THE TRUTH ABOUT WHY IT WAS SO DIFFICULT TO DECIDE WHICH WAY THE APARTMENT WAS ACCESSED?

You know something, if you have made a conscious decision to leave your children whilst you go out, albeit a short distance away, you would plan this very carefully. I certainly feel that part of this planning process would include making a conscious decision about which way you, or others, are going to access the building to check on them. You would make up your minds about securing certain doors and windows and a mutually agreed access route into the building would be decided upon. This would all be part and parcel of the planning, definitely I think, and especially when you are allowing other people to access your accommodation. Its your place at the end of the day, even if its only a temporary holiday accommodation, and you would also instruct anyone offering help which way to enter and exit.

I mean to say, even if you arrange for someone else to look after your dog or cat you always make it clear which doors you want them to come and go by.

Now, I can understand the feeling of panic when a child is discovered missing, I can understand the frustration boiling over inside you and I can understand a certain amount of confusion, but I cannot for the life of me understand how you would not know, not remember, which way you came and went into the building. No way does that make sense to me.

Now in the McCann’s case, to start with they said nothing definite about what they had planned in this regard. They even appeared not to remember and say they came and went via both front and back. We certainly know Gerry was using the street access because he saw Jez Wilkins. But then afterwards they told us that, yes, they had planned an access after all. They declared they had decided to leave the patio windows accessible for this very reason.

So the patio windows it was then. So why was Gerry on the street side?

The reason I think seems to be that in order to claim someone was in the road outside watching you, watching your every move, knowing when you are coming and going, you therefore must put yourself in such a position, otherwise you cannot claim afterwards that someone was in the street lurking around and spying on you if you had decided beforehand not to use the street access.


.

You're on form today LJC. good post

Not to mention they didn't want to confuse things.... for ages l believed they could see the window Maddie was supposedly abducted from, l was shocked when l realised Maddies room was on the far side of the apartment and they couldn't see her window from the tapas bar at all!

Thanks. Must be all the Agatha Christie I am reading at the moment, lol.

But I am afraid to say that I certainly do think that Gerry was in the street on purpose, and not expressly for the purpose of talking to Jez. I feel that Gerry was the one who was lurking, with the intention of hoping that someone would see him, which Jez did. Why was it important to be seen? Well because firstly its an alibi of sorts to your checking of the children and secondly you have told the whole world you were being watched, so Gerry had to make sure he was in the right place at the right time, which was the roadside access.

I just do not believe that they would leave their children without a planned access and exit strategy. I feel what was uppermost in minds on the night of the 3rd was being spotted in the street, being seen supposedly checking, in order to be able to draw up the agreed timeline of events. Jez actually being around was a bonus I think.

I therefore think that whatever happened to Madeleine happened earlier in the evening and for this reason the access to the apartment had to be varied to take into account their claims of a stranger keeping watch on their movements.

I think the patio doors were their usual access on the previous nights but something had to change on the night of the 3rd. Not only were their checks increased but so was the access to the apartment so that it was not only the patio doors but the front door in addition.

Anyway, its a theory. It would be interesting to know if in fact they were seen using the street access on the nights preceding the 3rd May, or whether it was only on 3rd May they were seen to come and go this way.

I agree that gerry mccann wanted that alibi of someone seeing him. Jez Wilkins says in his original statement from 7th May " I left about 8:15 to 8:30 pm. I was pushing the pram around the complex and went to the toilet near the [tapas] bar. I could not see inside the restaurant. As I got the baby to sleep, I was on my way back to the apartment. I came out at the top road."....gerry mccann would have seen him making his way back to the apartments from the Tapas Bar

Yes, I have always felt that Gerry meeting Jez was more than just a coincidence and if Jez can spot you outside your apartment, having just checked supposedly, than so can the abductor is what Gerry would claim. Its very doubtful, to my mind, that an abductor would be lurking actually inside the complex watching you come and go via the patio windows, so to make this claim it had to be the abductor was outside in the street and so were you!

And while the abductor was drugging the twins, cleaning the apartment, jemmying the shutters open which makes a huge noise & escaping through them with Maddie....gerry mccann was just a few yards outside this window of the apartment, and heard nor saw anything!!

jd16 wrote:And while the abductor was drugging the twins, cleaning the apartment, jemmying the shutters open which makes a huge noise & escaping through them with Maddie....gerry mccann was just a few yards outside this window of the apartment, and heard nor saw anything!!

Ah, but Gerry was seen by the abductor, absolutely vital that.

Perhaps the accidental meeting with JW changed the original schedule for the evening. The following just wild theorising:

Supposedly quarter hour checks.
9.15 meets JW thinks now it's a brilliant alibi if JT sees abductor whilst seeing both of them as well.
This would replace a JT sighting which would have been later, better tied in with the Smiths' sighting. Never mind, Gerry will now get the stand-in child and by 9.30 according to witnesses is shouting for 'Madeleine' because the girl isn't where she should be - the original time would have been nearer ten o'clock.
Gerry finally finds the girl, wearing his cream trousers (JT also has the abductor wearing cream and a dark top so Gerry should be wearing roughly the same)
he walks down PdL - hoping to see a couple or a single person leaving one of the many bars or restaurants there.
Bad luck again, is seen and surrounded by an Irish family not the least bit drunk either. He returns the girl and gets back to Tapas or 5a - the alarm may have been raised in his absence - some ten minutes after ten or so.

When he tells Mrs. Healey 'its' a disaster, it's a disaster' it's always been my opinion that he was going on about the things that went wrong that night. A disaster isn't missing an appointment, a disaster is a number of circumstances coming together to create one. it isn't a logical description for a child missing barely an hour.

They are now also stuck with MO's check which never happened, it must be adjusted to allow the child to be gone by 9.15.

Am I getting anywhere here?
Gerry should now have an alibi for both sightings.
One by JT and JW and one by the Tapas 7 who said he was at the table.
Time table needs adjusting to allow MO not to have seen Maddie in person.

I can see where you are coming from here. Perhaps we are all coming up with theories which seem wild, I dont know. However, what I do feel is that Gerry himself stated it was like dining at the top of your backgarden. Well, even if he wants to draw a comparison like that, surely you would not dine in your garden but walk round to the front door to check on the children, unless of course no back door exists, in which case no choice. However, I do feel that anyone leaving children in bed on holiday would have at least stipulated which door was to be used for checking - you would not want both doors being used, and the front door needed a key in any case whereas the patio doors they tell us were unlocked. So, I ask and keep trying to fathom it, they tell us they had identified the patio doors as their ideal way of coming and going and even left them unlocked to facilitate this so they say, but then chose to use the locked front door instead, chose to walk further, chose to risk waking the children with more noise of a lock being turned. Nah, I don't buy it. Gerry was on the street at the front door for another reason altogether which was more to do with backing up his claim that he was being spied on.

LJC wrote: So, I ask and keep trying to fathom it, they tell us they had identified the patio doors as their ideal way of coming and going and even left them unlocked to facilitate this so they say, but then chose to use the locked front door instead, chose to walk further, chose to risk waking the children with more noise of a lock being turned. Nah, I don't buy it. Gerry was on the street at the front door for another reason altogether which was more to do with backing up his claim that he was being spied on.

Agree.

The patio doors could only be locked from the inside with a little lever (mine are the same) so if they'd locked them they would have either to have left the front door unlocked, gone in, unlocked the patio doors and immediately walked through them again to do a 'check', a bit of a pointless exercise.


Wilkins had to be kept onside.

JW rogatory,

Several weeks later, Jeremy received calls from Gerry in relation to gaining permission from him to use his name in a portfolio of evidence being compiled by an organization employed by the McCanns. They were very persistent and made several attempts to contact him both at work and at home. They had no objection to being included but were concerned as to the method being used.

Plus, what few witness testimonies there are, these witnesses all point to strange men hanging around on the street, or its a white van parked up in the street, or its someone on the beach looking at children in a strange way and so on. No one, to my knowledge, has said they saw someone strange on the inside of the complex, prowling around near the patio doors. Why is this? I think its because The McCanns themselves did their own reconstruction showing a man prowling on the street. This therefore is the McCanns own theory of them being watched for several days and it prompted sightings of strange men on the street. So, using the same theory, if Gerry & co. had come and gone by the patio doors only, presumably the abductor would not have known their movements because he was on the other side of the building. So, I query again, just why was Gerry on the street when the patio doors were quicker, easier to access and quieter. By any stretch of the imagination, being watched by a lurking prowling male on holiday is a bit of an extreme and far fetched scenario anyway but I feel this type of scenario was pre-thought out by the McCanns and, for that to be the case, therefore Gerry had to come and go via the front door. This theory of being watched by someone may not have had the same credence if he'd said the prowler was hanging around the complex itself, because he would be involving alot of other guests at the complex and they may have cast doubts on seeing anyone or anything unusual within the boundaries, but to have the prowler on the street side where it is quiet and eerie makes more sense and obviously there would be the chance of someone who looked like a gypsy or a non-holiday maker on the street, because there always is.

Fascinating post LJC , I must take up reading Agatha Christie

If you are correct in your analysis and GM did in fact place himself in a situation where he planned to be seen in order to provide an alibi, then you have to ask was this a calculated act. If it was then of course you have to ask yourselves what else is he capable of doing , or to more precise what other things that we know about could have been done in order to deceive people and or provide an alibi . The one that stands out for me is the last / pool pic., as anyone who is capable of manipulating photographs is capable of manipulating anything, be it photo’s or situations.

Agatha Christie was the expert on human nature. Her studies of how we instinctively react in certain situations were the foundations for her fictional work.

Calculated actions are normally actions that go against human nature, so yes I do believe it was a pre-calculated action to claim the window was open, the shutters tampered with and pre-calculated that Gerry was using the front door. Its all too dramatic isn't it. Its too unrealistic, but it made a great headline at the time. In reality and especially if you have left the patio windows unlocked, you would be saying it was someone coming in and going out by that means. Opportunist thieves always try to get in the easy way first and if someone was watching them as well as they claim, this person would have known the patio doors were ready and waiting, I mean what an invitation that is at the end of the day. But Gerry wanted the big headline, he wanted it to get the most attention possible which lets face it, worked out exactly as he wanted it to.

In reality, if someone is watching you, as the McCanns claim, you would be watched from back, front, side and from every angle possible and as most of their movements seemed to be confined to the inner bounds of the complex, it is feasible to my mind that that is where somebody watching their every move would be based themselves. Therefore, if I were to suspect anyone, it would be another guest, or a member of staff or someone who just comes in to use the restaurant. I would be thinking that to know what I was doing so well, so precisely, they had to be themselves placed very close to me and I would have been banging down every single door at the complex. It would just seem more realistic to me if they had suspected a fellow guest. And yet it was left to the police to question the other guests. It would seem more realistic to me if they had said the person must have been someone normal looking, who blended in with everyone else around them, and yet they came up with the most bazaar descriptions imaginable. We all know that its often the quiet ones or the wall-flowers we have to keep a close eye on as well, so I personally would not be thinking its a gypsy or a begger or a long-haired farmer, I would be thinking its someone a bit studious who could have peered out from behind a newspaper or from under a sun hat. You know, on holiday you are surrounded by numerous Mr and Mrs Joe Bloggs and you don't really know them just because they seem so friendly on the tennis court.

ann_chovey wrote:LJC wrote: So, I ask and keep trying to fathom it, they tell us they had identified the patio doors as their ideal way of coming and going and even left them unlocked to facilitate this so they say, but then chose to use the locked front door instead, chose to walk further, chose to risk waking the children with more noise of a lock being turned. Nah, I don't buy it. Gerry was on the street at the front door for another reason altogether which was more to do with backing up his claim that he was being spied on.

Agree.

The patio doors could only be locked from the inside with a little lever (mine are the same) so if they'd locked them they would have either to have left the front door unlocked, gone in, unlocked the patio doors and immediately walked through them again to do a 'check', a bit of a pointless exercise.


Wilkins had to be kept onside.

JW rogatory,

Several weeks later, Jeremy received calls from Gerry in relation to gaining permission from him to use his name in a portfolio of evidence being compiled by an organization employed by the McCanns. They were very persistent and made several attempts to contact him both at work and at home. They had no objection to being included but were concerned as to the method being used.

But initially, the patio doors weren't open. Rachel M even said that the patio windows had the shutters down. Since the whole cafuffle (is that a word?) of doors and windows was to prove that Maddie could not have left by herself, the shuttered window was central to the proof submitted.
There was also some early explanation about not entering via the patio windows as the shutter would make so much noise it would wake the children.
I'd have to look it up again, but the patio doors opened after the PJ ruled out the window. Until then, they were 'responsible' parents, children safely locked in, access only via front door with a key.

The patio doors weren't anywhere near as good an argument for abduction as the window. Now it was the case that the child could leave in case of fire, but not in other circumstances. The spin on the open patio doors was that this showed the parents to be safety conscious. Locking children hermetically in an apartment is as stupid a move as one can imagine.

Listening at windows and doors is also quite inadequate. But we're not dealing with the 95% of normal people here.
So initially the front door was the only entry - being 'seen' was a bonus they may or may not have planned.

Take your pick! With thanks to McCannfiles.

Excerpt from 'Early doors' by Dr. Martin Roberts, 2011:

Gerry McCann (4 May, 2007)
'at 9.05 pm, the deponent entered the club (sic), using his key, the door being locked.'
'At around 9.30 pm, his friend MATT … went into the deponent's apartment, going in through a sliding glass door at the side of the building, which was always unlocked.'

'KATE ……went into the apartment through the door using her key.'
'The side door that opens into the living room….was never locked, was closed.'


Kate McCann (4 May, 2007)
'She went into the apartment by the side door, which was closed, but unlocked.'

Gerry McCann (10 May, 2007)
(Sunday) 'They left the house through the main door, that he was sure he locked, and the back door was also closed and locked.'

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

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

(Thursday) 'He walked the normal route up to the back door, which being open he only had to slide.'
'Three to four minutes later MATHEW returned… having entered through the back door, given that he did not have the key and it was usual for them to enter in that way.'
'22h03, he again alerted KATE that it was time to check the children. She immediately made her way to the apartment by the usual path, having entered through the back door.'

'Reads, confirms, ratifies and signs.'

Kate McCann (6 September, 2007)
'They left through the balcony door, which they left closed but not locked. Main door was closed but not locked. She thinks it could be opened from the inside but not from the outside.'
'GERRY was the first one to check on the children, this was decided on the spot, at around 9-9:05 p.m. He got up from the table and entered the apartment through the balcony door.'
'At 9:30 p.m. ...MATTHEW...said he could check on her children...After less than ten minutes MATTHEW returned...she assumed he had checked on her children, entering through the balcony door which was closed but not locked.'
'At 10 p.m. she got up from the table, as it was her turn after having been replaced by MATT. She entered the apartment by the balcony door which was closed, but as already said, not locked.'
snipped

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

'McCanns exit the apartment leaving the front door (a) locked (b) unlocked? On their return they each enter via (a) the locked front door (b) the unlocked front door (c ) the unlocked patio door (d) separate doors?
(Hint: Be careful to take account of the day of the week in your answer. The patio door, for example, was locked on Sunday).


unquote

He also poses the additional question how the abductor would have managed to slide the patio doors back to 'closed' (that's not closed but open enough to hook one's fingers round the side to push it open). The abductor who had the child's legs hanging over his right arm. But if she'd been lifted from the bed, her legs would have been over his left arm. So, what with sliding the patio doors back to closed and re-arranging the child, all without leaving any trace, except a very tidy bed - not a very bright abductor.

The first accounts via friends and family are of jemmied or broken shutters (even smashed -Jon Corner) and a front door hanging open.
The first press reports are of a locked apartment, broken shutters and a front door hanging open.
These reports originated sometime between 10.30 pm and 1.00 am on the 4th.
So was it already clear to the McCanns et al by the time of their first interview with the PJ on the 4th that another mode of ingress was essential when Gerry found he couldn't lift the shutters from outside? Had they already observed the attention of the PJ on the lack of fingerprints and footprints on the bed?

The 'closed but not locked' recurring statement of the patio doors is nonsense, they lock when you close them, there is no separate lock on them, so they can either be open or closed but not 'closed and not locked' - they'd be open by about an inch.

tigger wrote.....The 'closed but not locked' recurring statement of the patio doors is nonsense, they lock when you close them, there is no separate lock on them, so they can either be open or closed but not 'closed and not locked' - they'd be open by about an inch.


Matthew Oldfield

We also covered on the last interview, did you ever leave your apartment by the poolside door?”
Reply "And we did if it was err during the day and there was one of us in the apartment then we’d have gone in and out through the patio door because it was the most direct way to get to the err pool and the Tapas restaurant err but otherwise certainly in the evening we’d have locked that patio door because you couldn’t lock it from the, err you could only lock it from the inside, its like a snick connector, I don’t know why I keep saying snick but I don’t know whether its a northern term, but there was a little hasp on the handle that you lock over to lock the patio doors and you can only do that from the inside, it wasn’t lockable from the out so we’d shut that and gone back out the other door and locked that. So during the day we might have done to get in and out to get equipment but err at night, no.”

I know the inconsistencies are unbelievable, but this passage below is the only bit out of all those brought to attention here, that mentions the words normal and usual, which I think is quite telling.

(Thursday) 'He walked the normal route up to the back door, which being open he only had to slide.'
'Three to four minutes later MATHEW returned… having entered through the back door, given that he did not have the key and it was usual for them to enter in that way.'
'22h03, he again alerted KATE that it was time to check the children. She immediately made her way to the apartment by the usual path, having entered through the back door.'

I still think that all along the patio doors to the McCanns apartment were left slightly ajar so as to be unlocked. I think the use of the front door was for the purpose of making oneself conspicuous on the street. Perhaps the McCanns maybe wanted to come and go via the street because they themselves wanted to check the front of the property out, you know trying to be responsible parents and knowing your children are inside, you may think to yourself I'll just check everythings in order round the front this time, check that no one's hanging about on the street disturbing our children or trying to break in. Whatever the reason for being outside the front, it was a calculated action because, with the patio doors open there was no need to be there at all. So maybe it was an idea of checking all sides of the property as part of responsible parenting whilst your children are asleep which perhaps gave Gerry the idea, after whatever happened to Madeleine, to turn this completely on its head by saying someone was watching us instead, which he could get away with because after all Gerry had been outside the front.

I can think of no other reason for all the inconsistencies in how they came and went other than it was a calculated idea of theirs as part of their checking to cover all angles outside as well. And if that's right it would mean that deep down they knew the risk they were putting their children under. Either that, or it was because Gerry knew something had happened to Madeleine and just wanted to be seen there, which again is a calculated action.

Whichever it is, and I hope its the former rather than the latter, its a calculated arrangement.

And of course the McCanns afterwards do not like to admit they left the patio doors unlocked because of the backlash in opinion it may cause.

There is a demonstration provided from the Tapas 9 that the patio doors lock from the inside. Is this a mere coincidence they took this photo?

There were the baby monitors of course, both the Paynes and JT and ROB had a baby monitor which they took with them to the Tapas Bar.
That only leaves baby Grace and the three McCann children. I think it was Rebello or Almeidas who said they had evidence that all 7 children were together.
Every night someone was 'ill' (one of the Tapas as babysitter) and the thinking is that they were kept in one apartment - except Maddie - who may have been sedated and slept alone during the evening.
I don't think they left the patio doors open normally - this was just for the 3rd. imo. I would also think they were the only patio doors left open, none of the others would need to be, there was a babysitter and two sets of monitors.There was no half hour checking the previous nights either imo. The whole convoluted story is just to set the stage for the abduction.

There had been a spate of burglaries - Mrs. Fenn herself surprised a burglar some weeks earlier. It would have been asking for trouble, losing passports, cameras, mobiles, watches (allegedly they took none of these items to the table because they were so 'into each other'). They were warned about the burglaries by OC staff on arrival. Strangely we never hear much about this. Makes the open patio doors so much more difficult.

Patio doors would certainly not be left open during the day and MO affirms this.

It's those pesky shutters which wouldn't open from outside and the McCanns' brilliant plan to stage an abduction. You have 'dry runs' and you have 'reconstructions' but both those would have shown up the glaring faults in the plan.

There was some discussion later from TM that Maddie could not have opened the doors herself, the above photograph proves otherwise. But imo it was a desperate attempt on their part to stick with the 'impossible for Maddie to get out by herself - therefore it is abduction' plan.

I think with all the anomolies in the Tapas Statements it is very hard to get a true account of who was where and at what time on that fateful night.

Oldfield changed his statement and said he didn't enter 5a he listened at the window.

The timelines written on the book cover were written to back up their claim that they checked every 20 minutes.

Gerry says on his check at 9pm that he went to the toilet........why include that in his statement? Was it to prove that he actually went INTO the
apartment to check on the children , instead of just listening ?

We know the McCanns arrived at the Tapas bar at 7.45pm roughly, who checked on the children between that time and 9pm.???

What if Gerry didn't go into the apartment at 9pm and just listened? Madeleine could have been abducted anytime between 8.30pm and 10pm by
someone who had been watching their routine who was originally taking Madeleine for ransom. However, the publicity was so great that he dare not
risk a demand.

tigger wrote:There were the baby monitors of course, both the Paynes and JT and ROB had a baby monitor which they took with them to the Tapas Bar.
That only leaves baby Grace and the three McCann children. I think it was Rebello or Almeidas who said they had evidence that all 7 children were together.
Every night someone was 'ill' (one of the Tapas as babysitter) and the thinking is that they were kept in one apartment - except Maddie - who may have been sedated and slept alone during the evening.
I don't think they left the patio doors open normally - this was just for the 3rd. imo. I would also think they were the only patio doors left open, none of the others would need to be, there was a babysitter and two sets of monitors.There was no half hour checking the previous nights either imo. The whole convoluted story is just to set the stage for the abduction.

There had been a spate of burglaries - Mrs. Fenn herself surprised a burglar some weeks earlier. It would have been asking for trouble, losing passports, cameras, mobiles, watches (allegedly they took none of these items to the table because they were so 'into each other'). They were warned about the burglaries by OC staff on arrival. Strangely we never hear much about this. Makes the open patio doors so much more difficult.

Patio doors would certainly not be left open during the day and MO affirms this.

It's those pesky shutters which wouldn't open from outside and the McCanns' brilliant plan to stage an abduction. You have 'dry runs' and you have 'reconstructions' but both those would have shown up the glaring faults in the plan.

There was some discussion later from TM that Maddie could not have opened the doors herself, the above photograph proves otherwise. But imo it was a desperate attempt on their part to stick with the 'impossible for Maddie to get out by herself - therefore it is abduction' plan.

It's a very credible arrangement - all the kids in one apartment and one person per evening allocated for baby sitting duties - because it would indicate a responsible attitude to looking after the children, but how does one explain why these same people were prepared to participate in a concocted story of checking, thereby leaving them open to accusations of neglect, just to cover the McCanns backsides by creating a scenario in which an abduction could have taken place? From what I have read during the past 5 years, the McCanns were rather the outsiders of the group and the others were not really into them at all.

Hi. Sorry I haven't had time to fully digest the whole thread, but something's confusing me about your first post. GMcC was seen by JW by the back gate of 5a, implying that GMcC had just come out of the back of 5a (via the patio doors) so I'm a bit confused about what you mean by 'the street side'. If he was 'checking' via the patio doors, then he would be around the 'back' of 5a (which, says JW, he was) and not the 'street side' (by which, I assume you mean the carpark side?)

T4two wrote:

tigger wrote:There were the baby monitors of course, both the Paynes and JT and ROB had a baby monitor which they took with them to the Tapas Bar.
That only leaves baby Grace and the three McCann children. I think it was Rebello or Almeidas who said they had evidence that all 7 children were together.
Every night someone was 'ill' (one of the Tapas as babysitter) and the thinking is that they were kept in one apartment - except Maddie - who may have been sedated and slept alone during the evening.
I don't think they left the patio doors open normally - this was just for the 3rd. imo. I would also think they were the only patio doors left open, none of the others would need to be, there was a babysitter and two sets of monitors.There was no half hour checking the previous nights either imo. The whole convoluted story is just to set the stage for the abduction.

There had been a spate of burglaries - Mrs. Fenn herself surprised a burglar some weeks earlier. It would have been asking for trouble, losing passports, cameras, mobiles, watches (allegedly they took none of these items to the table because they were so 'into each other'). They were warned about the burglaries by OC staff on arrival. Strangely we never hear much about this. Makes the open patio doors so much more difficult.

Patio doors would certainly not be left open during the day and MO affirms this.

It's those pesky shutters which wouldn't open from outside and the McCanns' brilliant plan to stage an abduction. You have 'dry runs' and you have 'reconstructions' but both those would have shown up the glaring faults in the plan.

There was some discussion later from TM that Maddie could not have opened the doors herself, the above photograph proves otherwise. But imo it was a desperate attempt on their part to stick with the 'impossible for Maddie to get out by herself - therefore it is abduction' plan.

It's a very credible arrangement - all the kids in one apartment and one person per evening allocated for baby sitting duties - because it would indicate a responsible attitude to looking after the children, but how does one explain why these same people were prepared to participate in a concocted story of checking, thereby leaving them open to accusations of neglect, just to cover the McCanns backsides by creating a scenario in which an abduction could have taken place? From what I have read during the past 5 years, the McCanns were rather the outsiders of the group and the others were not really into them at all.

I don't actually believe that both JT and ROB were mere acquaintances, RM might have been, but MO also seems to have done a lot for the McCanns. Strangely enough DP and FP don't appear to have put themselves out unduly. Except for the corroboration of evidence.
The PJ have indications/proof of certainly ROB implicated in handling the body. JT has been Kate's willing slave all along.
It seems clear that neither MO nor ROB are very good liars.
I would also doubt that the friendship has survived the affair. How they were pulled into the affair is what we'd all like to know. Surely not all of them can have had a 'terrible secret' known to Gerry? There is such a thing as 'small group dynamics' which could be a mechanism to explain this.

Basically, I think that the PJ too is convinced there was no neglect, that it had to be concocted to create the abduction story.
Imo there never was any checking except on the 3rd and MO's statement indicates that he'd never even been inside 5a, he had to make it up as he went along.
The waiters at the Tapas have indicated iirc that few of the group left the table on other nights. Then there's Chaplin's bar happy hour, starting when the Tapas closes. So on most nights, they may have gone on to Chaplins and come back after midnight to collect deeply sleeping infants.

Didn't the staff at OC/Tapas Bar have to keep telling the mccanns to go and see their children because they were crying in their apartment all the time? I think Panda said this some time ago?

I think JT and KM have a bond as they were pregnant at almost the identical time. I am sure it was both their first child and there is about 3 weeks between the girls. From what I can gather RM's ex wife was having difficulty conceiving, then got pregnant with Sophia around the same time in 2002 as well. I always look at it as a sign of guilty conscience when RM kept saying how his daughter was so much like Maddie which is what motivated him to help as translator, even though he was police translator before in the UK. Maybe they all share something in common which brought them together in 2002 who knows