Madeleine McCann found?

[Gem2626]

Links here: http://www.[link removed]/show/hkdk52

I don't think someone's tweet counts as a reliable source. Would you believe me if I said on twitter I was abducted by Aliens?

Also, if this person did call their call centre that doesn't mean that the call centre staff was even correct. I'm sure we've all had experiences of getting through to a complete muppet in a call centre. Maybe we should all call them and see what answers we get...

Of course the link I posted could be brought into question but all I see is a retail company, with no ulterior motive, writing about a new product launch. The date of the article is 31st August 2007 why would they write an article about a product that was already on the market?

 

[brit1981]

calpol is not a sedative, and calpol night was not on the market until september 2007. And as calpol night was marketed as helping children sleep, there is no reason for the mccanns to lie about using it for this reason as it would be legal. If anything they would have a huge case against the company that made it.

And so what if someone on twitter says something. Elvis and the number 10 cat have their own twitter accounts if we believe everything on twitter.

The fact is I have linked to the evidence I have provided and others have not linked to theirs or linked to primary sources rather than just rumour sources. And as I have said not one person has accounted for how the body was removed from the flat by the mccanns that evening, soemthing the PJ questioned in their final report and made clear was a major sticking point in terms of the "parents did it theory", and not one person has been able to demonstrate how on earth, if the dogs are accurate, madeleine died and yet the only two places where he rbody lay or where the odour transferred to in the entire flat were behind he sofa and in the wardrobe, because if the mccanns are guilty and if madeleine did die in the flat it measn that the mccanns managed to not only dispose of the body that evening, but did so without the body touching more than two places, or them transfering the odour to anything.

It is also untrue that her father said they used calpol as a sedative. He said they never used sedatives, and later said that in fact the only medicine they sed was calpol, a common non-sedative given to children in the UK. Not once has her father contradicted her about sedatives. Here I Hvae linked to the interview. If anyone has any primary sources where the father contridicts his staement in this telvise dinterview, woudl they mind linking to them.

Madeleine's Grandad 'It's A Farce' - Sky News - YouTube

here is transcript of relevant bit

Reporter - Is it possible that Kate with her medical background, might have, wanted to help Madeleine to go to sleep that night?

Brian Healy - Not at all.

Reporter - Even out of kindness, she certainly wouldm't have given her...

Brian Healy - Not even out of kindness, I think they may have used Calpol like most mothers...nothing...it's just outrageous to even think about it. First and foremost was their kids. They would’nt have done that.

 

[jigzy]

I don't think someone's tweet counts as a reliable source. Would you believe me if I said on twitter I was abducted by Aliens?

Also, if this person did call their call centre that doesn't mean that the call centre staff was even correct. I'm sure we've all had experiences of getting through to a complete muppet in a call centre. Maybe we should all call them and see what answers we get...

Of course the link I posted could be brought into question but all I see is a retail company, with no ulterior motive, writing about a new product launch. The date of the article is 31st August 2007 why would they write an article about a product that was already on the market?

I said to look at LINKS on that tweet

And the reason is:
"Steps Taken after Assessment
A variation was granted on 15/06/2007 to change the PSUR reporting period from 6 months to 3 years for all three products."

The product was already on the market

 

[Gem2626]

Regarding Calpol/calpol night.

This is really irrelevant. It was banned in the UK as it had been REMOVED from the shelves, obviously due to risks for children. It was reworked and put back on the shelves as a slightly different product (safer).

The McCann quite probably bought a bottle or six at the Faro Airport. They were regular travellers with small children so this is quite likely to be something they did on every trip, in countries where it was still available in its original form (dangerous).

They could have given them a shot of valium for all I know. Or a cocktail.

:dunno:

The point of the "Calpol" is that it is another example of a McCann lie.

Kate McCann claimed to have never used this product for a sedative, yet her own father innocently informed LE about the "sleep chart" and Calpol use at home.

Just another lie.

:cow:

Agree, if they did sedate Madeleine they could have used any means to do so. Kates dad said no such thing regarding the calpol though.

Link to primary source
http://madeleinemythsexposed.pbworks.com/w/page/39077700/Rebuttal of "Fact" 13

 

[Gem2626]

I said to look at LINKS on that tweet

And the reason is:
"Steps Taken after Assessment
A variation was granted on 15/06/2007 to change the PSUR reporting period from 6 months to 3 years for all three products."

The product was already on the market

This does not mean the product was already on the market.

"Once a medical product is registered in the EU, Periodic Safety Update Reports (PSUR) must be submitted, even if the product is not marketed. These PSURs are prepared at set intervals during the lifetime of the product.

http://www.mhra.gov.uk/Howweregulat...icants/PeriodicSafetyUpdateReports/CON2030706

ETA- More info on PSUR's. It's simply a part of the registration process

"There is European agreement that the PSUR cycle for generic products may move directly to the three-yearly cycle in line with the brand leader rather than start with six-monthly PSURs, unless potential safety issues that may require monitoring are identified in the Safety Assessment included within the registration dossier.

The request to amend the PSUR cycle should be included in the registration dossier and supported in the Safety Assessment. This will be agreed as part of the MA approval. If a request to amend the PSUR cycle is not received then the PSUR cycle will default back to 6 monthly reports for two years, annually for two years and then every three years thereafter"

http://www.mhra.gov.uk/Howweregulat...icants/PeriodicSafetyUpdateReports/CON2030706



So basically as part of the registration process they requested that the PSUR's to be done every 3 years instead of the automatic 6 months. This was granted based on the results from the safety assessments that had been carried out.

 

[SapphireSteel]

This does not mean the product was already on the market.

"Once a medical product is registered in the EU, Periodic Safety Update Reports (PSUR) must be submitted, even if the product is not marketed. These PSURs are prepared at set intervals during the lifetime of the product.

http://www.mhra.gov.uk/Howweregulat...icants/PeriodicSafetyUpdateReports/CON2030706

ETA- More info on PSUR's. It's simply a part of the registration process

"There is European agreement that the PSUR cycle for generic products may move directly to the three-yearly cycle in line with the brand leader rather than start with six-monthly PSURs, unless potential safety issues that may require monitoring are identified in the Safety Assessment included within the registration dossier.

The request to amend the PSUR cycle should be included in the registration dossier and supported in the Safety Assessment. This will be agreed as part of the MA approval. If a request to amend the PSUR cycle is not received then the PSUR cycle will default back to 6 monthly reports for two years, annually for two years and then every three years thereafter"

http://www.mhra.gov.uk/Howweregulat...icants/PeriodicSafetyUpdateReports/CON2030706



So basically as part of the registration process they requested that the PSUR's to be done every 3 years instead of the automatic 6 months. This was granted based on the results from the safety assessments that had been carried out.

The Calpol is entirely irrelevant in and of itself.

I personally doubt Calpol is what killed Madeleine.

I suspect she had an overdose of something far more potent.

 

[Gem2626]

The Calpol is entirely irrelevant in and of itself.

I personally doubt Calpol is what killed Madeleine.

I suspect she had an overdose of something far more potent.

I agree. It doesn't matter what 'team' you're on the calpol is irrelevant. Yet it's still getting brought up and I bet if I was to come back to this thread in a years time then it will still be getting brought up :banghead:

Someone somewhere suggested it as a theory and then the media jumped all over it and added fuel to the fire by misquoting the grandad.

Of course if they were to have sedated Madeleine they'd use something stronger than calpol. It's a good theory but at this time there is no evidence to back it up.

 

[brit1981]

Exactly, I never got the calpol thing. Of all the things to accuse them of sedating her with why choose a non-sedative children's medicine. Especially as children often like calpol (I know I would have guzzled a whole bottle of it if I could have got hold of it as a child, I loved the taste), so it would be perfectly possible for them to have claimed she got hold of it herself from one of their bags and drank it.
At the moment there is no evidence they sedated her at all though, although obviously no evidence they did not, but innocent until proven guilty etc. And it still begs the question, that if the dogs were correct, why did madeleine die of an overdose behind the sofa or in the wardrobe rather than in her bed or sleeping on the sofa? If her parents were there when she died then it makes sense that if the had given her a sedative they would have given it to her before putting her to bed not let her run around playing on the sofa. And if they left her in her bed in the flat and she got up and somehow died behind the sofa, then she cannot have had enough to kill her otherwise she would not have been capable of waking up and getting out of bed. So if we believe the dog it just does not make sense that she died of an overdose. If the dog alerts are correct (and we all know I do not think the dog alert alone can be relied on as evidence of a dead body), then it makes more sense she died of some sort of injury behind the sofa. But the flaw in this is that if the mccanns had been there, then why cover it up, children do fall accidently all the time, tragic accidents happen. And if they were not there, but at dinner, how on earth did they in the five mintes they were each away from the table find her dead, come up with a plan, hide her body etc. It just does not seem physically possible to me.

 

[YidArmyRach]

Ignoring the calpol debate, what has always puzzled me - as a mother of 5 - is how did they know their children would sleep non-stop whilst they were out?

Children have nightmares, wake up needing the toilet, wake up wanting a drink, talk in their sleep so disturbing others, become sick due to exposure to the sun etc etc. There are many reasons why a child wakes up - probably more so in a strange room, whilst on holiday, and out of their usual routine.

So, how could the McCanns be confident that whilst they were eating, out of sight and out of ear shot of their very young children, that none of them would wake up whatsoever during the 3 hours they were out (excluding the odd minute every now and again when someone would listen at the door?).

Either their children were the most reliable, heavy sleepers ever ........... which doesn't seem to be the case with Maddie's sleep chart ......... or something made Kate and Gerry absolutely confident that none of those children would wake up that night.

Having brought up 5 children over the last 18 years, I know for a fact that it is not unusual for a child to wake up - some of mine did pretty much every night for the first 4 or 5 years of their lives. Put more than one pre-school child in a room overnight, and I'd say its almost guaranteed.

 

[SapphireSteel]

Ignoring the calpol debate, what has always puzzled me - as a mother of 5 - is how did they know their children would sleep non-stop whilst they were out?

Children have nightmares, wake up needing the toilet, wake up wanting a drink, talk in their sleep so disturbing others, become sick due to exposure to the sun etc etc. There are many reasons why a child wakes up - probably more so in a strange room, whilst on holiday, and out of their usual routine.

So, how could the McCanns be confident that whilst they were eating, out of sight and out of ear shot of their very young children, that none of them would wake up whatsoever during the 3 hours they were out (excluding the odd minute every now and again when someone would listen at the door?).

Either their children were the most reliable, heavy sleepers ever ........... which doesn't seem to be the case with Maddie's sleep chart ......... or something made Kate and Gerry absolutely confident that none of those children would wake up that night.

Having brought up 5 children over the last 18 years, I know for a fact that it is not unusual for a child to wake up - some of mine did pretty much every night for the first 4 or 5 years of their lives. Put more than one pre-school child in a room overnight, and I'd say its almost guaranteed.

The fact is they did it every night.

One night in particular, the children woke up and cried for approximately 90 minutes.

Both Kate and Gerry admit Madeleine asked them why they hadn't come when she and her baby brother cried.

Instead of staying in for the final evening after this happened, they went out regardless, with the actual knowledge their children were waking and were crying.

What sort of parents are these who would willingly inflict such distress on their children?

Or, did they attempt to ensure the children didn't wake crying and ruin the final evening of their holiday?

:cow:

 

[jigzy]

Ignoring the calpol debate, what has always puzzled me - as a mother of 5 - is how did they know their children would sleep non-stop whilst they were out?

Children have nightmares, wake up needing the toilet, wake up wanting a drink, talk in their sleep so disturbing others, become sick due to exposure to the sun etc etc. There are many reasons why a child wakes up - probably more so in a strange room, whilst on holiday, and out of their usual routine.

So, how could the McCanns be confident that whilst they were eating, out of sight and out of ear shot of their very young children, that none of them would wake up whatsoever during the 3 hours they were out (excluding the odd minute every now and again when someone would listen at the door?).

Either their children were the most reliable, heavy sleepers ever ........... which doesn't seem to be the case with Maddie's sleep chart ......... or something made Kate and Gerry absolutely confident that none of those children would wake up that night.

Having brought up 5 children over the last 18 years, I know for a fact that it is not unusual for a child to wake up - some of mine did pretty much every night for the first 4 or 5 years of their lives. Put more than one pre-school child in a room overnight, and I'd say its almost guaranteed.

Some parents let their children 'cry it out', an idea I find puzzling to say the least, most counter-intuitive. However, with an unlocked door (and ajar inner door I think) added to the notion of waking, how could the parents possibly guarantee M's safety, even just within the apartment, even minus an intruder?

 

[brit1981]

Ignoring the calpol debate, what has always puzzled me - as a mother of 5 - is how did they know their children would sleep non-stop whilst they were out?

Children have nightmares, wake up needing the toilet, wake up wanting a drink, talk in their sleep so disturbing others, become sick due to exposure to the sun etc etc. There are many reasons why a child wakes up - probably more so in a strange room, whilst on holiday, and out of their usual routine.

So, how could the McCanns be confident that whilst they were eating, out of sight and out of ear shot of their very young children, that none of them would wake up whatsoever during the 3 hours they were out (excluding the odd minute every now and again when someone would listen at the door?).

Either their children were the most reliable, heavy sleepers ever ........... which doesn't seem to be the case with Maddie's sleep chart ......... or something made Kate and Gerry absolutely confident that none of those children would wake up that night.

Having brought up 5 children over the last 18 years, I know for a fact that it is not unusual for a child to wake up - some of mine did pretty much every night for the first 4 or 5 years of their lives. Put more than one pre-school child in a room overnight, and I'd say its almost guaranteed.

They did not know they would not wake up, which is why they checked them every half hour every night they went to dinner according to witnesses. people have claimed this is untrue, but so far the wintess statements tally up with the claim they checked them every night they were at dinner. If they knew they would sleep through why check them at all?

I think it is important to remember that what the mccanns did was in no way unusual in the EU. A huge number of people use nanny listening services on holiday, where they leave the children and a nanny just listens outside the door every half an hour. People may disagree with this, but the fact is it is legal and popular. At the time of the abduction MW offered it in most resorts, but not PDL as it was not campus style, but spread throughout the village so a nanny could not complete the circuit every half an hour. However the mccanns friends had used the listening service at another MW resort the year previous, and said how good it was, and so they made their own listening service, where instead of a nanny listening at the door they did it themselves. Again we may or may not agree with this, but at the end of the day it is used by thousands (even now, although MW no longer offer the service). If we are going to use this to suspect the mccanns, it means that thousands across europe are just as suspicious since it is a common practice. Some people (inc. some of the tapas nine) just used those listening monitors, which are all well and good for crying, but just like the nanny listenins service do not provide much help if the child starts choking and you cannot get there in time, or if someone switches it off from the child's end.

And no-one has been able to confirm that it was madeleine who was crying. Kate McCann has stated madeleine told her that madeleine and sean were crying the night before, but also says that she never heard them crying on her checks. If that was untrue then why did Kate tell the police about it, as the only source for the claim about what madeleine said is kate herself.

 

[fabgod]

how many of the group were using this checking system that is so successful in the EU? you seem to forget that not everybody on here live in the USA lol!
all of them 2 of them
5 of them?

It would be interesting to see how many actually thought it was safe and I wonder, did the other parents also leave their doors open?

 

[SapphireSteel]

how many of the group were using this checking system that is so successful in the EU? you seem to forget that not everybody on here live in the USA lol!
all of them 2 of them
5 of them?

It would be interesting to see how many actually thought it was safe and I wonder, did the other parents also leave their doors open?

The other parents locked their doors.

It is unknown why the McCann chose not to, by their own admission the "checks" consisted of mainly listening not viewing, so in fact the others just walked past their own windows instead of actually walking in.

It must be remembered that the "checking" system was only in place for the final night of their holiday.

If Kate's family was being "watched" as she claims, the "watcher" would no doubt have helped himself to one or more of the McCann children much sooner than the final evening, as there was no "checking" on any other night and the "watcher" would obviously know that.

I think the important question is -

Why did the McCann claim this was a "family" holiday when their tiny children were parked in the creche (with strangers) every single day for every single hour it was open, then left alone again in a strange foreign apartment every single night?

Who here thinks this meets the definition of a "family holiday"?

Who here thinks this is an acceptable level of care for three babies whose parents were free, relaxed, on holiday with plenty of spare time?

:dunno:

 

[brit1981]

The checking system was in use every night of the holiday according to the witness statements in the PJ files. I have not seen any primary sources saying it was not, has anyone else?

The listening service which is popular in the EU, was not in use at the PDL resort as it was not a campus style resort. But all of the mccanns holiday companions with the exception of the couple with the monitor used the checking system. I think the mccanns were th eonly ones who left the doors unlocked, because their patio door (which could not be locked or unlocked from the outside) was on the main path, whereas the others were up little dark alleys, and one of them did not have a patio door that opened on to the path.

Also the night of the disappearence was not intended to be their final night on the resort.

As for leaving their children at children's clubs this again is normal for these style resorts. They hire lots of nannies etc that can do activities with them. A bit like playschemes or day camps. And considering these clubs are really popular and resorts advertise the fact they have them obviously plenty of people think they are OK. And again thouands use the listening services, so obviously plenty of people think they are fine. Whether we agree with it is neither here nor there, as the PJ stated in their final report that the mccanns had not committed neglect.

 

[fabgod]

So the McCanns left the patio door open, the other door was apparently dodgy they had the apartment that was nearest to the road so were in a vulnerable position as to an opportunist thief or even "abductor".
The Paynes had a baby monitor
Tanner and O'Brien had a baby monitor
so that just leaves the Oldfields, the Oldfields had the apartment next to the McCanns, so it wasn't down a dark little path (none were) it was adjacent to the McCann apartment in the same block adjoining the McCann apartment, The Oldfields had a patio door, they locked it at night according to Rachel Oldfields Rogatory statement
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RACHAEL-OLDFIELD-ROGATORY.htm

Matt Oldfield stayed in the apartment on the sunday evening
Rachel Oldfield stayed in the apartment on the Wednesday evening
On the Tuesday or Wednesday evening Russell O'Brien stayed in the apartment because his daughter was ill

Strangely, all the Tapas group dined out at the Millenium Bar on the first evening, the saturday - with the children, but that never happened again, instead, they all decided to leave their children in the apartments for the other nights.
Personally I find that odd, that every couple should decide to leave the children every other night, even though we know some of them had diarrhoea, were sick, had woken up crying, had mentioned that the parents hadn't come when they were crying etc, yet not one of the couples decided to take their children to the restaurant with them?

SO in fact, the only times according to statements that every couple was at the Tapas bar were monday Thursday and one of tuesday or wednesday evenings (due to RoB staying with his daughter).
Of those two or three evenings, only the McCanns and the Oldfields didnt have a baby monitor and the only couple who left the doors open were the McCanns.
The apartment that was least secluded was the McCanns as it bordered the main road and the street lighting, but the other apartments were all in the same vicinity, none of them were down dark alleyways they were all within one apartment of each other, only the Paynes were not on the ground floor but were on the first floor above in between the Oldfield and Tanner apartments.

There is a photo here about threee quarters the way down the page of the apartment locations.
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/APARTMENT.htm

According to the statements each couple checked their own children, the McCanns never checked anyone elses children but apparently Oldfield and Payne checked the McCanns children.
Again according to the statements then, sunday and wednesday, the Oldfields would not have checked the children because one of them was with the children
Tuesday or Wednesday O Brien was with his children
so potentially only monday and thursday would have been evenings when all the Tapas friends were out together, if "an abductor" had been watching, they would not have known the reasons why not all the group were out on certain evenings which makes it a bit of a stretch to suggest that "the abductor" could have been watching the movements for some time, because there was in fact virtually no pattern of events

 

[SapphireSteel]

So the McCanns left the patio door open, the other door was apparently dodgy they had the apartment that was nearest to the road so were in a vulnerable position as to an opportunist thief or even "abductor".
The Paynes had a baby monitor
Tanner and O'Brien had a baby monitor
so that just leaves the Oldfields, the Oldfields had the apartment next to the McCanns, so it wasn't down a dark little path (none were) it was adjacent to the McCann apartment in the same block adjoining the McCann apartment, The Oldfields had a patio door, they locked it at night according to Rachel Oldfields Rogatory statement
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RACHAEL-OLDFIELD-ROGATORY.htm

Matt Oldfield stayed in the apartment on the sunday evening
Rachel Oldfield stayed in the apartment on the Wednesday evening
On the Tuesday or Wednesday evening Russell O'Brien stayed in the apartment because his daughter was ill

Strangely, all the Tapas group dined out at the Millenium Bar on the first evening, the saturday - with the children, but that never happened again, instead, they all decided to leave their children in the apartments for the other nights.
Personally I find that odd, that every couple should decide to leave the children every other night, even though we know some of them had diarrhoea, were sick, had woken up crying, had mentioned that the parents hadn't come when they were crying etc, yet not one of the couples decided to take their children to the restaurant with them?

SO in fact, the only times according to statements that every couple was at the Tapas bar were monday Thursday and one of tuesday or wednesday evenings (due to RoB staying with his daughter).
Of those two or three evenings, only the McCanns and the Oldfields didnt have a baby monitor and the only couple who left the doors open were the McCanns.
The apartment that was least secluded was the McCanns as it bordered the main road and the street lighting, but the other apartments were all in the same vicinity, none of them were down dark alleyways they were all within one apartment of each other, only the Paynes were not on the ground floor but were on the first floor above in between the Oldfield and Tanner apartments.

There is a photo here about threee quarters the way down the page of the apartment locations.
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/APARTMENT.htm

According to the statements each couple checked their own children, the McCanns never checked anyone elses children but apparently Oldfield and Payne checked the McCanns children.
Again according to the statements then, sunday and wednesday, the Oldfields would not have checked the children because one of them was with the children
Tuesday or Wednesday O Brien was with his children
so potentially only monday and thursday would have been evenings when all the Tapas friends were out together, if "an abductor" had been watching, they would not have known the reasons why not all the group were out on certain evenings which makes it a bit of a stretch to suggest that "the abductor" could have been watching the movements for some time, because there was in fact virtually no pattern of events

:goodpost:

On top of that, Madeleine and her baby brother cried unattended for 90+ minutes on the evening of the 2nd.

Pamela Fenn, unfortunate neighbour, got to sit there and listen to them.

Of course, being English, she wouldn't dream of "interfering".

:banghead:

I would have called reception and complained about it at the time, gone to check myself possibly, and spoken to the parents the next chance I got...but that's me. I find children crying unattended to be very upsetting. You can hear the fear in their voices.

I believe the well-being of little children is a community responsibility. I probably would have stuck my nose in.

:furious:

 

[SapphireSteel]

So the McCanns left the patio door open, the other door was apparently dodgy they had the apartment that was nearest to the road so were in a vulnerable position as to an opportunist thief or even "abductor".
The Paynes had a baby monitor
Tanner and O'Brien had a baby monitor
so that just leaves the Oldfields, the Oldfields had the apartment next to the McCanns, so it wasn't down a dark little path (none were) it was adjacent to the McCann apartment in the same block adjoining the McCann apartment, The Oldfields had a patio door, they locked it at night according to Rachel Oldfields Rogatory statement
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RACHAEL-OLDFIELD-ROGATORY.htm

Matt Oldfield stayed in the apartment on the sunday evening
Rachel Oldfield stayed in the apartment on the Wednesday evening
On the Tuesday or Wednesday evening Russell O'Brien stayed in the apartment because his daughter was ill

Strangely, all the Tapas group dined out at the Millenium Bar on the first evening, the saturday - with the children, but that never happened again, instead, they all decided to leave their children in the apartments for the other nights.
Personally I find that odd, that every couple should decide to leave the children every other night, even though we know some of them had diarrhoea, were sick, had woken up crying, had mentioned that the parents hadn't come when they were crying etc, yet not one of the couples decided to take their children to the restaurant with them?

SO in fact, the only times according to statements that every couple was at the Tapas bar were monday Thursday and one of tuesday or wednesday evenings (due to RoB staying with his daughter).
Of those two or three evenings, only the McCanns and the Oldfields didnt have a baby monitor and the only couple who left the doors open were the McCanns.
The apartment that was least secluded was the McCanns as it bordered the main road and the street lighting, but the other apartments were all in the same vicinity, none of them were down dark alleyways they were all within one apartment of each other, only the Paynes were not on the ground floor but were on the first floor above in between the Oldfield and Tanner apartments.

There is a photo here about threee quarters the way down the page of the apartment locations.
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/APARTMENT.htm

According to the statements each couple checked their own children, the McCanns never checked anyone elses children but apparently Oldfield and Payne checked the McCanns children.
Again according to the statements then, sunday and wednesday, the Oldfields would not have checked the children because one of them was with the children
Tuesday or Wednesday O Brien was with his children
so potentially only monday and thursday would have been evenings when all the Tapas friends were out together, if "an abductor" had been watching, they would not have known the reasons why not all the group were out on certain evenings which makes it a bit of a stretch to suggest that "the abductor" could have been watching the movements for some time, because there was in fact virtually no pattern of events

Furthermore, if the "checks" were as regular as claimed, the abductor went at the worst possible time he could.

This does not fit with a careful, stalking, observant, organised abductor.

Gerry has said the abductor may have been right there in the apartment with him when he went to the toilet, in the wardrobe or cupboard or something.

I think he was too Gerry, but not in the way you mean. I think you saw him in the mirror.

:furious:

The abductor not only chose to hit when the supposed father/protector was on his regular scheduled CHECK, he also chose to stroll across in front of Tanner on her regular scheduled CHECK.

Stalking/watching/planning/checking FAIL.

Yet this magician still managed to get away (with a dead child, another abductor FAIL), leaving not a trace.

Amazing.

It seems to be all about the McCann being offended and/or inconvenienced. Nothing I can see in their behaviour even hints at grief or regret that there was once a beautiful, innocent little girl that they lost. Even Kate's book is all about Kate and how Kate felt, with very few passages devoted to describing her daughter.

They have also never, ever expressed even one shred of responsibility for their actions, nor did they physically look at the time, preferring instead to sit in their apartment while the other 200+ staff and guests then LE searched for their daughter for them. The McCann occupied their time by telephoning relatives, telling them about the "abductor" and the "jemmied windows", and complaining about the lack of police attention they felt they were getting. Statements which they then went on to deny ...even though there is rock solid proof that is exactly what they did and said, in the form of witnesses.

ullhair:

:banghead:

 

[brit1981]

The other ground floor flats were accessed by a door that was down a dark alley and therefore very secluded. The patio door one of them had did not open directly onto the main path as the mccanns did. So the mccanns had the only patio door that seemed unsecluded.

The McCanns were not considering abduction, that si why they thought it was OK. they ha dno idea about the attempted robberies, the abuse of other children. If they had they may have avoided the alagrve altogether. The children were asleep in bed, the patio door though unlocked was closed and difficult for a child of that age to open, and then there were two gates to the road.

The Mccanns dined at the tapas bar nearly evry night they were there. It was their child who was abducted so the pattens of the others are nto relevant. the abudctor did not target them, perhaps that si why. It was written in big letter son the tapas bar reservation book that they had a block booking because they were leaving the children nearby in the flats so anyoen coudl ahve seen in. They were seen making half hourly checks each night. So any abductor coudl have watched the flat, seen gerry make his check, then saw geryr leave and just walked in after him. Although the patio door was less secluded that the alley doors of the other flats, the fact was that it wa sunlit had a lot of shrubbery around it, and the chances of anyone looking for the few second sit would have taken for someone to walk in were not great. So gerry walks out, an abductor walks in, picks up the chidl, and walks out the car park door. There wa sno way of knowing gerry woudl stop to talk to jeremy, so the abductor had no reason to think gerry woudl still be in the street, and as for anyone else, what are the chances given the timings that anyone who knew madeleine woudl get close enough to see her face. It was a familyr esort people walked around with children. No-one sees someone walking with a child in a family resort at a time when people are pickign up children from the creche, and assume sit is an abduction. Afterwards people might realise they saw something, but at the time, no-one is going to start screaming abduction.

There is also nothing int he PJ files to back up claims that it was the mccanns who claimed the window had been forced, and that they never looked, this is internet myth. And quite frankly why woudl they not assume the window had been forced if they did not know it could be opened form the outside or assumed it had been opened from the outside not the inside.

The fact is that if we are to believe it is impossible for an abductor to have walked into an unlocked flat, picked a child up, and then walked out again in just a few minutes into the darkened car park and into the night with about ten witnesses seeing a man carrying a child who has not yet come forward it is even harder to belive the mccanns could have gor rid of a body.
madeleine was alive at five thirty, independent witnesses put gerry on the courts from six to seven thirty, independent witness put kate and gery at dinner at eight thirty (the time it began to get dark), and from then onwards they were onlya lone each for about five minutes, and independent witnesses put gerry at the complex at ten too, and the flat was searched at this time by friends, staff etc. after this the mccanns were surrounded by tens of friends, family, police, staff, guests, press, liason officers, consular staff etc. So how did they do it, how did they physically remove a body without being seen in a village they did not know well, on foot, and in a place publicly accessible?

 

[fabgod]

The doors were facing the car park how is that a dark alley?
So now the story is that the other Tapas friends checking is not relevant?
"The abductor" waited for Gerry McCann to leave the apartment by the patio door and then walked in?
Gerry McCann was standing no more than 10 feet fro the entrance to the patio doors talking with Jeremy Wilkins so how did that happen?

Not altogether a plausible argument for an abductor imo