"Who would leave children that young alone?"

[SapphireSteel]

-sbm-.

I really do not think scotland yard should be expected to share details of their ongoing investigation with the public. Redwood came out over a year into their investigation and said that from looking at the evidence, which included nearly two hundred leads which had not been followed up, they believed madeleine was taking by a stranger in a cirminal act, but that they also believed that there was a possibility she was still alive.Things do gain significance in hindsight.

This statement means nothing.

As no one knows what actually happened to Madeleine, of course there is a possibility she's still alive.

It cannot be used it as argument as it is completely meaningless.

:dunno:

 

[orora]

Hey, some interesting idea's and much better discussion imo.

I don't trust the parents and don't trust there isn't more to some of the others than meets the eye. These are pretty smart people. How many actors were there, how many were just dupes?

The if something happened the night before/ sometime before idea is of interest. That bought the better part of a day to come up with some cover op if this was not part of a plan predating this even.

An accidental occurance is so much more acceptable in regard to parents I'll stick with this. Buying even part of a day, would allow the transport and removal of Madeleine right out of the area without question. You have the local yocals here, not Scotland Yard. No body, no Madeleine found.

Which begs the question, if something happened to Madeleine earlier, was the man seen with the child in his arms that evening a decoy sent in and designed so Jane would believe that was Madeleine she saw being abducted on that day? How else do the McCaans now account for her missing? They need an abductor or some potential villian, they need him there on that evening while the McCaans have witnesses to verify their whereabouts. Jane Tanner may actually be telling the truth and she may have unknowingly been duped into working for the McCaans to hold their alibi together. A witness who would even pass lie detectors etc.. Madeleine missing earlier? hmmm.

 

[SapphireSteel]

Unless you have met a very cold blooded person, you find it hard to believe they exist.

They do.

I worked with a woman who was very "classy", elegant, groomed, well spoken, everything you would want your young, active, attractive, grandmother to be.

She was also a stone cold liar. There was something very, very wrong with her, but so deeply hidden that at first, it wasn't obvious.

She actually invented a child, then invented his death.

She invented illnesses for herself, her children, her grandchildren.

She invented an assortment of qualifications, businesses, assets, too tedious to go into here, but complete fantasy.

When shown unarguable proof that she had lied, she was as cold and calm as a lump of wood. The phrase "dead eyes" was invented for her...you truly cannot understand the psychopath until you have seen first hand the way they shut down. It is like looking into a mirror, there's simply nothing there.

This woman actually had put her daughter into foster care when the child was 12, to marry a man who didn't want her around. I could so easily imagine her toying with the idea of "losing" a smaller child on holidays, say, when faced with the idea of going back to being locked up with three kids in a gloomy climate. Two children is doable, three is one too many for some women, especially if its a naughty child, and if you'd allowed yourself to contemplate it in your worst moments, you'd have reasoned it out and justified it too...at least in your head.

Add in an overbearing, demanding spouse who also didn't want the child around either, and how tempting would it be, if you were that sort of woman?

They do exist. I've met one. Her husband did die at an early age from a sudden illness, too...it did seem to be unhealthy to be around her.

:what:



Was this a crime of opportunity?

 

[fabgod]

One thing I always go back to from the very early days is how distraught Kate McCann really did look for a couple of days.
That was true emotion in my mind, yes, she could have been distraught over the situation she was in as regard to her future, but my thought has always been that she truly believed something had happened that wasnt controlled or instigated by her.

I was shocked and amazed by her transformation withing a couple of days, If I remember rightly it was after a visit to the church in PdL.

I have always wondered if she really did know nothing and was informed of something that day that changed her outlook on the situation.

Similarly Gerry McCann, although he never seemed to have the grief and lack of control, he had by his own admission, the vision, after church again I think and then we were exposed to the "wider agenda" and the "big event" talk.

As an observer, I would say that there was a possibility that going from your posts above, that there could have been very few of the tapas 9 that had full knowledge of anything that had occured in PdL.
I still think personally that it is a massive leap, to believe that there could have been actors or plants in there, for what reason?
Surely no one would go to such extremes just to take or cover up the death of a child, there must be an easier explanation than that?

 

[sherlockh]

I was shocked and amazed by her transformation withing a couple of days, If I remember rightly it was after a visit to the church in PdL.

*Snipped*. Yup, and reading the bible.

"[13] "I have sinned against the Lord," David said.
Nathan replied, "The Lord forgives you; you will not die. [14] But because you have shown such contempt for the Lord in doing this, your child will die." [15] Then Nathan went home.
The Lord caused the child that Uriah's wife had borne to David to become very ill.
[16] David prayed to God that the child would get well. He refused to eat anything and every night he went into his room and spent the night lying on the floor. [17] His court officials went to him and tried to make him get up, but he refused and would not eat anything with them. [18] A week later the child died, and David's officials were afraid to tell him the news. They said, "While the child was living, David wouldn't answer us when we spoke to him. How can we tell him that his child is dead? He might do himself some harm!"
[19] When David noticed them whispering to each other, he realized that the child had died. So he asked them, "Is the child dead?"
"Yes, he is," they answered.
[20] David got up from the floor, had a bath, combed his hair, and changed his clothes. Then he went and worshiped in the house of the Lord. When he returned to the palace, he asked for food and ate it as soon as it was served. [21] "We don't understand this," his officials said to him. "While the child was alive, you wept for him and would not eat; but as soon as he died, you got up and ate!"
[22] "Yes," David answered, "I did fast and weep while he was still alive. I thought that the Lord might be merciful to me and not let the child die. [23] But now that he is dead, why should I fast? Could I bring the child back to life? I will someday go to where he is, but he can never come back to me."
[24] Then David comforted his wife, Bathsheba. He had intercourse with her, and she bore a son, whom David named Solomon. The Lord loved the boy [25] and commanded the Prophet Nathan to name the boy Jedidiah, because the Lord loved him."

For David life had to go on.

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id273.html

Means nothing of course. Just a coincidence. No evidence

 

[brit1981]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/jersey/7723860.stm

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...d-abuse-probe-branded-20million-shambles.html


Once again the dogs cannot be used as reliable evidence of a corpse. They are tools for finding evidence. The dog used was a recovery dog trained to alert to all bodily fluids including blood. Now the problem is not with grimes, it is with people hyping up the dogs abilities, and espeically ignoring the fact that eddie is a recovery dog trained to alert to bodily fluids just as much as a body, and not a cadaver dog trained only to alert to a body. The problem in jersey was that the dog alerted and everyone jumped the gun and assume it was to a body before they actually tested the material. But the area was used by courting couples, and as eddie alerts to bodily fluids he could have been alerting to this. It is up to people to interpret the dogs correctly and not to assume they are telling them what they wanted to hear. Eddie alerts to bodily fluids as well as bodies, but if people ignore that and starting claiming his alerts mean a body was there that is their mistake not his.
We also saw in the mathew's case that the dogs alerted when the perosn was alive, and this was either because the dogs made a mistake, or because the furniture was second hand so it could not be taken as a given it had never been in a house with a dead body. I wonder if shannon had never been found if this claim would have been taken seriously.
And in the Tia sharp case Cdr Basu stated the dogs went in on the wednesday, yet Tia was not found for over two more days so the dogs failed in this case too.

It is nto a case of slatign anyone just pointing out that even when eddie is correct his alerts do not provide proof of a corpse.

As for the claim madeleine died on the 2nd. She was seen by the kids club staff on the 3rd, and had her photo taken at one of the activities. People have said a double could have been used, but the staff knew her so would not have been fooled, and it assumes that the double would keep quiet and accept being calle dmadeleine all day.

I do not belive the idea of experimentation, and I do not see why the mccanns woudl be implicate din this anyway. They are doctors, but a cardiologist and part-time locum GP, neithe rof them were researchers nor did they have a PhD (which woudl be required for reearch). I am going to regret putting this down, but I did hear something about Casa Pia and experiments on the children there. It wa somethign to do with mercury I think. But I have no idea if this is accurate or where I read it, I think it was a portuguese paper, but try googling.

Redwood said his claim that she may still be alive came from particular leads in the evidence rather than a lack of evidence pointing to death.

personally i do not think there is any big conspiracy. i think one, or maybe two, people watched the flat, worked out when the best opportunity would be and walked in took madeleine and were gone in a couple of minutes. maybe Tanner saw them, maybe that was some innocent person. But by the time the alarm as raised they could have been miles away. There were other attacks of tourist children in that general area committed by an intruder, and I think this may be relevant, but I hope not.

I do not see anything wrong with the fact kate seemed to be a bit better a coupel fo days later. there is a difference between beign better and actually looking liek you are keeping it together. She could not just crumble and collapse, she had to eb strong for Madeleine and the rest of her family. Look at Winnie Jonson, she had twenty odd years of not knowing what had happened ot her child, and in an interview she said there were all sorts of rumours and insinuatiosn about her husband, then when she finally found out what had happened to him she spent the remainign twenty five years of her life looking for him. She did nto crumble she kept fighting until the end.

The bible passage is not in the least bit suspicious. The bible was their friends and the friend stated to the police they had marked that passage as it had special meaning for them as thye had lost two children in pregnancy. Its in the files. i think using the fact that the mccanns find solace in their religion against them is getting a bit discriminatory - being a roman catholic is not suspicious. people all over the world find solace in religion.

 

[MollyM]

personally i do not think there is any big conspiracy. i think one, or maybe two, people watched the flat, worked out when the best opportunity would be and walked in took madeleine and were gone in a couple of minutes. maybe Tanner saw them, maybe that was some innocent person. But by the time the alarm as raised they could have been miles away. There were other attacks of tourist children in that general area committed by an intruder, and I think this may be relevant, but I hope not.

I don't think there's a big conspiracy either but there are some very puzzling pieces about the scene that night.

Jane Tanner discussed her sighting with Fiona, Russell, Rachel and later the PJ's in the presence of Gerry. Why didn't any of them go immediately to the area of the sighting and search or why didn't they at least ask the Mark Warner search to do so?

We know the front door couldn't be opened from the outside and forensics tell us that nobody climbed in the window. But Jane places Gerry and Wilkins directly outside the only other possible entry point from the time that Gerry last saw Madeleine to the time that Jane allegedly saw her being abducted. So how did the abductors get into the apartment?

 

[fabgod]

Good points MollyM
For me, Jane Tanners sighting is the issue, I've mentioned here before, if the Tanner sighting was to be discounted, then there would be quite a window of opportunity later before 10pm for an abduction to have taken place.
For whatever reason, The McCanns seem to have to rely on the sighting as being gospel and would have us believe that the timeline allows for it even though it is fraught with potential problems.

Even the early timelines as written in the infamous colouring book, have the wrong times when compared to the statements of the 4th May.
I can certainly see where the conspiracy theories come from just because of the way the McCanns appeared to force the abduction theory right from the off.

Matthew Oldfield even mentioned in his statement that he thought that Madeleine had been kidnapped because the McCanns were very comfortable financially.
Why would he say that?
The family were on holiday many hundreds of miles from home in a different country, how would an abductor know that they were "very comfortable financially"
They didnt stay in a hotel that caters for wealthy people, so unless the abductor or abductors as some wouldhave us believe, travelled to Portugal as well, it wouldnt make sense.

Jane Tanner is well documented as stating she didnt tell Gerry or Kate McCann of her sighting, yet it appeared on Gerry McCanns handwritten timeline from the evening of the 3rd May.
As for entry points, the only real way to access the apartment would have been through the appaerntly unlocked patio doors and you are correct, it would have been nigh on impossible with Gerry McCann and Jeremy Wilkins stood not 10 feet away from that very door

 

[sherlockh]

The point was not that the bible was borrowed or why their friends marked these passages. The point is that the bible looked like as if Kate just had been reading those pages. I don't recall ever seeing a picture of how the bible was found so I just take that story for what it is. Just another 'coincidence'.

 

[fabgod]

Just so people here dont get the wrong idea about things that happened and things that are made up,
Winnie Johnson lost her son Keith Bennett in 1964, by my maths that is 48years ago.

Winnie Johnson gave her last 48 years grieving and searching for her son.
She was pictured so many times in tears, heartbroken at the fact that although she knew her child was dead, she wanted to bring him home and give him a resting place so that he was not all alone on Saddleworth Moor.

Winnie Johnson used to go up to Saddleworth Moor with a hand trowel and dig, often alone in the vain hope she could find Keith.

There is absolutely no comparison between Winnie Johnson and Kate McCann, none whatsoever.

 

[MollyM]

Good points MollyM

Jane Tanner is well documented as stating she didnt tell Gerry or Kate McCann of her sighting, yet it appeared on Gerry McCanns handwritten timeline from the evening of the 3rd May.
As for entry points, the only real way to access the apartment would have been through the appaerntly unlocked patio doors and you are correct, it would have been nigh on impossible with Gerry McCann and Jeremy Wilkins stood not 10 feet away from that very door

Thanks, Fabgod. I need to read read up on the timeline.

The other thing that interests me is that in her book Kate refers to Gerry and Wilkins and some uncertainty about where Gerry was actually standing and she dismisses the actual spot as unimportant yet she maintains the important bit is that all three of them were there.

I'm puzzled as to why it's so important.

Surely the most important thing at that moment would be to understand how Gerry and Wilkins not only missed Jane Tanner but also the abductor? Gerry says

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/the-guilt-will-never-leave-us-477884

"I think it's fair to say the guilt we feel not being there at that moment will never leave us."

Why does it always seem like he was miles away when the "abduction" happened and not directly outside the door? Why don't they both ever discuss the feelings they're bound to have if he was right there at the time yet saw or heard nothing? And how can it be that Gerry and Wilkins never saw Jane or the abductor that night?

 

[brit1981]

I don't think there's a big conspiracy either but there are some very puzzling pieces about the scene that night.

Jane Tanner discussed her sighting with Fiona, Russell, Rachel and later the PJ's in the presence of Gerry. Why didn't any of them go immediately to the area of the sighting and search or why didn't they at least ask the Mark Warner search to do so?

Jane told the police first, they then told Gerry. The police as well as MW staff. the mccanns, their friends other guests and locals were searching this area. But she only saw the person at the top of the road so they coudl ahve been going anywhere including to a car


We know the front door couldn't be opened from the outside and forensics tell us that nobody climbed in the window. But Jane places Gerry and Wilkins directly outside the only other possible entry point from the time that Gerry last saw Madeleine to the time that Jane allegedly saw her being abducted. So how did the abductors get into the apartment?

previous occupants say that the front door could be opened from the outside. they said they got fed up with the cleaner walking in they locked the front (car park) door and left the key in it on the inside, but she was still able to walk in. they said they never found out what the problem was, but this was not long before the McCanns stayed there. There were also other intrusions into the flats in the complex where there was no sign of a break in.
The forensic examination did nto rules that no-one could ahve got in the window, they found unidentified finger prints, the shutter and window could be opened from the outside, and there was no lichen on the window sill like some have claimed. Personally I think it was possible for an intruder to walk in the unlocked patio door. The path outside was darkened, gave a good vantage point to watch the tapas bar which was lit up (thus making it even harder to see the path). Once the person was in they could then have left the flat from the car park door.[/QUOTE]

 

[brit1981]

Just so people here dont get the wrong idea about things that happened and things that are made up,
Winnie Johnson lost her son Keith Bennett in 1964, by my maths that is 48years ago.

Winnie Johnson gave her last 48 years grieving and searching for her son.
She was pictured so many times in tears, heartbroken at the fact that although she knew her child was dead, she wanted to bring him home and give him a resting place so that he was not all alone on Saddleworth Moor.

Winnie Johnson used to go up to Saddleworth Moor with a hand trowel and dig, often alone in the vain hope she could find Keith.

There is absolutely no comparison between Winnie Johnson and Kate McCann, none whatsoever.

It was not until the second half of the 1980's that Winnie Johnson was told that her son was a victim of the moors murderers. For the previous quarter of a century she had not known what had happened. he had just disappeared. She gave an interview once where she said those years were horrendous and that there was all sorts of gossip about what had happened, with some pointing the finger at her husband. God Knows what would have happened if there had been an internet where people could vent their spleen and nasty gossip.
It took nearly a quarter of a century before she found out he was dead, and who had killed him. For her remaining years she tried to find exactly where he was and searched herself. She never saw her son's murderers convicted for their crime against him either (neither did pauline Reade's parents), for some reason it was ruled unlikely they would get convictions! The Mccanns have no idea what happened to Madeleine. I hope they will not have to wait nearly twenty-five years before someone tells them what happened, and I certainly hope that when they do find out what happened they are more fortunate than poor Winnie Johnson was.

As for the writing on the timeline. There is no indication that this was written before the police were told about it. It may have been added on afterwards for all anyone knows. That would be natural, you get an extra piece of information an hour or so later so you put it on the timeline.

As for the bible. Internet myths are one thing, but there are not proof of coincidences. The mccanns were lent a bible by a couple who lost children and who had marked the pages in the bible. The police queried why these pages were marked, and the friends told them they marked them as they were important to them. That was all the indication that they had been read by Kate.

 

[fabgod]

Thanks, Fabgod. I need to read read up on the timeline.

The other thing that interests me is that in her book Kate refers to Gerry and Wilkins and some uncertainty about where Gerry was actually standing and she dismisses the actual spot as unimportant yet she maintains the important bit is that all three of them were there.

I'm puzzled as to why it's so important.

Surely the most important thing at that moment would be to understand how Gerry and Wilkins not only missed Jane Tanner but also the abductor? Gerry says

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/the-guilt-will-never-leave-us-477884

"I think it's fair to say the guilt we feel not being there at that moment will never leave us."

Why does it always seem like he was miles away when the "abduction" happened and not directly outside the door? Why don't they both ever discuss the feelings they're bound to have if he was right there at the time yet saw or heard nothing? And how can it be that Gerry and Wilkins never saw Jane or the abductor that night?

MollyM

Good idea on reading up the timeline again.
If you stick around here for long you will pretty quickly realise that the same story will be peddled over and over again, so your own opinion is what counts most.
Hope that you join in and bring some ideas as to what may have happened and how.

 

[sherlockh]

This has been corrected many of times, but still the same cases popup where dogs supposedly got it all wrong.

Most important is that a dog alert doesn't mean there is a dead body laying there.

In the Jersey case:
- if a dog alerts and a human digs up a coconut then that does not mean that that is what the dog alerted to
- it is impossible that the dog would alert to a coconut since the smell of a coconut isn't even close to that of a dead body
- it is not even sure it was actually a coconut
- it is not even sure there was no dead body ever there since they found some bone fragments
- there are more than a hundred witnesses all claiming there was child abuse going on, and there are also claims that children did die there, people have now been charged for the child abuse, the victims are being recognized and getting offered compensation, a lot more has happened since those old links of 2008/2009

To mention the Tia Sharpe case is even more silly because a dead body was found there. So the claim is not a mistaken alert to a coconut, but a sudden malfunction of the dogs noses? Did they have a cold or something? Was the alert suddenly turned off after years of training? No it wasn't because as clearly stated in the media it was human error that was responsible for the delay in the find. It was the dog that alerted to the smell of the dead body, and eventually it was the human (a junior officer) that listened. So the dog had it right once again. The human should have listened a bit earlier.

Eddie doesn't bark wherever he goes. You would think if he alerted to all places where bodily fluids are then he would do a whole lot more barking. For example in bathrooms. Of course his alerts are tools and need to be put into context by humans. He searched all the apartments of the group, and no less then 10 cars. He made 10 alerts all pointing to the McCanns. What was so unique about the McCanns and specificly Madeleine that the dogs made those alerts? Just some bodily fluids laying around behind the sofa, in the bedroom, on the clothes, on the toy, outside in the garden, in the car? Of course not.

I fully expect to see these cases mentioned again as examples of where the dogs got it all wrong on the next page

 

[imamaze]

We have a detailed, formal Terms of Service (TOS) posted separately, and that TOS is what you will be held to as a member here. It's long and detailed because it has to be in the world we live in, and you are expected to read it, understand it and abide by it. However, we can sum it up as follows:

1) Be a decent human being;
2) Treat your fellow posters as the decent human beings they are;
3) Keep in mind that whatever you post will likely live on forever, so think before you press "Submit Reply".
4) It's a big world. People will disagree with you. You will disagree with them. This can be done with respect, and that's what we expect.

 

[imamaze]

We have a nice forum for Madeleine, that means we have different threads to discuss certain areas. Lets try to get back on the topic of this thread.

:tyou:

 

[MollyM]

I don't think there's a big conspiracy either but there are some very puzzling pieces about the scene that night.

Jane Tanner discussed her sighting with Fiona, Russell, Rachel and later the PJ's in the presence of Gerry. Why didn't any of them go immediately to the area of the sighting and search or why didn't they at least ask the Mark Warner search to do so?

Jane told the police first, they then told Gerry. The police as well as MW staff. the mccanns, their friends other guests and locals were searching this area. But she only saw the person at the top of the road so they coudl ahve been going anywhere including to a car

According to Jane's statement she told Rachel first then Fiona then Russell and then the police. I think if we're to believe her sighting then we should also believe what she tells us about that night.

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JANE_TANNER_RIGATORY.htm

We know the front door couldn't be opened from the outside and forensics tell us that nobody climbed in the window. But Jane places Gerry and Wilkins directly outside the only other possible entry point from the time that Gerry last saw Madeleine to the time that Jane allegedly saw her being abducted. So how did the abductors get into the apartment?

previous occupants say that the front door could be opened from the outside. they said they got fed up with the cleaner walking in they locked the front (car park) door and left the key in it on the inside, but she was still able to walk in. they said they never found out what the problem was, but this was not long before the McCanns stayed there. There were also other intrusions into the flats in the complex where there was no sign of a break in.
The forensic examination did nto rules that no-one could ahve got in the window, they found unidentified finger prints, the shutter and window could be opened from the outside, and there was no lichen on the window sill like some have claimed. Personally I think it was possible for an intruder to walk in the unlocked patio door. The path outside was darkened, gave a good vantage point to watch the tapas bar which was lit up (thus making it even harder to see the path). Once the person was in they could then have left the flat from the car park door.[/QUOTE]

I don't quite know what you mean here, Brit1981. Do you mean that anyone could just open the front door and come in? Or do you mean that the cleaner could gain entry with a key even though there was a key in the inside lock? They are two very different things. I'd like you to clarify because you next say that some of the apartments were broken into with no evidence of a break in, do you mean that the staff were entering them with keys? Or do you mean that the locks didn't work? To me both are very serious allegations

 

[fabgod]

MollyM
You may be better moving this question over to the Madeleine general thread 26, we have been told to keep the threads on topic
thanks

 

[brit1981]

wwwwwww

I don't think there's a big conspiracy either but there are some very puzzling pieces about the scene that night.

Jane Tanner discussed her sighting with Fiona, Russell, Rachel and later the PJ's in the presence of Gerry. Why didn't any of them go immediately to the area of the sighting and search or why didn't they at least ask the Mark Warner search to do so?

Jane told the police first, they then told Gerry. The police as well as MW staff. the mccanns, their friends other guests and locals were searching this area. But she only saw the person at the top of the road so they coudl ahve been going anywhere including to a car

According to Jane's statement she told Rachel first then Fiona then Russell and then the police. I think if we're to believe her sighting then we should also believe what she tells us about that night.

Now i read in the police files they were told first, but I guess the police may have thought that at the time too. I do not think that is suspicious though, I mean if you had noticed something like that and then suddenly afterwards it began to dawn on you that it may have been an abduction you are going to speak about it to the people there with you in a "oh my god, i think I might have seen" type way, and I think I would talk to others before I told the parents just out of pure guilt (obviously i cannot speak for jane's motives).

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JANE_TANNER_RIGATORY.htm

We know the front door couldn't be opened from the outside and forensics tell us that nobody climbed in the window. But Jane places Gerry and Wilkins directly outside the only other possible entry point from the time that Gerry last saw Madeleine to the time that Jane allegedly saw her being abducted. So how did the abductors get into the apartment?

previous occupants say that the front door could be opened from the outside. they said they got fed up with the cleaner walking in they locked the front (car park) door and left the key in it on the inside, but she was still able to walk in. they said they never found out what the problem was, but this was not long before the McCanns stayed there. There were also other intrusions into the flats in the complex where there was no sign of a break in.
The forensic examination did nto rules that no-one could ahve got in the window, they found unidentified finger prints, the shutter and window could be opened from the outside, and there was no lichen on the window sill like some have claimed. Personally I think it was possible for an intruder to walk in the unlocked patio door. The path outside was darkened, gave a good vantage point to watch the tapas bar which was lit up (thus making it even harder to see the path). Once the person was in they could then have left the flat from the car park door.[/QUOTE]

I don't quite know what you mean here, Brit1981. Do you mean that anyone could just open the front door and come in? Or do you mean that the cleaner could gain entry with a key even though there was a key in the inside lock? They are two very different things. I'd like you to clarify because you next say that some of the apartments were broken into with no evidence of a break in, do you mean that the staff were entering them with keys? Or do you mean that the locks didn't work? To me both are very serious allegations

Its in the files under the statements from previous occupants. I have linked and quoted them directly on this forum somewhere. But according to a couple who stayed there shortly before the mccanns there was some sort of problem that meant that even when the front door was locked and had a key in the cleaner was still able to just open the door and come in! They said in their statement they never found out what caused this (this is what I mean about how some people become lax on holiday, if I found out that the front door was unsecure like this I would have it the roof and been at the reception demanding they sort it out, but they did not seem to do this). the only reason they found out was because they became irritated with the cleaner barging in so locked the door with the key in to stop her doing this.
the bit about the flats being robbed is also somewhere in the files. I think one of the flats was the flat above the mccanns. According to the reports there was no sign of a forced entry. Obviously this does not mean entry was not forced, I have known people who have been robbed and noticed no forced entry, it could be that it just did not cause obvious damage. So there is no way to tell if it was because people were using a key, or the locks were seriously dodgy. If the cleaner could get in even with a key in the lock then that suggest a problem with the lock to me.