OK, I had heard locked first, and then changed to unlocked. It's true a child that young could not leave and carry out two siblings, which is why locked is definitely not the correct answer. I also find it scary (for a child) to be locked in. I knew a couple, doctors or in medical school, who used to lock their child in during the day. The child became schizophrenic and they later blamed themselves terribly. And unlocked is not the answer because anyone could walk in as well as the child out. So, ding! Wrong answer either way.
ETA, if there were keys, there was the issue of each bed checker carrying a key. And if there were all those keys, that was not so secure. Among persons who did not know each other well.
UNLOCKED = LOCKED WHO CARES.
The children should NEVER have been left on their own.
BAD BAD parents.
IF it was normal practice to leave the children on their own when they were in England to pop to the pub and Maddy would wake up it is no wonder she had problems sleeping the poor wee lass must have been terrified her whole 3 years...............................:mad:
Amaral was actively persuing Murat and I believe was disappointed when the dogs came up with nothing and SHOCKED when they came up with too much at the McCanns.
EVeryone pro McCanns seems to think Amaral was after the McCanns from day one he was not he was after MURAT.
It was the 2 profilers who said bring in the dogs NOT AMARAL.
I do wish people would read the full script before they try to destroy someones lives.
IT WAS THE british police who put the McCanns in the frame.
NOT AMARAL.
I still think that who ever took the child knew the family and knew the child.
Your points are well made. Also Madeleine had already disappeared before Amaral ever heard of her.
I don't mind that if Gerry is supporting them, its no problem.
If the fund was supporting them, I probably would have a problem at this stage of proceedings, although in the early days I saw no issues with their mortgage being paid to allow them to do the things they needed to do at a difficult time (and I concede it was difficult, no matter what the truth of things)
But its all subjective. What I object too may seem perfectly reasonable to others.
I think the thing was that it was too soon and also unnecessary.
Anyone who knows anything about the NHS knows that the T&C's are fairly user friendly with regard to compassionate leave and sick leave (which they would both be entitled to as it is a fairly broadranging term that really means not fit to carry out your job ... which they weren't whatever). Then there is also the fact that most Mortgage lenders have a facilities for payment breaks - and again, it would be a Mortgage lender who wasn't adverse to a bit of bad publicity that would be chasing the McCanns for default on payments at that particular moment in time!
If the money was a bridging loan to be used until some or all of the above was set into place and then paid back, it would have been totally different. If it had been used to fund rental on somewhere to stay in Portugal then it would have been different, but it wasn't because that was dontated to them.
It just seemed too much out of a Fund that was primarilly donated for other things too soon.
I don't have any problem with them getting money for the mortgage while they were staying in Portugal while they looked for Madeleine. Although I am surprised with such a large family they couldn't afford to all chip in. Only they looked more like they were having an extended holiday with their walks along the beach, jogging, playing tennis or whatever.
I do have a problem with the fund paying for lawyers, PR, merchandising and awareness.
I don't really understand what you mean when you suggest the inconsistancies in Gerry McCann's statements could have been straightened out ... almost as though the fact that there are self-contradictory statements in the files, is somehow the 'fault' of the Portuguese police.
We are not talking about 'misunderstandings' here frisky ... we are talking about the fact that Gerry McCann gave directly conflicting evidence in his witness statements.
How, exactly, can that be straightened out or cleared up ?
Take the example I gave earlier for instance, where Gerry said in one statement that he had made his check by using his key to go throught the front door, which was locked, and in a statement six days later, said that he had entered through the sliding patio doors, which were not locked.
In what way do you think that inconsistancy could be straightened out ?
Are you suggesting that the police should have given Gerry McCann a sort of 'final choice' on which version of events he had given, that he would like to stick with ? ... and that would equate with the inconsistency having been cleared up ?
I have no idea why you think I'd blame the PJ for inconsistencies in witness statements. Inconsistencies in witness statements happen. I've been a witness and believe me things do not always tie up neatly because people can be wrong and make errors! People can remember things wrong and that doesn't mean they do this to mislead the investigation.
From my experience if there are inconsistencies the police will then reinterview to clarify. They'll look at other witness statements and hopefully determine if there are deliberate lies being told or if there is genuine confusion/errors.
It's not overlooked by me. Regardless of the fact he stated the patio door was open in his first statement, it doesn't explain why he said he used the front door opening it with a key. Are you somehow suggesting his second statement is the correct one?
Do you think ALL witnesses are accurate in statements? That they never make errors?
That would imply he was not telling the truth when he said he entered by the front door with a key.
Yes but it's then up to the police to determine whether it was a deliberate lie to mislead or a genuine error.
And if it was a deliberate lie, then what the reason was for that lie? And if it was, as others claimed on here, to mitigate in some way over leaving their children, by showing they had used a key to gain entrance and suggesting the apartment was unlocked, then why fluff that by then stating Oldfield entered by unlocked patio doors?
I do have a problem with the fund paying for lawyers, PR, merchandising and awareness.
End of the day, you can always justify any spending as assisting the investigation. And as the aim of any legal action is to recover the costs of bringing said action plus damages it can be seen as a form of fund raising.
However as we have no detailed accounts, I can't tell is they've kept to the one promise they made about how the money is spent. I don't know for certain that they didn't spend the majority on investigation. And I can't go running to the relevant legal body to have them investigated for fraud.
Any competent investigating body would care. The reason the vast majority of these cases involve parents, or someone close to the family, is access. In most cases carers do not abandon their charges.
Yes but it's then up to the police to determine whether it was a deliberate lie to mislead or a genuine error.
And if it was a deliberate lie, then what the reason was for that lie? And if it was, as others claimed on here, to mitigate in some way over leaving their children, by showing they had used a key to gain entrance and suggesting the apartment was unlocked, then why fluff that by then stating Oldfield entered by unlocked patio doors?
Thats true. Witness statements by their very nature will contain discrepancies, things remembered wrongly and also things remembered differently by different people.
The problem in this case is, they stopped answering questions, the reconstruction (which is a useful tool in putting people "back into the time" to aid memory) never happened.
Now whether this was down to fear as they were Arguido, or prevarication because they knew the timelines would be shown to be inconsistent (whether innocent or guilty) no-one really knows.
I believe the final report suggested that they had lost the chance to prove their innocence when they refused the reconstruction. That doesnt make them guilty, but it does mean that in a lot of cases the inconsistencies in the statements remain, where they might have been cleared.
Any competent investigating body would care. The reason the vast majority of these cases involve parents, or someone close to the family, is access. In most cases carers do not abandon their charges.
That also is true. The "opportunity" part of motive, means and opportunity.
In this case, according to the statements, and the fact that the children were left, there is a possiblity of stranger abduction. That doesnt negate the possibility of family involvement, however there is no definitive answer.
I still think that back at the time this was happening, a reconstruction MIGHT have answered a lot of the questions still arising today.
It might not have done, but it appears even the possibility has now been lost.
I don't have any problem with them getting money for the mortgage while they were staying in Portugal while they looked for Madeleine. Although I am surprised with such a large family they couldn't afford to all chip in. Only they looked more like they were having an extended holiday with their walks along the beach, jogging, playing tennis or whatever.
I do have a problem with the fund paying for lawyers, PR, merchandising and awareness.
They borrowed the money far too quickly. They would have been on full pay so why should they need this money anyway.
This money should not be used to sue people it was never meant for that. I gave 10.00 and expected it to be used at the time to help find the child I sent it because at the time I was at a low ebb.
Thats true. Witness statements by their very nature will contain discrepancies, things remembered wrongly and also things remembered differently by different people.
The problem in this case is, they stopped answering questions, the reconstruction (which is a useful tool in putting people "back into the time" to aid memory) never happened.
Now whether this was down to fear as they were Arguido, or prevarication because they knew the timelines would be shown to be inconsistent (whether innocent or guilty) no-one really knows.
I believe the final report suggested that they had lost the chance to prove their innocence when they refused the reconstruction. That doesnt make them guilty, but it does mean that in a lot of cases the inconsistencies in the statements remain, where they might have been cleared.
That also is true. The "opportunity" part of motive, means and opportunity.
In this case, according to the statements, and the fact that the children were left, there is a possiblity of stranger abduction. That doesnt negate the possibility of family involvement, however there is no definitive answer.
I still think that back at the time this was happening, a reconstruction MIGHT have answered a lot of the questions still arising today.
It might not have done, but it appears even the possibility has now been lost.
Well any NORMAL family would have screamed for one.
That is any NORMAL family.
From the get go the McCanns did not act normally.
Perhaps they were so guilt ridden they reacted differently from the way they would normally act.
My child goes missing I would move heaven and earth to find her.
But thats not going to get her is it.
IF there was a chance of finding her it was long gone with people trying to frame others for the deed which took the police off on wild goose chases. IMHO.
The person who took Maddy has actually achieved the crime of the century and that is a fact.
Well any NORMAL family would have screamed for one.
That is any NORMAL family.
From the get go the McCanns did not act normally.
Perhaps they were so guilt ridden they reacted differently from the way they would normally act.
My child goes missing I would move heaven and earth to find her.
But thats not going to get her is it.
IF there was a chance of finding her it was long gone with people trying to frame others for the deed which took the police off on wild goose chases. IMHO.
The person who took Maddy has actually achieved the crime of the century and that is a fact.
= GONE BABY GONE = WITHOUT A TRACE.
It's not proven anyone did take Madeleine, therein lies the mystery...if not abducted what
Reminds me of the Father Brown story of the "Invisible Man". I hope I am citing the right story.
Oh no.....it was 9. The Invisible Man - G.K.Chesterton
I was thinking of.
Yep .... here's a summary....
•Beneath Notice: In the Father Brown story “The Invisible Man,” a man is murdered and witnesses say they saw nobody. Father Brown figures out that the murderer was dressed as a postman, and the witnesses didn’t pay any attention to him.
It is further explained about "beneath notice" here.... which is interesting....
But even bad detectives and worse true crime writers should be free to speak about their experiences and conclusions in a case whose ongoing lack of resolution is clearly not in the public interest.
Unfortunately, this is what they have done from the start. These are people who issue solicitors' letters the way other couples send out wedding invitations. There's even a website now devoted to people who claim to have been "Gagged By (The) McCanns", with the tagline: "Has Team McCann tried to silence you?" Free speech isn't so free when you're working on a shoestring and your opponents have multi-million pound funds at their disposal
Goncalo Amaral's claims need to be rebutted, not censored
The whole thing is an interesting read - and the writer of the piece is even supporting the Mccanns', saying there is no evidence against them, and he also believes Amaral is a "bad" policeman.
•Beneath Notice: In the Father Brown story “The Invisible Man,” a man is murdered and witnesses say they saw nobody. Father Brown figures out that the murderer was dressed as a postman, and the witnesses didn’t pay any attention to him.
It is further explained about "beneath notice" here.... which is interesting....
Amaral was actively persuing Murat and I believe was disappointed when the dogs came up with nothing and SHOCKED when they came up with too much at the McCanns.
EVeryone pro McCanns seems to think Amaral was after the McCanns from day one he was not he was after MURAT.
It was the 2 profilers who said bring in the dogs NOT AMARAL.
I do wish people would read the full script before they try to destroy someones lives.
IT WAS THE british police who put the McCanns in the frame.
NOT AMARAL.
I still think that who ever took the child knew the family and knew the child.
As has been previously stated, any one of nine people had access to Madeleine asleep in her bedroom that night
NINE!
That's a lot of people, don't you think? And yet each of them had a reason to go in there - to check up on the children. Any one of them could have said "I'll check the children for you".
AND YET, we are supposed to believe that a tenth person, a total stranger, went into her bedroom and took her away.
Comments
UNLOCKED = LOCKED WHO CARES.
The children should NEVER have been left on their own.
BAD BAD parents.
IF it was normal practice to leave the children on their own when they were in England to pop to the pub and Maddy would wake up it is no wonder she had problems sleeping the poor wee lass must have been terrified her whole 3 years...............................:mad:
Your points are well made. Also Madeleine had already disappeared before Amaral ever heard of her.
I think the thing was that it was too soon and also unnecessary.
Anyone who knows anything about the NHS knows that the T&C's are fairly user friendly with regard to compassionate leave and sick leave (which they would both be entitled to as it is a fairly broadranging term that really means not fit to carry out your job ... which they weren't whatever). Then there is also the fact that most Mortgage lenders have a facilities for payment breaks - and again, it would be a Mortgage lender who wasn't adverse to a bit of bad publicity that would be chasing the McCanns for default on payments at that particular moment in time!
If the money was a bridging loan to be used until some or all of the above was set into place and then paid back, it would have been totally different. If it had been used to fund rental on somewhere to stay in Portugal then it would have been different, but it wasn't because that was dontated to them.
It just seemed too much out of a Fund that was primarilly donated for other things too soon.
I do have a problem with the fund paying for lawyers, PR, merchandising and awareness.
I have no idea why you think I'd blame the PJ for inconsistencies in witness statements. Inconsistencies in witness statements happen. I've been a witness and believe me things do not always tie up neatly because people can be wrong and make errors! People can remember things wrong and that doesn't mean they do this to mislead the investigation.
From my experience if there are inconsistencies the police will then reinterview to clarify. They'll look at other witness statements and hopefully determine if there are deliberate lies being told or if there is genuine confusion/errors.
Do you think ALL witnesses are accurate in statements? That they never make errors?
And if it was a deliberate lie, then what the reason was for that lie? And if it was, as others claimed on here, to mitigate in some way over leaving their children, by showing they had used a key to gain entrance and suggesting the apartment was unlocked, then why fluff that by then stating Oldfield entered by unlocked patio doors?
End of the day, you can always justify any spending as assisting the investigation. And as the aim of any legal action is to recover the costs of bringing said action plus damages it can be seen as a form of fund raising.
However as we have no detailed accounts, I can't tell is they've kept to the one promise they made about how the money is spent. I don't know for certain that they didn't spend the majority on investigation. And I can't go running to the relevant legal body to have them investigated for fraud.
Any competent investigating body would care. The reason the vast majority of these cases involve parents, or someone close to the family, is access. In most cases carers do not abandon their charges.
Thats true. Witness statements by their very nature will contain discrepancies, things remembered wrongly and also things remembered differently by different people.
The problem in this case is, they stopped answering questions, the reconstruction (which is a useful tool in putting people "back into the time" to aid memory) never happened.
Now whether this was down to fear as they were Arguido, or prevarication because they knew the timelines would be shown to be inconsistent (whether innocent or guilty) no-one really knows.
I believe the final report suggested that they had lost the chance to prove their innocence when they refused the reconstruction. That doesnt make them guilty, but it does mean that in a lot of cases the inconsistencies in the statements remain, where they might have been cleared.
That also is true. The "opportunity" part of motive, means and opportunity.
In this case, according to the statements, and the fact that the children were left, there is a possiblity of stranger abduction. That doesnt negate the possibility of family involvement, however there is no definitive answer.
I still think that back at the time this was happening, a reconstruction MIGHT have answered a lot of the questions still arising today.
It might not have done, but it appears even the possibility has now been lost.
Anyway if anyone would like to take the copy off my hands and then read and pass it on please PM me ok. I dont mind sending it on to someone. Maria
They borrowed the money far too quickly. They would have been on full pay so why should they need this money anyway.
This money should not be used to sue people it was never meant for that. I gave 10.00 and expected it to be used at the time to help find the child I sent it because at the time I was at a low ebb.
I did not send it to pay lawyers to sue people.
It is really wrong. :mad:
Well any NORMAL family would have screamed for one.
That is any NORMAL family.
From the get go the McCanns did not act normally.
Perhaps they were so guilt ridden they reacted differently from the way they would normally act.
My child goes missing I would move heaven and earth to find her.
But thats not going to get her is it.
IF there was a chance of finding her it was long gone with people trying to frame others for the deed which took the police off on wild goose chases. IMHO.
The person who took Maddy has actually achieved the crime of the century and that is a fact.
= GONE BABY GONE = WITHOUT A TRACE.
Reminds me of the Father Brown story of the "Invisible Man". I hope I am citing the right story.
Oh no.....it was 9. The Invisible Man - G.K.Chesterton
I was thinking of.
It's not proven anyone did take Madeleine, therein lies the mystery...if not abducted what
I too, have a copy if more than one person wants one
Yes, indeed.
Well, somebody took her somewhere, that much is not in doubt.
The "in doubt" bit is who,where, why and in what condition.
We may never know.
At least one person knows the answer to that conundrum.
Yep .... here's a summary....
•Beneath Notice: In the Father Brown story “The Invisible Man,” a man is murdered and witnesses say they saw nobody. Father Brown figures out that the murderer was dressed as a postman, and the witnesses didn’t pay any attention to him.
It is further explained about "beneath notice" here.... which is interesting....
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BeneathNotice
http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/mccanns-pain-doesnt-justify-censorship-effort-2017386.html
But even bad detectives and worse true crime writers should be free to speak about their experiences and conclusions in a case whose ongoing lack of resolution is clearly not in the public interest.
Unfortunately, this is what they have done from the start. These are people who issue solicitors' letters the way other couples send out wedding invitations. There's even a website now devoted to people who claim to have been "Gagged By (The) McCanns", with the tagline: "Has Team McCann tried to silence you?" Free speech isn't so free when you're working on a shoestring and your opponents have multi-million pound funds at their disposal
Goncalo Amaral's claims need to be rebutted, not censored
The whole thing is an interesting read - and the writer of the piece is even supporting the Mccanns', saying there is no evidence against them, and he also believes Amaral is a "bad" policeman.
Interesting.
someone took her. Like others have said its the who that is the problem. And of course the Why.
On the subject of novels, Gerry's got a touch of the Catch 22 thing going on.
Press conference outside court on 10 Feb, re volunteering to do a reconstruction:
Portuguese Journalist: That will help Madeleine. Don't you think so?
Gerry McCann: Well if it does then, you know, we will participate.
How is Gerry ever going to know if it will help Madeleine if he doesn't actually take part in one?
What, if anything, could possibly be more important to Gerry than helping his daughter
Thank you PH. That is exactly what I had in mind. I will now purchase the relavant book which has been missing from me for all of 35 years.
As has been previously stated, any one of nine people had access to Madeleine asleep in her bedroom that night
NINE!
That's a lot of people, don't you think? And yet each of them had a reason to go in there - to check up on the children. Any one of them could have said "I'll check the children for you".
AND YET, we are supposed to believe that a tenth person, a total stranger, went into her bedroom and took her away.