Sunday Express 9 Feb 2014 - MADELEINE - There REALLY WAS a COVER-UP

jeanmonroe wrote:When help from higher establishments was requested, the story of neglect and abduction had not yet been invented
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
I beg to differ.

The McCanns were screaming down the phones to relatives in UK within the hour screaming 'ABDUCTION'

Jon Corner, a close friend of Mrs McCann and godparent of the twins, said Kate telephoned him in the middle of the night distraught.
He said: "She just blurted out that Madeleine had been ABDUCTED.

He continued: "She was in an absolutely hysterical state - very, very distressed. She blurted out Madeleine had been ABDUCTED.

"Kate said the shutters* of the room were smashed. Madeleine was missing

"She just told me that Maddy had been ABDUCTED, that the shutters* of the apartment had been forced and someone had taken her."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A friend said: "Kate rang us totally hysterical, saying Maddy WAS ABDUCTED. They're devastated."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The appalling news that three-year-old Maddy McCann was feared kidnapped from her holiday flat came in a distraught phone call early yesterday from her dad. (GM)

Heart specialist Gerry McCann rang his sister Trish in Scotland after Maddy vanished from her cot placed between two-year-old twins Sean and Amelie.

Trish revealed yesterday: "He was breaking his heart, saying Madeleine's been abducted, she's been abducted"

Trish said: "When Kate checked, she came out screaming. Maddy had gone. The door was open and the window in the bedroom and shutters* were jemmied open.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Close family friend Gill Renwick, of Liverpool, "Madeleine has obviously been taken. She couldn't have gone out on her own and the shutters* were forced."

* Perfectly INTACT shutters without a 'mark' on them!

The dramatic melodrama that the McCanns enacted from the very moment that Kate 'discovered' that Madeleine was missing makes me suspect that it was more than 'just' an accident (although that is still seriously neglectful, when you consider that the parents had left the children unattended.) They just went to such great lengths to turn it all into the abduction of the century - there must have been more behind it than covering up an accident.

jeanmonroe wrote:When help from higher establishments was requested, the story of neglect and abduction had not yet been invented
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
I beg to differ.

The McCanns were screaming down the phones to relatives in UK within the hour screaming 'ABDUCTION'

Jon Corner, a close friend of Mrs McCann and godparent of the twins, said Kate telephoned him in the middle of the night distraught.
He said: "She just blurted out that Madeleine had been ABDUCTED.

He continued: "She was in an absolutely hysterical state - very, very distressed. She blurted out Madeleine had been ABDUCTED.

"Kate said the shutters* of the room were smashed. Madeleine was missing

"She just told me that Maddy had been ABDUCTED, that the shutters* of the apartment had been forced and someone had taken her."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A friend said: "Kate rang us totally hysterical, saying Maddy WAS ABDUCTED. They're devastated."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The appalling news that three-year-old Maddy McCann was feared kidnapped from her holiday flat came in a distraught phone call early yesterday from her dad. (GM)

Heart specialist Gerry McCann rang his sister Trish in Scotland after Maddy vanished from her cot placed between two-year-old twins Sean and Amelie.

Trish revealed yesterday: "He was breaking his heart, saying Madeleine's been abducted, she's been abducted"

Trish said: "When Kate checked, she came out screaming. Maddy had gone. The door was open and the window in the bedroom and shutters* were jemmied open.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Close family friend Gill Renwick, of Liverpool, "Madeleine has obviously been taken. She couldn't have gone out on her own and the shutters* were forced."

* Perfectly INTACT shutters without a 'mark' on them!

The dramatic melodrama that the McCanns enacted from the very moment that Kate 'discovered' that Madeleine was missing makes me suspect that it was more than 'just' an accident (although that is still seriously neglectful, when you consider that the parents had left the children unattended.) They just went to such great lengths to turn it all into the abduction of the century - there must have been more behind it than covering up an accident.

j.rob wrote:

jeanmonroe wrote:When help from higher establishments was requested, the story of neglect and abduction had not yet been invented
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
I beg to differ.

The McCanns were screaming down the phones to relatives in UK within the hour screaming 'ABDUCTION'

Jon Corner, a close friend of Mrs McCann and godparent of the twins, said Kate telephoned him in the middle of the night distraught.
He said: "She just blurted out that Madeleine had been ABDUCTED.

He continued: "She was in an absolutely hysterical state - very, very distressed. She blurted out Madeleine had been ABDUCTED.

"Kate said the shutters* of the room were smashed. Madeleine was missing

"She just told me that Maddy had been ABDUCTED, that the shutters* of the apartment had been forced and someone had taken her."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A friend said: "Kate rang us totally hysterical, saying Maddy WAS ABDUCTED. They're devastated."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The appalling news that three-year-old Maddy McCann was feared kidnapped from her holiday flat came in a distraught phone call early yesterday from her dad. (GM)

Heart specialist Gerry McCann rang his sister Trish in Scotland after Maddy vanished from her cot placed between two-year-old twins Sean and Amelie.

Trish revealed yesterday: "He was breaking his heart, saying Madeleine's been abducted, she's been abducted"

Trish said: "When Kate checked, she came out screaming. Maddy had gone. The door was open and the window in the bedroom and shutters* were jemmied open.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Close family friend Gill Renwick, of Liverpool, "Madeleine has obviously been taken. She couldn't have gone out on her own and the shutters* were forced."

* Perfectly INTACT shutters without a 'mark' on them!

The dramatic melodrama that the McCanns enacted from the very moment that Kate 'discovered' that Madeleine was missing makes me suspect that it was more than 'just' an accident (although that is still seriously neglectful, when you consider that the parents had left the children unattended.) They just went to such great lengths to turn it all into the abduction of the century - there must have been more behind it than covering up an accident.

Something I, and I am sure many others are reluctant to think about Rob, but you have a point. In the event of an accident, they would have been grief stricken and blamed themselves, the grief would have been very real, as it is too many tragic cases. That is, it would have been tangible, it would have touched those of us who might have been naturally cynical, but the grief simply wasn't there. There is a very brief video of Gerry giggling and making faces - standing at his patio doors, I believe, that is positively chilling. It was taken within days of Madeleine going missing.

I am starting to think something that I have avoided this past 7 years, because I can think of no explanation for the parents to have been so upbeat following an [avoidable] trauma, that would have torn most families to shreds. Especially if it involved an accident that could so easily have been prevented. The decision to leave the children alone was so monumentally stupid, any normal couple would have been at each other's throats. I hate to think the worst, but am reaching a stage where I have to reassess.

Ladyinred wrote:

j.rob wrote:

Ladyinred wrote:For what it is worth, whether Madeleine was 'abducted', 'stolen' or 'snatched from her bed' seems to revolve around semantics more than anything else. The key question is whether this was the act of a total stranger and they had no prior knowledge of it or involvement in it. 

The McCanns appear to  be convinced that she did not 'wander off' or just mysteriously disappear. On this point, at least, I think we should believe them. 'They have taken her' cried Madeleine's mother. 'She is gone'. Again, I think that is true - someone or some people had indeed taken Madeleine out of the apartment, whether that evening or previously, we do not know.


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


j.rob: please explain why we should believe anything the McCanns say.

I am also convinced that MBM did not wander off.  IMO the parents are responsible for her 'mysterious' disappearance, i.e. her death.

You accept the parent's assertion that Madeleine was taken on 3rd May, or previously.  Why do you believe this?

I think you perhaps slightly misunderstand what I was trying to get at. Perhaps I was too obtuse. What I wanted to convey is that when Kate McCann cried: 'she has gone.....someone has taken her' and words to that effect then I do believe that was the truth. However, it wasn't a random stranger, it was someone she knew or someone that the McCanns knew or had instructed to take her.

 I do not believe the McCanns - on the contrary, I think they have sent the world and his wife on a crazy witch-hunt and I think that the Portugese police spotted what was going on from the very beginning.

HOWEVER - I think that, although the McCann's overall premise is a lie, they quite often say things that indicate what may have really happened. For instance: 'someone has taken her. she has gone'.

Yes - Kate knew that Madeleine had been taken by somebody and that she had not just wandered off. Yes, I too believe that the McCanns are behind her disappearance, and they know (mostly) what happened to her. But if other people were involved in her disappearance (at the behest of the McCanns) then the McCanns  may not 100% know what happened. The criminal underworld is probably not full of people who are going to necessarily do what they say they will do.

My opinion is that you have to look at what the McCanns say from the perspective that they are lying. However, when people tell lies, they quite often betray themselves by slipping in - between the lies - the truth.

So, for instance - the McCAnns claim Madeleine and the twins were drugged. Yes - I think that might well be the truth. But not by a mystery random person, but by either them or someone they knew. There are several reasons they would have brought this up even though, ironically, it could implicate them. Firstly, it would explain for the twins sleeping so deeply. Secondly, it would explain how a stranger was able to take Madeleine out of her bed without her protesting and thirdly, in the event that the twins were medically examined, it would lead credence to their version of events and get them off the hook (assuming, as I do, that the drugging of their children was done either by them or by their friends/aquaintances).

There are many other examples of the McCanns revealing what probably really happened, but through their lies. You see this all the time in criminal cases. In the case of the McCAnns whatever happened to Madeleine - her 'abduction' her being drugged - was always someone else's fault. But, really, they incriminated themselves from the very beginning by coming up with all these explanation when, in reality, if they really DIDN'T KNOW (because they really didn't know and weren't there to witness it) then they really didn't know.

The Portuguese police would have spotted all these inconsistencies from the word go. None of what they were saying added up. It must have been obvious that they were all trying way too hard to pin their daughter's disappearance on a random abductor. Why try to shoehorn a mystery disappearance into a very specific scenario (eg: abduction into a paedophile ring?)

And all the above is especially mad when you consider that the McCann, prior to the apparently mystery abduction, had never considered that to be a risk factor. ......that being the case, why would they come to that conclusion the moment they found their daughter 'missing'.

The fact that the McCanns themselves constantly bring up the subject of paedophilia and Kate writes about it in her book also raises a few red flags with me. Why harp on about it? Kate herself once said that 'people with dirty thoughts have dirty minds'.

Again - if the McCanns had not brought it up, I would not be suspicious about it. 

In my opinion the McCanns have at lest narcissistic tendencies and maybe psychopathic tendencies. It is as though they are playing a game with everyone. Hinting at the truth, but through their lies. Gerry constantly goading reporters and others. The closer they get to the truth, the more the McCanns and their team attack back. They cannot, will not, accept their culpability instead preferring to pin the blame on everyone else.

Thanks, j.rob. I did understand what you said, perhaps my reply was unclear.

So you believe that Madeleine was taken by someone on 3rd and that Kate's cries of her being taken are genuine?  I don't.

No. The McCanns responses were staged. Apart from anything, as others have written about at length, it takes time to process emotions. To respond in that manner within a few minutes of 'discovering' that your child is missing is inauthentic.

I think something happened to Madeleine quite early on in the holiday. It seems as though the last (credible?) sighting of her was on Sunday, the day after they arrived at the resort.  Kate is at great pains, in her book, to describe the apparently happy, carefree days they all spent at the resort in the lead-up to Madeleine's 'abduction'. Sadly, I think this is all fabrication.

It is possible something happened the night that Mrs Fenn heard crying from the apartment for an hour and a quarter. In any event, whatever had happened, the McCann's had rehearsed their procedure for the night of Madeleine's 'abduction'. Their friends appeared to be behind them, with the checking stories and the quickly drawn up 'timeline'. 

Kate's reaction was faked - but I think it is true that Madeleine may well have been removed ('taken') from the apartment that evening. The McCanns were behind what happened but it doesn't mean they necessarily physically removed Madeleine or her body. Maybe the chaos that ensued, before the police arrived, provided a cover for a person to scuttle away, perhaps, carrying Madeleine. Logically you ask why she wasn't taken away in a car but perhaps it was all part of their cunning plan - to suggest that road-block etc should be set up when all along she was being held somewhere nearby.

HelenMeg wrote:

Ladyinred wrote:

j.rob wrote:

Ladyinred wrote:For what it is worth, whether Madeleine was 'abducted', 'stolen' or 'snatched from her bed' seems to revolve around semantics more than anything else. The key question is whether this was the act of a total stranger and they had no prior knowledge of it or involvement in it. 

The McCanns appear to  be convinced that she did not 'wander off' or just mysteriously disappear. On this point, at least, I think we should believe them. 'They have taken her' cried Madeleine's mother. 'She is gone'. Again, I think that is true - someone or some people had indeed taken Madeleine out of the apartment, whether that evening or previously, we do not know.


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


j.rob: please explain why we should believe anything the McCanns say.

I am also convinced that MBM did not wander off.  IMO the parents are responsible for her 'mysterious' disappearance, i.e. her death.

You accept the parent's assertion that Madeleine was taken on 3rd May, or previously.  Why do you believe this?

I think you perhaps slightly misunderstand what I was trying to get at. Perhaps I was too obtuse. What I wanted to convey is that when Kate McCann cried: 'she has gone.....someone has taken her' and words to that effect then I do believe that was the truth. However, it wasn't a random stranger, it was someone she knew or someone that the McCanns knew or had instructed to take her.

 I do not believe the McCanns - on the contrary, I think they have sent the world and his wife on a crazy witch-hunt and I think that the Portugese police spotted what was going on from the very beginning.

HOWEVER - I think that, although the McCann's overall premise is a lie, they quite often say things that indicate what may have really happened. For instance: 'someone has taken her. she has gone'.

Yes - Kate knew that Madeleine had been taken by somebody and that she had not just wandered off. Yes, I too believe that the McCanns are behind her disappearance, and they know (mostly) what happened to her. But if other people were involved in her disappearance (at the behest of the McCanns) then the McCanns  may not 100% know what happened. The criminal underworld is probably not full of people who are going to necessarily do what they say they will do.

My opinion is that you have to look at what the McCanns say from the perspective that they are lying. However, when people tell lies, they quite often betray themselves by slipping in - between the lies - the truth.

So, for instance - the McCAnns claim Madeleine and the twins were drugged. Yes - I think that might well be the truth. But not by a mystery random person, but by either them or someone they knew. There are several reasons they would have brought this up even though, ironically, it could implicate them. Firstly, it would explain for the twins sleeping so deeply. Secondly, it would explain how a stranger was able to take Madeleine out of her bed without her protesting and thirdly, in the event that the twins were medically examined, it would lead credence to their version of events and get them off the hook (assuming, as I do, that the drugging of their children was done either by them or by their friends/aquaintances).

There are many other examples of the McCanns revealing what probably really happened, but through their lies. You see this all the time in criminal cases. In the case of the McCAnns whatever happened to Madeleine - her 'abduction' her being drugged - was always someone else's fault. But, really, they incriminated themselves from the very beginning by coming up with all these explanation when, in reality, if they really DIDN'T KNOW (because they really didn't know and weren't there to witness it) then they really didn't know.

The Portuguese police would have spotted all these inconsistencies from the word go. None of what they were saying added up. It must have been obvious that they were all trying way too hard to pin their daughter's disappearance on a random abductor. Why try to shoehorn a mystery disappearance into a very specific scenario (eg: abduction into a paedophile ring?)

And all the above is especially mad when you consider that the McCann, prior to the apparently mystery abduction, had never considered that to be a risk factor. ......that being the case, why would they come to that conclusion the moment they found their daughter 'missing'.

The fact that the McCanns themselves constantly bring up the subject of paedophilia and Kate writes about it in her book also raises a few red flags with me. Why harp on about it? Kate herself once said that 'people with dirty thoughts have dirty minds'.

Again - if the McCanns had not brought it up, I would not be suspicious about it. 

In my opinion the McCanns have at lest narcissistic tendencies and maybe psychopathic tendencies. It is as though they are playing a game with everyone. Hinting at the truth, but through their lies. Gerry constantly goading reporters and others. The closer they get to the truth, the more the McCanns and their team attack back. They cannot, will not, accept their culpability instead preferring to pin the blame on everyone else.

Thanks, j.rob. I did understand what you said, perhaps my reply was unclear.

So you believe that Madeleine was taken by someone on 3rd and that Kate's cries of her being taken are genuine?  I don't.

It seems that Kate called 'abduction ' too quickly - she had not been informed that GM had still not had time to sort out the shutters.
GM had had to walk around with a child in order that some witnesses could view a potential abductor. He also had to carry MBM from the aprtament to her first hiding place.

When Kate shouted abduction it was all part of the plan but she raised the alarm too quickly - pat of the plan that went wrong.

Yes - that makes sense if you look at the witness statements from staff at the Ocean Club resort. There are several witnesses who were in the area who stated that they heard a commotion and the news that a child had gone missing as early as 9.20pm and certainly well before 10pm which is the time that Kate writes in her book. So what happened? Was Jeremy who was wheeling his child around in a buggy in the way? The witness who reported hearing about a commotion at around 9.20pm also states that at a time before 10pm, the table was empty apart from an elderly lady. This version of events does not fit in with the version of events given by the McCanns and their friends.

Perhaps, as suggested, the plan was thwarted by one or more pesky witnesses (such as Jeremy). The 'jemmied' shutters is an interesting inconsistency. Perhaps Gerry had been planning on planting 'evidence' of a break-in (as was reported by McCann family members despite their being no evidence) but a witness - Jeremy - appeared at the crucial time.

In the meantime, the 'abduction' story had already been leaked. Which makes the Oldfield check at 9.30pm and Kate's 'discovery'  at 10pm as fanciful as the phantom random abductor. 

It is still extraordinary how they managed to get their friends to rally round with what appears to be such a fanciful story. Which is what makes me think that at least some of the friends may have thought what happened to Madeleine was a tragic accident (overdose/fall etc). However I do believe that at least one of their friends (David Payne for instance) knew about a bigger agenda.

Cristobell wrote:

j.rob wrote:

jeanmonroe wrote:When help from higher establishments was requested, the story of neglect and abduction had not yet been invented
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
I beg to differ.

The McCanns were screaming down the phones to relatives in UK within the hour screaming 'ABDUCTION'

Jon Corner, a close friend of Mrs McCann and godparent of the twins, said Kate telephoned him in the middle of the night distraught.
He said: "She just blurted out that Madeleine had been ABDUCTED.

He continued: "She was in an absolutely hysterical state - very, very distressed. She blurted out Madeleine had been ABDUCTED.

"Kate said the shutters* of the room were smashed. Madeleine was missing

"She just told me that Maddy had been ABDUCTED, that the shutters* of the apartment had been forced and someone had taken her."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A friend said: "Kate rang us totally hysterical, saying Maddy WAS ABDUCTED. They're devastated."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The appalling news that three-year-old Maddy McCann was feared kidnapped from her holiday flat came in a distraught phone call early yesterday from her dad. (GM)

Heart specialist Gerry McCann rang his sister Trish in Scotland after Maddy vanished from her cot placed between two-year-old twins Sean and Amelie.

Trish revealed yesterday: "He was breaking his heart, saying Madeleine's been abducted, she's been abducted"

Trish said: "When Kate checked, she came out screaming. Maddy had gone. The door was open and the window in the bedroom and shutters* were jemmied open.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Close family friend Gill Renwick, of Liverpool, "Madeleine has obviously been taken. She couldn't have gone out on her own and the shutters* were forced."

* Perfectly INTACT shutters without a 'mark' on them!

The dramatic melodrama that the McCanns enacted from the very moment that Kate 'discovered' that Madeleine was missing makes me suspect that it was more than 'just' an accident (although that is still seriously neglectful, when you consider that the parents had left the children unattended.) They just went to such great lengths to turn it all into the abduction of the century - there must have been more behind it than covering up an accident.

Something I, and I am sure many others are reluctant to think about Rob, but you have a point.  In the event of an accident, they would have been grief stricken and blamed themselves, the grief would have been very real, as it is too many tragic cases.  That is, it would have been tangible, it would have touched those of us who might have been naturally cynical, but the grief simply wasn't there.  There is a very brief video of Gerry giggling and making faces - standing at his patio doors, I believe, that is positively chilling.  It was taken within days of Madeleine going missing.  

I am starting to think something that I have avoided this past 7 years, because I can think of no explanation for the parents to have been so upbeat following an [avoidable] trauma, that would have torn most families to shreds.  Especially if it involved an accident that could so easily have been prevented.  The decision to leave the children alone was so monumentally stupid, any normal couple would have been at each other's throats.  I hate to think the worst, but am reaching a stage where I have to reassess.  

Hi Cristobell,
Absolutely no disrespect, however I was a little surprised at your post.
To avoid thinking about something for 7 years because it is unpleasant or abhorant to us is not doing justice to Madeleine.
We have to look at all possibilities and follow all the evidence wherever it takes us even if we don't like where it leads.
But I do agree that many scenarios and theories are developed just because of this avoidance.
The majority of good people find it hard to grasp that true evil really does exist.

The shutters have always been a key player in the McCann drama.  As is so often the case with the McCanns, Kate provides helpful pointers as to the mind-set of the evil mystery 'abductor' and his or her cunning ploys (Page 131, Madeleine). 

'Perhaps he'd either come in or gone out via the window, not both; perhaps he hadn't been through it at all but had opened it to prepare an emergency escape route if needed, or merely to throw investigators off the scent. He could have been in and out of the apartment more than once between our visits.'

Gosh! There is a thought. The person or people responsible for Madeleine's appearance may have wanted to throw investigators off the scent! Well I never.

But that is not all: 'What we do now believe is that the abductor had very probably been into the room before Gerry's check.'
You mean the 9.15pm check?  The one where Gerry admired the sleeping Madeleine and thought to himself that 'she's so beautiful'.

Such as shame that Kate didn't do the 9.30pm check and instead Matt just listened at the door, which he hadn't adjusted. (Poor old Matt - what are the odds on him booking another family holiday with the McCanns?!)

'It may have helped if I had made the nine-thirty visit instead of Matt,' writes Kate, with an extraordinary lack of conviction. 'I would have noticed that the door was not how we'd left it .....and raised the alarm sooner'.

What a shame! Although it is odd that neither Kate or Gerry called the police themselves on their mobiles that evening. 

Leaving aside that curiosity, there is the added complication that some eye-witnesses report that the alarm had already been raised by 9.30pm - and certainly before 10pm.

In any event, at least Kate is not troubled by her conscience with regards to not checking on Madeleine herself during the hour time-slot which allegedly tragically gave the nasty abductor a golden opportunity to steal Madeleine from her bed. 

As she writes in her book: 'I know it's nobody's fault that I didn't .'<check on Madeleine.> (Page 131)

The sheer brazenness and f***wittery encompassed in this Orwellian statement could almost take your breath away. It is Kate McCann at her best, or perhaps that should be worst.Whose fault could it be apart from yours, Kate, that you elected not to check on your children? 

Then the penny drops - of course, Kate is subtly suggesting that Matt somehow has some culpability, as he offered to check but did not actually look in the apartment, allowing the abductor to do his worst. But, having hinted at this, she then graciously lets Matt off the hook 'it's nobody's fault'. You see, Kate is just such a sweetie! She could have blamed Matt for not going in the apartment, or even Jane, for not telling her about Tannerman. But no. She will not incriminate her friends! Or even herself! t's all the fault of the bogey-man.....(well, and Amaral....and anyone who doesn't believe the McCann version of events and....)

And of course this nonsensical 'nobodies' fault statement leads on to the 'piece de resistance': 

'I know nobody could have forseen how it could possibly matter.' <that I didn't check on Madeleine myself>  'It might not have made the slightest of difference in any case. But it might.'

Unscrambling the double-think, and wrapping your head around Kate's brazen audacity, what we are left with is this, as far as I can decipher.

Kate is telling us that she thinks  it is possible that the abductor may have been in the room when Gerry did his check at 9.05pm, waiting for him to leave. (She also says they both believe the abductor had very probably been into the room before Gerry's check.

This being the case, it is so unlucky that on this particular evening at a very crucial time, Kate just so happened not to check inside the apartment herself. If she had done she might have raised the alarm sooner.

Such a shame she couldn't be there as it allowed the nasty random abductor a clear period of practically an hour to hover in and around the apartment, ready and waiting to steal Madeleine from her bed. Probably also allowing him to drug her and the twins too.

'So may chance incidents and minor decisions made in innocence, which on their own would not have driven events to such a disastrous conclusion. Together, though, they seem to have accumulated into a monstrous mountain of bad luck.' 

You couldn't make it up, could you? Or could you?

Poor old Kate, just SO unlucky. All those random incidents and unimportant decisions - just little details that at the time seemed so completely innocent and innocuous. Ready to shatter the very fabric of their happy little family holiday in this Algarve paradise. All of them conspired to give the golden ticket to the random mystery abductor who seized his opportunity and - Woosh - In he swooped and out went Madeleine.

SUCH BAD LUCK!

And as she then helpfully states in her autobiograpy,

As a lawyer once said to me, apropos another matter, ‘One coincidence, two coincidences – maybe they’re still coincidences. Any more than that and it stops being coincidence.’

QUITE SO, KATE.

j.rob wrote:
SUCH BAD LUCK!

Especially for Madeleine. Who doesn't seem to have rated in Kate's little muse upon luckery. Only bad luck for herself and Gerry. Madeleine is curiously absent from it all.

I am starting to think something that I have avoided this past 7 years, because I can think of no explanation for the parents to have been so upbeat following an [avoidable] trauma, that would have torn most families to shreds.  Especially if it involved an accident that could so easily have been prevented.  The decision to leave the children alone was so monumentally stupid, any normal couple would have been at each other's throats.  I hate to think the worst, but am reaching a stage where I have to reassess.  [/quote]
Hi Cristobell,
Absolutely no disrespect, however I was a little surprised at your post.
To avoid thinking about something for 7 years because it is unpleasant or abhorant to us is not doing justice to Madeleine.
We have to look at all possibilities and follow all the evidence wherever it takes us even if we don't like where it leads.
But I do agree that many scenarios and theories are developed just because of this avoidance.
The majority of good people find it hard to grasp that true evil really does exist.[/quote]


I agree it does seem odd, no disrespect taken    .

I have tried to study this case from a logical, non emotive perspective, I fear that if I allow emotion to become involved it may cloud the issues. If I imagine the actual mechanics involved in carrying out the crime I believe was committed, I start to see the parents as monsters and I don't want to do that. Working on the theory of an accident, does help to avoid the harsh reality. I can't say that my noble principles have worked, God help me, I find the pair of them despicable.

Despite that, I do fear for them when the truth comes out. That which is avoided in polite society will lend itself rather well to blood curdling, sensational headlines. I even wonder if that might be the reason the newspapers are overselling the abduction story, how will the public react when the truth is known?

You are right that the majority of people find it hard to grasp that evil exists. I have spent a lifetime trying to discover what it is that makes people evil, its probably what has drawn me to study this case so closely. I have also leaned towards this case being a tragic accident, maybe because that was what I wanted to believe, but the parents lack of grief now makes me question that.

Just a thought. I wonder if it was someone else's job to jemmy the shutters from the outside...and they bailed on Gerry and didn't do it. And didn't bother telling Gerry that they'd bailed. Then we get Gerry insisting that the shutters were jemmied and Kate ranting on about the window being open - according to the script they'd drawn up. Except that one little piece of the jigsaw puzzle hadn't been done.

So who might have been tasked with the job? One of the Tapas group who were doing their "checks"?

If it was one of them, it could be a kind of fail-safe detail for them. Their silence in return for Gerry's silence regarding their involvement?

Just an opinion.

j.rob wrote:Such as shame that Kate didn't do the 9.30pm check and instead Matt just listened at the door, which he hadn't adjusted. (Poor old Matt - what are the odds on him booking another family holiday with the McCanns?!)
SUCH BAD LUCK

What do you mean by "listened at the door" and "hadn't adjusted"? Not at all clear!

Okeydokey wrote:

j.rob wrote:Such as shame that Kate didn't do the 9.30pm check and instead Matt just listened at the door, which he hadn't adjusted. (Poor old Matt - what are the odds on him booking another family holiday with the McCanns?!)
SUCH BAD LUCK

What do you mean by "listened at the door" and "hadn't adjusted"? Not at all clear!

I think jrob meant that Kate said she should have gone to look instead of Matt because he "only listened at the door and did not move the door to peek inside ". The door being more open than G or K left it was what alerted Kate on her !0' O Clock shift , although how she remembered it, is anybody's guess???

It's bollocks anyway so it doesn't really matter, but Gerry supposedly last person to enter the room on his solo 'just before 9.05 by his watch' (which he didn't/did have?) & therefore open & then half shut the door to the precisely measured position so that Kate would be aware at 10.00 that it 'was open quite wide, not how we had left it'. (why would it have been?)
'At first I assumed that Matt must have moved it. I walked over and gently began to pull it to.' so she wasn't intending to bother to check the kids properly either.
Then we had the slamming, whooshing etc etc.
(Quotes from bewk p. 70)

THE BAD LUCK JUST KEPT ON COMING!

Doug D wrote:It's bollocks anyway so it doesn't really matter, but Gerry supposedly last person to enter the room on his solo 'just before 9.05 by his watch' (which he didn't/did have?) & therefore open & then half shut the door to the precisely measured position so that Kate would be aware at 10.00 that it 'was open quite wide, not how we had left it'. (why would it have been?)
'At first I assumed that Matt must have moved it. I walked over and gently began to pull it to.' so she wasn't intending to bother to check the kids properly either.
Then we had the slamming, whooshing etc etc.
(Quotes from bewk p. 70)

THE BAD LUCK JUST KEPT ON COMING!

But then the Good Luck kicked in and saw to it that no interviewer would have the balls to query all this crud. at first they got away with claiming the door was open more than they had left it but after a while, the comments on the fora probably got through to them, and they remembered that Matt had done the 9.30 check and they wondered if he had moved the door. WHAT!!
And then Kate said she probably wouldn't have bothered looking at the kids either if the door hadn't flung open and the curtains hadn't wooshed. None of the interviewers said "Hang on Kate, you went to check the kids but were almost NOT going to check them? What if one of them had fallen out of bed and was lying bleeding to death? "
They all of them are guilty of crawling up the McCanns' backsides, they should be ashamed.

canada12 wrote:Just a thought. I wonder if it was someone else's job to jemmy the shutters from the outside...and they bailed on Gerry and didn't do it. And didn't bother telling Gerry that they'd bailed. Then we get Gerry insisting that the shutters were jemmied and Kate ranting on about the window being open - according to the script they'd drawn up. Except that one little piece of the jigsaw puzzle hadn't been done.

So who might have been tasked with the job? One of the Tapas group who were doing their "checks"?

If it was one of them, it could be a kind of fail-safe detail for them. Their silence in return for Gerry's silence regarding their involvement?

Just an opinion.

This is a good point. It was a fairly elementary mistake for family members who were in the UK to be telling reporters that the shutters had been broken when it was obvious that they hadn't. And there was concrete evidence for that.

This strikes me as a major stumbling block. So was someone supposed to 'jemmy' the shutters but then bailed out?

The roles of Matt and Russell are extremely interesting. They left the dinner table at a critical time. According to Kate, she got up to check on her children at 9.30pm and at exactly the same time Matt got up and offered to check for her. Russell also got up. If you look at the witness statements, they all give slightly different accounts of this episode.

In her book Kate lays the responsibility for the 'check' firmly on Matt's shoulders. She claims that he did not go inside the children's bedroom but only stood at the door and, although he saw the twins, he did not have a view of Madeleine's bed but merely assumed that, as there was no noise or crying or sign of disturbance, everything was okay.

However Matt gives a version of events in which both he and Russell got up from the table at the same time. Kate, interestingly, does not refer to this despite its obvious importance. From Matt's statements to the police, he implies that the two of them went off together to check on their own children and then to check on the McCann children. There is definitely a sense of  'shared responsibility' for this task.

But looking at Russell's statement, he plays down any role in checking on the McCanns. Although Matt, in one of his statements, claims that he and Russell 'debated'  which apartment to go to first (in other words would they first go to the McCanns or would they check their own children) Russell wanted to check on his own child first. As the child had supposedly been sick, he stayed in the apartment. Matt checked on his child and everything was fine. The two then spoke but their witness statements appear to give conflicting accounts as to where. Matt seems to suggest he went to Russell's apartment (which would make more sense given that Russell's child was supposedly ill) and Russell said he was staying there because of the sick child. But Russell seems to suggest that he briefly left his own apartment, and went to Matt's apartment to tell him he was staying with his child who was ill. 

Either way, it appears that Russell 'bailed out' in terms of the McCann children check. (And Kate certainly does not refer to the possibility of Russell checking on her children in her book). Therefore the onus fell squarely onto Matt's shoulders. However, it also appears that Matt, while he indeed professes that he looked in on the McCann two  he managed to avoid looking at the third McCann - namely Madeleine, as he couldn't see her bed from where he was standing at the bedroom door.

So Matt did not, in actual fact,  do what Kate wrote he said he would do on page 71 of her book, namely: "He offered to look in on our three." In the event, he looked in (literally - he looked in through the half open door) on Kate's two (and in Matt's statement he describes seeing the twins chests moving, indicating they were breathing) but not on Kate's third.

Clever old Russell - didn't get lumbered with any 'looking in' through that pesky moving door, and instead had a great 'get out of jail card' as his child had, apparently, been sick all over the bed so he got Matt to do the donkey work. But Matt also managed to avoid being a first hand witness to any unpleasant discoveries by simply 'looking in' as opposed to 'looking at'. 

Kate in her book writes that it is nobodies fault that she didn't check on the children herself. Which is an odd thing to have written. If she HAD checked herself, then we are left to assume that it would have been Kate who would have discovered that Madeleine had been stolen from her bed (as indeed she apparently did, only half an hour later). Whereas by allowing Russell and Matt to do the checking, there was the possibility that one or other of them might have been the first people to witness Madeleine's disappearance, had they actually gone inside the bedroom.

And how could Kate have known in advance that neither Matt nor Russell would actually look right inside the apartment to check that all three children were inside leaving her, instead, to make the grisly discovery half an hour later at 10pm? Did Kate assume they would check on all three? Or not?


The bedroom door is most certainly a key player in the drama,  going from slightly ajar or not half way open (as they McCanns left it) to 'further ajar' (when Gerry checked at 9.05) to half open again (when Matt looked in on the McCanns two) to 'open quite wide' (when Kate checked at 10pm).

And the door may well have hidden the abductor who Kate believes may have been hiding behind the door when Gerry did the 9.05pm check.

The shutters are also major players. Matt, in his witness statement, describes how the McCann children's bedroom was lighter than his own child's bedroom which he thought was a bit strange. In other words the implication being that the shutters could have been open allowing light in from outside. In other words implying that someone had raised the shutters - the implication being that that someone could have been Madeleine's abductor.

This is quite revealing in the context of the shutters, which are clearly a key to the Madeleine mystery. Given the claims by McCann family members that the shutters had been 'jemmied' one wonders who was assigned this role, if anyone. And given that Matt gives quite a long description of how the room was lighter than he would have expected, one must assume that he is referring to the likelihood of the shutters being open when he looked into the bedroom at 9.30pm

And if the shutters WERE open at 9.30pm, as assumed by Matt's description, then that raises the likelihood of the abductor already having got into the apartment by that time. And Kate writes at length in her book about children's bedroom door having been opened wider by the abductor. And she clearly wants people to believe that an abductor had already been into the apartment when Gerry checks at 9.05 (description of the bedroom door being wider open).

And although the shutters were clearly key players on the night of the alleged abduction, by the time she wrote her book, Kate is allowing for other possibilities as to how the intruder got in and out of the apartment. Maybe through the shutters, maybe through the door, maybe in one way and out the other way. Maybe the shutters were opened by the abductor just to throw everyone off the scent.

Maybe the abductor even had keys to the apartment, she speculates and came in and/or out by the front door. 

And if the abductor did have keys that would, presumably, mean that either it was an 'inside job' abduction (eg: someone who had a set of keys to the McCann apartment - cleaner/staff member/friend) or someone had stolen the (spare or main) set of keys to the McCann apartment and/or had had copies of their apartment keys made.

This raises interesting possibilities with regard to burglaries as well as abductions, for instance. If you have the key to the apartment, you can simply let yourself in and take what you want, whether that be someone's jewelry or someone's child.

But, whichever way you look at things there are at least three key inanimate players from the very outset - the shutters, the children's bedroom door and the key to the apartment. 

And there are clearly more than a few human players. 

And although Matt must have felt awful that he didn't actually look inside the apartment enough to check on the third child, in some ways it may have been a relief that at least he wasn't the first witness to this terrible crime. And, indeed, once Jane Tanner confided in the group that she had seen Tannerman walking away with a child at around 9.15pm that could have been Madeleine, Matt must have felt a lot better. Because it meant that, even if he had looked further into the apartment to check on Madeleine, she had already been stolen. So he wouldn't have prevented the abduction as it happened before his check. And he wasn't the first hand witness to a terrible crime.

Phew! And Russell must have felt relieved that he was spared any responsibility for not noticing whether Madeleine was missing from her bed, as he had to stay in his own apartment. Double phew!

Okay, the alarm would have been raised at 9.30pm rather than 10pm so the police would have arrived a bit earlier. But seeing as neither the McCanns or their friends actually used their mobiles to call the police that evening  (in fact, poor old Matt seems to have been doing the donkey work - again! - running backwards and forwards to the Ocean Club reception like some kind of demented carrier pigeon in the days before the invention of the telephone!)

But - hang on! Didn't some of the eye-witnesses at the Ocean Club report that they heard a commotion and the news that a child had gone missing much earlier than 10pm - more like times between 9.15pm up to 9.55pm? How could that be, when Kate McCann was, according to her,  the person who discovered that Madeleine had been stolen from her bed. And she didn't check until 10pm, as clearly outlined in her book.

All  soooo confusing. And, as Kate writes in her book: "I know it's nobodies fault that I didn't I would have noticed that the door was not how we'd left it - something that nobody could have expected to be apparent to Matt - and raised the alarm sooner."

But, suppose it was 'somebodies' fault? What would that mean?

Still, even if Russell did bail out, at least Jane Tanner managed to get Matt out of a hole! And seeing as it could never been proven whether she had actually seen the abductor, she was on relatively safe territory. And it sowed a very strong seed for a random mystery abductor who stole Madeleine from her bed that night and who disappeared into the night and who could be - practically anywhere in the whole wide world! Kept a lot of people mighty busy for a very long time. Not to mention lined quite a few people's pockets. 

And cost the gormless old public a fortune in taxes! Not to mention nearly (but not quite) managed to discredit an entire countries police force. And may, in actual fact, lead to the discrediting of another countries police force

Who would have thought it!

j.rob at 1.05 p.m.

I've copied this para from your post -

So Matt did not, in actual fact,  do what Kate wrote he said he would do on page 71 of her book, namely: "He offered to look in on our three." In the event, he looked in (literally - he looked in through the half open door) on Kate's two (and in Matt's statement he describes seeing the twins chests moving, indicating they were breathing) but not on Kate's third.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * *

There is no way that Matt could have seen the twin in the right hand cot unless he walked into the bedroom as the end of the cot has a solid wooden panel as shown on the photos taken by the PJ of the apartment.  He would have had to walk into the bedroom and peer over the end of the cot to see that twin's chest moving.

It was obviously something thought up at the last moment to cover why Madeleine was actually not seen in her bed by anyone who was supposed to be checking the apartment, oh what a tangled web they weave, as they must have all known that Madeleine was not in her bed.

Newintown wrote:j.rob at 1.05 p.m.

I've copied this para from your post -

So Matt did not, in actual fact,  do what Kate wrote he said he would do on page 71 of her book, namely: "He offered to look in on our three." In the event, he looked in (literally - he looked in through the half open door) on Kate's two (and in Matt's statement he describes seeing the twins chests moving, indicating they were breathing) but not on Kate's third.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * *

There is no way that Matt could have seen the twin in the right hand cot unless he walked into the bedroom as the end of the cot has a solid wooden panel as shown on the photos taken by the PJ of the apartment.  He would have had to walk into the bedroom and peer over the end of the cot to see that twin's chest moving.

It was obviously something thought up at the last moment to cover why Madeleine was actually not seen in her bed by anyone who was supposed to be checking the apartment, oh what a tangled web they weave, as they must have all known that Madeleine was not in her bed.

And am I right in thinking that the first thing he would have seen as he opened the door would have been madeleine's bed? It was against the wall as you walked in (or looked in).

wjk wrote:

Newintown wrote:j.rob at 1.05 p.m.

I've copied this para from your post -

So Matt did not, in actual fact,  do what Kate wrote he said he would do on page 71 of her book, namely: "He offered to look in on our three." In the event, he looked in (literally - he looked in through the half open door) on Kate's two (and in Matt's statement he describes seeing the twins chests moving, indicating they were breathing) but not on Kate's third.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * *

There is no way that Matt could have seen the twin in the right hand cot unless he walked into the bedroom as the end of the cot has a solid wooden panel as shown on the photos taken by the PJ of the apartment.  He would have had to walk into the bedroom and peer over the end of the cot to see that twin's chest moving.

It was obviously something thought up at the last moment to cover why Madeleine was actually not seen in her bed by anyone who was supposed to be checking the apartment, oh what a tangled web they weave, as they must have all known that Madeleine was not in her bed.

And am I right in thinking that the first thing he would have seen as he opened the door would have been madeleine's bed? It was against the wall as you walked in (or looked in).

Yes, that's what I was getting at.  Matt would have had to walk into the bedroom to see the twin in the cot on the right hand side of the room (because of the wooden panel obscuring his view of the twin) therefore he would have seen Madeleine's bed on the left hand side of the door as he opened it.

Well, actually he would have seen Madeleine's bed on the left hand side when he opened the door whether he walked into the room or not or just looked in.  The door opened to the right so he would have had a clear view of Madeleine's bed to the left.

Newintown wrote:j.rob at 1.05 p.m.

I've copied this para from your post -

So Matt did not, in actual fact,  do what Kate wrote he said he would do on page 71 of her book, namely: "He offered to look in on our three." In the event, he looked in (literally - he looked in through the half open door) on Kate's two (and in Matt's statement he describes seeing the twins chests moving, indicating they were breathing) but not on Kate's third.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * *

There is no way that Matt could have seen the twin in the right hand cot unless he walked into the bedroom as the end of the cot has a solid wooden panel as shown on the photos taken by the PJ of the apartment.  He would have had to walk into the bedroom and peer over the end of the cot to see that twin's chest moving.

It was obviously something thought up at the last moment to cover why Madeleine was actually not seen in her bed by anyone who was supposed to be checking the apartment, oh what a tangled web they weave, as they must have all known that Madeleine was not in her bed.

Also, the door opened to the right and Madeleine's bed would be seen first, directly ahead and the twins cots would then be seen further to the right. It would be impossible not to see Madeleine's bed on opening the door. It defies logic. Again.

Tangled Web wrote:

Newintown wrote:j.rob at 1.05 p.m.

I've copied this para from your post -

So Matt did not, in actual fact,  do what Kate wrote he said he would do on page 71 of her book, namely: "He offered to look in on our three." In the event, he looked in (literally - he looked in through the half open door) on Kate's two (and in Matt's statement he describes seeing the twins chests moving, indicating they were breathing) but not on Kate's third.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * *

There is no way that Matt could have seen the twin in the right hand cot unless he walked into the bedroom as the end of the cot has a solid wooden panel as shown on the photos taken by the PJ of the apartment.  He would have had to walk into the bedroom and peer over the end of the cot to see that twin's chest moving.

It was obviously something thought up at the last moment to cover why Madeleine was actually not seen in her bed by anyone who was supposed to be checking the apartment, oh what a tangled web they weave, as they must have all known that Madeleine was not in her bed.

Also, the door opened to the right and Madeleine's bed would be seen first, directly ahead and the twins cots would then be seen further to the right. It would be impossible not to see Madeleine's bed on opening the door. It defies logic. Again.

Yes, Madeleine's bed was to the left of the door so when Matt opened the door (which opened to the right) he must have been able to see the bed whether he went into the room or just stood at the doorway.

There were two single beds in that room. At what point did Matt know which one Madeleine was sleeping in ?Bearing in mind it was apparently lighter than he expected? Because the first in his line of sight, IMO, was the one beneath the window-where all the light coming in showed it empty. Wouldn't he then check to see if there was another bed? Phew! Here it is. Oh but hang on-it's empty too........

Newintown wrote:

wjk wrote:

Newintown wrote:j.rob at 1.05 p.m.

I've copied this para from your post -

So Matt did not, in actual fact,  do what Kate wrote he said he would do on page 71 of her book, namely: "He offered to look in on our three." In the event, he looked in (literally - he looked in through the half open door) on Kate's two (and in Matt's statement he describes seeing the twins chests moving, indicating they were breathing) but not on Kate's third.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * *

There is no way that Matt could have seen the twin in the right hand cot unless he walked into the bedroom as the end of the cot has a solid wooden panel as shown on the photos taken by the PJ of the apartment.  He would have had to walk into the bedroom and peer over the end of the cot to see that twin's chest moving.

It was obviously something thought up at the last moment to cover why Madeleine was actually not seen in her bed by anyone who was supposed to be checking the apartment, oh what a tangled web they weave, as they must have all known that Madeleine was not in her bed.

And am I right in thinking that the first thing he would have seen as he opened the door would have been madeleine's bed? It was against the wall as you walked in (or looked in).

Yes, that's what I was getting at.  Matt would have had to walk into the bedroom to see the twin in the cot on the right hand side of the room (because of the wooden panel obscuring his view of the twin) therefore he would have seen Madeleine's bed on the left hand side of the door as he opened it.

Well, actually he would have seen Madeleine's bed on the left hand side when he opened the door whether he walked into the room or not or just looked in.  The door opened to the right so he would have had a clear view of Madeleine's bed to the left.

Agree 100% There is no way he couldn't see Madeleine's bed, whether he walked in or just stood at the partially open door.

From Matthew Oldfield's Rogatory interview,
[color:1df0=000000]So I approached the room but I didn't actually go in because you could see the twins in the cots and one of the, you could see the twins in the cots because they're in with, sort of the cots were in the middle of the room with sort of a gap of about sort of maybe a foot between the two, the cots had sort of got that fabric end and sort of a mesh side, so you could see the sides and you could see them, erm, see them breathing and there were two there and it was all completely quiet. And the other things you could see in the room, there was a, there was another bed at the back underneath the window at the far side and you could see the end of the bed, another bed here. And because I was looking for, you know, well people say, well why didn't you go in the room, why didn't you check on Madeleine, you were, you said you'd go and check, but it was just that, we were just satisfying ourselves that nobody was upset and awake and crying, we didn't expect that if I checked each three beds somebody, it just wasn’t sort of something that you thought about, you just thought, you know, is somebody, you know, upset, do they want their mum or something, you can say, you know, somebody might have vomited and you wouldn't know about it, but there was, you know, nobody was awake, you thought, if something, just one, it'd be, it'd sort of feel a bit odd, you know, from the draughts, you know, when Kate went in something about the door shutting, there was, I presume, a through draught. So I just sort of went towards the doorway, I didn't step over the threshold, I didn't see Madeleine and I didn't check, I turned round and came back out, said all was quiet when I got back to the table and then we went on with food.[color:1df0=000000]''
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Yes, Madeleine's bed was to the left of the door so when Matt opened the door (which opened to the right) he must have been able to see the bed whether he went into the room or just stood at the doorway.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Three posters have highlighted the door to the kids room was hung on the RIGHT hand side of the door frame and OPENED to the RIGHT.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

I posted on both the CW programmes, UK and German, on the day they were broadcast that both programmes portrayed the door to the kids room hanging on the LEFT of the door frame opening to the LEFT.

Now WHY would TWO professional programme makers both make the EXACT same 'mistake'?

They had all the 'files, statements, lots of videos of the apartment, and INSIDE the apartment, BEFORE their 'broadcasts' YET still 'managed' to get the door on the WRONG side of the door frame!

WHY?

My personal 'favourite' is to make it 'appear' that M. Oldfield couldn't 'see' Madeleines bed because with the door opening to the LEFT, as portrayed in BOTH CW's, the door would 'block' off Madeleine's bed completely from MO's 'sight'

Now WHY would BOTH CW's want the viewing public to 'believe' that?

The BBC CW cost almost £750,000-£1 million to 'make' yet they get which side of the door frame the door was hanging WRONG!

NO WAY!

They diliberately did it for a 'reason'

All we have got to do is figure out WHY both CW's did that.

Despite them both having access to the apartment layout from the INSIDE and seeing for themselves the door hanging to the RIGHT.

Thus not 'obscuring' Madeleine's bed from anyone's 'sight'

BTW. The 2 CW's programmes dipicting the door on the LEFT totally contradicts/demolishes Kate McCann's dipicted 'demonstration' of HOW she 'closed' the kids room door 'from the RIGHT' and how the door slammed shut, from her RIGHT, in her OWN 'version' of events in the 'Mockumentary' the McCanns had made with the help of Emma Loach!

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

First 1 minute 33 secs all you need to know about KM and door 'hanging' to the RIGHT.

NOT as both CW's showed, 'hanging' to the LEFT! (to give MO an 'excuse' for not seeing Madeleine's bed?)

WHY would both programmes do THAT?

worriedmum wrote:From Matthew Oldfield's Rogatory interview,
[color:7fc7=000000]So I approached the room but I didn't actually go in because you could see the twins in the cots and one of the, you could see the twins in the cots because they're in with, sort of the cots were in the middle of the room with sort of a gap of about sort of maybe a foot between the two, the cots had sort of got that fabric end and sort of a mesh side, so you could see the sides and you could see them, erm, see them breathing and there were two there and it was all completely quiet. And the other things you could see in the room, there was a, there was another bed at the back underneath the window at the far side and you could see the end of the bed, another bed here. And because I was looking for, you know, well people say, well why didn't you go in the room, why didn't you check on Madeleine, you were, you said you'd go and check, but it was just that, we were just satisfying ourselves that nobody was upset and awake and crying, we didn't expect that if I checked each three beds somebody, it just wasn’t sort of something that you thought about, you just thought, you know, is somebody, you know, upset, do they want their mum or something, you can say, you know, somebody might have vomited and you wouldn't know about it, but there was, you know, nobody was awake, you thought, if something, just one, it'd be, it'd sort of feel a bit odd, you know, from the draughts, you know, when Kate went in something about the door shutting, there was, I presume, a through draught. So I just sort of went towards the doorway, I didn't step over the threshold, I didn't see Madeleine and I didn't check, I turned round and came back out, said all was quiet when I got back to the table and then we went on with food.[color:7fc7=000000]''
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Putting things in perspective as to the validity of MO's so called "check".
We have someone whom has been entrusted with ensuring three young children were safe and well. MO allegedly takes the trouble to access the apartment and walks to the bedrooms entrance. However for some strange reason , then does not take a "small step" literally, to ensure that Madeleine is safe. Does not even take the trouble to crane his neck around the bedroom door. Irrespective of this could well have seen Madeleine's bed from his alleged vantage point. 
MO's evidence is vitally important to the case, he was the last person whom could have seen Madeleine alive. Not least now that JT's sighting has been disproved. He therefore would seem a prime candidate to be reinterviewed by SY/PJ once again. If this has not already been done. As well as GM, given his 9.05pm "check"?

wjk wrote:

Newintown wrote:j.rob at 1.05 p.m.

I've copied this para from your post -

So Matt did not, in actual fact,  do what Kate wrote he said he would do on page 71 of her book, namely: "He offered to look in on our three." In the event, he looked in (literally - he looked in through the half open door) on Kate's two (and in Matt's statement he describes seeing the twins chests moving, indicating they were breathing) but not on Kate's third.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * *

There is no way that Matt could have seen the twin in the right hand cot unless he walked into the bedroom as the end of the cot has a solid wooden panel as shown on the photos taken by the PJ of the apartment.  He would have had to walk into the bedroom and peer over the end of the cot to see that twin's chest moving.

It was obviously something thought up at the last moment to cover why Madeleine was actually not seen in her bed by anyone who was supposed to be checking the apartment, oh what a tangled web they weave, as they must have all known that Madeleine was not in her bed.

And am I right in thinking that the first thing he would have seen as he opened the door would have been madeleine's bed? It was against the wall as you walked in (or looked in).

IF you'd first switched on a light -any light- in any one room of the apartment

There is no mention of that at all IMO;

Also: MO admits seeing the bed near the window.
Is it likely he saw a bed but he did not see the emptiness of that bed?

Nowhere has he said he spotted something in/on that bed;

Is it credible, can any normal human being believe, that he would have gone over to the Big Round Table, sat himself down and would have said:

1.I saw two cots, two children, their little chests heaving, breathing;

2.and I also noticed the bed near the window was empty

KH/GM: "And what about our Maddie Matt, how was she?"

MO: Maddie who? Uh?

I think the plan of the McCanns was that JT was to 'see Madeleine' being 'carried' off and MO was to 'discover' her 'gone' thus totally ruling themselves out as the LAST 'people' to see Madeleine. Ergo, her 'disappearance' had absolutely 'nothing to do with US'

Because 2(TWO) 'independant witnesses' were the LAST to have 'seen/seen her gone from her bed'

With 'friends' like the McCanns why would JT/MO need enemies?   

BTW

What a remarkable coincidence that in the only room where a small child was the victim of a disappearance just moments before or after, the very man volunteering to check on her safety omitted to look for her? 

Statistically, how are the odds on the trusted, professional volunteer-watchman ONLY neglecting his self-sought SINGLE assignment with the ONLY child which disappeared?