It felt really safe

by truthfultiger 08.12.13 7:38

Kate keeps saying in interviews and in her book, regarding leaving the kids in the unlocked apartment that "it felt really safe". This statement has always bugged me as they are intelligent people and it it's obviously not safe to leave your children to go out to dinner, especially when your 3 year old is in a bed and could get up and wander or anyone could get in (maybe you wouldn't expect an abductor but I'd certainly be way odd petty thieves.

Do you think when she says this she is actually referring to the assumption that particular drugs were safe to administer/the dose bring right they thought she wouldn't wake up.

Of course, this is merely discussion of a possible theory. Not saying they did do anything like this!

Apologies if this has already been discussed somewhere.

by ultimaThule 08.12.13 7:57

According to Gerry, it was just like eating in your back garden - presupposing there's a 12' wall behind the rear entrance to your home which encloses the grounds containing the swimming pool, tennis courts and a bar/diner from which there's an obscured view across to your living room balcony - and he was assured that cavorting with their pals out of sight and earshot of the 3 very young children he and his spouse left in the unlocked apartment was 'within the bounds of reasonable parenting'.

It occurs to me that the PJ may be in possession of a wealth of additional information which may have escaped the published files, such as whether new arrivals to MW's Ocean Club accomodation in April 2007 were warned of the dangers of leaving windows open/doors unlocked because of the recent spate of burglaries that had taken place in the area.

Fortunately, the McCanns did not have to claim on their holiday insurance because, as Philomena said, nothing of value was taken from their apartment.

by **PeterMac** 08.12.13 8:18

If it felt really safe, why bother to go back every half hour to check.

by truthfultiger 08.12.13 8:43

A live child is certainly valuable Phil...

by truthfultiger 08.12.13 8:47

I suppose one could suggest that a dead child is more of a liability than valuable. Except to the police.

by ultimaThule 08.12.13 8:51

PeterMac wrote:If it felt really safe, why bother to go back every half hour to check.

As I recall it was only on the one night, which coincidentally was Thursday 3 May 2007, that the McCanns decided to make sure they were 'really checking' on their children which begs the question of what they were doing on the other nights... pretending to check while necking a few in one of the bars down town where the footie was on?

by ultimaThule 08.12.13 9:17

truthfultiger wrote:I suppose one could suggest that a dead child is more of a liability than valuable. Except to the police.

It's a hard call but given that questions may be asked, siblings may be taken into care, incomes may be lost while prison terms were being served in foreign jails, etc,.it seems to me a dead child who met its end at the hands of its parents would be more of a liability than an asset.

On the other hand, there must be some value to be gained from an opportunity to learn another language from native speakers while enjoying free board and lodging.

by Guest 08.12.13 10:50

In an early report Kate was quoted as saying that she felt safe (about leaving the children) because she'd been there before.

That may have been a misquote but, whether she'd been there or not, she never considered the billion to one possibility that a random paedo stranger was in town and had been watching them for several days before making his move.

I think that any other parent would have some much more sensible reasons why they wouldn't leave young children unsupervised. Waking up from a bad dream, suddenly becoming ill (my son's temperature was prone to rocket dangerously within seconds), getting out of bed and wandering around etc etc.

A reminder of Gerry's need to emphasise the 30 minute checks.

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

by chillyheat 08.12.13 11:09

Jeremy and Bridget became aware that although the McCanns had taken up the use of the crèche facility during the day, they had not done so for the evening hours and had left the children in the apartment but were checking on them regularly and that other members of the group appeared to be doing the same.

They expressed surprise over this as the McCanns apartment was set in a location that appeared vulnerable. They were aware that the apartment was a corner building and with easy access from the road. The apartments were not very secure and entry could easily be gained.

by sami 08.12.13 12:15

Kate says it was so safe. However, think about all of the creepy, weirdo, tractor driving, charity collecting sightings reported after the event. I cannot understand how all of these people, noticed by so many, went completely un-noticed by Kate and Gerry and indeed the others in their group.

Quite the opposite actually. They saw/heard absolutely nothing. So quiet and peaceful that it encouraged them to do what they did and all the while a weirdo on every street corner, we are later told.

Amazing.

by **PeterMac** 08.12.13 12:17

So safe

PdL - What a place. Why does anyone holiday there?
PdL - where families take it in turn to vomit each night, dog packs pursue and bite joggers, guests fall off catamarans, damage tendons playing tennis, have shaving accidents and stagger around apartments bleeding, domestic appliances need repair, shutters jam, baby monitors won't function at restaurants, travel cots can't be assembled.. sounds like THE VILLAGE OF THE DAMNED.

It's populated by black heroin addicts, people who rob apartments, gypsies who steal scrap and wood, scruffy moustachioed lurers of children, bogus charity collectors, suspicious street musicians, men lurking near phone booths, glasses man lurking in stairwells, blond men suspiciously lurking outside apartments, soothing couples entering apartments without permission, mysterious gangs of cleaners, men taking photographs of children on beaches... And to top it all, you have to queue for a table booking.

by Monty Heck 08.12.13 13:18

But it didn't feel safe enough to leave the apartment unlocked during the day. KMcC was so concerned, according to FP, that M would wake up again and want to come looking for her parents that she thought it best to leave the patio doors unlocked so she could do that. How she was expected to negotiate the entry gate into the pool area on her own in such circumstances was, like so many of the T9 claims, never explained.

Logically speaking the only way it would be safe to leave such young children alone for that length of time each night would be to give them medication to make sure they would not wake and get up to mischief. Logically speaking, you do not lock up your apartment when it's unoccupied during the day but leave it unlocked when only your children are there at night. These vague claims about feeling safe have to be backed up by some kind of logical argument, not some vague notion, but they can't be and therefore haven't.

by watendlath 10.12.13 7:37

It's more like living opposite a park; your house faces the main road at the front, another road to the side and there's a small footpath between the back of the house and the park.

Who would leave small children sleeping in a house like that while they go for a meal in the park's outdoor cafe
And leave the back door open
At night?

Also it was out of season. Holiday resorts are full of life in the high season but in winter they are very quiet and a bit eerie.

I really cannot see how any of them felt their children to be safe, even the Paynes with their baby monitor.

As a number of people have already pointed out, I think it's more likely they are prepared to put up with being considered bad parents rather than have anyone know what really went on there that night, which would make them look much worse.

by Smokeandmirrors 10.12.13 7:48

watendlath wrote:It's more like living opposite a park; your house faces the main road at the front, another road to the side and there's a small footpath between the back of the house and the park.

Who would leave small children sleeping in a house like that while they go for a meal in the park's outdoor cafe
And leave the back door open
At night?

Also it was out of season. Holiday resorts are full of life in the high season but in winter they are very quiet and a bit eerie.

I really cannot see how any of them felt their children to be safe, even the Paynes with their baby monitor.

As a number of people have already pointed out, I think it's more likely they are prepared to put up with being considered bad parents rather than have anyone know what really went on there that night, which would make them look much worse.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Absolutely. And I think we are getting closer to finding out what that something is!

by ultimaThule 10.12.13 8:08

I suspect that the 'something' is little more than the fact that the children had to be alone in the unlocked apartment otherwise it would have defied the bounds of credibility for a stranger to have 'taken' one.

Part of the mystery is why the alleged stranger would bother to navigate their way to the head of Madeleine's bed in order to remove her from it, and neatly remake it, when there was a choice of 2 infants sound asleep in their travel costs either one of which could be scooped up and whisked out of the apartment in a matter of seconds.

If a stranger had gained access through the unjemmied shutters and closed window, why did they squeeze themselves around or between the 2 travel cots when one of the twins could be speedly passed out of the window to an accomplice or left on the bed below the window while the sole pepetrator quickly climbed out and reached back in to grab the chosen twin before making off with their prize?

As the children's bedroom was in darkness, perhaps the police should have put out an all points bulletin for anyone with a limp seen carrying a child as, given the set-up in the room, it seems to me a stubbed toe would have been inevitable.

by canada12 10.12.13 9:16

I wonder if the original "plan" was that Gerry would adjust the shutters and the window from the outside and make it look like someone had broken in. It could be that the original "plan" also included having Madeleine sleep in the bed beside the window, and hence someone could simply reach in and grab her, lift her out and whisk her away. That makes far more sense than all this bizarre navigation around cots and beds, a perfectly made bed which supposedly held Madeleine and an unmade bed that Kate tried to say was where she spent the previous night.

If she'd actually spent the previous night sleeping there, wouldn't her DNA have shown up on the pillowcase and sheets? Do we know if those were tested for her DNA?

Anyway perhaps something went drastically wrong with the original plan - perhaps someone interrupted Gerry in his shutter adjustments, or it was too difficult to actually get the shutters to move from the outside to simulate a breakin - and a few explanations had to be improvised along the way to make up for it.

by worriedmum 10.12.13 9:20

sami wrote:Kate says it was so safe. However, think about all of the creepy, weirdo, tractor driving, charity collecting sightings reported after the event. I cannot understand how all of these people, noticed by so many, went completely un-noticed by Kate and Gerry and indeed the others in their group.

Quite the opposite actually. They saw/heard absolutely nothing. So quiet and peaceful that it encouraged them to do what they did and all the while a weirdo on every street corner, we are later told.

Amazing.

by Guest 10.12.13 9:31

ultimaThule wrote:

As the children's bedroom was in darkness, perhaps the police should have put out an all points bulletin for anyone with a limp seen carrying a child as, given the set-up in the room, it seems to me a stubbed toe would have been inevitable.

I'm sure Jane Tanner can be relied upon to "remember" that the man she saw was actually wearing night vision goggles.

by ultimaThule 10.12.13 9:55

canada12 wrote:I wonder if the original "plan" was that Gerry would adjust the shutters and the window from the outside and make it look like someone had broken in. It could be that the original "plan" also included having Madeleine sleep in the bed beside the window, and hence someone could simply reach in and grab her, lift her out and whisk her away. That makes far more sense than all this bizarre navigation around cots and beds, a perfectly made bed which supposedly held Madeleine and an unmade bed that Kate tried to say was where she spent the previous night.

If she'd actually spent the previous night sleeping there, wouldn't her DNA have shown up on the pillowcase and sheets? Do we know if those were tested for her DNA?

Anyway perhaps something went drastically wrong with the original plan - perhaps someone interrupted Gerry in his shutter adjustments, or it was too difficult to actually get the shutters to move from the outside to simulate a breakin - and a few explanations had to be improvised along the way to make up for it.

Apparently not as it was necessary for Gerry to make a special trip back to Rothley to obtain a pillowcase for DNA testing.

The 'RothleyPillowcase' has a following on twitter which I've found to be highly ~~amusing~~ informative on occasion. big grin

by canada12 10.12.13 10:11

canada12 wrote:
If she'd actually spent the previous night sleeping there, wouldn't her DNA have shown up on the pillowcase and sheets? Do we know if those were tested for her DNA?

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

Apparently not as it was necessary for Gerry to make a special trip back to Rothley to obtain a pillowcase for DNA testing.

The 'RothleyPillowcase' has a following on twitter which I've found to be highly ~~amusing~~ informative on occasion. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
------------

Indeed :)

Actually what I meant was... Kate claimed somewhere that SHE spent the night in the second bed as she'd had some kind of falling out with Gerry. And that was the explanation for the unmade bed beside the window.

So if KATE spent the night in that bed, wouldn't KATE's DNA be somewhere on the pillowcase and sheets? Hair samples? Saliva? Anything...?

I was just wondering if the PJ had thought to test the bedclothes for Kate's DNA, to back up her claim of spending the night in that bed.

by ultimaThule 10.12.13 10:13

Clay Regazzoni wrote:
ultimaThule wrote:

As the children's bedroom was in darkness, perhaps the police should have put out an all points bulletin for anyone with a limp seen carrying a child as, given the set-up in the room, it seems to me a stubbed toe would have been inevitable.

I'm sure Jane Tanner can be relied upon to "remember" that the man she saw was actually wearing night vision goggles.

From Jane 'it's all coming back to me' Tanner's updated statement: He was white with dark skin, he had long hair styled in a short - possibly afro - fashion, he was driving a tractor which was towing a white van with rear doors through which could be seen a motorbike, he was wearing night vision goggles and holding a large trellis type extending gadget which could reach through a closed window and pluck a child from her bed, he was wearing a pair of Manolos, he had a pencil skirt under his trousers, and he looked to have a bad case of acne.

Now that we've eliminated Victoria Beckham and measleman, methinks its time for the limited company's lifestyle fund website to update it's 'persons of interest' pages.: yes