A Dissection of the EBook about the McCanns

Perhaps Widowan and of course everybody is different. I would like to think you are right.

Hope Redwood doesn't read here...would be confusing to know who visited Kate at 6pm & who done a visual in 5A at 9.30pm...
The only person forewarned of his imminent arrest is the abductor with the alive child...think about it
Redwood for Prime Minister!!!

AnnaEsse wrote:

widowan wrote:

AnnaEsse wrote:

mossman wrote:

comperedna wrote:Absolutely. I also began to think my children and grandchildren must be more over-lively and more resourceful and mischievous than the Mccann's. Our grandchild twins could gate-vault or clamber out of a travel cot at Sean and Amelie's age, and the older one would have been up and about, switching the lights on and off, raiding the fridge, jumping off the parents' bed, pulling stuff out of cupboards, and above all going out onto the balcony yelling: 'Mummy, Daddy... where are you?' That is however tired they were by the day's activities...  In an exciting new holiday flat they would have been 'exploring its possibilities', so to speak. They would know they had been left on their own for sure, though if the parents were there, they might well have been content to amuse themselves with toys or books or what have you in theit bed/cots. Mind you, I didn't see too many favourite toys or books about the place: did anyone else? Only Madeleine's cuddle cat and the pink blanket come to mind.

I have said that before, there is no "stuff" around the apartment.

I had three children under three years old and what I did not travel with !  Even when I cut it down to the bare minimum, we would acquire no end of new "stuff" whilst there.  Buckets, spades, footballs, beach balls.  I remember my eldest having a tantrum one year because I had to leave a giant inflatable crocodile my husband had bought for the beach behind.  

The pictures of 5a always sadden me.  You would never think there were three little children staying there.  The photos are empty and lonely.  There was not even any make and do things from the crèche displayed.

I've just had my 7 year-old grandson to stay for a couple of days. From our outings, lots of "stuff" was lying around the house that had to be gathered up before his father arrived to collect him. There's also something that got left behind: a large floor puzzle of the human body is still on the lounge floor. This is what happens when small children are around a place for more than a day or so!

Hi annaesse - I had to laugh reading about the floor puzzle of the human body- we had several of the big ones with dinosaurs too and I was just wishing, now my daughter is getting old enough to be within five years of having her own children, that I'd kept those; they aren't cheap.

but presumably your grandson came to you  in a car, with a boot that could fit things for him, the holiday group came on a plane. My practice was to have them carry what they wanted in their little Thomas or Hello Kitty backpack and whatever could fit in could go, that's a carry- on. If I knew I was going somewhere there would be toys available I allowed myself to pack lightly.

They seem to have misread the weather and maybe did not have clothing that would permit days at the beach if it wasn't hot or at least warm and sunny. Cold wet kids on a damp blowy beach don't last long, before they want to go home.

Yes, grandson came in a car, but the floor puzzle was something that was waiting for him here. I always have something for 7 year-old and his 2 year-old brother. Younger lad loves Peppa Pig, so he got Peppa Pig dominoes!

that's just good granny-ism.  
I'm prepared already, with books and toys, building blocks, duplo and Playmobil, but the one thing I regret was why on earth I gave away those lovely German "look inside" puzzles of the farm yard and playground, etc and floor puzzles - they stack, take up little space and will be expensive to replace. I guess when your kids hit the age they no longer want them it seems like it'll be a long time before they're needed again, but it passes quickly.

Congrats on your new grandson, or at least when I was last here, you had just the one - doesn't seem that long ago but time flies.

widowan wrote:

AnnaEsse wrote:

widowan wrote:

AnnaEsse wrote:

mossman wrote:

comperedna wrote:Absolutely. I also began to think my children and grandchildren must be more over-lively and more resourceful and mischievous than the Mccann's. Our grandchild twins could gate-vault or clamber out of a travel cot at Sean and Amelie's age, and the older one would have been up and about, switching the lights on and off, raiding the fridge, jumping off the parents' bed, pulling stuff out of cupboards, and above all going out onto the balcony yelling: 'Mummy, Daddy... where are you?' That is however tired they were by the day's activities...  In an exciting new holiday flat they would have been 'exploring its possibilities', so to speak. They would know they had been left on their own for sure, though if the parents were there, they might well have been content to amuse themselves with toys or books or what have you in theit bed/cots. Mind you, I didn't see too many favourite toys or books about the place: did anyone else? Only Madeleine's cuddle cat and the pink blanket come to mind.

I have said that before, there is no "stuff" around the apartment.

I had three children under three years old and what I did not travel with !  Even when I cut it down to the bare minimum, we would acquire no end of new "stuff" whilst there.  Buckets, spades, footballs, beach balls.  I remember my eldest having a tantrum one year because I had to leave a giant inflatable crocodile my husband had bought for the beach behind.  

The pictures of 5a always sadden me.  You would never think there were three little children staying there.  The photos are empty and lonely.  There was not even any make and do things from the crèche displayed.

I've just had my 7 year-old grandson to stay for a couple of days. From our outings, lots of "stuff" was lying around the house that had to be gathered up before his father arrived to collect him. There's also something that got left behind: a large floor puzzle of the human body is still on the lounge floor. This is what happens when small children are around a place for more than a day or so!

Hi annaesse - I had to laugh reading about the floor puzzle of the human body- we had several of the big ones with dinosaurs too and I was just wishing, now my daughter is getting old enough to be within five years of having her own children, that I'd kept those; they aren't cheap.

but presumably your grandson came to you  in a car, with a boot that could fit things for him, the holiday group came on a plane. My practice was to have them carry what they wanted in their little Thomas or Hello Kitty backpack and whatever could fit in could go, that's a carry- on. If I knew I was going somewhere there would be toys available I allowed myself to pack lightly.

They seem to have misread the weather and maybe did not have clothing that would permit days at the beach if it wasn't hot or at least warm and sunny. Cold wet kids on a damp blowy beach don't last long, before they want to go home.

Yes, grandson came in a car, but the floor puzzle was something that was waiting for him here. I always have something for 7 year-old and his 2 year-old brother. Younger lad loves Peppa Pig, so he got Peppa Pig dominoes!

that's just good granny-ism.  
I'm prepared already, with books and toys, building blocks, duplo and Playmobil, but the one thing I regret was why on earth I gave away those lovely German "look inside" puzzles of the farm yard and playground, etc and floor puzzles - they stack, take up little space and will be expensive to replace. I guess when your kids hit the age they no longer want them it seems like it'll be a long time before they're needed again, but it passes quickly.

Congrats on your new grandson, or at least when I was last here, you had just the one - doesn't seem that long ago but time flies.

There are things I regret giving away! Most went to families who had very little, but I still regret even passing them on to those people!

mossman wrote:Perhaps Widowan and of course everybody is different.   I would like to think you are right.

I'm not trying to make excuses for them, Mossman. Just a pass on the small things that I find understandable because the big thing is enough, all by itself, without holding them to account for things that could be reasonable personal choices under the circumstances.

My family was working class until 2 generations ago, and middle class (US, not UK) for only the one before me. We don't have doctors and lawyers in the family and we're not British and things are different in different countries and different demographics, as far as choices, where to holiday, what to pack etc.

What should not differ is the putting of children's happiness and safety first, regardless of income or status, within reason.

They could take their kids to the holiday with nothing but their pajamas and if the kids were well tended and happy it would not matter to me.

widowan wrote:

mossman wrote:Perhaps Widowan and of course everybody is different.   I would like to think you are right.

I'm not trying to make excuses for them, Mossman. Just a pass on the small things that I find understandable because the big thing is enough, all by itself, without holding them to account for things that could be reasonable personal choices under the circumstances.

My family was working class until 2 generations ago, and middle class (US, not UK) for only the one before me. We don't have doctors and lawyers in the family and we're not British and things are different in different countries and different demographics, as far as choices, where to holiday, what to pack etc.

What should not differ is the putting of children's happiness and safety first, regardless of income or status, within reason.

They could take their kids to the holiday with nothing but their pajamas and if the kids were well tended and happy it would not matter to me.

It's not just material things I am talking about. I suppose I am coming at it from the perspective of I too had three children under three in 2007 and my experience of travelling with them and all that it entails. It is no easy task to get on a plane with them.

At least a single buggy was essential, three toddlers and two parents do not work. You can carry two, not three. This starts at the airport, not just at the resort. That's a bulky item in itself. You will tend to pack for all weather at that time of year going to Portugal. Long trousers, shorts, t shirts and jumpers. Even nappies for two,wipes, sippy cups for the twins, arm bands for the pool all fill a small apartment up.

My experience has always been you pack first for the kids and squeeze what you can in for yourself in the left over space.

Maybe I'm just a messy individual but the apartment looks unlived in to me and other than cuddle cat, Madeleine's books next to her bed and a bucket and spade outside the front door there appears to be nothing personal to the children and not much out of place.

Children need little to keep them entertained, they will find fun in the smallest of things. The proverbial cardboard box. So "stuff" is not just about toys. Perhaps everything is put away in cupboards and it is I who needs lessons in how to keep a tidy house.

mossman wrote:

widowan wrote:

mossman wrote:Perhaps Widowan and of course everybody is different.   I would like to think you are right.

I'm not trying to make excuses for them, Mossman. Just a pass on the small things that I find understandable because the big thing is enough, all by itself, without holding them to account for things that could be reasonable personal choices under the circumstances.

My family was working class until 2 generations ago, and middle class (US, not UK) for only the one before me. We don't have doctors and lawyers in the family and we're not British and things are different in different countries and different demographics, as far as choices, where to holiday, what to pack etc.

What should not differ is the putting of children's happiness and safety first, regardless of income or status, within reason.

They could take their kids to the holiday with nothing but their pajamas and if the kids were well tended and happy it would not matter to me.

It's not just material things I am talking about. I suppose I am coming at it from the perspective of I too had three children under three in 2007 and my experience of travelling with them and all that it entails.  It is no easy task to get on a plane with them.

At least a single buggy was essential, three toddlers and two parents do not work.  You can carry two, not three.  This starts at the airport, not just at the resort. That's a bulky item in itself.  You will tend to pack for all weather at that time of year going to Portugal. Long trousers, shorts, t shirts and jumpers.  Even nappies for two,wipes, sippy cups for the twins, arm bands for the pool all fill a small apartment up.

My experience has always been you pack first for the kids and squeeze what you can in for yourself in the left over space.

Maybe I'm just a messy individual but the apartment looks unlived in to me and other than cuddle cat, Madeleine's books next to her bed and a bucket and spade outside the front door there appears to be nothing personal to the children and not much out of place.

Children need little to keep them entertained, they will find fun in the smallest of things.  The proverbial cardboard box.  So "stuff" is not just about toys.  Perhaps everything is put away in cupboards and it is I who needs lessons in how to keep a tidy house.

I think you sound totally normal mossman, when l have unexpected visitors l warn them my house is clean but l have a young child so it may be untidy.   Some people live for their kids, some people live for themselves, l know which l prefer.

Thank you Margaret, I always say it is clean under the mess  

matthew wrote:Hope Redwood doesn't read here...would be confusing to know who visited Kate at 6pm & who done a visual in 5A at 9.30pm...
The only person forewarned of his imminent arrest is the abductor with the alive child...think about it
Redwood for Prime Minister!!!

Hi Matthew, to get back on topic this is a quote from the EBook," it appears that apart from the Tapas Group meeting up in a Hotel in Rothley, they had advisors with them ,!!! "the decision by Clarence Mitchell to give to the Press -after the Rothley meeting- a version of events which details increasing the vigilance or frequency of the checks seems spectacularly to have backfired". It not only draws attention to the paucity of any checks made during the week , but also draws attention to the contents of the Statements in which it is clear that even if the McCanns had visiteed the Apartment their attention was not to look at the children at all.".

There are 112 pages in all so I am just picking out the more interesting bits, this Guy has done his homework.

mossman wrote:

widowan wrote:

mossman wrote:Perhaps Widowan and of course everybody is different.   I would like to think you are right.

I'm not trying to make excuses for them, Mossman. Just a pass on the small things that I find understandable because the big thing is enough, all by itself, without holding them to account for things that could be reasonable personal choices under the circumstances.

My family was working class until 2 generations ago, and middle class (US, not UK) for only the one before me. We don't have doctors and lawyers in the family and we're not British and things are different in different countries and different demographics, as far as choices, where to holiday, what to pack etc.

What should not differ is the putting of children's happiness and safety first, regardless of income or status, within reason.

They could take their kids to the holiday with nothing but their pajamas and if the kids were well tended and happy it would not matter to me.

It's not just material things I am talking about. I suppose I am coming at it from the perspective of I too had three children under three in 2007 and my experience of travelling with them and all that it entails.  It is no easy task to get on a plane with them.

At least a single buggy was essential, three toddlers and two parents do not work.  You can carry two, not three.  This starts at the airport, not just at the resort. That's a bulky item in itself.  You will tend to pack for all weather at that time of year going to Portugal. Long trousers, shorts, t shirts and jumpers.  Even nappies for two,wipes, sippy cups for the twins, arm bands for the pool all fill a small apartment up.

My experience has always been you pack first for the kids and squeeze what you can in for yourself in the left over space.

Maybe I'm just a messy individual but the apartment looks unlived in to me and other than cuddle cat, Madeleine's books next to her bed and a bucket and spade outside the front door there appears to be nothing personal to the children and not much out of place.

Children need little to keep them entertained, they will find fun in the smallest of things.  The proverbial cardboard box.  So "stuff" is not just about toys.  Perhaps everything is put away in cupboards and it is I who needs lessons in how to keep a tidy house.

It's clean, and bare. A buggy would've helped but maybe they didn't have room for it in the cab. I don't know, the messiness of the house is immaterial if the kids are looked after. These ones weren't.

I felt really sad, even tearful, reading all of your memories of our own and children's childhoods.

My two boys were born eight years apart, now they are men they are best of mates. Luckily we all live near each other, little one (22 yrs - my baby) still at home and big one (30 yrs - eldest and costing more year on year!) lives over the road with his wife and baby.
I remember posting really early, May 2007, about family holidays and the magical quality they had.
We have never been into big holidays, a long weekend at the wonderful Suffolk coast was always enough for us.

Crabbing at Walberswick is second to none, sandy sandwiches, warm squash and carrying sleepy children back to the B&B. We always had a family room, a glass of wine when the boys went to sleep and didn't dare stay up later than 10pm because we knew they would be tugging at the duvet at 6am for another day on the beach! We would never have considered leaving our precious cargo and incidentally, before the McCann case, I wouldn't have believed that loving parents would consider leaving their babies alone.

My parents certainly never left us (me and sister and two brothers), we (Mr Gob and I) never left our children and in turn my son and his wife make provision for their precious baby - I have to add that I will babysit at the drop of the hat and can be there in two minutes!

I am lucky to have an Italian mum so every summer we went to granny's for the whole of the summer holidays. I have wonderful memories of those summers, those memories are locked in my heart and I remember them with such fondness. We ran and played, built huts out of blankets in the trees and rode bikes around the countryside. Mum and dad were always there.

I posted something really similar on or around 3 May 2007 and got absolutely shot down in flames. I commented that I couldn't believe that the McCanns had gone on a family holiday, yet it wasn't a "family holiday".

My opinion was and still is that the children were embellishments, like "look what we've got". Nothing more nothing less, window dressing. Admittedly they had to have IVF to acquire the family they desired, but I can't understand people who strive to have a family so hard don't bother to spend time with them.

The time we spent/spend with our family is irreplaceable.

I can't believe that a couple so desperate to have children would bung their babies in a creche all day and then leave them alone at night. I honestly don't and never have believed that they left the children alone. I do and will always believe that neglect was their charge of choice and well done GA for not charging with them neglect. Remember, if Madeleine was "neglected" then she had to be alive to be abducted.

Looks like maybe the buzzards are drooling over gerry........

  

Lioned wrote:Looks like maybe the buzzards are drooling over gerry........

  

Hi Lioned, do you remember reading that O'Brien was supposed to have checked on the chldren in 5a??? I can"t but apparently his ststement was very confused . I think the Portugese Police missed a great opportunity to charge the McCanns with neglect whick carried a 1 year sentence but wanted ti go for neglect causing harm which carried a 10 yesr sentence.

I don't know if you have been reading the E Book but this Guy is very clued up, I wonder what he does for a living .

Panda wrote:

matthew wrote:Hope Redwood doesn't read here...would be confusing to know who visited Kate at 6pm & who done a visual in 5A at 9.30pm...
The only person forewarned of his imminent arrest is the abductor with the alive child...think about it
Redwood for Prime Minister!!!

Hi Matthew, to get back on topic  this is a quote from the EBook," it appears that apart from the Tapas Group meeting up in a Hotel in Rothley, they had advisors with them ,!!! "the decision by Clarence Mitchell to give to the Press -after the Rothley meeting- a version of events which details increasing the vigilance or frequency of the checks seems spectacularly to have backfired". It not only draws attention to the paucity of any checks made during the week , but also draws attention to the contents of the Statements in which it is clear that even if the McCanns had visiteed the Apartment their attention was not to look at the children at all.".

There are 112 pages in all so I am just picking out the more interesting bits, this Guy has done his homework.

What advisors? Clarence? I think he'd be involved in everything as his job was to spin.

Certainly for those in the know, the details invented and publicized about the checks are meaningful - at least someone is noticing what McCanns were up to.

However, they were doing listening checks, you can do those from outside a window or outside the door, without going in, so the fact that there "were not there to look at the children" is not a big deal. They could have been there to listen for them.

There is no one to say that Gerry's trip at 915 wasn't a visual one - he says it was. He also gives, as proof of this, that the door was opened by a different angle to the one which he left it, so he is providing details of a visual check that are problematic, I guess you could say - who can prove the abductor wasn't in there before the check, hid in a closet, etc. if it wasn't Matt?

I think he gives it to show that he at least was checking on her and that the abduction had to happen in a very short window of time thus making them less culpable (but also making the abduction timeframe very short indeed).

I think the lies or mis remembering about the checks causes problems with the veracity of the checkers, including Gerry - but Redwood seems to be okay with that, not, as far as we know, drilling down into why that was the case but just to say the timeline opened up if we ignore checks and sightings that were false or didn't happen.

We can take what we will from that, I guess. At some point perhaps they'll get back to the tapas 9 or Kate and Gerry themselves, but maybe they have already done that and feel that these fabrications were being done by people desperate to point the public or potential prosecution at the "fact" that Maddie was abducted - and so please go and look for her - rather than that we fudged the facts to stay out of jail or to lead opinion that we were "innocent" because we are - their argument is that they "had to" defend themselves rather than look for her because Amaral's book made people stop searching. that is a good argument if you believe in the abduction. Which SY says they do.

I don't like the concept of buzzards circling because the one McCann I feel certain is in the state to have that happen is madeleine. So the imagery is unfortunate.

Sorry you have a different interpretation about the buzzards, I thought it quite apt and obviously it refers to the McCanns.

Gerry said in his 9pm check that he felt as though there was someone behind the door.....yet he never checked and went back to the Restaurant.!!!

Buzzards circling refers to a dead thing, the only possibly dead McCann though is a little girl and the idea of her being out there, really bugs me. But never mind.

Gerry could not possibly have said he thought at the time there was someone behind the door but didn't check. He probably said later that there could have been someone. But I thought Amaral and the PJ did a very good job of showing that there were no possible hiding spots in that room - if you LOOKED, or checked.

Listening check from outside the door would not have revealed that - the abductor could have been standing or crouching anywhere.

Somehow I do not believe that and I do not believe the door was open to a different angle, I think he provided that detail to show he was there and how sharp and not drunk he was etc. Just as with Oldfield's check I think it is BS invented to make them look good, because they "knew" she'd been abducted and proof of that was evidently thought of as a good thing to fabricate.

Now we have the PJ reopening the case and I doubt it is based on the Smith sighting.

So glad I chose this time to check back in, as things seem to be happening what with one thing and another.

From Gerry's 10 May witness statement:
 
"He walked the normal route up to the back door, which being open he only had to slide, and while he was entering the living room, he noticed that the children's bedroom door was not ajar as he had left it but half-way open, which he thought was strange, having then thought that possibly MADELEINE had got up to go to sleep in his bedroom, so as to avoid the noise produced by her siblings. Therefore, he entered the children's bedroom and established visual contact with each of them, checking and he is certain of this, that the three were deeply asleep."
 
This to me implies that Gerry actually had no intention of ever going into the children's bedroom, and only did so because he had thought Madeleine may have gotten up. This is similar to Kate closing the bedroom door to 5 degrees before bothering to enter the room. How they could expect Oldfield to do a visual check when they did not even bother to check on their own children visually is beyond me.
 
I think it was later on that Gerry had the revelation that the "abductor" must have been in the apartment at the time of his check in order to fit in with the Tanner sighting of bundleman. I also don't believe that Gerry conducted a visual check at this time. His meeting with Jez doesn't add up either, as he claims to have left the side gate and noticed Jez as he was walking down the street to the Tapas bar. Well, if this were the case, then he would have met Jez further down the road, rather than right outside the gate, unless he backtracked, which makes no sense. Again from Gerry's 10 May statement:
 
"After leaving through the side gate, and while on his way to the secondary reception entrance, less than 10 metres from the gate, he saw “JEZ” walking up the street on the opposite pavement, bringing with him a baby buggy with his youngest child. He crossed the road in JEZ's direction who was walking up on the right-hand side, in the ascending direction, both having chatted for 3 to 4 minutes, about tennis, holidays and children."
 
And from Jez's rogatory statement:
 
"When I left the street, I remember seeing Gerry on the other side of the same. I believe that there was some speculation in the press regarding the circumstances of this encounter. I remember that I crossed the street to talk to Gerry. According to what I remember, Gerry was walking when I spotted him. As I mentioned previously, I assumed that he had gone to check on the children and was headed back to the Tapas Bar."
 
So, according to both Gerry and Jez, Gerry was walking when they spotted each other. For him to have been walking and to have met Jez just outside the gate, Gerry must have left through the front door. Had he exited the patio doors and the side gate, then they would have met further down the road toward the Tapas bar. Jez made no mention of Gerry coming down the stairs, so Gerry had to have been walking down the road from the front door in order for their meeting place to be just outside the gate.

so you think he wasn't even in the apt? He'd only been to the front door area, to listen at that window?

Which is the short cut - why would you go round to the front if it's further?

I don't know whether he was in the apartment or not, but I suppose it is possible that he wasn't. I am just saying that given where both Jez and him say they met for their chat he would have had to have left through the front door. Had he left through the side gate and even walked just a few steps, they would not have met outside the gate.

Many people feel that it was highly unlikely that the doors were left unlocked, and I tend to agree. It just makes no sense given that the Tapas bar and the apartment were soooooo close, why would you take such a chance with your children only to save a few seconds (perhaps a minute total) walking? It was the alleged unlocked doors that set off warning signs for me right away. But of course, the door had to be unlocked for Oldfield to be able to enter the apartment at his 9:25 check, because a listening check outside 5A would have revealed the open window and shutters.

jinvta wrote:I don't know whether he was in the apartment or not, but I suppose it is possible that he wasn't. I am just saying that given where both Jez and him say they met for their chat he would have had to have left through the front door. Had he left through the side gate and even walked just a few steps, they would not have met outside the gate.

Many people feel that it was highly unlikely that the doors were left unlocked, and I tend to agree. It just makes no sense given that the Tapas bar and the apartment were soooooo close, why would you take such a chance with your children only to save a few seconds (perhaps a minute total) walking? It was the alleged unlocked doors that set off warning signs for me right away. But of course, the door had to be unlocked for Oldfield to be able to enter the apartment at his 9:25 check, because a listening check outside 5A would have revealed the open window and shutters.

Their lackadaisical attitude with the kids seems to me that they'd leave the door unlocked just to they didn't have to fumble around with keys. I would think the front door that they rarely used, yes that'd be locked. Not the patio door - which was their usual way to go in and out and as it had its own stairs it'd be less risky than leaving the front door unlocked. If anyone even checked.

But I get what you are saying. they wouldn't have been where they were if Gerry was walking down the street when he met Jez.

But if Kate opened the window, then Matt could go listen at the window and find it down at 925 - I have a hard time believing that no one looked at those rogatory statements. There is enough in there to make you scratch your head and when that's the prime suspects - the parents - you don't just say, eh - odd!

you would think about it. Would they screw up the timeline and so on just so they could pretend to have gone in, rather than listened? Once it's down on paper, there's the pact. I wonder if anyone since then especially now, is tired of having McCann lawyers tell them what they've gotta do or say to keep mum and hold the line on that.

jinvta wrote:I don't know whether he was in the apartment or not, but I suppose it is possible that he wasn't. I am just saying that given where both Jez and him say they met for their chat he would have had to have left through the front door. Had he left through the side gate and even walked just a few steps, they would not have met outside the gate.

Many people feel that it was highly unlikely that the doors were left unlocked, and I tend to agree. It just makes no sense given that the Tapas bar and the apartment were soooooo close, why would you take such a chance with your children only to save a few seconds (perhaps a minute total) walking? It was the alleged unlocked doors that set off warning signs for me right away. But of course, the door had to be unlocked for Oldfield to be able to enter the apartment at his 9:25 check, because a listening check outside 5A would have revealed the open window and shutters.

As it stands at the moment jinvta, Oporto Police have asked for the case to be reopened. whether they have fresh evidence we don't know about, or the finding of three abducted chikdren in as many days has anything to do with it, or SY have been stringing the McCanns along, they have found their Efit guy , no doubt we shall find out .

what three abducted children are you referring to Panda, the two in Ireland have been found to be children of their parents.

widowan wrote:

jinvta wrote:I don't know whether he was in the apartment or not, but I suppose it is possible that he wasn't. I am just saying that given where both Jez and him say they met for their chat he would have had to have left through the front door. Had he left through the side gate and even walked just a few steps, they would not have met outside the gate.

Many people feel that it was highly unlikely that the doors were left unlocked, and I tend to agree. It just makes no sense given that the Tapas bar and the apartment were soooooo close, why would you take such a chance with your children only to save a few seconds (perhaps a minute total) walking? It was the alleged unlocked doors that set off warning signs for me right away. But of course, the door had to be unlocked for Oldfield to be able to enter the apartment at his 9:25 check, because a listening check outside 5A would have revealed the open window and shutters.

Their lackadaisical attitude with the kids seems to me that they'd leave the door unlocked just to they didn't have to fumble around with keys. I would think the front door that they rarely used, yes that'd be locked. Not the patio door - which was their usual way to go in and out and as it had its own stairs it'd be less risky than leaving the front door unlocked. If anyone even checked.

But I get what you are saying. they wouldn't have been where they were if Gerry was walking down the street when he met Jez.

But if Kate opened the window, then Matt could go listen at the window and find it down at 925 - I have a hard time believing that no one looked at those rogatory statements. There is enough in there to make you scratch your head and when that's the prime suspects - the parents - you don't just say, eh - odd!

you would think about it. Would they screw up the timeline and so on just so they could pretend to have gone in, rather than listened?  Once it's down on paper, there's the pact. I wonder if anyone since then especially now, is tired of having McCann lawyers tell them what they've gotta do or say to keep mum and hold the line on that.

 
 
Matt couldn't find the window open at his 9:25 pm check, otherwise he would have raised the alarm, because that same window was closed at his 8:55/9:00 pm check. It would be pretty embarrassing for him to say that he listened at the window, but didn't notice that it was open!
 
I also doubt Matt's 9:00 check, as he claims to have listened at one of two windows. The bedroom only had one window, so what was the other window, and did he even listen outside the correct one? How could he get this one detail so wrong? He couldn't see Madeleine's bed from where he allegedly looked in, so it is quite unlikely that he would have been able to see even the one, let alone two windows. The man is a bold faced liar. The question is did he lie to cover up his own negligence (never having checked at all) or something more sinister? The fact that he was not going to conduct a check at 10 pm or did not bother to ask Kate to check on his daughter, speaks volumes.

tanszi wrote:what three abducted children are you referring to Panda,  the two in Ireland have been found to be children of their parents.

the little girl in Greece tanzi

Another bit of indo from the EBook...."John Hill, Boss of the Ocean Club, said that despite the report by a Family Friend that the shutters to the couple's
 
apartment were broken , there was no sign that anyone had forced their way in while the McCanns ate at the tapas restaurant 200 yds away.
 
CNN Piers Morgan Tonight: Where is Madeleine McCann.? Aired May 11, 2011-21.00
 
Morgan: Madeleine had a very distinctive eye pattern , didn't she? Tell me about that Kate in  case people see somebody they think may be Madeleine , tell me about her eye..
K.MCCANN: If I'm honest , we havn't put too much emphasis on her eye because I think you have to be very close to her to see it."
 
Above this pargraph is the " advert "Please LOOK (including the distinctive eye used on their "findmadeleine" website:lmao: