Re: Window Debate

by christabel Sun Jan 24, 2010 8:26 am

kazcut wrote:
Sabot wrote:No, Kazcut, I don't remember that article, but it doesn't surprise me in the least.

ive tried to find but as we now know there are thousands of articles ,

Try this Kaz

http://justice4mccannfam.blogspot.com/search?updated-min=2008-01-01T00%3A00%3A00Z&updated-max=2009-01-01T00%3A00%3A00Z&max-results=50

http://www.newsoftheworld.co.uk/video/?vxSiteId=6d2e103b-e170-4f86-9c51-6eac37f8a93e&vxChannel=News&vxClipId=2160_139731&vxBitrate=300

by dianeh Sun Jan 24, 2010 8:46 am

Alroy

No one climbed in or out of that window, carrying a child or not. It would be IMO impossible for a single person to carry Madeleine out of that window without leaving some evidence by either standing on the bed, brushing against the edge of the window, or the window sill. Although the window is large enough for a man to fit through it, doing it carrying a four yo child is another matter altogether. My partner and I practiced this with our daughter when she was around the same age as Madeleine, after this same discussion on here last year. We have similar sized sliding windows that are a little lower to ground, and it is impossible to get through carrying a child, even with them over the shoulder, which was just about the only way we could do it, without touching the window, or the sill, and very very difficult without somethign to stand on. But with 2 people, it was still awkward (child must go through straight either head or feet first because any other way they hit the side of the window), but able to be done without having to 'tread on the bed', or scrape the side of the window.

Realistically, if it was only one person, they did not take Madeleine through the window, but if there were 2 of them, it is possible she went that way.

by dianeh Sun Jan 24, 2010 8:47 am

BTW because I had a little girl to hold onto to try this out, it would appear I did more investigation of this then the police did.

by Royal Sun Jan 24, 2010 9:24 am

Hi there Dianeh, long time no see. I expect you have seen the picture of a man standing outside the window. When I was a child of about 10 or 11 if I was locked out which sometimes happened I used to put the dustbin against the back wall of the house, climb up on it and squeeze head first though a downstairs toilet window less than 12 inches square. When I was working I used to squeeze through openings on my stomach not much more than one foot high. I was quite a big child and when I was working I was a darned sight bigger. Now if when I was a bit younger I couldn't leap through that apartments window opening without even touching the sides I'll eat my hat. In the photograph I could not see the height of the window Sill because of the low wall but I would guess it is no higher than the man's crutch. Inside the room the Sill would be that much lower due to the raised floor level. I believe a fairly tall man could quite easilly stride across that window Sill without too much effort. So I'm afraid I beg to differ Dianeh as I believe a fairly tall man could ease himself through that window opening supporting a "three" years old child of small proportions, allbeit rather carefully. Even so, I have not entirely ruled out the involvement of an accomplice but as I said in my previous post it is quite possible the abductor was alone, a loner and perhaps a paedophile. Neither do I disclude the possibillity he was acting on behalf of a crimninal organization and perhaps took Madeleine down to the beach or even to a waiting vehicle. Anything is possible and nothing can be ruled out, even the front door which for various reasons I maintain is exceedingly doubtful!

Alroy.

by clairesy Sun Jan 24, 2010 10:16 am

Dianne,i agree with your posts,two of them.

More than one person would have had to have been there if Madeleine was passed through the window,and imo more than one person had to be there if she went through the door.Unless the abductor carefully shut the door behind them.Doubtful.

I don't believe one person done this.And if by chance an abductor just happened to have been passing by that night why would he have chosen to go into the apartment not knowing if there were adults there or not??He would have taken one hell of a chance.

6 months before Madeleine was snatched a nanny disturbed a man climbing through the window to take a child.It was in the same apartment(5a)

So i think that someone uses that apparent because of its easy access.

I think she was taken by someone(either a member of staff or someone who had keys etc,someone who can get into that apartment to help in an abduction ) and then passed to someone through the window or door...the door was then closed again and the abductor having had Madeleine passed to them (after waiting outside keeping an eye out for anyone coming) made their escape.Nearly getting caught.Jane tanners sighting supports the theory that someone possibly passed Madeleine to someone else,thats why her head switched positions.

The ocean club as had a few reports of possible child abduction attempts.Karen(the mum of the little blond girl) also said she felt that two people knocking her door claiming to be Jehovah witnesses were actually more interested in her blond daughter and tried to get into the appartment.She said the two people were a man and woman who looked like Robert Murat and Michaela walchz

Now imo there is a reason the ocean club is being targeted so many times.And i think that's because someone there...or someone who knows someone who works there is involved in something sordid and as easy access to these children if they want.The ocean club is a hot spot for odd balls climbing through windows by seems of it.Burglaries etc to.

And mrs fenn who reported disturbing a burglar might very well have not had a child there with her, however with all due respect if someone is after money..they will do anything..... burglary,child trafficking,drugs etc etc.They want something and need it and there is a place they can get it.The ocean club.

So i still think someone local knows exactly whats going on here.And i think the problem is a bigger wider problem that some believe and that members of the pj are also well aware of whats going on.

There is more than one person on the pay roll i think.

Another worker there(might of been a nanny again)reported seeing someone's feet in the bushes one night... as she looked up she saw a guy who was hiding in the bushes..he walked towards to her saying noooo (don't recall the details)

Nannys seem to see a lot dont they...and i wonder if thats because the person taking these kids knows who the nannys are??Again it points towards someone who works there being involved.You see this person who works there might not be the one who is doing the child abducting(or otherwise the nanny in question would recognise them)But they could be the one whos pointing the abductors in the right direction,or giving them access to the apparts.

Going back to the nanny who reported disturbing a man climbing through the bedroom window of apprt 5a 6 months before Madeleine was snatched............ If he knew the person in there was a nanny then that would suggest a child was there with her to.So an abductor wouldn't have to watch to find out if there is a child there, he wouldn't have to draw attention to himself by spying on the childs family of day time to watch their movements.The very fact a nanny is there tells him that a child is present.

The mccanns stayed in the very same appart 6 months later...And im not sure that someone chose them because they saw Madeleine on the beach one day and followed them to watch them.I think they chose them because they were at the ocean club staying and therefore became part of yet another bizarre series of events taking place at the ocean club.

Could it be that someone who worked there and knew the mccanns had kids alerted the previous (would of been ) window abductor to the fact that the children were alone?? previous attempts had failed to result in an abducted child after nannys disturbed them...but now the children were alone and its safe to take one because the family are under the watchful eye of the abductors sidekick who happens to be working in the ocean club? Maybe a waiter/ress??

You see the other attempts to snatch a child there had failed...they got caught and disturbed, but Madeleine's abduction too,was almost failed.Jane tanner saw the abductor making off with Madeleine!!!Just a minuit later and again the abductor would have been caught in the act.

What if the actual abductor really does live close by?What if he was told that the nanny watching the child in appart 5a (6 months before Madeleine)had just gone out for food(which she had done) and left a child alone??It would explain why he was there at the right time wouldn't it??He would have to live close by to the ocean club though in order to be there so quickly after being told to make a move.

An odd ball who just happened to be walking by wouldn't just happen to be walking by on all of these occasions.But someone who is part of a gang who is planning the big event...would be there on all these occasions because the ocean club was their target place.So one day an abduction had to be inevitable at the ocean club...those responsible would get their catch.And that catch was Madeleine.

Since Madeleine's abduction no reports of odd goings on at the ocean club have been reported...no men knocking doors for money for orphanages,no Jehovah witnesses trying to gain access.No nanny saying they seen someone in the bushes or disturbed someone climbing through the windows.And no one reporting a burglary as mrs fenn had done so.

Mrs fenn also claimed the burglar must of used a key because the door was locked and there was no breaking and entry!!!!

It doesn't make sense that all these events are unconnected.I think someone is being told when to act by someone whos working there.This child abductor gang is big.It involves a lot of folk.Pj murat a worker at the ocean club other maybe.

If an off chance abductor wanted to take a child why would he fail, but still come back the ocean club for another chance,again and again??

Why wouldn't he go to the beach and take one..or to some other hotel??

i think its because someone there is giving them easy access.And because they are part of a wider gang which gives them protection from being caught.

sorry this post is long,i cant get my thoughts across properly lol

by bluj1515 Sun Jan 24, 2010 10:24 am

Clairesy I thought your post was excellent and I enjoyed reading it very much.

We know so little about the events of that night that we have to fill it in with conjecture and I thought you did a very good job.

by dianeh Sun Jan 24, 2010 10:29 am

Alroy

The next time you pick up a 4 yo child (as Madeleine was days off being 4) and try to walk through a window with him/her, just let me know. Having a child to practice with, as I had (and do now, as my son is around the same age now), it is very very difficult to do.

Incidentally, my daughter is not tall, and not heavy, and it was virtually impossible to do it alone, and it was impossible to do it, without touching something. You see, unlike most others who comment on this, we actually had a child of the right age and size and a window of the approx the same height (actually shorter so should be easier) and size and it is a sliding window, so was able to do an experiment.

What is showed quite clearly is that if a person on their own did it, then there would almost certainly be something to show that the window was used, but with 2 people doing it, then it would likely be no evidence to show that the child went out the window.

So I stand by that, if 1 person only, the window was not used to remove Madeleine from the apartment. If 2 people, then it is possible she went out the window.

Alroy, carrying a small child is not like having a backpack on. You seem to think that you can just step through that window. No you cannot. You must step up into the window, and that is hard to do while holding a sleeping child. It is not like walking through a door, which incidentally you have to take care not to bash the child against the door frame.

Clairesy

I agree with what you have written. Myself, I dont know if the window was used. After our 'experiments', my gut feel is that the window was not used at all, as it is awkward and slow to do it. Imagine someone walking past, etc, and seeing a child being passed through a window. All hell would break loose. Seeing a man carrying a sleeping child out the door would go unnoticed. I dont discount that 2 abductors could pass Madeleine out the window, but add that to what I have just written, and I dont think so. I think that front door was used, to exit at the very least, as the door can be opened from the inside without a key, even if it is locked (according to our resident experts). Keys for the front door are also a real possibility, meaning entry and exit via the front door.

by Pedro Silva Sun Jan 24, 2010 10:34 am

In my opinion, one person outside the window, one person inside the apartment.

by clairesy Sun Jan 24, 2010 10:49 am

Hi bluj

thanks,i found it hard to try to explain myself there and sometimes i go on and on just to get a point across lol.But im glad you understood it.

by clairesy Sun Jan 24, 2010 12:13 pm

Hi diane,

i agree with what your saying with regards to being able to get out of a window with a child.It wouldn't be possible without leaving a lot of evidence there.
I dont think it would be possible without a child in your arms let alone with.We use our arms to help us balance and standing on one leg without touching sides of the window would be out of the question.

by Sabot Sun Jan 24, 2010 5:48 pm

I am convinced that there were two people simply because of the position of the child's head which was opposite to being picked out of bed.

If you wanted to change the position you would put the child over your shoulder, not swap from side to side. If you put the child down you would pick up in the same position.

The person seen by the Smiths was carrying the child over their shoulder which means that it was probably the same man Jane Tanner saw, but who had shifted the child for easier carrying.

Not sure about signs on the window but the sills were heavy duty, smooth plastic so might not retain any particles. There was no lichen on the sill, this would have been cleaned off prior to the start of the season if there was any. I do this myself every Spring.

And apart from anything else, The PJ aren't exactly well known for careful investigation. The fingerprint woman was there busily brushing away any evidence with her little brush in the search for fingerprints.

by Rosie Sun Jan 24, 2010 10:43 pm

We know the abductor got in there somehow and it is important to the whole investigation to learn how, in fact it is vital, because the mode of entry could give a big clue as to who the abductors are and how they got to be in that position and this in turn could lead to their discovery and arrest. I believe this is why the window is vitally important as Kate herself has said, it remains of vital significance, even if the window was never used and never intended for use, because the fact that it was open would then point to it being a red herring and this in turn in my opinion would point to it being an organised crime with people who knew exactly what they were doing, how they were going to do it.

I think this window is the actual key that could help solve this and more, I think the likes of Goncalo Amaral and Moita Flores know this too and this is why for reasons better known to themselves (at this time only but soon to be revealed), they have both gone out of their way to rubbish it and try to make Kate McCann to be a liar and Moita Flores very amateur use of reverse psychology has failed abysmally, he shouldn't give up his day job! This fact in itself is very revealing and it has brought the investigation right to the door of Amaral and Flores. What Flores maintained at that hearing was actually remarkable, in his haste to divert attention away from that window and place it on Kate, what he actually did was focus it fully, on him and Amaral. He may just as well stood up and screamed it out from every available rooftop, it was that evident.

It states in Gerry's statement in the files, that he does not think the front door was locked and I cannot see mention that there was a key in situ, however, other people who have stayed in that particular apartment have stated that they had a key in the lock in the door and yet still the cleaners were able to unlock the door from outside and walk in.

However, Gerry has stated that he doesn't think the door was locked, this is an excerpt from his statement:

891 to 903 Witness statement of Gerry McCann 2007.05.10
04-Processo 4 Pages 891-903 Gerald McCann 10 May 2007
SNIPPED

The deponent and KATE returned to the OCEAN CLUB by the short-cut and at the secondary reception they asked the lady employee if there was a vacant tennis court they could reserve. They were told there was a vacancy between 14H30 to 15H30. As it was already 15h00, they began to play immediately. At 15H30, the tennis instructor arrived, who instructed each of them until 16H30.
----- The stayed in that place, talking, until 16H45 at which time the twins went to the meal area. At 17h00, as usual, MADELEINE arrived accompanied by the teachers and the other children. After her arrival, MADELEINE ate, [the meal] having ended at 17H30.
------ After 17H30 they went to the apartment, the deponent having entered by the main door, which he did not lock while he was inside the residence. KATE and the children entered by the rear door, after this had been opened from the inside by the deponent.
SNIPPED (General conversation)
At 19H00, he made his way to the apartment, finding KATE and the children playing on the sofa. About 10 to 15 minutes later, they took the children to the bedroom and they all sat on MADELEINE'S bed to read a story. At 19H30, the twins were already in their respective cots and MADELEINE in the bed next to the bedroom door. He does not know if they were asleep but from the silence he presumed that they were. As it was still early he took a bath, he thinks that KATE had already had one, they talked a little and drank wine or beer.
----- At 20H35, they left the apartment in the direction of the TAPAS. Before they left and because the children's bedroom door was ajar as always, he opened it a little more, listening from the outside and, as there was complete silence he did not enter, returning the door to its previous position, with a space of about 10cm.
----- He is certain that, before leaving home the children's bedroom was totally dark, with the window closed, but he does not know it was locked, the external blinds closed but with some slats open, and the curtains also drawn closed. Asked, he relates that during the night the artificial light coming in from the outside is very weak, because, without a light being on in the lounge or the kitchen, the visibility inside the bedroom is much reduced. Despite what he said in his previous statements, he states now and with certainty, that he left with KATE by the rear door which he consequently closed but did not lock given that that is only possible from the inside. Referring to the front door, while he is certain that it was closed it is unlikely that it was locked as [because] they had left by the rear door.
SNIPPED

In my opinion if the abductors had entered by the front door, they could not have relied upon this to gain entry, or whether the key was in the lock or out of it, or if their key would work if another key was left in the lock inside, no this is too many IF's and buts and criminals, even those lower down the order generally would not work like this. They actually knew their key would work regardless of anything.

I am not saying the front door was not used, I am saying that the abductors (and I believe there were two of them) kept this as simple as possible, simple plans work, more complicated plans fail as there are too many things to go wrong.

I believe that there were two abductors, they entered by unlocking the front door which they knew would open despite the key being in the lock or not.

Scenario

Abductor 1: Unlocked the front door, listened, all was quiet so entered the apartment
Abductor 1: Aware of time constraints went straight the children's bedroom
Abductor 2: Went immediately to the shutters and raised them from outside as per planned. She/he used the knobs either side to help raise the shutters, she/he most certainly wore gloves and had plenty of time to wipe the knobs and anywhere else she/he may have touched and this would have been planned.
Abductor 1: Meanwhile also went immediately to the window and opened it, this served up to 3 purposes (a) First and foremost to allow themselves a very quick escape route should someone come back unexpectedly (b) ? To dispel odourless chemical fumes used to sedate the children, so the abductors would not be overcome by them (c) To pass Madeleine through. (I do not think they would have risked picking her up and walking back through the apartment with her, if anyone came back right at that moment they would be caught and that is almost certain.) So in my opinion the window was opened for the above three practical and obvious reasons.
Abductor 1: Picked Madeleine up and walked back to the now opened window and passed her through
Abductor 2: Took Madeleine and walked away with her to a planned place (maybe to the garage by Murat's villa, which had a bed and children's toys in and from where Mrs carpenter vaguely remembers someone calling "Madeleine, Madeleine". (Remember this could have been a similar sounding name also) This was planned as the place where they would wait until Abductor 1 joined them.
Abductor 1: Quickly straightens the bed covers and brushes them off (if they were stood on) and climbs out of the window via standing at the foot of the spare bed. He then wipes clean the window sill and anywhere else he thinks they may have touched, (he uses a cloth he has put in his pocket for this sole purpose, I would say this was probably a damp leather, leaving very little in the way of residue or fibres). He then goes off to join Abductor 2.
I believe this is why Jane Tanner only saw one abductor, which was Abductor 2, if she had been there a few moments later she would probably have seen Abductor 1 walk past too! Sadly if she had seen this she would have probably realised that something was up and alerted. I also believe that as Jane past Jez and Gerry, they ended their conversation and went their separate ways, Jane did not see this as by that time her back was to them,having past them, so when Abductor 2 walked passed carrying Madeleine, Gerry and Jez may not have even been in the road any longer!
Abductor 2 joins Abductor 1 (maybe at this mystery garage), where it was planned that someone would pick them up in a van,here is where the plan could have experienced a hitch, I think the person that had planned to pick them up using his van got cold feet, (or the van broke down) and didn't show, this forced Abductor 2 (or 1) to carry on walking, while Abductor 1 (or 2)went and got another vehicle from someone he knew who lived closed by. There is no way they could have risked staying in that garage so close to the apartments as they knew that Madeleine's disappearance would be detected with the next check and here is where they got a lucky break, Matt Oldfield did not check that Madeleine was actually in her bed, therefore the alarm was not raised as quickly as the Abductors thought it would be, of course they had no idea this would happen, which is why Abductor 2 (or 1) was forced to carry on walking with Madeleine to a designated place where they would both be picked up by Abductor 1 (or 2) in a car. This is where Abductor 2 (or 1) passed the Smiths and it could account for the difference in timelines.
I think this is why the abductors were forced to use a petrol station, the car had little fuel in it because it was NEVER expected to be used.
Madeleine was then driven by Abductor 1 and Abductor 2 to a pre arranged venue and handed over to other people who had paid them or blackmailed them (or very possibly both), thus forcing them to carry out this abduction. Obviously when both abductors met at the garage, they could have switched roles, or changed disguise, we cannot shut our minds down, shutting minds down and not allowing for other scenarios is why in my opinion the people that took Madeleine are still free.

Well this is how I think the window plays a significant part and now coming to the significance. I think the key was bought from an MW employee, who was probably under the impression that it was going to be used for a burglary rather than a child abduction. This person is probably now terrified that at some point they are going to be blamed for part of Madeleine's abduction. If the investigation team could convince them they will not be prosecuted for child abduction, if they could do a deal with them whereby they were kept out of this, then I think they would talk to the team.

In actual fact, this key may have been obtained a long time before and could also have been obtained by people staying in the apartment while on holiday and simply getting a duplicate and I know this is a security key and I have spoken to a locksmith and it is possible to get a copy of the key made.
Also we must bear in mind that there is the possibility of the abductors gaining entry by the window, the shutters can be raised from the outside and if the window had been left open, this could have easily been the entry point, while I think this is possible, I do not think that the abductors would have left this to chance, but it could be that this was plan a, if that failed they knew they could get in via the patio doors, which was the last ditch scenario in my opinion, but one which is still quite plausible. If they did gain entry via the window or the patio doors, the great part of my scenario above would still stand.

The window remains vital because this will give a big clue as to how the abductors gained entry and exit and this could actually lead to the people responsible for helping the abductors gain entry. This is why in my opinion Goncalo Amaral and Moita Flores have tried so very hard to rubbish this, they "KNOW" that the window holds all the clues and this is why in my opinion, the window was not treated to a proper forensic examination. The whole window should have been forensically removed and taken to the lab for stringent forensic tests, had they done this, I am convinced they would have found one small clue that could have led them to the abductors. I believe the same can be said for the bedding on BOTH the single beds in the children's room. The bedding on BOTH beds should have been folded inwardly correctly to retain anything that may have got on it, by forensic technicians wearing gloves and bagged labelled and taken to the lab and so should the mattresses! It is simply not good enough for Amaral (who was not even present at the scene) to say that no one had touched the bed. It is also absolutely insane for Moita Flores to give an opinion on this case in court under oath, when he was NOT even on this case, has not read Amaral's book and has only been to the scene once and knew absolutely nothing about the window, he did not even know the dimensions of the window, how could he go to court and give an "expert" opinion?

In my opinion, I think the abductors were helped by people working at MW, who probably thought they were going to be burgled. There is one man who I think helped and he is the one who let the abductors down with the van right at the last minute.

There is a degree of MW involvement and I think quite possibly there is also a link to the PJ in this abduction and the reason why I think this may be possible, is the sheer number of UNFORCED errors in this investigation. It is simply not conceivable to think that every mistake possible was made by accident, from the very outset, this case was bungled. I believe this was done on purpose and no one is going to convince me otherwise. Furthermore, I think this is the opinion of the Portuguese government and this is why we have seen a distinct lack of cooperation and willingness to find Madeleine. if they found Madeleine, then this is likely to set off a huge diplomatic crisis, which may even result in the expulsion of Portugal from the EU and with this and Portugal's £2.8 billion tourist industry, one little girls safety paled into insignificance. I do not think this is a conspiracy theory, I believe wholeheartedly I am very near the truth.
I do not think the Portuguese government were involved in Madeleine's abduction, I do not believe they ordered it, I think that belief will just add to the confusion, however I do believe they know who was involved and they know if it did get out then it would have dire consequences for Portugal. So they chose to sack one man and send in a yes man to shelve the case and this is exactly what happened. In the end i think the truth will probably be as simple as that.

by clairesy Sun Jan 24, 2010 11:47 pm

The person seen by the Smiths was carrying the child over their
shoulder which means that it was probably the same man Jane Tanner saw,
but who had shifted the child for easier carrying.

Hi sabot.

The only problem with the smith sighting is that it took place a lot later,and if it was Madeleine being carried away then the guy jane tanner saw was walking in the wrong direction WHY?
Could it be that he took Madeleine to a nearby house in that direction because it was quicker and safer sat the time then handed her over to someone else?

If so walking around luz all that time later would be extremely dangerous and they likely to get caught.Im confused by that sighting and always have been.But malinka lives in the direction of the smith sighting(i think) and im not sure exactly whereabouts down that route he lives although i do know that behind muats house is a dark dark lane thats completely hidden by wall and bushes with no lighting, it eventually brings you out in the road that the reception to the ocean club is.Although it brings you out further down so it would be easy to avoid walking by the reception area.But if the abductor took that route(behind Murats house and down the lane) then how would he have got to the road where the smiths saw him?Is there another side road or lane that could lead him there.

I think that kate seeing the window open is whats important here because they are not going to lie,the mccanns are going to the most accurate of witnesses given it was their little girl who was snatched.So i think its important to go by what they have said happened that night and take it as the best factual evidence we have.

The abduction was fast and the abductors had very little time so im not sure opening a window to deter people from the true entry point would be a factor.I think it could be possible they left the window open simple because they had no time to close it, i think there was definitely two abductors.But i also think its extremely likely that someone who works there tipped the abductors off to a apartment with children alone(as i said in my post last night)
Im drawn big time to murat.There is something very wrong about him and his mother as been known to protect him before(the reported attempted rape when he was younger) was reported to have been dropped when his mum stepped in
His own boss says he as an unhealthy interest in woman and sex.Something is NOT right with his mind.Remember how he walked up to a journalist taking pictures of the crime scene and told them to delete them because he was captured in them?He didn't want anything to do with it etc.A criminal psychologist that carried out a character profile on a person who would be capable of such an abduction also said there was over a 90odd% chance murat fitted the profile of someone who would do this.Of course that doesn't mean he done it.But its yet another negative pointer in his direction.One of many!!

He hangs out with the big guys,acting like some sort of P.R whos at their becking call.Hes like a child,and he seems to enjoy the attention,it sort of puts him on a pedestal to be with the cops chilling and being mates.

Hes silly,he messes up a lot,makes a pain of himself and in the end he gives himself away by being over the top with his attempt to make himself look innocent.Thats what made journalists suspicious of him.And i think thats why the arguido status was given to him because he was c@cking it all up.

When that female journalist reported him to local cops she describes her suspicions and the police answered by saying something similar to..''oh him,yer we know him, we already watching him for something''. What was that all about??And they used the guy as a translator even though they suspected him???The reason they gave for using him even though they were suspecting him of her abduction was because they didnt want to alert him to them being suspicious incase he got rid of any evidence etc.So they carried on using him.Thats not professional and i think they were lying..

You see by using murat to translate for them it gave him a good insight into what was going on after the abduction.They cant just allow some odd ball to sit and listen in on an investigation can they.... so by giving him an important roll (translator) gives a reason for him being allowed to sit in and be a part of the investigation team.But you see once the female journalist raised her suspicions they could no longer use murat because if they did it would only raise more suspicion on their behalf.So instead they stop using him and they shut him up by giving him an arguido status.Thus bringing an end to his involvement and subsequently any more suspicions of him.

After that murat was no longer at the scene and no longer with the pj.His involvement was now over because suspicions were drawn to him and he was likely to blow the whole thing.

His German bit on the side michaela is another one whos lied about her whereabouts on 3rd may.She states she was in a church for a Jehovah meeting.It wasn't true.

But the cops say they checked it out and confirmed her alibi.How can they confirm her alibi when the church group say she wasn't there?And if she wasnt there, where was she?

Murat was reported to have asked folk for an alibi that night...but why would he need to to do that if his alibi is true?

im confused by their alibis because if him and michaela were innocent why didn't both of them just say where they really really were.Why the need to give false albis which also showed them as being in separate locations?Why lie and say ''i was at church'' ....or ''I was with mammy haveing supper before my early night''. ??

I think the reason they both lied and gave SEPARATE alibis was because they were trying to prove they were not together that night.They were both in separate locations according to them.Which imo means they weren't,they were both together.

So was it those two??Were they the two people who knocked Karens door previously saying they were Jehovah witnesses??And were they Madeleine's abductors?

lets not forget that truck driver who said he seen a woman like Michaela passing over a child in a blanket at the road side in the days following Madeleine abduction.

Michaela said that couldn't of been her because her car was in a garage having its gear box fixed''All those men she as around her and they cant fix a gear box problem??It needed to be signed into a garage??why??for proof??

BUT....the truck driver then went on to state the car the woman was driving was in fact a hire car!!

by Rosie Sun Jan 24, 2010 11:56 pm

The only problem with the smith sighting is that it took place a lot later,and if it was Madeleine being carried away then the guy jane tanner saw was walking in the wrong direction WHY?
Could it be that he took Madeleine to a nearby house in that direction because it was quicker and safer sat the time then handed her over to someone else?

Clairesy, if you read my post above your one, you will see that there could be a very logical explanation for the lateness of the sighting!

by Sabot Sun Jan 24, 2010 11:59 pm

Clairesy,

There is a back route by Murat's house to where the Smiths saw a man carrying a child. You can see it if you look at a map of Praia da Luz. And he could hardly risk going past the Ocean Club Reception.

It was actually barely more than half an hour between Tanner and Smith sightings. Who knows what he was doing, he could just have taken a rest because the child became heavy.

by Rosie Mon Jan 25, 2010 12:05 am

I appreciate my above post (11.43) is long, but getting down the relevant details make it lengthy, however, here is just the scenario that may (and I stress may) be a reason for the delay in the JT and Smith sighting. I think it is plausible. It is taken from my 11.43 post, which contains part of Gerry's statement and I have used other information taken from the files.

Scenario

Abductor 1: Unlocked the front door, listened, all was quiet so entered the apartment
Abductor 1: Aware of time constraints went straight the children's bedroom
Abductor 2: Went immediately to the shutters and raised them from outside as per planned. She/he used the knobs either side to help raise the shutters, she/he most certainly wore gloves and had plenty of time to wipe the knobs and anywhere else she/he may have touched and this would have been planned.
Abductor 1: Meanwhile also went immediately to the window and opened it, this served up to 3 purposes (a) First and foremost to allow themselves a very quick escape route should someone come back unexpectedly (b) ? To dispel odourless chemical fumes used to sedate the children, so the abductors would not be overcome by them (c) To pass Madeleine through. (I do not think they would have risked picking her up and walking back through the apartment with her, if anyone came back right at that moment they would be caught and that is almost certain.) So in my opinion the window was opened for the above three practical and obvious reasons.
Abductor 1: Picked Madeleine up and walked back to the now opened window and passed her through
Abductor 2: Took Madeleine and walked away with her to a planned place (maybe to the garage by Murat's villa, which had a bed and children's toys in and from where Mrs carpenter vaguely remembers someone calling "Madeleine, Madeleine". (Remember this could have been a similar sounding name also) This was planned as the place where they would wait until Abductor 1 joined them.
Abductor 1: Quickly straightens the bed covers and brushes them off (if they were stood on) and climbs out of the window via standing at the foot of the spare bed. He then wipes clean the window sill and anywhere else he thinks they may have touched, (he uses a cloth he has put in his pocket for this sole purpose, I would say this was probably a damp leather, leaving very little in the way of residue or fibres). He then goes off to join Abductor 2.
I believe this is why Jane Tanner only saw one abductor, which was Abductor 2, if she had been there a few moments later she would probably have seen Abductor 1 walk past too! Sadly if she had seen this she would have probably realised that something was up and alerted. I also believe that as Jane past Jez and Gerry, they ended their conversation and went their separate ways, Jane did not see this as by that time her back was to them,having past them, so when Abductor 2 walked passed carrying Madeleine, Gerry and Jez may not have even been in the road any longer!
Abductor 2 joins Abductor 1 (maybe at this mystery garage), where it was planned that someone would pick them up in a van,here is where the plan could have experienced a hitch, I think the person that had planned to pick them up using his van got cold feet, (or the van broke down) and didn't show, this forced Abductor 2 (or 1) to carry on walking, while Abductor 1 (or 2)went and got another vehicle from someone he knew who lived closed by. There is no way they could have risked staying in that garage so close to the apartments as they knew that Madeleine's disappearance would be detected with the next check and here is where they got a lucky break, Matt Oldfield did not check that Madeleine was actually in her bed, therefore the alarm was not raised as quickly as the Abductors thought it would be, of course they had no idea this would happen, which is why Abductor 2 (or 1) was forced to carry on walking with Madeleine to a designated place where they would both be picked up by Abductor 1 (or 2) in a car. This is where Abductor 2 (or 1) passed the Smiths and it could account for the difference in timelines.
I think this is why the abductors were forced to use a petrol station, the car had little fuel in it because it was NEVER expected to be used.
Madeleine was then driven by Abductor 1 and Abductor 2 to a pre arranged venue and handed over to other people who had paid them or blackmailed them (or very possibly both), thus forcing them to carry out this abduction. Obviously when both abductors met at the garage, they could have switched roles, or changed disguise, we cannot shut our minds down, shutting minds down and not allowing for other scenarios is why in my opinion the people that took Madeleine are still free.

by clairesy Mon Jan 25, 2010 12:20 am

Hi rosie,

i see what your saying although i find it hard to believe that they would go back there with her because by then surly folk were running about looking for her.The alarm would have been raised by then.

I wonder if they took Madeleine to the car park which is to the right of the ocean club.Jane tanner sees the abductor walk towards there.They then drive to a nearby place near where the smiths sighting took place.i think malinka lives right near there.

Could they have been there and waited to go further with her...to a boat?i think he also as a boat.

Murat was seen at the ocean club the night Madeleine went missing,he was reported to have been seen by many witnesses.There is also evidence he called malinka that night and michaela right after.Although malinka states with his own mouth that he knew nothing of Madeline's abduction until the following day.I find that hard to believe given that Murat(who was suppose to be n bed having an early night) called him for long periods of time on two two occasions that night and at around 10 pm to!!!

Malinka states with his own mouth again that he hadnt spoken to Murat for months,and that when he did talk months previously it was about a web site ..LIAR, they spoke the night she was taken.And i cannot believe for the life of me that murat was chatting about a web site to malinka whilst he is stood smack bang in the middle of a child abduction scene.

So was he telling them what was going on,how far the search had
gone,weather the police had arrived yet etc?Was Murat the one who was
calling to let them know it was safe to continue with Madeleine and
make the walk to where ever it was they took her.. boat or another
vehicle?

by clairesy Mon Jan 25, 2010 1:09 am

by Royal Mon Jan 25, 2010 2:21 am

This really is a facinating discussion and it's so interesting listening to the various points of view. Let me make it quite clear I do not completely reject any of the suggested theories most of which I have probably put forwards myself at some time or other, but there are some issues that somehow don't seem to add up, mostly the door-window controversy. There are of course other questionable points such as the number of people involved in the abduction which I shall first concentrate on!

I believe just one person was involved in the abduction, that is to say the act of entering the apartment and removing Madeleine from her bed, but then I question the involvement of an accomplice as this would suggest a vehicle waiting just outside the apartment or at least somewhere nearby. But let us assume that for some reason or other the driver had panicked and fled the scene then surely the abductor would then also have panicked and abandoned the plan? On the other hand can anyone really imagine the 'abductor' agreeing beforehand to carry a sleeping child dressed only in her pyjamas and in full public view down open roads to a waiting vehicle hundreds of yards away? somehow I doubt it very much! For that matter would any potential kidnappers behave in such a ridiculously haphazard manner, of course they wouldn't which then leads me to believe that maybe just one person was involved in the abduction and if as I say he was acting alone where was he going,the beach perhaps? which is quite a long walk from the apartment or was he heading for some location nearby? Is this man known locally?

As others have already mentioned the front door as being the means of carrying out the abduction I have one or two reservations about this idea, the main one being of course the fact that the open window seems to stand out like a sore thumb! If as suggested it was so simple to enter and leave by the door why bother opening the window in the first place, and there is no evidence to suggest it was to remove odours. Not being a 'kidnapper' myself I would have thought getting in and out again as quickly as possible was absolutely imperative, not to go messing about with windows and shutters, using drugs or clearing the atmosphere of fumes! What would be the point? For two people to perorm a perfect abduction it would entail one person entering the premises and another waiting outside with the engine running, in and out, fast! It has already been said there were many recorded incidents of men previously attempting to open shutters and windows in other apartments, so it would this was not just an isolated case of attempted breaking and entry, the McCanns have been very unlucky indeed!

Alroy.

by Rosie Mon Jan 25, 2010 3:55 am

Well Alroy, the fact is that a man did carry Madeleine off down the street, so a way that this was done has to be found.
The window was open, Kate said it was, so the reason why the window was open has to be found.
If you were going to abduct a child and the only way out was to cross directly into the path of someone coming back into the apartment, you may want to secure a way in which you could escape quickly if someone came back. I can't think why you think it was messing about with the window, as it was open and it would provide a quick escape and also walking back into the main body of the apartment with a sleeping child and out of the front door or out of the patio doors would place you directly in harms way if someone returned and the chances are you would be caught. To me the most logical way is, ready the window, pick her up hand her out and off. (Reasons explained above.)
I do not think a car was used because I think the people doing the abductions did not have access to cars, they did not have money or the contacts. I think the plan was to take her to a nearby place and then away from there in a car or van, only the van did not show for some reason and this could be a number of reasons.

by Royal Mon Jan 25, 2010 1:18 pm

As I have said Rosie I do not reject any of the theories put forward, nor do I suggest my opinions are infallible, I am open to criticism like everybody else. I have offered my reasons for suggesting the involvement of just one abductor but at the same time I also agree an accomplice cannot be ruled out excepting for the points I have made about the use or otherwise of a vehicle. There has never been any evidence that there was more than one person or a vehicle involved and likewise there is also no evidence that the front door was used, that a member of staff was involved or that duplicate keys were used, this in my opinion is all supposition! As much as I believe the PJ were negligent in the investigation I would be very surprised if the staff were not questioned at the time, especially regarding the issue and management of apartments keys, this I would think is basic procedure for any investigation even for the PJ. I also do not remember the police having given much credence to the front door being the point of entry but at the time placed a great deal of emphasis on the bedroom window, and this also includes the attention of the visiting British police. However I stand to be corrected on this particular point. Assuming the intruder had firstly ignored the window and entered the apartment via the Patio door, he would have noticed the amount of socializing going on at the Tapas bar and wouldn't fancy carrying the child out the same way, especially if he had also noticed people talking in the side street. He would no doubt have then opened the window in order to escape undetected and taking Madeleine with him. If as suggested an accomplice 'was' involved then Madeleine could have been passed out to him but that raises the question where did the other man go afterwards, there is no record of a second man being seen in the area. And if has also suggested the abduction was pre-planned, what sort of mentallity was involved to arrange for the abductor to be walking around the streets late at night, with a child in his arms and in full view of several witnesses? The whole thing sounds so ridiculous and yet unbelievably the abduction came off for whoever it was. I suggested a very long time ago that maybe Madeleine was taken overnight to a "safe house" and then taken to the harbour after things had quietened down a little. Two 'English' witnesses stated they saw a child being taken there in the early hours but all of this was well reported at the time and no doubt will continue being so.

Alroy.

by May Mon Jan 25, 2010 9:12 pm

There was talk early on in the investigation of a lone woman standing under the streetlight outside the apartment but further along the road. Was she ever traced? Maybe she was in the apartment and handed Madeleine over via the window?

by clairesy Mon Jan 25, 2010 9:23 pm

Another factor about this appart that as always bothered me.

The floor is tiled,at one point it was stated the floor was old wooden blocks and that Madeleine's blood was found down between these blocks.

Of course we know that was a load of gar gar but because the floor was tiled i wonder how foot prints weren't easily picked up.When you walk along tiles you would be more likely to leave some sort of mark than you would do if were to walk along a carpet.

To be honest with you all i don't think anything was seriously checked by police.I think that although some of them are lovely police officers and do their job accordingly.Some are given out the orders here and they are the ones who are deliberately failing to collect evidence.

I would imagine that madeleines window held more than just kates finger prints.And for that reason i think the rest were ignored then cleaned off at a later date.I believe the reason the British police were not allowed to join them in the investigation until it was months later was because they feared the British police would find evidence to incriminate those involved.

You see Portuguese police told the uk police that they didn't need their help and that they were doing just fine,but as the worlds eyes watched the botching of the investigation got worse!!!!

I think it was at that point the penny finally dropped for some of the Portuguese police and i think they seen a way out and when the heat got turned up on the mccanns and police started accusing them they invited the British police in to find the damming evidence.Evidence i believe was not there in the first place.And by allowing the British police to find this evidence they took the responsibility for the mccanns being named as suspect from themselves and placed it instead onto the uk police.
Thus making it look as if the big guys with the best dogs had finally got to the bottom of this mystery.It was then that the heat was turned up on the mccanns and they were named suspects.

But previously Portuguese police had stated that they were coping just fine,that they could solve this without the help of British police.Why was that?? I think it was because up until that point the case was still under their control. The world seemed to take the word of the Portuguese as truth and believed that they were genuinely trying to find her.Although as cracks appeared and questions were raised,as their corruptness was becoming more and more clearer the attention was being turned onto them, onto why they were making so many mistakes,how they hadn't closed off the crime scene and why they had allowed odd ball murat to be a translator even though they suspected him of being involved.And all the while that was happening those who were responsible were at risk of being exposed amongst the corruptness.

So one way or another,because the mccanns had a huge amount of support and there was a huge amount of anger and frustration about Madeleine's abduction the Portuguese police had to act.Inviting the British police over gave everyone a breath of fresh air,new hope,at last the big guys with the best dogs were there and would find any evidence which could help find her.

But the only reason i believe they inviting the British police over to Portugal was divert attention from them and to show the public that they were interested in finding Madeleine.Little did we or the British police know that what was about to happen would be the final straw in the Portuguese investigation into madeleines abduction,it would be the time when the world would find out that the parents were guilty and that again,just like joanas abduction bizarre and previously unfound evidence would suddenly pop up out of the wood works,(missed by police who previously claimed they were doing just fine)!!!!!

Only this time, unlike joans abduction,it wouldn't be the Portuguese police to have to incriminate the family,it would be the british.They would be the ones,it was their dogs who found the one tiny speck of blood that was to be madeleine's...it would be Birmingham lab that would be the ones to announce it was her DNA.

So in a twisted way of luck,when the British police asked to go out to Portugal... they gave the Portuguese the life line they needed to frame the mccanns.

But even then the Portuguese still had to twist the evidence.They had to tel gerry Birmingham had found evidence that his tiny little girl was led dead in the boot of his hire car,that Birmingham lab had sent the results to them and it showed MADELEINE WAS in that car.

But they lied,they took the word of the British authorities and twisted it to suit their original plan,and they done that infront of the watchful eye of the worlds media.

We know they lied because where as normally the details of the investigation and its findings would have to remain secret the British stood up and Birmingham told the world about their findings.They told how the Portuguese had not been truthful about their findings.How they had NOT stated that the child's dna was found in the car.How they had NOT sent them results which claimed her body had been put into the boot of the car.

Then came another twist.The Portuguese cop gonc gets thrown off the case because his superior(who i would like to more about) told him he was to be removed because of his big gob.Sort of like when murat was made arguido to shut him up??

There was a judge(could of been same person to remove to remove him from case??) who told them to drop the focus from the mccanns and start concentrating on an abduction.

But gonc wouldn't listen.You see he cant even take orders from his superior for gods sake.How on earth can we expect him to listen to a witness who calls to say they have seen a man with a child who fits madeleines description??

He is part of a conspiracy imo.The only part of the investigation he took note in and got truly excited about was the smiths call to say they thought gerry getting off a plane carrying sean look similar to the way a guy they had seen was carrying a child in luz.
Goncs then on a high horse and gets excited about that because it supports his warped accusations at the mccanns.

Anyone with information that suggests little Madeleine is alive can go to hell.Any one who suggests they may very well have spotted the child with another person can go to hell.......BUT, if you have anything on the mccanns??Come to gonc because he needs as much evidence as possible to paint a sordid picture that will incriminate this family,he as to find them guilty because if he doesn't the alternative is to scary for him to even think about.

by Pedro Silva Mon Jan 25, 2010 9:59 pm

I have to be honest: I never believed in PJ, although I thought, it´s the first weeks, I´ll wait and see, at the end of the first month I thought, something is not right inside PJ, why are they taking so long? What are they doing? My suspicions was confirmed when the couple was made "arguido" that really pissed me off. Then GA was expelled (which made me a bit happy), one more reason to suspect that the botched investigation was (is) his only fault. Then the book of lies with his smears and gain dirty money and disgusting fame at the expenses of those he betrayed, it really pissed me off. About GA, we, Portuguese have a saying: "who sows winds, reaps he whirlwind"; "he took a step higher than the leg".

by Sabot Mon Jan 25, 2010 10:03 pm

According to the statement of Inspector Varanda, Robert Murat tried to convince the investigators that it could be a Stranger Abduction.

What Inspector Varanda thought about Robert Murat
by Tony Bennett on Tue Dec 01, 2009 11:50 pm

This report by Inspector Varanda on Robert Murat, dated 11 May 2007, is reproduced here courtesy of the Pamalam site:

Service Information document dated 11 May 2007 from Inspector Pedro Varanda relating to an informal conversation with Robert Murat

As you will know, Sir, on this day at 11h30, there appeared before the undersigned and (lady) Inspector Patricia Duarte, a British citizen called Diane Webster, holder of UK passport XXXXXXX, in order to hear her witness statement.

In the course of an informal approach that preceeded that work, it was determined that she was not conversant in Portuguese, written or spoken, and the service of an English-speaking interpreter was therefore called for.

In this function appeared a British citizen, Robert J.Q.E. Murat (duly identified in the files from previous work), official resident of Casa Liliana, Rua Ramalhete, Praia da Luz, Lagos.

The work [the DW interview] being concluded, and during an informal conversation that the undersigned began with that interpreter (as would be characteristic in this type of situation), Robert Murat displayed an unusual curiosity about the investigation that was developing around the disappearance of the minor Madeleine McCann that occurred on 3 May 2007.

As an example, it will be proper to point out that he has insistently and repeatedly questioned me about the identity of possible suspects, about the strategy outlined by the lead coordinator of the investigation and the work that might possibly have been considered for the coming days.

Faced with such an attitude, that was so unusual and absolutely inappropriate that I immediately became highly suspicious, I always ducked the questions, insistently requesting that person to be aware of the contractual duties pertaining to the role which he has assumed in this investigation, pointing out that it was presently the inquiry phase, and, naturally, covered by judicial secrecy.

It behoves me further to state that that suspicion became even more consolidated, following the fact that I became aware that Robert Murat would covertly attempt to catch glimpses of various procedural pieces i.e. items being prepared for the case file, that make up the present inquiry, to the point that I followed my own hunch, in order to conduct the Diane Webster interview.

Finally, and in the sense of reiterating the suspicious attitude shown by Robert Murat, I venture still to state that, beyond having manifested an enormous knowledge about the dynamics inherent in the functioning of the "Ocean Club Garden", in which the events under investigation had taken place, and of the routines followed by the McCann family and their companions during their respective stays in in Praia da Luz, he has tried persistently to influence the conduct of the present investigation, suggesting various analyses the agreement with which [i.e. had we agreed to follow those suggested lines of inquiry] could be intended to impute the perpetration of the present illegal act against the missing child to foreign third parties [i.e. to put the blame on, or to attribute the blame to, outside foreigners].

The above being laid bare - and without intending to place any competence on the above individual, nor the slightest imputation regarding my suspicions about what he actually intended to do - I have to bring the above incidents to your attention, in order for you to determine what may be appropriate.

11 May 2007
Inspector Pedro Varanda

by Sponsored content

Window Debate

Re: Window Debate

Re: Window Debate

Re: Window Debate

Windows & doors

Re: Window Debate

Re: Window Debate

Re: Window Debate

Re: Window Debate

Re: Window Debate

Re: Window Debate

Re: Window Debate

Re: Window Debate

Re: Window Debate

Re: Window Debate

Re: Window Debate

Re: Window Debate

Re: Window Debate

Re: Window Debate

MAIN POINTS OF ISSUE!

Re: Window Debate

Abductor or abductors?

Re: Window Debate

Re: Window Debate

Re: Window Debate

Re: Window Debate

Re: Window Debate