Madeleine McCann: German prisoner identified as suspect - #21

[misty48]

When KM reduced the open angle of the door, it slammed shut. Fairly obviously this was caused by the open window.
Earlier when GM reduced the open angle of the same door, it did not slam shut. Therefore it seems reasonable to deduce that at the time of GM check, the window was not open.

IMO it's wrong to presume that the window wasn't open simply because the door didn't slam shut as Gerry pulled it towards him. Wind gusts are unpredictable & the windspeed may have increased between his check at 9.05pm & Kate's check at 10pm. Furthermore, the door may have slammed shut as he closed the patio door after leaving the apartment & he just didn't hear it.

 

[Loobyloo]

<snipped>
To be honest, I feel that this report is often treated as credible. Yet written police statements from upstanding members of the community (many of whom are doctors) are dismissed because they don’t fit a particular theory, to me ... this doesn’t make sense!
.

I take your point about the second-hand nature of the 'horrible job' report - it may well be a fabrication by someone who wanted their moment of tabloid glory. But it seems an odd story to make up, & as far as I know the GF never came forward to deny it.

I'm not dismissing the witness statements, though I do think some of the precise details of timings, door/window/shutter states etc. could be more along the lines of 'best guesses' rather than crystal clear memories. (Personally I couldn't tell you now the exact positions of all the doors in my own house!)

This may all be true but it’s not my point. I am simply saying that they were credible people who put their names to their statements while being interviewed by LE. Whichever way you look at it, this information should be taken more seriously than information from a friend of an ex GF of CB who was unwilling to put their name to the information.

I agree these statements should be given higher status than a second-hand report. But is there actually a conflict between them? I don't think anything in the witness statements rules out the possibility of an abduction, does it? On the contrary, the statements contain several references to the apartment being watched & to sightings of a child being carried away.

Good to evaluate the relative quality of evidence in this way

 

[redplanet]

“Absolutely nothing suspicious observed” is IMO a firm position considering even GM thought the door being open was “strange”.

I favour the pre GM check for time of entry because if CB has any awareness of the group, it’s the least risky time to enter. As mentioned too many times before, I think there is at least reasonable doubt that MM woke up, opened the bedroom door, found no parents in the apartment and then hopped back into bed a went to sleep - this occurring within the first 1-1.5 hours of sleep is quite hard for me to accept.

These things said, I would still be only 60:40 on it due to the counter arguments of total time in the apartment and the requirement to hide quickly prior to GM entering the apartment.

Inline with your point above, when do you think is the most likely time for CB to enter the apartment?

At GM check I dont find the change in door position to be suspicious and am content with the explanation of child opens door. And what else is there to be suspicious about during GM check? Nothing at all. Most significantly the child is observed to be alive and well.
When does intruder enter? I'm not sure whether before or after MO check.

 

[redplanet]

IMO it's wrong to presume that the window wasn't open simply because the door didn't slam shut as Gerry pulled it towards him. Wind gusts are unpredictable & the windspeed may have increased between his check at 9.05pm & Kate's check at 10pm. Furthermore, the door may have slammed shut as he closed the patio door after leaving the apartment & he just didn't hear it.

IMO he went inside the actual room and would have noticed if the window and shutter were open.

 

[redplanet]

On that date, sunset was at about 20.25 and twilight ended about 20.53, so it wouldn't have been any darker at 21.45 than it was at 21.00.

You are entirely correct in terms of civil twilight. After that was a period of further reduction of light until about 21.25. (BTW before the war, one was allowed to drive a car without lights until an hour after sunset).

 

[Denis R Tandib]

I'm not dismissing the witness statements, though I do think some of the precise details of timings, door/window/shutter states etc. could be more along the lines of 'best guesses' rather than crystal clear memories. (Personally I couldn't tell you now the exact positions of all the doors in my own house!)

Two quick points in response:

1. For the people making these statements, the stakes are very high - two of them are the missing child’s parents. They have reflected on what happened and I think we should interpret these statements as the most accurate versions of events they could provide.

2. Let’s not broaden what is being suggested. We are only talking about the position of the door, particularly as it relates to GM’s check. In my opinion, in this context where parents want to keep kids asleep, they would be mimicking a regular home routine. IMO, GM and KM knew with certainty how they left the door. 35 minutes later it was definitely in a different position otherwise it wouldn’t be in the statements.

I agree these statements should be given higher status than a second-hand report. But is there actually a conflict between them? I don't think anything in the witness statements rules out the possibility of an abduction, does it? On the contrary, the statements contain several references to the apartment being watched & to sightings of a child being carried away.

Good to evaluate the relative quality of evidence in this way

I am perfectly happy for the statements and media reports to be used together, there is no conflict here. What does confuse me though is how people place higher value on statements and media reports if it supports their preferred theory and if it doesn’t support it, they dismiss it without explanation ... they then state that the people who are making the statements are inaccurate or mistaken - the statements may not be perfect but considering the context we should accept that at least the parents made every single effort to provide accurate information.

 

[Okapi]

There IMO may be a far stronger way to explain all the clothing alerts as 100% caused by the actions of an intruder.

I do wonder if the perp was hiding in or rooting through the wardrobes.

 

[misty48]

IMO he went inside the actual room and would have noticed if the window and shutter were open.

At 9,30pm MO stood in the doorway directly facing the window & he didn't notice the window & shutter were open - probably because they were obscured by the main drapes. GM said that he spent moments gazing at Madeleine sleeping on her bed so his focus & attention had been directed away from the window area anyway. However, the door had moved again between GM & MO's checks so either Madeleine had left the room again or someone else had gone through the door between the two checks.

 

[Denis R Tandib]

At 9,30pm MO stood in the doorway directly facing the window & he didn't notice the window & shutter were open - probably because they were obscured by the main drapes. GM said that he spent moments gazing at Madeleine sleeping on her bed so his focus & attention had been directed away from the window area anyway. However, the door had moved again between GM & MO's checks so either Madeleine had left the room again or someone else had gone through the door between the two checks.

DBM

 

[Denis R Tandib]

At GM check I dont find the change in door position to be suspicious and am content with the explanation of child opens door. And what else is there to be suspicious about during GM check? Nothing at all. Most significantly the child is observed to be alive and well.
When does intruder enter? I'm not sure whether before or after MO check.

In terms of physical discrepancies, there is no difference between GM’s check and MO’s check: the kid’s bedroom door is more open on both occasions.

The other differences between the checks are that GM confirms that MM is in bed and MO “feels” as though there is light coming into the room. If we examine this, MO didn’t see MM because she wasn’t in the room, he didn’t see her because he didn’t look for her. The brightness of the room is IMO highly subjective, while it indicates a change in the room, it certainly doesn’t confirm it.

Given that the situation is almost exactly the same, I’m confused how you can say with almost certainty “nothing suspicious” during GM’s check but you are open to an intruder being responsible for opening the door in practically the same situation during MO’s check - why aren’t you absolutely sure MM opened the door on the second check as well as the first?

To me it looks like you are making the facts fit a theory, not a theory fit the facts. Just MOO.

 

[Okapi]

So we are back now to the parents?

CB the title of 21 threads on this case has been forgotten? The German police had their moment in the limelight and now its back to endless discussions about shutters and cadaver smells.

Do yourself a favour and read the thread before posting. In short, no, not the parents, at all.

 

[Okapi]

Do yourself a favour and read the thread before posting. In short, no, not the parents, at all.

Actually, apologies for my rude reply. But yes, we are re-examining old information in the context of newish theories about CB.

 

[Okapi]

Just on the open window...

I recall reading somewhere that there was a moderate NW wind that night. Didn't the children's bedroom window face north, onto the adjacent main road?(Please correct me if I'm wrong).

I can't find the link for the weather but there is this quote from KM:

"I ran out into the car park of our holiday apartment, flying from end to end, yelling desperately: 'Madeleine! Madeleine!' It was so cold and so windy. I kept picturing her in her short-sleeved Marks & Spencer Eeyore pyjamas and feeling how chilled she would be."

Madeleine McCann's mother reveals suicidal thoughts in new book

During the checks between 9 and 10pm, an open shutter/window may have been rattling even if the draught or a wind gust hadn't yet slammed the bedroom door. If nothing was noticed by GM or MO, it's likely the window wasn't yet opened. As we've discussed, this doesn't exclude the perp already being in the building.

 

[Newthoughts]

IMO it's wrong to presume that the window wasn't open simply because the door didn't slam shut as Gerry pulled it towards him. Wind gusts are unpredictable & the windspeed may have increased between his check at 9.05pm & Kate's check at 10pm. Furthermore, the door may have slammed shut as he closed the patio door after leaving the apartment & he just didn't hear it.

Indeed or blew further open. On his check did he leave the patio door slightly open? The route from patio doors to kids bedroom is fairly open plan and I doubt the doors are particularly hefty.

 

[Denis R Tandib]

At GM check I dont find the change in door position to be suspicious and am content with the explanation of child opens door. And what else is there to be suspicious about during GM check? Nothing at all. Most significantly the child is observed to be alive and well.
When does intruder enter? I'm not sure whether before or after MO check.

Further to my prior points I reviewed KM’s statement from 6 May:

When asked about the schedule of her children she says that in England Madeleine slept in a room by herself and the twins slept in another room. At home the twins go to bed between 7 and 7.30 PM, Madeleine half an hour later. During the holidays, the three children went to bed at 7:30PM. She says that during the holidays it is relatively easy to put the three children to sleep when they had not slept during the day and were tired after the day's activities. When on holiday the twins and Madeleine went to sleep at the same time. They never went out to eat unless the three were actually asleep. Normally when they left the apartment the three children had been asleep close to 1 hour. With the exception of what has been described above, during the holidays, she does not remember if any of the children was awake during the night. However, in England Madeleine sometimes woke up during the night, around 2 ' 2:30 AM and went to her parents. During holidays it was normal for the children to be awake by 7:30/8:00, in England, at home, they would normally wake between 7 and 7:30 AM.

Regarding a British custom of having a behaviour chart for the children, she says that she has several notes about Madeleine because with some regularity she gets up during the night. This situation was reported from April 2006 up to her birthday that same year, when she stopped having this problem. These notes correspond to the stars given on the nights Madeleine did not get up and go to her parents' room. When she had 20 stars she got a present and if she woke up at night and did not stay in her bed, she did not get a star.

Continuing:

K says that on the 3rd they left the apartment leaving the children sleeping. Knowing that Madeleine sometimes woke and got up, she did not worry about leaving her alone, because when this happened, and it wasn't always, it was around 2 ' 3 AM at which time they would be back in the apartment.

It wasn’t normal for her to wake until the early hours. When she does wake up, she goes to her parents ... they are trying to train her to stop doing this.

When she woke in the night earlier in the holiday, she went into see her parents.

I don’t think she got up went to the loo and then went back to bed and fell asleep. Without parents in the apartment, I think it’s likely she would have cried, loudly, until she was comforted.

 

[Okapi]

That's interesting Denis. It does suggest MBM was NOT aware her parents would be out.

And also that she often sought parental reassurance when she awoke at night.

 

[Okapi]

I think it's noteworthy that of the other local break-in sexual assaults of young girls, the offender was not apparently in a rush to vacate the property.

"In most of the cases, the intruder appeared in the early hours of the morning and there were no signs of forced entry to the properties.

The suspect may have been in the villa or looking around for some time before committing the offences or being disturbed, either by a parent coming in or the child waking up, officers said.

He remained calm even when disturbed, they added."

Madeleine McCann: Police hunt sex attacker

 

[Newthoughts]

In terms of physical discrepancies, there is no difference between GM’s check and MO’s check: the kid’s bedroom door is more open on both occasions.

The other differences between the checks are that GM confirms that MM is in bed and MO “feels” as though there is light coming into the room. If we examine this, MO didn’t see MM because she wasn’t in the room, he didn’t see her because he didn’t look for her. The brightness of the room is IMO highly subjective, while it indicates a change in the room, it certainly doesn’t confirm it.

Given that the situation is almost exactly the same, I’m confused how you can say with almost certainty “nothing suspicious” during GM’s check but you are open to an intruder being responsible for opening the door in practically the same situation during MO’s check - why aren’t you absolutely sure MM opened the door on the second check as well as the first?

To me it looks like you are making the facts fit a theory, not a theory fit the facts. Just MOO.

It feels like people are confusing credibility and relevance. The statements of the McCanns and MO are highly credible - no reason to doubt their truth or accuracy. But how much do they actually tell us? How relevant are they beyond giving a window of time?

The second or third hand comment from a gf may or may not be as credible. But it is way more relevant in that It tells us something about CB..

There are are telling differences in the details given in GM and MOs initial statements. The most significant being that GM entered an appt he was familiar with and went into the children's bedroom for a reason - noticing nothing that unduly worried him.

MO entered an unfamiliar appt and glanced at the middle of the bedroom because, unaware of what unusual would look like, why would you risk waking someone else's children .

What is lacking is any attempt to clarify those details to clear them up.

GM says the door was 'half open' rather than ajar as left - odd. He wondered if MM has gone to sleep in their room so as not to be disturbed by her siblings so he entered the room and did his visual check. All was well. He didn't notice anything else untoward.

As he went into a room he'd have left and spent time there I'd assume he'd have noticed anything more unusual in lighting levels, changes in windows or shutters open.

MO says the door was 'open' - degree unspecified - and there was enough light in the bedroom to see the twins.

He didn't see MM suggesting he didn't go into the room but as all was quiet he deduced all was well. As you would. Looking at the layout of the flat you wouldn't even need to go right to the door to see the twins. Seeing the twins would not mean seeing the window either.

So we can't deduce let alone confirm anything from bright enough to see the twins. That covers a multitude of light levels and GM also saw his children. That could well have been the same.


MO said the light was not from an artificial source inside the flat but an external one. Again nothing can be deduced. We don't know if that's normal

MO also said it seemed to him that the shutters of the 'master' bedroom were open but he wasn't sure about the window. Not mentioned by GM.

But again this lacks info. What bedroom is that exactly? I assumed that to mean KM and GMs room but again it isn't clear. If their door was open would that might have been noticeable but there was a bathroom was in the way.

If it was their room does it mean anything at all? Would their shutters normally be open? I would certainly like sunlight in my bedroom but would be happy to block it out in my kids room to keep them asleep till a reasonable hour.

But if 'master' bedroom refers to the children's room based on size rather than occupancy was it in that room that he sensed open shutters? If it was then it becomes more relevant.

MO wouldn't have then shut the door on someone else's children in someone else's flat. He'd have left it. So for all we know the situation he left could have been identical to what KM found and MM already gone.

So I don't think you can conclude that what MO saw was different to what KM saw. I don't think you can say it was similar to what GM saw. All you can say is the window in which MM was taken was between 9.05 and 10.

So nobody needs to doubt any single thing in the Tapas statements to conclude that they don't really tell us that much. It's not a slur it's a simple statement of fact. The comment about the horrible job tells us much more but it doesn't tell us whether it's accurate or not.

 

[redplanet]

In terms of physical discrepancies, there is no difference between GM’s check and MO’s check: the kid’s bedroom door is more open on both occasions.

The other differences between the checks are that GM confirms that MM is in bed and MO “feels” as though there is light coming into the room. If we examine this, MO didn’t see MM because she wasn’t in the room, he didn’t see her because he didn’t look for her. The brightness of the room is IMO highly subjective, while it indicates a change in the room, it certainly doesn’t confirm it.

Given that the situation is almost exactly the same, I’m confused how you can say with almost certainty “nothing suspicious” during GM’s check but you are open to an intruder being responsible for opening the door in practically the same situation during MO’s check - why aren’t you absolutely sure MM opened the door on the second check as well as the first?

To me it looks like you are making the facts fit a theory, not a theory fit the facts. Just MOO.

The situation during GM check is: MM definitely present alive and well. The situation during MO2 check is: unknown which room MM was in, unknown whether she was even still in the apartment, and unknown whether she was safe and well.

 

[mrjitty]

It feels like people are confusing credibility and relevance. The statements of the McCanns and MO are highly credible - no reason to doubt their truth or accuracy.

BIB

I disagree as a general principle. Even earnest witnesses are frequently incorrect.

The timeline evidence reminds me a lot of the Pistorius witnesses. Due to the contradictions, multiple witnesses must be wrong about stuff. But it is so hard to know who is accurate about what. That'w why testing the witnesses in Court is so important - but unfortunately these witnesses all contaminated their evidence in advance.

It's why I believe 5A is a total wild goose chase, and there are no answers to be had there.

Whatever the case against CB, it has nothing to do with moving doors