Madeleine McCann

[Darryl Kenyon]

Yeah I think there is a misunderstanding verging on myth around the door. Gerry in statement refers to entering apartment for his check using a key as the door was locked. He was referring to the front door. He states immediately afterwards thar Matt Oldfield entered the room via a patio door which was always left unlocked.

In the Netflix series The disappearance of Madeline Mcann. The investigative journalist Robbyn Swan who wrote the book Looking for Madeline which you could argue is pro Mcann in its outlook, says that Gerry Mcann entered through the patio doors. I think if he said otherwise she would have mentioned it.

Now I have read somewhere that the Mcann's said that they didn't use the front door because it made a noise when being used and they didn't want to wake the kiddies up [ was this ever tested ? ] . Yet on the Netflix documentary either Robbyn Swan or her husband Antony Summers said that the children were very tired that evening and went into a sleep straight away, even before the bedtime story had finished.
To me one possible reason they didn't use the front door is because it was further to walk , and didn't want to admit it.

Speaking of the checking on the children Matthew Oldfield offered to check on the Mcann's at 9 :30 . Yet he didn't go into the bedroom and never saw them, some check.
Did the Mcann's not even ask him if they had seen the three kiddies asleep ? And if they did why didn't Kate go and check herself earlier than 10 pm just to put their mind at rest. Plus factor in the noise that Oldfield was supposed to have heard . That could have been one of the children waking up.

And what of Kate herself ? She goes to the room at 10 pm sees the door open yet instead of just popping her head around the corner to see everything is ok. She simply attempts to put the door back into it's original position . Again, some check . It was only after the door slammed shut that Kate did check.

I am with Abby on this one. can we really believe everything they said . Gerry about the shutters etc. Can we even be 100% sure that when he checked at 9 pm he saw his children asleep ? Yes he would be heartbroken, of course but again I believe a part of self preservation kicked in regarding himself, his position, and potential charges of neglect, which only led to confusion

Regards Darryl

[Sunny Delight]

I don't know if you're talking about statements they gave to police in the first few hours after the discovery, but if you're not, then you're wrong. They both said in their police statements the next day that the terrace door was left unlocked.

Yeah I think there is a misunderstanding verging on myth around the door. Gerry in statement refers to entering apartment for his check using a key as the door was locked. He was referring to the front door. He states immediately afterwards thar Matt Oldfield entered the room via a patio door which was always left unlocked.

[FrankO]

they intentionally lied to the police about the locked door.

I don't know if you're talking about statements they gave to police in the first few hours after the discovery, but if you're not, then you're wrong. They both said in their police statements the next day that the terrace door was left unlocked.

[FrankO]

You are writing with hindsight. We have to get into the McCanns thinking shortly after the discovery. I think the word used by Gerry was 'jemmied' in regards the window. Gerry is originally from Glasgow which has very close ties with Ireland. In Ireland 'jemmied' means forced usually by something like a crowbar. His assumption which at that moment would have seemed completely rational was that the window could not have been opened from the outside without it and the shutters being forced. His assumption being they were locked.

This is how I see it as well, Sunny. He had assumed the shutters couldn't be opened from the outside and, therefore, had to have been forced open.

[Sunny Delight]

Hi Sunny,

Having had another & better look at photos of the bedroom window, inside and out, you may well be right in case it was a one man job. The open window seems to have have been narrow for that, maybe too narrow. It would, however, have been easy for two persons to do it: one who remained outside by the window and one who went inside by the terrace/back doors, going into the children’s room and then passed Madeleine on to the other person after lifting the shutters and opening the window. If they had a car parked at the front side of the apartment, they could be well on their way within a few minutes without anybody being any the wiser.


Based on the fact that there was quite a number of witnesses who described having seen men hanging around near apartment 5A in the days before the disappearance and on the day itself, I’m more inclined to think it was a planned thing, either by one man or more. But I hope for the McCanns that Brückner leads them to the answers they seek.

Cheers,
Frank

Whilst I agree on the possibility of an organised plot due to the witnesses describing having seen men hanging around 5a in the days beforehand I believe there would have been some sort of intelligence garnered since the event if this was the case. Someone, somewhere would have spilled the beans or left some sort of trail. But it must remain a possibility nonetheless. I am minded though of JTR when at the beginning gangs were suspected of involvement. The newspapers spoke to an elderly man who said, 'it wasn't any gangs involved in this. If it was a gang you can be sure one or Toller would have split on the others, no I bet you it ain't being done like that'. Maybe apt for Madeleine McCann too.....

[Sunny Delight]

no. i totally got youre point tje first time. and i totally see what your saying. my choice is the first situation. remember the context...thyre telling this to family and friends , not the police.

but IMHO your totally over thinking it franko. they intentionally lied to the police about the locked door. they probably lied to their friends and family about the window.they lost the benefit of the doubt when they lied to the police. they proved there not above fibbing to suit there own purpose. and of course the simple fact is that window was not damaged.

You are writing with hindsight. We have to get into the McCanns thinking shortly after the discovery. I think the word used by Gerry was 'jemmied' in regards the window. Gerry is originally from Glasgow which has very close ties with Ireland. In Ireland 'jemmied' means forced usually by something like a crowbar. His assumption which at that moment would have seemed completely rational was that the window could not have been opened from the outside without it and the shutters being forced. His assumption being they were locked.

It appears however that this was not necessarily the case in the apartments. As proven the shutters opened a certain amount before they would have to be forced. However they opened enough so that if the window was not locked it could be slide open from outside and then maneuvering the hand inside the room to the adjuster the shutters can then be raised fully.

[Abby Normal]

It seems I've not been able to get my point across Abby, so I'll have another go.


This is exactly my point. The shutters & window weren't broken or anything and the McCanns would have known this if they invented the open window & shutters.

So why tell anybody that they were broken or jemmied or whatever? It would have been enough to say they found them open while they'd left them closed. My question would be: in which situation would it make more sense to say the shutters were broken and the window tampered with - one where they had invented the open window & shutters or one where they had actually found them open when they'd left them closed?

My choice would, obviously, be the second situation, where, in their panicked & desperate state, they thought the intruders had literally forced their way in through the window.

no. i totally got youre point tje first time. and i totally see what your saying. my choice is the first situation. remember the context...thyre telling this to family and friends , not the police.

but IMHO your totally over thinking it franko. they intentionally lied to the police about the locked door. they probably lied to their friends and family about the window.they lost the benefit of the doubt when they lied to the police and proved there not above fibbing to suit there own purpose. and of course the simple fact is that window was not damaged.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

The fact - if it be a fact - that there may be inconsistencies or inaccuracies in the statements made by an accused person does not necessarily point to that person's guilt.

In the Hanratty case, the survivor of the shooting apparently said that the murderer had brown eyes.

She later stated that he had blue eyes.

For decades, Hanratty's supporters cited this inconsistency as evidence of Hanratty's innocence, as he had blue eyes.

Yet Hanratty's DNA was left on the witness's clothing.

The discrepancy has never been resolved.

One does not need to resolve it in order to know that Hannratty was guilty, nor resolve inconsistencies in the McCannns' statements to realise that they are innocent.

[FrankO]

It seems I've not been able to get my point across Abby, so I'll have another go.

and of course, the window wasnt jammed or broken or smashed was it?

This is exactly my point. The shutters & window weren't broken or anything and the McCanns would have known this if they invented the open window & shutters.

So why tell anybody that they were broken or jemmied or whatever? It would have been enough to say they found them open while they'd left them closed. My question would be: in which situation would it make more sense to say the shutters were broken and the window tampered with - one where they had invented the open window & shutters or one where they had actually found them open when they'd left them closed?

My choice would, obviously, be the second situation, where, in their panicked & desperate state, they thought the intruders had literally forced their way in through the window.

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abby,

While I agree that this would seem a possibility at first glance and for the reason you mention, I think there’s evidence to suggest that they didn’t invent it. In their initial phone calls to family members and friends they claimed the shutters had been “broken”/”jemmied”/”smashed” and the window “tampered with” or words to that effect. Why would they claim such a thing if they knew for a fact that nothing had happened to either the shutters or window because they had invented the story and the shutters and window had remained closed throughout the whole thing? It would be rather unthoughtful to tell such a tale. The way I see it, this suggests that they actually did find the shutters & window open.

Cheers,
Frank

hi frank
i see it completely the opposite way. they lied to police about the doors being locked and they lied to to others about the window.
and of course, the window wasnt jammed or broken or smashed was it?

the window stuff for whatever reason is an invention imho.

[FrankO]

i think the open window may have been staged by the mccaans because they were guilty anout leaving the place unlocked and initially lied to police saying it was locked, so had to invent the open window to explain how an intruder could have gotten into a locked apartment.

Hi Abby,

While I agree that this would seem a possibility at first glance and for the reason you mention, I think there’s evidence to suggest that they didn’t invent it. In their initial phone calls to family members and friends they claimed the shutters had been “broken”/”jemmied”/”smashed” and the window “tampered with” or words to that effect. Why would they claim such a thing if they knew for a fact that nothing had happened to either the shutters or window because they had invented the story and the shutters and window had remained closed throughout the whole thing? It would be rather unthoughtful to tell such a tale. The way I see it, this suggests that they actually did find the shutters & window open.

Cheers,
Frank

[FrankO]

Extremely difficult to get out of such a window carrying a child. You could hypothise that the perpetrator attempted this but abandoned it as impractical.

Hi Sunny,

Having had another & better look at photos of the bedroom window, inside and out, you may well be right in case it was a one man job. The open window seems to have have been narrow for that, maybe too narrow. It would, however, have been easy for two persons to do it: one who remained outside by the window and one who went inside by the terrace/back doors, going into the children’s room and then passed Madeleine on to the other person after lifting the shutters and opening the window. If they had a car parked at the front side of the apartment, they could be well on their way within a few minutes without anybody being any the wiser.

However I think there must be a link with the burglaries where entry through the windows was the modus operandi. It may well have been that this was a burglar who knew the complex well if he did come in through the window which seems to me the most likely scenario. You again could present a hypothesis whereby the perpetrator knew that once you lifted the shutters a little, if the window was unlocked you could slide it open and then maneuver the shutters up further from the inside. It could well be that the perpetrator was an opportunist in that he checked shutters and windows for such an eventuality and struck lucky on numerous occasions. It appears both the UK and German Police believe this to be likely hence the suspicion attached to Breuckner who was known as a petty thief.

Based on the fact that there was quite a number of witnesses who described having seen men hanging around near apartment 5A in the days before the disappearance and on the day itself, I’m more inclined to think it was a planned thing, either by one man or more. But I hope for the McCanns that Brückner leads them to the answers they seek.

Cheers,
Frank

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

So leaving three young children under the age of four in an unlocked apartment, an apartment in a foreign country , an apartment were the night before one of the children was crying for her Mummy , an apartment were Maddie could have wandered off from, looking for her Mummy or could have got out of bed and had an accident especially in unfamiliar surroundings , an apartment which was not clearly visible from were they were sat downing bottles of wine and I read or saw somewhere they were being a little boisterous. Well they may not have known about the break ins but acting reckless is beyond doubt .

Incidentally I don't believe the Mcanns were responsible for Maddie's disappearance but I also don't believe everything what they said . The police may have made a mess of the early investigation but to me the Mcann's must look at themselves regarding the muddying of the waters . Gerry apparently is quite cold with his emotions. I believe a sense of self preservation kicked in regarding the shutters, doors, possible sedation and I wouldn't be surprised if the half hour timings were more like now and then and guesstimates

If I may, I would like to refer you to retired police officer Tony Bartlett's opinion in answer to the question

Were Madeleine McCann's parents neglectful for leaving their children alone without an adult

[Sunny Delight]

If they were all sedating their children then the Tapas Seven cannot break ranks. Their farcical claim of checks, never known to any parents or even non doctors before or since, exists only in their own testimony. Nobody else ever saw them doing this. We have no evidence such checks ever took place. Therefore I conclude there were none.

No parent worth tuppence ever left a child under the age of seven unattended in an unlocked room. The McCanns claimed they did, and in the case of Gerry McCann is quite confident to explain to the rest of us plebs why this was good parenting.

I accept the MCanns left the children unattended. But I do not accept the claim that they left their children in an unlocked apartment. No one broke in. The answer lies within the Tapas Seven, as the PJ understood.

Then why did one of the Tapas 7 have a baby listening device at the table and why did one of them remain with a child who had woken up and been sick. There is zero evidence to suggest some sort of 'pact' between the parents. Goncalo Amarel came to that conclusion. It has since been utterly discredited. And discredited for a reason.

[Abby Normal]

I don't know what happened any better than you or anyone else. Same as the JFK. But the available evidence points to persons known to Madeleine McCann.

I will go no further than that, save to say that she was a loved child who was victim to an accident that took her life and also threatened the livelihood of her parents who had two other children to consider.

ok fair enough. thanks cobalt.