The McCanns' Own Words

[rashomon]

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.

[rashomon]

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."

[ami]

Originally Posted by rashomon

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.

[rashomon]

Originally Posted by ami

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?

[LadyL]

Originally Posted by rashomon

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

[rpgman]

Originally Posted by LadyL

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....:rolleyes:

JMO

[rashomon]

Originally Posted by LadyL

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).

[ami]

Originally Posted by rashomon

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.

[rashomon]

Originally Posted by ami

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?

[josie1986]

Originally Posted by rashomon

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

[ami]

Originally Posted by rashomon

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.

[rashomon]

Originally Posted by josie1986

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

[EGirl]

Originally Posted by rashomon

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?

[LucyOso]

Originally Posted by ami

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.

[josie1986]

Originally Posted by rashomon

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

[ami]

Originally Posted by rashomon

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

Right, and when she saw it was too far open, she "pulled it to" - in other words, she pulled it into the regular mostly-closed position. She was closing the door at first, not opening it. When it slammed, she realized a window was open and ultimately opened the door to look in on the kids.

[josie1986]

Originally Posted by ami

Right, and when she saw it was too far open, she "pulled it to" - in other words, she pulled it into the regular mostly-closed position. She was closing the door at first, not opening it. When it slammed, she realized a window was open and ultimately opened the door to look in on the kids.

Well that makes sense.....my Oh my I feel so slow for not catching on to this

Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk 2

[rashomon]

Originally Posted by ami

Right, and when she saw it was too far open, she "pulled it to" - in other words, she pulled it into the regular mostly-closed position. She was closing the door at first, not opening it. When it slammed, she realized a window was open and ultimately opened the door to look in on the kids.

But [as discussed before] this scenario only makes sense if Kate was not going to enter the children's room to do a visual check on them.
For if she was going to step inside the children's room, even if the door was "too far open", she would not have "pulled it to" before going inside the room, but would have pulled it to after leaving the room.

Your interpretation of the scene is that she wasn't going to enter to take a look on the children.

Another interpretation: Kate chose to create the "door being slammed shut by the draught"-scene in her book to direct the attention of the reader to the [allegedly] open window.

[rashomon]

Originally Posted by ami

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 think we all have experienced similar moments when we were subjectively "absolutely certain" that a scene occurred in a certain way, and still it turned out that we were wrong. The unreliability of eyewitness testimony is well known.

But as for the McCanns' version of events where Gerry first stated to the police that he had entered the apartment using his keys to open the locked [front] door - why would he do that, in view of the fact that the patio doors were unlocked and he knew they were?

[ami]

Originally Posted by rashomon

But [as discussed before] this scenario only makes sense if Kate was not going to enter the children's room to do a visual check on them.
For if she was going to step inside the children's room, even if the door was "too far open", she would not have "pulled it to" before going inside the room, but would have pulled it to after leaving the room.

Your interpretation of the scene is that she wasn't going to enter to take a look on the children.

Another interpretation: Kate chose to create the "door being slammed shut by the draught"-scene in her book to direct the attention of the reader to the [allegedly] open window.

Yes, that's my interpretation because that's how it was explained, and the explanation made sense to me. I'm still not sure why it's a point of contention. We can never know another human's intentions except by how they describe them, or how they enact them. Both are imperfect because they can become skewed in the process, innocently or not.

When Kate wrote that she stopped to listen to see if she heard the noise of children who had been woken up from their sleep, that makes sense to me because I do that myself and have for years. Opening the door and looking in makes sense if you expect them to not be there - or to have fallen out of bed, etc - but listening for noise without opening the door makes sense if you're pretty sure they'll remain asleep and are just listening for crying that would indicate they woke up.

So when she described stopping and listening, hearing no sounds of crying, and then noticing the door was wider than she liked and gently pulling it more closed - just in my mind, this is a normal parental thing to do, that one has done thousands of times and this is a night like any other (as far as anyone knew at that moment). And since it seems so normal, and since it's something I've done myself thousands of times, I didn't question how Kate McCann wrote about it in her book. It didn't pop any red flags for me. I know it did for you, and I'm curious what part of it seemed strange to you. Sometimes things pop red flags for one person and not another, and I get that - I'm just wondering which part of it was ringing a warning bell.

[ami]

Originally Posted by rashomon

I think we all have experienced similar moments when we were subjectively "absolutely certain" that a scene occurred in a certain way, and still it turned out that we were wrong. The unreliability of eyewitness testimony is well known.

But as for the McCanns' version of events where Gerry first stated to the police that he had entered the apartment using his keys to open the locked [front] door - why would he do that, in view of the fact that the patio doors were unlocked and he knew they were?

I don't know. :) Maybe he was feeling overwhelmed with guilt that he'd allowed someone to come in and take his child, so his instinct was to tell the police that the door was locked (his children were being protected behind a locked door) rather than that they'd been very lax in their protection and in fact a different door was unlocked and anyone could have used it to walk in.

However I haven't read the police transcripts in which Gerry was recorded saying he used the key, so I can't be certain how that statement played out, or how accurately it was translated.

[brit1981]

She was probably going to do what Matt did, and just listen. Just for the record that is what a huge amount of parents who stay at mark Warner resorts rely on when they use the nanny listening service - i.e instead of a babysitter a nanny listened outside the doors of the room every hald an hour for the sound of crying. Since madeleine mcCann disappeared this service has been stopped (although due to the layout of the complex i.e all over the village where the McCanns stayed this was not offered). So I can see why the McCanns thought having parents and doctors checking on the children every twenty minutes or so would be safe.
I think the fact that three years before madeleine disappeared another little girl disappeared without a trace only seven miles away, and in the three years before Madeleine disappeared there had been at least eight cases of British children on holiday with their parents woke up to find a strange man in their bedrooms, in five of these cases the man got into bed with the children and sexually abused them! Apparently the tour operators wanted this to be kept quiet. The last known case was just a few months before madeleine disappeared, and all cases were in different locations, but all within an hour of where madeleine disappeared. I find it more likely that the man responsible for breaking into holiday apartments and abusing children is responsible for the disappearance than her parents, along with several witnesses, the british police, and the british forensic science service have staged an elaborate cover-up whilst at the same time doing everything they could to ensure a huge media prescence.

[LucyOso]

Originally Posted by brit1981

She was probably going to do what Matt did, and just listen. Just for the record that is what a huge amount of parents who stay at mark Warner resorts rely on when they use the nanny listening service - i.e instead of a babysitter a nanny listened outside the doors of the room every hald an hour for the sound of crying. Since madeleine mcCann disappeared this service has been stopped (although due to the layout of the complex i.e all over the village where the McCanns stayed this was not offered). So I can see why the McCanns thought having parents and doctors checking on the children every twenty minutes or so would be safe.
I think the fact that three years before madeleine disappeared another little girl disappeared without a trace only seven miles away, and in the three years before Madeleine disappeared there had been at least eight cases of British children on holiday with their parents woke up to find a strange man in their bedrooms, in five of these cases the man got into bed with the children and sexually abused them! Apparently the tour operators wanted this to be kept quiet. The last known case was just a few months before madeleine disappeared, and all cases were in different locations, but all within an hour of where madeleine disappeared. I find it more likely that the man responsible for breaking into holiday apartments and abusing children is responsible for the disappearance than her parents, along with several witnesses, the british police, and the british forensic science service have staged an elaborate cover-up whilst at the same time doing everything they could to ensure a huge media prescence.

Great Post! I have seen this type of situation time and time again in areas of the world that rely heavily on tourism for capital. It happens all over the world everyday where known risks are downplayed to keep the money coming in. At many of these places, if staff is asked bluntly about crime by customers, they are provided with a coached answer to minimize concern and placate the customer. Also, given that "listening service" is common, I can't fault the parents for feeling their children were secure in this location, especially if it is promoted as such. The question is, how much culpability does this resort have given this type of event has occurred multiple times? Did they ever find the missing child from 3 years before? Did they ever find the man who was getting into bed with children? I wonder why, given the history of the crimes in a close proximity, they would focus on the McCanns instead of a perp in their community. But, my guess is the money from tourism is to be protected at all costs...

[brit1981]

I think protecting tourism played a big part here, plus a refusal to accept that there were paedophiles in Portugal (it turned out there were a lot of them in the Algarve from all over Europe). It rminds me of when priests could get away with sexual abuse of children, because "everyone knows people like that do not do that".
I think the Joana cipriano case is telling of the attitude. Joana was a little girl who disappeared without a trace in 2004 seven miles from where Madeleine disappeared. No body has ever been recovered, but her mother is in prison for killing her. Her mother claims she is innocent and was tortured by the police. The police claim her extensive injuries came from her falling down the stairs. Enough evidence was found against some police officers to charge and try them for the torture. They were acquited, but it turned out a senior officer had fabricated supporting evidence in the form of statements. This officer was I believe charged, tried and convicted and given a suspended sentence for fabricating this evidence, but no retrial of the officers was held and her mother is still in prison. Despite having a conviction, and suspended prison sentance the senior officer not only stayed in the police, but was put in charge of the disappearance of another little girl. Once again he blamed the mother. This little girl was madeleine McCann.

My thoughts are that in a country with little crime it seems likely that two disapearances of little girls, and eight known attacks on tourist children in their bedrooms, five resulting in sexual abuse of the child all within a three year period and in an hour's range, are at least worth investigating to see if they are related. It is also worth noting that around the time of Madeleine's disappearance there was a huge scandal in Portugal involving sexual abuse of children in a care home, that apparently involved a lot of seemingly respectable people.

It seems to me that there is a circular logic in place i.e of course it must be the mothers, because Portugal has no paedophiles, and then we have no paedophiles because the mother's are the ones killing their daughters.

http://news.sky.com/home/world-news/article/1315666

also think many myths have been peddled s facts i.e that Madeleine's DNA was found etc. Several British newspapers printed apologies and retractions, and pay the find madeleine fund compensation after they admitted they printed stories that had no factual basis. think part of the problem is the 24 hour news culture where they have to find something to fill their pages. There has also been problems with a few individuels setting up websites making up things about the mccanns and peddling false information, and then going into forums and spreading the information. Google tony bennett for an example of how some people have behaved.

[rashomon]

Originally Posted by ami

I don't know. :) Maybe he was feeling overwhelmed with guilt that he'd allowed someone to come in and take his child, so his instinct was to tell the police that the door was locked (his children were being protected behind a locked door) rather than that they'd been very lax in their protection and in fact a different door was unlocked and anyone could have used it to walk in.

However I haven't read the police transcripts in which Gerry was recorded saying he used the key, so I can't be certain how that statement played out, or how accurately it was translated.

From the PJ files:

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.

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id192.html