760 users online (178 members and 582 guests)  


Websleuths News


Page 1 of 12 1 2 3 11 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 179
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    1,670

    The McCanns' Own Words

    Kate (in her book "Madeleine", p. 71) about her entering of the apartment:
    [bolding mine]
    "At 10 pm I went back to the apartment myself. I entered the sitting room via the patio doors, as Gerry and Matt had done, and stood there, listening, for a few seconds. Then I noticed that the door to the children's bedroom was open quite wide, not how we had left it. At first I assumed that Matt must have moved it. I walked over and gently began to pull it to. Suddenly it slammed shut, as if caught by a draught.
    A little surprised, I turned to see if I'd left the patio doors open and let in the breeze. Retracing my steps, I confirmed that I hadn't. "
    What struck me as odd when trying to visualize the above scenario: Why would Kate "pull a door to" of a room that she wanted to enter?

    Here is a link to the floor plan of apartment 5A (a bit further down the page):

    http://www.mccannfiles.com/id21.html

    Kate states that she entered the apartment through the (unlocked) patio doors.
    Not yet having entered the children's room, she then noticed that the door to this room was "open quite wide".
    She then says that she "walked over and gently began to pull it to".
    She has not yet entered the room.
    Imo it makes no sense to "pull the door to" of a room which one is going to enter.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    1,670

    Contradictory versions of events

    From the PJ police files: http://www.mccannfiles.com/id192.html

    Witness statement of Gerald Patrick McCann, on the 4th of May 2007, at 11.15 a.m.
    Thus, at 9.05 pm, the deponent entered the club, using his key, the door being locked, and went to the children's bedroom and noted that the twins and Madeleine were in perfect condition.
    Kate's version of events differs from Gerry's witness statement. In her book, she states that he entered through the (unlocked) patio doors:

    Kate in "Madeleine", p. 71:
    "I entered the sitting room via the patio doors, as Gerry and Matt had done."

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    3,175
    Quote Originally Posted by rashomon View Post
    Kate (in her book "Madeleine", p. 71) about her entering of the apartment:
    [bolding mine]


    What struck me as odd when trying to visualize the above scenario: Why would Kate "pull a door to" of a room that she wanted to enter?

    Here is a link to the floor plan of apartment 5A (a bit further down the page):

    http://www.mccannfiles.com/id21.html

    Kate states that she entered the apartment through the (unlocked) patio doors.
    Not yet having entered the children's room, she then noticed that the door to this room was "open quite wide".
    She then says that she "walked over and gently began to pull it to".
    She has not yet entered the room.
    Imo it makes no sense to "pull the door to" of a room which one is going to enter.
    She wasn't going to enter, as far as her description implies in her book. She was listening to hear if any of the children were stirring or crying. She stopped and listened, heard silence, and went to pull the door into the position they preferred it to be in for the sleeping children.

    It makes sense to me - it's what i've done a thousand times with my own children, including listening, and making sure the door to the room is not completely latched shut, but just closed enough to keep dim if I turned a light on in an adjacent room.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    1,670
    Quote Originally Posted by ami View Post
    She wasn't going to enter, as far as her description implies in her book. She was listening to hear if any of the children were stirring or crying. She stopped and listened, heard silence, and went to pull the door into the position they preferred it to be in for the sleeping children.

    It makes sense to me - it's what i've done a thousand times with my own children, including listening, and making sure the door to the room is not completely latched shut, but just closed enough to keep dim if I turned a light on in an adjacent room.
    I think it is unlikely, given the circumstances, that Kate was not going to enter the room.
    For this was a different situation as e. g. in a home where the parent is present and where the children sleep in a room close by, and the parent just listens now and then if all remains quiet.

    Whereas here, Kate had to cover quite a distance from the Tapas restaurant to the apartment, and once she was there, imo it makes sense to assume that she would at least have taken a look at the children, and not just listened if all was quiet.
    This is what Gerry said he did, so why wouldn't Kate do the same?

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    10,171
    Quote Originally Posted by rashomon View Post
    I think it is unlikely, given the circumstances, that Kate was not going to enter the room.
    For this was a different situation as e. g. in a home where the parent is present and where the children sleep in a room close by, and the parent just listens now and then if all remains quiet.

    Whereas here, Kate had to cover quite a distance from the Tapas restaurant to the apartment, and once she was there, imo it makes sense to assume that she would at least have taken a look at the children, and not just listened if all was quiet.
    This is what Gerry said he did, so why wouldn't Kate do the same?
    the point is, she did not say what you implied she said

    she did not say she was going to enter the bedroom

    so whether it seems likely she would or not is irrelevant IMO

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,634
    Quote Originally Posted by LadyL View Post
    the point is, she did not say what you implied she said

    she did not say she was going to enter the bedroom

    so whether it seems likely she would or not is irrelevant IMO
    yep, and we all know the McCann's didn't lie....

    JMO

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    1,670
    Quote Originally Posted by LadyL View Post
    the point is, she did not say what you implied she said

    she did not say she was going to enter the bedroom

    so whether it seems likely she would or not is irrelevant IMO
    Kate herself says (on page 71): "I opened the door a little and as I did so, I glanced over at Madeleine's bed."
    So it was, per Kate's own words, clearly a situation where she took a look at the children (as opposed to just listening outside if all was quiet).

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    3,175
    Quote Originally Posted by rashomon View Post
    I think it is unlikely, given the circumstances, that Kate was not going to enter the room.
    For this was a different situation as e. g. in a home where the parent is present and where the children sleep in a room close by, and the parent just listens now and then if all remains quiet.

    Whereas here, Kate had to cover quite a distance from the Tapas restaurant to the apartment, and once she was there, imo it makes sense to assume that she would at least have taken a look at the children, and not just listened if all was quiet.
    This is what Gerry said he did, so why wouldn't Kate do the same?
    Gerry looked in the room because he noticed the door was further ajar than he'd left it. And he was the first check, so he knew exactly how far they'd left the door cracked, so he looked in his own room first (assuming if any child had gotten out of bed they'd be in the parents' bed) - and only then did he go back and look in the kids room. This is the reason given by them for why Gerry looked in the room during his check. Not as SOP, but because he saw the door open.

    In between Gerry's check and Kate's check, one of their friends had checked on the kids. When Kate did her check, she assumed the wider open bedroom door was the result of the friend leaving it open. Although she doesn't state it explicitly, the way it came across to me is that her assessment that all was quiet and the friend had just left the door a bit wider than usual gave her no reason to be suspicious that anything was amiss.

    Kate herself says (on page 71): "I opened the door a little and as I did so, I glanced over at Madeleine's bed."
    So it was, per Kate's own words, clearly a situation where she took a look at the children (as opposed to just listening outside if all was quiet).
    Today 06:31 AM
    She only opened the door after it blew closed in a draft and she realized the draft implied an open door - she first checked for the patio door, which was closed, and only then did she look into the childrens' room for the source of the draft. It helps if you don't take those quotes out of context.

    Both Kate and Gerry opened the door and looked in on the children ONLY after having something happen that was unexplainable to them by ordinary circumstances. For Gerry that was the open bedroom door, for Kate (who assumed the open door was from the last child check) it was the breeze.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    1,670
    Quote Originally Posted by ami View Post
    Gerry looked in the room because he noticed the door was further ajar than he'd left it. And he was the first check, so he knew exactly how far they'd left the door cracked, so he looked in his own room first (assuming if any child had gotten out of bed they'd be in the parents' bed) - and only then did he go back and look in the kids room. This is the reason given by them for why Gerry looked in the room during his check. Not as SOP, but because he saw the door open.

    In between Gerry's check and Kate's check, one of their friends had checked on the kids. When Kate did her check, she assumed the wider open bedroom door was the result of the friend leaving it open. Although she doesn't state it explicitly, the way it came across to me is that her assessment that all was quiet and the friend had just left the door a bit wider than usual gave her no reason to be suspicious that anything was amiss.



    She only opened the door after it blew closed in a draft and she realized the draft implied an open door - she first checked for the patio door, which was closed, and only then did she look into the childrens' room for the source of the draft. It helps if you don't take those quotes out of context.

    Both Kate and Gerry opened the door and looked in on the children ONLY after having something happen that was unexplainable to them by ordinary circumstances. For Gerry that was the open bedroom door, for Kate (who assumed the open door was from the last child check) it was the breeze.
    Still, to infer that they would not have taken a look at the children if nothing had been been out of the ordinary is non-sequitur. For the text itself does not provide enough to conclude this. So they might still have looked inside the room.

    Also keep in mind that we are dealing with the a version of events as told by the McCanns. It is their story, and a story is not the same as an account of actual facts. This does not mean the story must be made up - for it may correspond to facts. But it may also not correspond to facts.
    Or parts of the story may correspond to facts, others may not.
    The McCanns' own words (as well as their behavior) consitute "evidence" insofar as one can a say: "Here in Kate's book we have evidence of what she stated." Stated.

    Especially interesting are therefore contradictions in the various statements. Contradictions are a red flag, and there's a big one in Kate's book re her version of how Gerry entered the apartment. For she states that both Gerry (just as she, later) entered the apartment through the unlocked patio doors.
    But this contradicts Gerry's version in the police interview, where he stated that he entered through the locked [front] door using his key.

    So whose version corresponds to the actual facts?
    Last edited by rashomon; 06-03-2012 at 07:54 AM.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Glasgow,Scotland UK
    Posts
    22,764
    Quote Originally Posted by rashomon View Post
    Kate (in her book "Madeleine", p. 71) about her entering of the apartment:
    [bolding mine]


    What struck me as odd when trying to visualize the above scenario: Why would Kate "pull a door to" of a room that she wanted to enter?

    Here is a link to the floor plan of apartment 5A (a bit further down the page):

    http://www.mccannfiles.com/id21.html

    Kate states that she entered the apartment through the (unlocked) patio doors.
    Not yet having entered the children's room, she then noticed that the door to this room was "open quite wide".
    She then says that she "walked over and gently began to pull it to".
    She has not yet entered the room.
    Imo it makes no sense to "pull the door to" of a room which one is going to enter.
    Pardon me if I'm being totally stupid,I'm sleep deprived,but what makes no sense about pulling a door to open it? My living room and kitchen doors are pull where as the rest are push?

    maybe I'm just having a slow day and missing the point.

    Also I just stand at my kids opened doors to see if they are OK,I do not open the door fully or go in for fear of waking them up,I only get 2/3 hours of sleep a night cause one of them are up and down all night so I sure as heck ain't chancing waking them up.that said I'm not sure how id be if it was anywhere but at home but I know I wouldn't have left them alone to go for dinner.I worry leaving mine in their beds to go to the bin outside or grab the washing in.

    Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk 2
    All truths are easy to understand once they are discovered; The point is to discover them.



    Jodi Ann Arias - GUILTY 1st Degree Murder

    Sentence - LIFE Without Parole


  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    3,175
    Quote Originally Posted by rashomon View Post
    Still, to infer that they would not have taken a look at the children if nothing had been been out of the ordinary is non-sequitur. For the text itself does not provide enough to conclude this. So they might still have looked inside the room.

    Also keep in mind that we are dealing with the a version of events as told by the McCanns. It is their story, and a story is not the same as an account of actual facts. This does not mean the story must be made up - for it may correspond to facts. But it may also not correspond to facts.
    Or parts of the story may correspond to facts, others may not.
    The McCanns' own words (as well as their behavior) consitute "evidence" insofar as one can a say: "Here in Kate's book we have evidence of what she stated." Stated.

    Especially interesting are therefore contradictions in the various statements. Contradictions are a red flag, and there's a big one in Kate's book re her version of how Gerry entered the apartment. For she states that both Gerry (just as she, later) entered the apartment through the unlocked patio doors.
    But this contradicts Gerry's version in the police interview, where he stated that he entered through the locked [front] door using his key.

    So whose version corresponds to the actual facts?
    I'm really not sure what you're getting at, then. The thread title was "The McCanns' own words" and therefore we are discussing their words.

    There is a book, so it's easy to read their words. Kate described listening for the children, determining they were not awake when she did not hear them, and gently starting to pull the door closed to the preferred position. When the door blew closed she DID ultimately open the door all the way and look in on them. What is the issue with that? At first she listened, and after feeling the door blow closed she then looked in on them. I'm still not sure what the problem is with that description. You want to parse it out as if it is evidence, I get that - but evidence of WHAT?

    About the discrepancy with how Gerry entered the apartment, my guess is that one of the versions was mistaken. Just as discussed in the book about how Gerry remembered meeting the friend on one side of the street while the friend remembered meeting him on the other side. She states clearly that the two memories contradict, and they're not sure which one of them got it right and which was remembering it wrong. The other day I told my husband I handed my car keys to him while he remembered me throwing them on the back seat of the car while unloading groceries. He was right - they were on the back seat of the car. I still clearly remember handing them to him. I was wrong. Had that moment become part of a crime case, our statements would be different. Personally, I'm more concerned with patterns of lies, or patterns of changing stories, but that's just me.

    I often read back through the John Walsh book, or the Peterson case, or other books written by the clearly innocent loved ones of murder or kidnap victims. It's a good baseline, IMO, of innocent behavior under stress. The innocent don't have photographic memories, and they don't necessarily have consistent statements about details. Witnesses don't have consistent stories either. Car colors are remembered differently, hair color, how many minutes elapsed, what street they were on, etc.

    Not saying that the McCann book is another example of innocent victims describing the crime, but that the specific discrepancy mentioned in this thread wasn't anything that I haven't read in books of those who were genuinely innocent.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    1,670
    Quote Originally Posted by josie1986 View Post
    Pardon me if I'm being totally stupid,I'm sleep deprived,but what makes no sense about pulling a door to open it? My living room and kitchen doors are pull where as the rest are push?
    It makes no sense because the door to the children's room had to be pushed to open it (not pulled):

    Floor plan of apartment 5A
    http://www.mccannfiles.com/id21.html

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Rockport, TX
    Posts
    2,226
    Quote Originally Posted by rashomon View Post
    It makes no sense because the door to the children's room had to be pushed to open it (not pulled):

    Floor plan of apartment 5A
    http://www.mccannfiles.com/id21.html

    She was pulling the door to her to close it (not all the way, to just a crack) Then it closed all the way and she opened it back up.

    I don't see the confusion?

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    1,294
    Quote Originally Posted by ami View Post
    I'm really not sure what you're getting at, then. The thread title was "The McCanns' own words" and therefore we are discussing their words.

    There is a book, so it's easy to read their words. Kate described listening for the children, determining they were not awake when she did not hear them, and gently starting to pull the door closed to the preferred position. When the door blew closed she DID ultimately open the door all the way and look in on them. What is the issue with that? At first she listened, and after feeling the door blow closed she then looked in on them. I'm still not sure what the problem is with that description. You want to parse it out as if it is evidence, I get that - but evidence of WHAT?

    About the discrepancy with how Gerry entered the apartment, my guess is that one of the versions was mistaken. Just as discussed in the book about how Gerry remembered meeting the friend on one side of the street while the friend remembered meeting him on the other side. She states clearly that the two memories contradict, and they're not sure which one of them got it right and which was remembering it wrong. The other day I told my husband I handed my car keys to him while he remembered me throwing them on the back seat of the car while unloading groceries. He was right - they were on the back seat of the car. I still clearly remember handing them to him. I was wrong. Had that moment become part of a crime case, our statements would be different. Personally, I'm more concerned with patterns of lies, or patterns of changing stories, but that's just me.

    I often read back through the John Walsh book, or the Peterson case, or other books written by the clearly innocent loved ones of murder or kidnap victims. It's a good baseline, IMO, of innocent behavior under stress. The innocent don't have photographic memories, and they don't necessarily have consistent statements about details. Witnesses don't have consistent stories either. Car colors are remembered differently, hair color, how many minutes elapsed, what street they were on, etc.

    Not saying that the McCann book is another example of innocent victims describing the crime, but that the specific discrepancy mentioned in this thread wasn't anything that I haven't read in books of those who were genuinely innocent.
    Thank you for being objective. We also need to realise that there were cultural and language barriers as well. And often times when in countries with different native languages and societal rituals certain words and phrases and expressions that one uses can have a totally different meaning in a different language and culture. Even certain words or phrases in English as a primary language vary depending on the English speaking country you are in. It is not strange to me that what was said under duress or how someone from another culture shows distress could be translated or taken incorrectly. A good example would be cultural expectations when a loved one dies of old age. In certain countries wailing, public expressions of grief and threatening to kill one's self to follow the beloved is expected. In other countries, it is not acceptable to show any grief, the persons time was up and stoism is the only respectful way to honor the dead. So...imagine someone from the culture that expresses grief to experience a loss in the stoic culture. I can see where many wrong impressions about the person, the death and it's causes or even the mental sanity and honesty of the griever could be called into question. Or if the person from a background where one must be emotionless out of respect is in another country...they would be labled socio-pathic, suspect, cold, etc. Having a child abducted in itself is a horrific experience...we should wonder if they were culturally misunderstood in some ways and how these cultural values and barriers affected the outcomes of the case. Also, while many American's are originally from the UK's colonies, we are very different in our means of expression, values, etc...very. Because the McCann's may be reserved or not hysterical on TV, that is not a sign of guilt, it is a sign of social standards, mores and norms in another country. IMOO.
    Last edited by LucyOso; 06-03-2012 at 05:19 PM. Reason: Spelling

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Glasgow,Scotland UK
    Posts
    22,764
    Quote Originally Posted by rashomon View Post
    It makes no sense because the door to the children's room had to be pushed to open it (not pulled):

    Floor plan of apartment 5A
    http://www.mccannfiles.com/id21.html
    Oh ha I knew I had to be missing something.

    Hmm not sure what to think of this then because it's in a published book and not in an interview where it could have been a slip of the tongue.

    Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk 2
    All truths are easy to understand once they are discovered; The point is to discover them.



    Jodi Ann Arias - GUILTY 1st Degree Murder

    Sentence - LIFE Without Parole

Page 1 of 12 1 2 3 11 ... LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. The McCanns and the media
    By Mrs G Norris in forum Madeleine McCann
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-18-2013, 08:07 AM
  2. Who was listening to the McCanns?
    By Isabella in forum Madeleine McCann
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 04-19-2009, 03:51 PM
  3. Will the McCanns Willing Go to Portugal?
    By Salem in forum Madeleine McCann
    Replies: 60
    Last Post: 07-20-2008, 02:44 PM
  4. Why do the McCanns care about us?
    By hcc2007 in forum Madeleine McCann
    Replies: 76
    Last Post: 10-04-2007, 04:18 PM
  5. Replies: 15
    Last Post: 09-15-2007, 08:17 PM

Tags for this Thread