Madeleine McCann General Discussion Thread #27

[jigzy]

Another one...

:liar:

I remember a poster (initials JJ) on another forum, in early days, saying that she'd holidayed there and that the locks were as MO says, double lock from outside, in which case one would need to unlock with key from inside to get out, or single lock in which case one could get out by turning the handle on the inside. I don't know if she was being truthful or not, BUT she was saying this BEFORE MO's statement came out.

Just what my old brain remembers.

 

[Fierljepper]

- However, she wants to stress that immediately afterwards, she went outside the apartment in order to ascertain whether she would be able to raise the shutters by hand from the outside, and found it was impossible for her. Consequently she infers that at the time of her arrival at the apartment the window would have been closed.

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/DIANNE_WEBSTER_11-MAY07.htm

Thanks Hexe. I have read the full statement and believe the relevant quote is:

- She added that she did not remember too much detail about the scenario that she found in that bedroom, other that what she said above. However, she states that KATE had repeatedly commented that, on arriving at the bedroom, she had found the window of the room, with its shutter, both open. Yet, she [DW] did not notice, while at the entrance to the room, if the window was or was not open.
- However, she wants to stress that immediately afterwards, she went outside the apartment in order to ascertain whether she would be able to raise the shutters by hand from the outside, and found it was impossible for her. Consequently she infers that at the time of her arrival at the apartment the window would have been closed.

That is not a very clear statement by DW. First of all she doesn't explicitly state whether or not she was trying the shutters of that specific 5A children's bedroom window (there are more) and then she INFERS from not being able to open the shutters that the window behind it also must have been closed. That inference only holds when you assume the window was opened by somebody trying to access from the outside, but it fails when you assume the window was opened from the inside. In my scenario the window was opened from the inside and maybe only the window was opened (hence the wind still closing the door as observed by Kate), since that doesn't make much noise or reveal any inside actions to the outside world. So, the intruder then deliberately did not open the shutters (that could be raised quickly anyway via the chord on the left in case of an emergency escape).

In that case KM could also have made exactly the same wrong inference about an outside intruder when she saw the window open and Maddie gone, hence she also assumed the shutter has (or had) been tampered with, but in reality it wasn't.

So, I believe this could pretty well explain the apparently different observations between KM and DW and in my scenario this would become an abductor preparing a possible escape route with minimal noise by only opening the window.

I obviously don't know if the above is true, but these sharp challenges allow me to sharpen my scenario again a bit further!

 

[Hexe]

I am not suggesting anything.

Just saying, as one of the option it would not be impossible for the potential burglar to take Madeleine for this or that reason.

Well, the only people Maddie saw on a daily basis, and knew them well enough to recognise them in the darkness, apart from her parents and siblings, were the Tapas 7 and nanny Baker. I don't think she would be able to recognise a maintenance man or a waiter, seeing them in a pitch black room.

Like for example a burglar enters, not aware Madeleine is in ( is this possible, yes!) and she sees him/her and she screams.. he holds her mouth not to scream.. at that point he hears for example someone entering, and this is Matt Oldfield..he/she is still holding Madeleine.. Oldfield listens and leaves.. burglar not sure if the pathway is clear.. he/she opens the windows too look.

Trampling in a total darkness through a crowded room, with an unwilling child in his arms and holding her mouth. Sorry, it's not possible.

still holding Madeleine who is at this time unconscious ..not sure what to do.. he/she takes Madeleine with him/her as she has seen him/her and even if she doesn't know him/her there is something distinctive in his/her look and he/she is frightened she could tell ...For example!

The room was pitch black, as the shutters were down and the curtains were pulled, according to McCanns. What distinctive look had that burglar that Maddie saw it in a complete darkness? Was he glowing or what?

By the way, I'd love to know how did they, McCanns and M. Oldfield, do these checkups in a totally dark apartment (all the shutters down!) without turning the lights on.

 

[Hexe]

So, I believe this could pretty well explain the apparently different observations between KM and DW and in my scenario this would become an abductor preparing a possible escape route with minimal noise by only opening the window.

But why, oh why, would the perp risk walking across the pitch black room, full of the sleeping children, and crowded with furniture, to open a window, when he had an unlocked door at his disposal and the window in the empty master bedroom?

And why to prepare the additional escape route? Just grab the kid and run, before someone comes!

 

[Redgoblin]

But why, oh why, would the perp risk walking across the pitch black room, full of the sleeping children, and crowded with furniture, to open a window, when he had an unlocked door at his disposal and the window in the empty master bedroom?

And why to prepare the additional escape route? Just grab the kid and run, before someone comes!

He would of done if he attempted a break in and the shutters jammed or if he was was disturbed, he may of left them open.

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

 

[haden]

I remember a poster (initials JJ) on another forum, in early days, saying that she'd holidayed there and that the locks were as MO says, double lock from outside, in which case one would need to unlock with key from inside to get out, or single lock in which case one could get out by turning the handle on the inside. I don't know if she was being truthful or not, BUT she was saying this BEFORE MO's statement came out.

Just what my old brain remembers.

Yes, she said this, that you have to learn how to use these keys. The turning is a bit different. Kind of turning once, or turning twice.. there was some system to it.
Wasn't it her who also said about the staff entering even if these doors were locked.. i.e that the staff can enter at any time?

 

[Hexe]

He would of done if he attempted a break in and the shutters jammed or if he was was disturbed, he may of left them open.

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

The patio door were unlocked. No need to break in. And there was no evidence of any break in.

 

[Fierljepper]

But why, oh why, would the perp risk walking across the pitch black room, full of the sleeping children, and crowded with furniture, to open a window, when he had an unlocked door at his disposal and the window (and hence the curtains) in the empty master bedroom?

And why to prepare the additional escape route? Just grab the kid and run, before someone comes!

Since it was prepped and planned out. So, if this was all decided in the spur of the moment, I agree, it would be a 'hit and run'. But if this was carefully planned out and all risks where being hedged as much as possible, then opening the window as a precaution is a possible scenario.

I can however also think of an easier explanation. If you have decided to leave via the front door, then you need to check whether the coast is clear outside 5A, hence you open the window to pick up any sound/foot steps etc., and listen carefully for a moment or even peak through the shutter blades (don't know if this is possible) and then make the move. Picking up sound from the front of 5A, could be a sufficient reason.

 

[jigzy]

Yes, she said this, that you have to learn how to use these keys. The turning is a bit different. Kind of turning once, or turning twice.. there was some system to it.
Wasn't it her who also said about the staff entering even if these doors were locked.. i.e that the staff can enter at any time?

No, I don't recall her saying this at all, but I may be mistaken.

 

[Hexe]

Since it was prepped and planned out. So, if this was all decided in the spur of the moment, I agree, it would be a 'hit and run'. But if this was carefully planned out and all risks where being hedged as much as possible, then opening the window as a precaution is a possible scenario.

I can however also think of an easier explanation. If you have decided to leave via the front door, then you need to check whether the coast is clear outside 5A, hence you open the window to pick up any sound/foot steps etc., and listen carefully for a moment or even peak through the shutter blades (don't know if this is possible) and then make the move. Picking up sound from the front of 5A, could be a sufficient reason.

But, as I said, maneuvring through a dark room, full of sleeping children was a risk in itself! And if it was planned, why not to take a helper, who would stay outside and warn the perp in case someone was approaching?

 

[haden]

Well, the only people Maddie saw on a daily basis, and knew them well enough to recognise them in the darkness, apart from her parents and siblings, were the Tapas 7 and nanny Baker. I don't think she would be able to recognise a maintenance man or a waiter, seeing them in a pitch black room.




Trampling in a total darkness through a crowded room, with an unwilling child in his arms and holding her mouth. Sorry, it's not possible.




The room was pitch black, as the shutters were down and the curtains were pulled, according to McCanns. What distinctive look had that burglar that Maddie saw it in a complete darkness? Was he glowing or what?

By the way, I'd love to know how did they, McCanns and M. Oldfield, do these checkups in a totally dark apartment (all the shutters down!) without turning the lights on.

How would you know for sure the level of darkness?
How would you know for sure who Madeleine is able to recognise?
How would you know for sure how different people react in different moment and what actions they are prepared to do or not prepared to do.
Crowded rooms someone wouldn't even notice.
We are all different and have different thoughts which lead us to different actions.

 

[Fierljepper]

But, as I said, maneuvring through a dark room, full of sleeping children was a risk in itself! And if it was planned, why not to take a helper, who would stay outside and warn the perp in case someone was approaching?

Because that only makes it more complicated and I like to keep it simple. Note that opening the curtains (and then the window) would already give you extra light. Can't believe the room is still pitch black then. Much better and safer than f.i. using a flash light that always can be seen from the front and the back of the building. So, pretty much a pro we are dealing with here.

 

[Hexe]

How would you know for sure the level of darkness?

McCanns stated the shutters were down, the curtains pulled. It is a reasonable assumption, that in such conditions the room was very, very dark, especially at night.

How would you know for sure who Madeleine is able to recognise?

I am pretty sure that if I awoke in the night and saw someone in the darkness, I would not be able to tell anything about how the person looked. And I am an adult woman, with a huge vocabulary, not a scared three years old girl.

How would you know for sure how different people react in different moment and what actions they are prepared to do or not prepared to do.
Crowded rooms someone wouldn't even notice.

Turn off the lights in your living room and try to walk across it. And count how many times you bumped into something. People crash into the furniture even in their own, well known bedrooms (how many times I hit my big toe against that rocking chair that stands near my bed... And I know very well that it is there) and we are talking here about a dude walking through the room virtually unknown to him, crowded with beds, cots and other stuff, in a thick darkness.

 

[Hexe]

Because that only makes it more complicated and I like to keep it simple. Note that opening the curtains (and then the window) would already give you extra light. Can't believe the room is still pitch black then. Much better and safer than f.i. using a flash light that always can be seen from the front and the back of the building. So, pretty much a pro we are dealing with here.

Yup. Especially that maneuvering between the cots is totally safe and one hundrend percent pro. If there was an intruder, he did not bother with opening the window. He just took Maddie and went away.

 

[haden]

I don't believe Kate McCann is lying about the open window.

IMO what we have for sure is:

1. open window
2. dogs route thrugh the main door to the car park
3. unusual visitors like charity men
4. burglaries
5. smiths sighting which might or might not be Madeleine
6. person(s) did not react to 1 mill pounds reward

 

[Hexe]

I don't believe Kate McCann is lying about the open window.

IMO what we have for sure is:

1. open window

...that nobody seen, except of the McCanns. I wouldn't call it "for sure".

 

[Fierljepper]

I don't believe Kate McCann is lying about the open window.

IMO what we have for sure is:

1. open window
2. dogs route thrugh the main door to the car park
3. unusual visitors like charity men
4. burglaries
5. smiths sighting which might or might not be Madeleine
6. person(s) did not react to 1 mill pounds reward

I don't think she is lying either, since also GM states clearly that:

The deponent ran into the apartment accompanied by the rest of the group who, at the time, were seated at the table. When he arrived at the bedroom he first noticed that the door was completely open, the window was also open to one side, the shutters almost fully raised, the curtains drawn back, MADELEINE's bed was empty but the twins continued sleeping in their cots. He clarifies that according to what KATE told him, that was the scenario that she found when she entered the apartment.

Then he closed the shutters, made his way to the outside and tried to open them, which he managed to do, much to his surprise given that he thought that that was only possible from the inside.

So, in the scenario of an intruder, we obviously have to assume the McCann's speak the truth, so that implies that the shutter was also opened by the intruder with the risk of inducing a lot of noise, but also a good escape route if needed.

 

[Linda7NJ]

I don't believe Kate McCann is lying about the open window.

IMO what we have for sure is:

1. open window
2. dogs route thrugh the main door to the car park
3. unusual visitors like charity men
4. burglaries
5. smiths sighting which might or might not be Madeleine
6. person(s) did not react to 1 mill pounds reward

My scenario is much simpler and makes more sense. The McCanns lied. IMO


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[haden]

Well, we now have two excellent police forces working on the case which is thanks god reopened. They have much more details about the case than we do.
I hope they find the solution.

 

[Linda7NJ]

Well, we now have two excellent police forces working on the case which is thanks god reopened. They have much more details about the case than we do.
I hope they find the solution.

I not only want them to find a solution, I want to see Madeleine get the justice she deserves.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk