Re: Window Debate

by Sabot Sun Jan 17, 2010 4:00 am

And a view of the car park at the back [or front] of the appartment.

This caused much confusion in the beginning because no one knew what the back or front was. But it is all quite simple when you understand the layout.

I think that a watching abductor saw Kate and Gerry leave for the Tapas Bar and then crawled up the patio steps. He was probably interupted by the return of Gerry at 9pm, so hid in the appartment. And then left with Madeleine shortly after. Which is how Jane Tanner saw him.

I don't understand why Amaral couldn't see this. Unless he has a twisted mind. Or needed to accuse Madeleine's parents because he already knew he was in trouble over The Cipriano Affair.

by May Sun Jan 17, 2010 7:58 am

I have just found you all on this thread talking about the window. I agree with everything you have all said. How can Flores get away with saying it is too small for a child to be passed through without him being challenged.

by Sabot Sun Jan 17, 2010 8:04 am

May wrote:I have just found you all on this thread talking about the window. I agree with everything you have all said. How can Flores get away with saying it is too small for a child to be passed through without him being challenged.

Possibly saving it for The Libel Trial. A much better place to bring up the deliberate lie.

by May Sun Jan 17, 2010 8:17 am

Never thought of that Sabot!

by Sabot Sun Jan 17, 2010 8:29 am

May wrote:Never thought of that Sabot!

Isabel Duarte didn't give away a thing about her strategy, while Amaral's witnesses handed her Amaral's defence on a plate.

Amaral would have done better to ride the Injunction. Now, Isabel Duarte has got plenty of time to brush up on what she has found out. There won't be many surprises waiting for her.

by Rosie Sun Jan 17, 2010 9:40 am

I agree Sabot, I think the only new things to come out are things that have been given out by Amaral's witnesses and they are things he would not want to emerge in a thousand years.

I have my own theory about why Amaral done this and I base this on the whole time Amaral was in charge of the investigation, right from the very first moment he was told there was a child missing on his patch, he failed her, and e stayed preferring to drink with his friends, yet look at him on that DVD, he tries to give the impression that he attended, he did not and that makes me so angry, I cannot tell you how angry.

People have offered the excuse that PDL is a quiet little place, well as a detective in charge of a quiet little place, you would have thought that he would have been keen to go and take charge all the more for it!
Also many experts on this type of crime agree that it is the quiet places where this is likely to happen, these areas are specifically a=targeted because they are quiet, people are off their guard they don't think anything untoward would happen in a sleepy little fishing town while they were on holiday do they?....
Amaral right from the word go made every single mistake there was to make and I ask how could that possibly be? Even if he was an "inspector clueso" would he have made every single mistake, basic errors that rookie first day cops would not make? Amaral boasts of having 30 years experience as a criminal investigator, then he ought to be bloody ashamed of himself for making all those errors.

In my opinion, I don't actually believe he could have made all of those mistakes, I think they were done on purpose to help the abductors get away undetected.

I do so hope Isabel destroys Moita Flores when the actual libel case gets underway.

What he said about that window, was totally and utterly incorrect and he had no business commenting on it, he had only seen it once and when Isabel asked him how far from the ground it was he said he didn't remember, he had only seen it once! If he did not remember then why is he trying to mislead the public and fool them into thinking he knows all about this window? He made himself look incredibly stupid and that testimony was incredibly damaging to Amaral. How could he give an "expert" opinion on something he says he saw only once and didn't even know it was big enough for a large man to climb in and out of and certainly big enough to pass a child through and also so low to the ground. Personally I think that was disgraceful, he didn't seem to know what trial he giving testimony too either, the judge had to remind him!

by dianeh Sun Jan 17, 2010 9:52 am

Lot of well thought out comments on here.

My opinion.

Two abductors. One came in through front door (has a key) but I dont discount that it could have been the patio door. Only just entered when Gerry came back (this makes me think it was entry via the front door), and managed to hide in wardrobe. After Gerry leaves, abductor opens window for reasons listed above, but also to tell accomplice that Gerry didnt see him, and they are still going ahead, and also to tell accomplice to check around the corner to see if anyone around.

Then picks up Madeleine (maybe after drugging her), accomplice is waiting by the front door to open it from the outside with the very same key. When outside, Madeleine is passed to accomplice (which is how head gets on wrong side of body) and accomplice walks with Madeleine across the intersection when JT sees him/her.

Abductor then shuts front door, takes key and goes in opposite direction.

Resason for second person is as a look out, to take Madeleine if it became necessary to pass her out the window, to walk away with her (maybe this person would be more likely believed if caught and said that Madeleine had wandered off and had been found). Simply, it was easier with 2 people.

BUT the 2 people must trust each other, so they must have some relationship prior to the abduction. Plus they must have some link to the resort to get the key, but this link could be second hand.

I dont think Madeleine was passed out the window because the abductor would have had to lean on the bed to do it, and this would have been obvious. BUT the forensic evidence was so poorly collected, that there is no way of knowing if the bed was even examined to see if had been knelt on directly under the bed. However, with 2 people, it would have been easy to pass Madeleine out the window. I believe if there was only 1 abductor, then the window was not used, as it would have been impossible to not leave evidence on the bed, or the window sill or the side of the window. But with 2 of them, they could have done it easily but I would still expect the bed to be knelt on.

by Cath Sun Jan 17, 2010 9:53 am

christabel wrote:
Cath wrote:Ah yes, that explains it Rosie. I could only see the inlay. It's two different photo's one of the bedroom window, one of (some) patio doors. You can see the tiles. And no wall.

No Cath, its one photo. What you think is the tiles is the window ledge, you can see the white wall outside of the smaller one.

I think you are right.

Which makes me right about what I thought I saw on the fingerprint photo's. DCB posted on JKH's site he'd expected fingerprints inside on the shutters if someone opened them from outside. Asked if it was investigated. And first I thought I'd seen that photo and then I thought I was wrong it was the patio doors. But there were shutters. Cant say I've seen shutters at the patiodoors. So I guess I was right after all.

I wonder if they've pulled that thread.

by Tinkerbell43 Sun Jan 17, 2010 9:55 am

Sabot said :-

"Or needed to accuse Madeleine's parents because he already knew he was in trouble over The Cipriano Affair".

Sabot, I certainly think there was an element of this.

by Cath Sun Jan 17, 2010 10:00 am

Tinks & Sabot, one of the witnesses said GA wasn't supported by his superiors. Someone also said he (GA) was under pressure.

But to be fair to him, he can't have been the only person who thought they 'did it'. Or perhaps he's the kind of dominant person that convinced the other members of the team? Perhaps even lied to his superiors?

by Sabot Sun Jan 17, 2010 10:05 am

Of course Amaral should have attended the crime scene that night. The fact that he didn't just shows contempt for victims. Unless he was very drunk, which is a distinct possibility. In which case, some hangover he must have had the next day. Just the frame of mind for a crime scene.

So many things that we can see, that Amaral appears to be oblivious of. Can he really be that stupid? I don't think so.

Most of his witnesses were actually contradicting themselves. And each other. It would have been funny if it wasn't so bloody tragic.

And the testamony from the locksmith needs looking at again. I don't know who he thought he was trying to fool.

by Sabot Sun Jan 17, 2010 10:13 am

Dianeh. I thought about kneeling on the end of the bed, but there was just space enough between the bed and the chair for the abductor to be standing on the floor. But these are only details. Someone opened the shutter and the window for some reason, some of which have been mentioned.

There was more than one way in and out of that appartment, and I don't think it was done by a lone person

by Sabot Sun Jan 17, 2010 10:18 am

Cath wrote:Tinks & Sabot, one of the witnesses said GA wasn't supported by his superiors. Someone also said he (GA) was under pressure.

But to be fair to him, he can't have been the only person who thought they 'did it'. Or perhaps he's the kind of dominant person that convinced the other members of the team? Perhaps even lied to his superiors?

I think they were all bone idle. Why investigate a crime when a beating and a couple of glass ashtrays will get you a confession. Half of them appear to have been pissed most of the time. This will have been very conducive to brain power.

by jean Sun Jan 17, 2010 10:28 am

if there was an accomplice in the ocean club there may be a chance that the mccann family were put in apartment 5a on purpose!! and a key provided by that same accomplice. just another thought to add to the many aired here. remember the nanny that was looking after a child in the same apartment who heard a noise, went outside, and saw a man lurking in the bushes, who ran away when she shouted. this is where murat malinka and her ex-husband come into my picture again, as the ex worked at the ocean club. + crooked police + good little earner. plus the waiter and his wife.

by clairesy Sun Jan 17, 2010 10:32 am

I do want to add, that personally I do not think
that Madeleine was targeted for any other reason, than this poor family
happened to occupy that particular apartment 5a, I believe that if any
other family with a child had occupied that apartment at that time,
then their child would have been the one abducted. I believe the McCann
family were watched because they were in that particular apartment,
maybe the abductors were waiting for a family to come along that
adopted the status quo of leaving their children while carrying out
checks.

i think that a bent cop who is already into this sort of thing with others(child abduction ,trafficking etc etc) saw an opportunity when he befriended the family on hols and learned the kids were alone then called someone to sort the abduction out.Would have met madeleine wouldnt he??he let his kids play with the mccann children.He wasnt there at the tapas that night though....he gave them the cold shoulder and didnt seem fiendly anymore when he saw the distraught family he had befriended at the police station,and the mysterious finger prints on the window belonged to a cop.

Hmmm

by Rosie Sun Jan 17, 2010 10:43 am

Cath wrote:
christabel wrote:
Cath wrote:Ah yes, that explains it Rosie. I could only see the inlay. It's two different photo's one of the bedroom window, one of (some) patio doors. You can see the tiles. And no wall.

No Cath, its one photo. What you think is the tiles is the window ledge, you can see the white wall outside of the smaller one.

I think you are right.

Which makes me right about what I thought I saw on the fingerprint photo's. DCB posted on JKH's site he'd expected fingerprints inside on the shutters if someone opened them from outside. Asked if it was investigated. And first I thought I'd seen that photo and then I thought I was wrong it was the patio doors. But there were shutters. Cant say I've seen shutters at the patiodoors. So I guess I was right after all.

I wonder if they've pulled that thread.

Well now you have me totally confused! Window Debate - Page 2 369388

That photo is a photo of the window in Madeleine's room, you can see the window sill looks to be about 6 inches in width, the white immediately outside the window is the wall and then beyond the wall is the car park. There is a wall in front of Madeleine's window, but there is some kind of hedge with flowers on in front of the patio doors, this photo is not the photo of the patio doors.

I think there was plenty of room to stand at the foot of the bed and pass a child through, without the need to stand on the bed, but even if the person had stood on the bed, they could have quickly straightened the cover out and the person was no doubt wearing gloves. But as you said Diane your way could have happened too, there is several explanations as to why that window was opened and all them appear to be feasible, so quite why Moita Flores said:

11.30

jondipaolo:
Flores: It would have been a very stupid person who tried to pass a sleeping child through the window of the McCanns' holiday flat.

Wednesday January 13, 2010 11:30 jondipaolo

I also think it would be a "very stupid" person to realise that the four legs and four hands needed to pass Madeleine through the window, could very easily have come from two people!

by Cath Sun Jan 17, 2010 10:48 am

Well now you have me totally confused! Window Debate - Page 2 369388

That
photo is a photo of the window in Madeleine's room, you can see the
window sill looks to be about 6 inches in width, the white immediately
outside the window is the wall and then beyond the wall is the car
park. There is a wall in front of Madeleine's window, but there is some
kind of hedge with flowers on in front of the patio doors, this photo
is not the photo of the patio doors.
====

Rosie, that's what Chris said. I couldn't see it at first, now I can.
And you didn't read that thread on Havern, so you don't know what I'm talking about. I'll see if I can find someone to copy it for me.
B*ch banned my 'sister'

by Rosie Sun Jan 17, 2010 11:03 am

jean wrote:if there was an accomplice in the ocean club there may be a chance that the mccann family were put in apartment 5a on purpose!! and a key provided by that same accomplice. just another thought to add to the many aired here. remember the nanny that was looking after a child in the same apartment who heard a noise, went outside, and saw a man lurking in the bushes, who ran away when she shouted. this is where murat malinka and her ex-husband come into my picture again, as the ex worked at the ocean club. + crooked police + good little earner. plus the waiter and his wife.

Jean this is what Pedro thinks too and I think you could both be right. I meant to say this earlier that I thought Pedro had a strong point, I think there are quite a few of us that suspect this could be an inside job, a family put in that particular apartment and a duplicate key made and passed on and this probably makes the front door the entry point.

Clairesy, the police liaison officer that befriended the McCanns was I believe Ricardo Paiva and this was after Madeleine was abducted. I remember Kate saying that they went to his family home for dinner and the twins and his children were playing together. Then came the time when they were made arguidos and Kate said when they entered the police station he (Ricardo Paiva) could not look her in the eyes. There was also a scene at the villa when he came to tell them they would probably be made arguidos, Kate went berserk apparently became hysterical, not because she was being made arguida, but because that was the point it really hit home that the police were no longer searching for Madeleine, why would they when they had their suspects? Incidentally Ricardo Paiva was one of the witnesses that testified for Amaral and he said that they were investigating Amaral's thesis and they did not have time to investigate any other theory. This completely contradicted what Moita Flores had said!

If there was another policeman they were associating with before Madeleine disappeared, then I wish I knew who it was, but I can't see it some how, because they were all on holiday in a big group all interacting with each other and socialising with each other, I don't quite know why a policeman would befriend them. I can't think what a policeman wold be doing at the Ocean club either, unless they allowed non residents to use the pool, this could have happened I suppose.

by clairesy Sun Jan 17, 2010 11:21 am

Hi rosie,yer im aware of Ricardo who befriended them after Madeleine was snatched.He was someone we were really into back at that point,sian used to say he was the ric brian and ,Merlyn went on about all the time.
But there was a report of a person who befriended them on holiday,before she was taken.I remember reading a report of it when sian used to talk to us on msn..minxy sian and i were trying to find out who he was,but couldn't.We also wondered if that person who was said to have been a cop,would have been the tenth tapas that night.However we later found out who the tenth tapas member was so dropped it.Perhaps i am mistaken and it wasnt as far back in the case as i think it was.

by Rosie Sun Jan 17, 2010 11:38 am

Clairesy if this is so I really wish we could find it, I know I would like to read it because it sounds really dodgy to me, I wish the McCanns would write a book and then we would all know, think of how much money they could raise for the fund and they could put the record straight at the same time! Also it may prompt that one person with information to come forward!

by clairesy Sun Jan 17, 2010 11:43 am

the problem is Rosie its got me thinking if its a load of rubbish now.So much was printed and reported back then.What we read could possibly of been a misinterpretation of something else printed by bad press.If it is mi annoyed because we looked so hard online to find this guy,we were looking for a cop who even ate at the tapas with them.When we knew he wasn't there the night Madeleine was taken it made us wonder who the 10th tapas member was because we had previously though he was the 10th tapas member.

This whole case needs to be taken back to the drawing board..without gonc and without the press.

by Sabot Sun Jan 17, 2010 8:59 pm

Yes, there was such a load of rubbish printed, by the press and some sites.

There was the bald headed black man in the play park watching Madeleine, who seems to have been an off duty PJ officer.

Who was the tenth Tapas?

by Sabot Sun Jan 17, 2010 11:26 pm

Matthew Oldfield and The Window.

Matthew does not appear to have actually entered Madeleine's bedroom, something for which he will probably never forgive himself, poor man.

But he could see the twins from where he stood. This suggests that not only was the door more open than when Gerry left it, but that the shutter was up and the window was probably open, although the curtains were closed. This would have been done by the abductor who wouldn't hang around to close the window and shutter, or because he wanted people to think that he didn't have a key. Also, the closed curtains would mask the open window to some extent. That would also explain why Matthew thought that there was more light in the room.

There are several explanations as to why the door didn't slam at this point. For one, the wind appears to have been gusting that night.

If you remember, Gerry did say that at 9pm he found the door to be more open than when he and Kate left to go to The Tapas Bar, and thought that Madeleine might have gotten out of bed. He pulled the door more closed. Madeleine was sleeping soundly.

This suggests that the abductor was already in the appartment and had already entered the bedroom.

Gerry pulls the door more closed. Matthew finds it more open.
Madeleine was almost certainly gone by then.

I hope this makes sense.

by Royal Mon Jan 18, 2010 12:57 am

I have not had time to read all the posts on this vital issue, the abductors entry and departure route.This extremely important and controversial subject has been been discussed at great length over the past two and half years and I have no doubt will continue to do so. There is little doubt that the front door of apartment 5a is very sheltered and secluded, and would be even more so after dark. To have entered the apartment would have required the use of a master key, and as much as I despise Amaral and his subservients I believe he must have investigated the 'key' issue, if not immediately then certainly later. That would make common sense even for Amaral. My own personal feelings are that the intruder first tested the window to check if it was unlocked and found that to be the case. Had it not been locked quite obviously that would have been the abductors main entry and departure point. Having realized the window was locked he probably then tried the rear Patio door which I understand was 'unlocked' at the time and entered the apartment by that means. It must be remembered that it was dark at the time, the patio was partly hidden by small shrubs and trees, and the Tapas party was in full swing meaning it was unlikely the apartments were constantly being watched visually across a forty or fifty yard darkened area. Also, looking out of a well lit building into the darkness partly reduces a persons natural visabillity. Having entered the childrens room the abductor wouldn't want to have been seen carrying Madeleine out onto the balcony through the Patio doors and having previously noted the size and position of the window would have left by that means. It is possible but unlikely a second person was involved and by previously noting the size of the window he would know it would not be too difficult for him to climb out through the opening even with a small child in his arms. It has been said that the children were all heavy sleepers and I have often wondered, could Madeleine have been carefully lifted and carried out of the building in such a manner as not to awaken her? This would exclude the drugging theory. Even if Madeleine was to partially awakened but remained in a drowsy condition in the dark, she could have assumed she was being handled by one of her parents, why would she believe otherwise? To conclude, if one looks at the various alternatives such as the front door and the use of a master key involving a member of staff, the method I have suggested would be an easier, more straight forward and uncomplicated means of carrying out a successful abduction!

Alroy.

by Cath Mon Jan 18, 2010 2:52 am

Gusting, that's the word I've been looking for Sabot.
You're probably right. We're having a sort of similar discussion over at PFA2. Sid thinks that door should have slammed shut when Matt entered the apartment or when an abductor left through the front door.
But the curtains could have prevented that, except when a gust of wind suddenly appeared.

Must have a look at that plan (again).

Sorry Rosie, I still haven't got that post about the shutters.
But basically, it started when DCB said : why aren't Dianne Websters fingerprints on the shutters (she's tried to lift them from outside, that idiot).
Then he's said : If you were going to try and lift the shutters wouldn't you wrap your fingers underneath and wouldn't the fingerprints be on the inside of the shutters at the bottom?

http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/P4/04_VOLUME_IVa_Page_969.jpg

Right picture, looks like red powder at the bottom of the shutters.
Could have accidentally happened because the fingerprint lady spilled it while brushing outside.
But there's NO report about checking the inside or the edge of the shutters. Did they forget to do that, or is it left out of the DVD files?

Does anybody know if the Patio Doors got shutters as well?????

by Sponsored content