Madeleine McCann general discussion thread #28

[goldengirl57]

Smiths own an apartment or house in the PDL area. This is why they probably know Murat well.


http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/437948/Is-this-the-moment-of-Madeleine-McCann-s-kidnapping

Oh right ok. Didnt know he owned a house in PDL. IF they knew Murat so well surprised he didnt ring them and tell them about the abduction.....also didnt he only arrive in PDL the night before she went? Or did i dream that one.

 

[Inana]

To me the most significant are the search dogs tracks, as they were brought in quite early.

The dogs route is through the front door and to the car park.

Yes.

If we consider the Smith siting as not being Madeleine, that changes a lot.
I have much more faith in tracker dogs than in Mr Grime's dogs (no offence to anyone)

Theory: The kidnapper takes Madeleine out the front door, down the sidewalk to the first area he could cut through to the walkway between the apartments and pool, then into the car park where they simple drive away.

He could have been watching from the car park during the dinner in order to time his opportunity. Coming back to a car along the street would be too chancey, whereas from the walkway, he could make a quick sprint across the street.

All just my own opinion. I could be wrong.

 

[haden]

Yes that is the sticking point the bedroom door and he said he saw her at 9.10, so it would have to be 9.40 then....

Well something made me think about it. We are to believe mrs Fenn rang a friend about the child crying etc, was it sort of knowledge that the children were left crying....like chinese whispers perhaps it did the rounds left crying for alittle then total abuse, left all the time etc etc, and someone decides to take action.....who knows. Who was the mystery maid someone wrote to Charles about?

Yes perhaps a disturbed women who felt they didnt deserve the child, and took her away.

Did you see that film that was to be released after Maddy went missing GONE BABY GONE. It was pulled for a year i think. I watched it and it was very thought provoking. Children can be taken for many reasons, not just pedophilia etc.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0452623/

I am going right back to basics, as nothing seems to be moving forward does it.

Yes, I've seen the movie.

And yes, Mrs Fenn called a friend so IMO it was well known in the area that the kids were left alone.

Re the pensioners from the area, like Mrs Fenn and her friends, IMO they had no ability to perform this act, but they could talk about it on the street, in the shops, among friends and relatives and someone could have used the info.

And in this case, Madeleine would have been in the area, and not found?? Not possible, IMO..

Although, without wanting to sound cruel, a pensioner, male of female would do strange things to for example protect their pet etc..and if for example Madeleine was attacked by someone's pet, I believe some owners would go over board to protect the pet.

Another thing is protecting a member of family, the only child etc, this I have seen a lot in the past. If some teenager or similar for example has hit Madeleine by car, some parents would get involved in cover up.

Seen a lot in many criminal cases around the world.

But since Madeleine was inside, and not gone out on her own.. the only two solutions are there, one that she was taken by a lone predator and killed and all clues hidden and other that she has been sold. The third very slim option is that she she is still being kept somewhere in the cellar by a lone predator like it was the case with Natasha Kampusch.

 

[haden]

Oh right ok. Didnt know he owned a house in PDL. IF they knew Murat so well surprised he didnt ring them and tell them about the abduction.....also didnt he only arrive in PDL the night before she went? Or did i dream that one.

The Smiths arrived on the 30th.

I think I've seen somewhere that the Smiths met Murat in a bar during their stay in PDL .. not sure if this is myth or a true account. Will look for that.

— Adds that in May and August of 2006, he saw ROBERT MURAT in Praia da Luz bars. On one of these occasions, the first, he was inebriated and spoke to everyone. He did not wear glasses at that time. He also states that the individual who carried the child was not ROBERT. He would have recognised him immediately.

From Martin Smiths statement
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_SMITH.htm

Hmmmm.. this is IMO very strange, that Martin Smith knew Murat.. )) lots of coincidences in this case..

 

[goldengirl57]

That's a detail I always found weird. Who actually remembers how wide were the door open? In his statement he was even talking about degrees! You have no reason to keep an eye at how wide the door is open inside of a flat. You just don't pay much attention to things like this. You wouldn't even notice that.



Just gimme one person, not being McCanns, who saw that window open...

I have to agree.

I find the bit about the door bizarre. To be honest I would have closed the door when the children were asleep. How many people honestly would open that door to check on the kids IF they were in your own house?

I know when I had my grandchildren stay, i used to shut the door and go upstairs a few times and listen outside the door. AS soon as I opened it at anytime they would be wide awake. It was almost like a sixth sense lol.....

No if the door was slightly open I would just think the chid had got out for the toilet and then yes I would check to make sure she was in the bed, but i wouldnt thing it was suspicious.

 

[Inana]

I am thinking along the same lines. A woman possibly known to Madeleine but WHO? Someone whose DNA would be normal to be found in the apartment?
And then Madeleine walking the bare feet? Was she given the new shoes?
Was this someone not very mentally stable who heard her crying the night before?
The phone records would help in here, as if it was two people, it is more possible that at least one of them had the phone.
In this case it would have been a woman known to Madeleine, passing her to someone who was waiting in the car. And then that person selling her to someone who wanted to buy her. Or maybe the couple who wanted to keep her.
The woman then would be able to go back to her being around during the searches and she would not be suspected. Although this woman could be a man as well..
But then who opened the door of the children's bedroom wider when Gerry was there at 9.05?
And why was the window open?
Is it possible that whoever took Madeleine did not know that the patio door were left unlocked?

Maybe one of the crèche workers?
If someone was watching from the car park, they could see the 'listeners' entering and exiting the patio door. The perfect time to go in would be just after Gerry and Jez's conversation and after Jane turned the corner to go into the Ocean Club lot.

Just my own opinion. I could be wrong.

 

[Donjeta]

Maybe one of the crèche workers?
If someone was watching from the car park, they could see the 'listeners' entering and exiting the patio door. The perfect time to go in would be just after Gerry and Jez's conversation and after Jane turned the corner to go into the Ocean Club lot.

Just my own opinion. I could be wrong.

That would make sense but doesn't explain why Gerry saw the door more open before his convo with Jez.

 

[SapphireSteel]

I caught that show "Cold Justice" that everyone is raving about.

The woman who is prosecutor said clearly, over and over, that circumstantial evidence is what solves cases.

We have an enormous mountain of circumstantial evidence in this case which has always pointed one way, and one way only.

Yet somehow we are discussing some unknown deceased African.

The McCanns publicised every single efit except the one we now know is considered the important one.

The efit resembles Gerry.

The witnesses responsible for the efit say they believed they saw Gerry.

It is fact that the efit was suppressed by the parents who allegedly were leaving "no stone unturned" in their multi million dollar search.

This fact alone needs explaining before I can entertain thoughts of gypsies, cleaners, abducting women.

:scared:

So the excuse for suppressing the efit information is.....?

It looked too much like Gerry? Or not enough like an egg?

 

[SapphireSteel]

I personally think this e-fit business is a big, fat red-herring. It's obvious that Smith only put Gerry's face to the picture after he saw him getting off the plane. That was some months later, and when he'd also had time to see all sorts of guff written about this case on the Internet. It's even more obvious when you consider that the other picture looks nothing like Gerry. Comparing the way someone carried a child is not credible evidence, IMO.

ITA, except I think the other 7 efits published in Kate's book were the red herrings, along with poor Tractorman this week.

I think Tanner's sighting was also a red herring.

SY has declared this particular efit to be the important one....but you believe they have published it as a red herring?

How would that fit into their investigation?

 

[haden]

That would make sense but doesn't explain why Gerry saw the door more open before his convo with Jez.

It is not only Gerry, I believe Matt Oldfield also found the door open at 9.30. After Gerry has closed them at 9.05.

I'll go and look for his statement.

edit: Yes, Matt Oldfield in his first statement said he also had found the doors to children bedroom open

At around 9.25pm, the interviewee went into his apartment and Madeleine's apartment to check on the children. He states that the door of the bedroom that was occupied by Madeleine and the twins, was open and that there was enough light in the bedroom for him to see the twins in their cots. That he couldn't see the bed occupied by Madeleine, but as it was all quiet, he deduced that she was sleeping. That the light was not from an artificial source inside the apartment, but perhaps something coming from outside through the bedroom window. That it seemed to him that the shutters of the Master' bedroom window were open without knowing if the window was also open.

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MATTHEW-OLDFIELD.htm

 

[Inana]

That would make sense but doesn't explain why Gerry saw the door more open before his convo with Jez.

I'm not sure I understand the controversy over the door.

 

[haden]

I'm not sure I understand the controversy over the door.

When parents left for the dinner they closed the door of the children's bedroom.
Gerry returning to check on children would find the doors open at 9.05.
That would indicated that someone was in the room before 9.05 who opened these doors.
Gerry closed the doors.
When Matthew Oldfield came to check at 9.25-9.30 he found the doors open and there was light in the room, Matthew suggested the light was coming from outside, suggesting that the shutters were open.
That would mean that someone was in the room between Gerry's check and Matt's check.
That would suggest that someone was in the room between 9pm and 9.30pm but since Gerry saw Madeleine at 9.05 that means that the person was in the apartment all the time.

 

[SapphireSteel]

When parents left for the dinner they closed the door of the children's bedroom.
Gerry returning to check on children would find the doors open at 9.05.
That would indicated that someone was in the room before 9.05 who opened these doors.
Gerry closed the doors.
When Matthew Oldfield came to check at 9.25-9.30 he found the doors open and there was light in the room, Matthew suggested the light was coming from outside, suggesting that the shutters were open.
That would mean that someone was in the room between Gerry's check and Matt's check.
That would suggest that someone was in the room between 9pm and 9.30pm but since Gerry saw Madeleine at 9.05 that means that the person was in the apartment all the time.

Kate said they left it partially open. :waitasec:

From "Madeleine was here"-

K: I did my check about 10.00 'clock and went in through the sliding patio doors and I just stood, actually and I thought, oh, all quiet, and to be honest, I might have been tempted to turn round then, but I just noticed that the door, the bedroom door where the three children were sleeping, was open much further than we’d left it.

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id235.html

 

[haden]

Kate said they left it partially open. :waitasec:

From "Madeleine was here"-

K: I did my check about 10.00 'clock and went in through the sliding patio doors and I just stood, actually and I thought, oh, all quiet, and to be honest, I might have been tempted to turn round then, but I just noticed that the door, the bedroom door where the three children were sleeping, was open much further than we’d left it.

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id235.html

Yes, sorry, it was slightly open. Gerry talks about the angles, AT 9.05 he found the doors much more open then it was left.

This is Kate's account. She found the doors wide open at 10pm and windows open too

She went into the apartment by the side door, which was closed, but unlocked, as already said, and immediately noticed that the door to her children's bedroom was completely open, the window was also open, the shutters raised and the curtains open, while she was certain of having closed them all as she always did.

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id192.html#sta4

 

[Hexe]

Yes, sorry, it was slightly open. Gerry talks about the angles, AT 9.05 he found the doors much more open then it was left.

That's my problem. Who remembers at which angle he left the door? Who tlks about degrees describing the door? Normally people say that the door was slightly open, or wide open, or almost closed, they don't thnk about degrees!

 

[SapphireSteel]

I cant figure out how the wind whooshed through the curtains.

Usually a sheltered open window will only create a draught like that when the door is first opened - the vacuum effect.

But Kate had whooshing curtains and slamming doors (that didn't wake the twins) while she was just standing there, door already open.

I just cannot see how this can be correct.

. I went to close it to about here and then as I got to here, it suddenly slammed and then as I opened it, it was then that I just thought, I’ll just look at the children and I could see Sean and Amelie in the cot and then I was looking at Madeleine’s bed which was here and it was dark and I was looking and I was thinking, is that Madeleine or is that the bedding. and I couldn’t quite make her out. It sounds really stupid now, but at the time, I was thinking I didn’t want to put the light on cos I didn’t wanna wake them and literally, as I went back in, the curtains of the bedroom which were drawn,… were closed, … whoosh … It was like a gust of wind, kinda, just blew them open and cuddle cat was still there and her pink blanket was still there and then I knew straight away that she had, er, been taken, you know.

If the door slammed on your sleeping children, the very first thing you would do would be to close the window. Kate did not do this choosing instead to peer at the children without the light on in case it "woke them" - slamming doors didn't Kate so I doubt a measly light would.

:dunno:

 

[SapphireSteel]

Also, why was she immediately sure Madeleine had been abducted? She knew various friends had been "checking" the children, wouldn't you immediately assume one of them had got Madeleine for whatever reason? Perhaps she was sitting on her father's lap in the Tapas bar, or watching tv with the other children having woken and whinged to her "checker"?

That would be the first thing I'd assume, especially as I'd also assumed everyone was so "safe".

 

[haden]

That's my problem. Who remembers at which angle he left the door? Who tlks about degrees describing the door? Normally people say that the door was slightly open, or wide open, or almost closed, they don't thnk about degrees!

I would describe things in degrees, mathematical mind )))
I describe falls downs and raisng ups as a sinus function too

Here is his description

The door is slightly ajar (about 45 degrees) which is unusual. All the 3 children were present and asleep. GM believes the shutter was down. The room in which the children are asleep is completely dark. On leaving the room, GM shuts the door to approximately 5 degrees

There is a big difference between 5 degrees and 45 degrees, also he was explaining it to non English speaking people. That is easiest way to explain the change.

 

[Hexe]

I cant figure out how the wind whooshed through the curtains.

Usually a sheltered open window will only create a draught like that when the door is first opened - the vacuum effect.

But Kate had whooshing curtains and slamming doors (that didn't wake the twins) while she was just standing there, door already open.

Well, the curtains were held tightly against the wall, by the bed and the armchair. That's visible on the pics made by PJ. So how could they whoosh?

If the door slammed on your sleeping children, the very first thing you would do would be to close the window. Kate did not do this choosing instead to peer at the children without the light on in case it "woke them" - slamming doors didn't Kate so I doubt a measly light would.

:dunno:

Especially that the night was very cold. Nobody would want an ice cold draft in his/her children bedroom, no?

 

[Hexe]

There is a big difference between 5 degrees and 45 degrees, also he was explaining it to non English speaking people. That is easiest way to explain the change.

He had a freakin' translator. It wasn't like he had to explain anything in English to the Portuguese speaking PJs.