens bedroom, so again another question, he never actually says which window had the shutter open. Which of course you think he would, seeing as he mentions this in the statement........................

MO 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. That it seemed to him that the shutters of the bedroom window were open without knowing if the window was also open.
The apartment has two bedrooms, a lounge, a small kitchen and a bathroom. The couple's bedroom has a window which is visible from the restaurant. The children's bedroom windows look out on the road outside the tourist complex. Then the interviewee went back to the restaurant.

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, facing the wall which has the two windows that look out onto the outside of the complex. That the door through which he entered the apartment was closed but not locked. That he doesn't know if it is usual for Madeleine's parents to leave the door closed but not locked in so far as that door is visible from the restaurant.

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

candyfloss wrote:

Moa wrote:

jd wrote:

Why did the door not close from the wind from the windows any time before in those 45 minutes it has to have been opend according to their story?

At 9.30pm the window and shutters were closed when Matt Oldfield went into the apartment

Exacly so if we believe him we can not believe JT and vice verca..Someone is lying obviously. And for me JT sighting is just making them look more guilty, still its for them the most important lead. The reason has to be really good , really important to them. They desperatly need us to believe it..

In his first statement MO says he seems to think the shutters were open because of the amount of light coming in. However, the question is did he ever go in the bedroom because of the description he gives, ie. 2 windows in the childrens bedroom, so again another question, he never actually says which window had the shutter open. Which of course you think he would, seeing as he mentions this in the statement........................

MO 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. That it seemed to him that the shutters of the bedroom window were open without knowing if the window was also open.
The apartment has two bedrooms, a lounge, a small kitchen and a bathroom. The couple's bedroom has a window which is visible from the restaurant. The children's bedroom windows look out on the road outside the tourist complex. Then the interviewee went back to the restaurant.

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, facing the wall which has the two windows that look out onto the outside of the complex. That the door through which he entered the apartment was closed but not locked. That he doesn't know if it is usual for Madeleine's parents to leave the door closed but not locked in so far as that door is visible from the restaurant.

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

Thank You candyfloss :)

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".

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


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?

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,

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 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.

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 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?