The McCanns' Own Words

[ami]

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]

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]

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:

[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]Witness statement of Gerald Patrick McCann, on the 4th of May 2007, at 11.15 a.m.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]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[/FONT]

 

[brit1981]

From the PJ files:

I would be careful getting info from websites like this. I am not sure about this particular site, but a lot of the sites like this in the UK have been set up by the same few people, after other sites they set up have been closed down for libel etc. I have noticed that a lot of sites people are refering to on here are just blogspots set up by random individuels with no connection to the case whatsoever.
There was also a problem with the translations I believe, as apparently the portugues statements do not always tally with the english ones. But Matt left to chec the flat before Gerry McCann cam back, and he was able to get into the flat which supports at least some of the doors being unlocked. My own opinion is that the abductor just used the window as it was much more secluded than the patio doors. On the other hand the flat was still fairly hidden from the front, and with so many people coming and going to check, an abductor would maybe feel that if anyone saw him from the back going into the flat they woudl think nothing of it and assume it was one of the party (the tapas area was lit up and the flat was not lie from the outside I belive which woudl mae it even more difficult to see anyone going in clearly). Given that the previous attacks had occurred when parents were in the flats, I thin the person responsible for these was a risk taker.

 

[rashomon]

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.

Speculating on the basis of how oneself would have acted is always problematic because it can influence one's own interpretation of others' behavior.
I for example always went inside to check on my young child when she was sleeping, although her bedroom was right next to ours.

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.

What struck me as odd was that Kate obviously wasn't going to look inside the children's room despite the door being unusually wide open, coupled with the fact that the children had been left alone at quite a distance from the parents.
So my gut feeling is that an unusually wide open door would probably cause a parent to do some more checking than just listening; for example, Kate herself points out that the open door led Gerry to check whether Madeleine had wandered into their own bedroom.

 

[rashomon]

I would be careful getting info from websites like this.

The info provided by this site is listed as being from the publicly released PJ files. http://www.mccannfiles.com/id192.html

A good method to double-check would be to do a comparison of the text passage in question at other sites who also provide access to the PJ files. [FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]
[/FONT]

 

[brit1981]

She knew two other people had checked on them after the door had initially been shut so why would she assume an intruder had opened it and the children were not there. She did not hear anything so had no reason to think the children had woken and left the room, so if she was just checking for crying she would not look in. Matt admitted he did not check, the nanny listening service at other MW resorts relied just on listening.

As for the PJ files, some of these are bad translations from English to Portuguese to English again etc. Better to look at sites like the BBC which does not have agendas.

 

[LucyOso]

She knew two other people had checked on them after the door had initially been shut so why would she assume an intruder had opened it and the children were not there. She did not hear anything so had no reason to think the children had woken and left the room, so if she was just checking for crying she would not look in. Matt admitted he did not check, the nanny listening service at other MW resorts relied just on listening.

As for the PJ files, some of these are bad translations from English to Portuguese to English again etc. Better to look at sites like the BBC which does not have agendas.

I agree. The BBC is a good source.

I looked at the PJ site and anyone can obtain an official sounding url and police documents. However, it looks like most of the documents were translated using a computer program and not a human academic expert who understands cultural, syntax, kinesics and language differences. Interestingly, the first document I read stated in the first paragraph that she did not speak the language and thery provided her with a police interpreter. And NOT with someone from her country's embassy or fair representation or an impartial interpreter. Major conflict of interest and in violation with certain Human Rights Laws. This type of situation happens to ex-pats all the time and they are deamed guilty and even sign documents that they do not know what they mean. Even the nature of this interview was set-up to determine her "guilt" and not as a true fact finding mission to locate a child. Note to self: always request a member from one's embassy or a embassy with an agreement with one's country prior to speaking with police when abroad.

 

[saggymoon]

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.

They said they only ever listened at the door and never once actually physically looked. Until the Thursday when Gerry says he looked cos the door was wider open.

 

[rashomon]

She knew two other people had checked on them after the door had initially been shut so why would she assume an intruder had opened it and the children were not there. She did not hear anything so had no reason to think the children had woken and left the room, so if she was just checking for crying she would not look in.

I don't think checking on the children after finding a door open would suggest that the parent assumes an intruder has opened it - but taking a look to make sure that everything is okay would make sense, especially with children that small.

Matt admitted he did not check, the nanny listening service at other MW resorts relied just on listening.

But didn't Matt state that he stood at the door to the children's room and looked inside?

As for the PJ files, some of these are bad translations from English to Portuguese to English again etc. Better to look at sites like the BBC which does not have agendas.

With the PJ files publicly released and accesible via the net, it is highly unlikely that any site owner would alter an official text.
In case anyone has a link to the BBC site that contains the PJ files as well, TIA for providing it.

 

[saggymoon]

I don't think checking on the children after finding door open would suggest that the parent assumes an intruder has opened it - but taking a look to make sure that everything is okay would make sense, especially with children that small.


But didn't Matt state that he stood at the door to the children's room and looked inside?


With the PJ files publicly released and accesible via the net, it is highly unlikely that any site owner would alter an official text.
In case anyone has a link to the BBC site that contains the PJ files as well, TIA for providing it.

matt did not check inside, he stood feet away and said he could see the twins breathing and wondered where madeleine slept, his wife in her interview said he went to the parents bedroom to see if madeleine was there!!! but he DIDNT look inside the kids bedroom to see if she was there, nonce, qnd does anyone know why he did his check at 9 30 INSIDE the flat as opposed to his normal check of listening at the windows? He says he wondered where the kids slept, he coukdnt have wondered at all if he was listening at the front window every time. what liars.

 

[rpgman]

matt did not check inside, he stood feet away and said he could see the twins breathing and wondered where madeleine slept, his wife in her interview said he went to the parents bedroom to see if madeleine was there!!! but he DIDNT look inside the kids bedroom to see if she was there, nonce, qnd does anyone know why he did his check at 9 30 INSIDE the flat as opposed to his normal check of listening at the windows? He says he wondered where the kids slept, he coukdnt have wondered at all if he was listening at the front window every time. what liars.

Yep.
Doesn't make a great deal of sense does it?

Liars is right.

Sent from my VM670 using Tapatalk 2

 

[brit1981]

Why are they liars. They have not changed their story unless you get you info from Tony Bennett type sites. Do you have any proof to back up your claims they are lying. Matt said straight away he never actually looed at the children, he just listened at the door. As far as I am aware he had never checked on the McCann children before, and their window was at the back of the flat facing onto a car park. Are you accusing matt of lying and being somehow involved?
But checking by just listening is quite normal on these resorts. The whole problem with the nanny listening service was just this. They were checing to see if the children were still sleeping, and took silence to mean just this.

Also remember the poor translation programmes that people have used to translate documents. For instance some British English speaers will refer to patio doors as french windows, which is something that can get really confusing if bad translation programmes are used.
I thin Lucy is right in that consultaes should also provide interpretors and translators, to be used side by side with the police translators.

 

[rashomon]

Matt said straight away he never actually looed at the children, he just listened at the door.

I looked up Matt's witness statement in the police files - he states that he could see the twins in their cots:

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id261.html#tap3 [PJ files]:

[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]Matthew Oldfield's interview on 04 May 2007[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][The interviewee says[/FONT]] [FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]At around 21h25, the interviewee went into his apartment and Madeleine's apartment to check on the children. He states that the door of the bedroom quarters, that was occupied by Madeleine and the twins, was half-open and that there was enough light in the bedroom for him to see the twins in their cots. [/FONT]

 

[rashomon]

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.

Since Gerry even stated that Kate too used a key (!) to enter the apartment, imo this indeed allows the inference that he told the police this because he wanted to convey that the children were being safe and protected behind a locked door.

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id192.html
[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]Witness statement of Gerald Patrick McCann, on the 4th of May 2007, at 11.15 a.m.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]
At 10pm, his wife Kate went to check on the children. She went into the apartment through the door using her key [/FONT]

 

[rashomon]

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.

Interesting to note that Kate doesn't mention any of this in her witness statement where she states that she immediately noticed the open door and the open window:

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id192.html
[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]
Witness statement of Kate Marie Healy, on the 4th of May 2007, at 2.20 p.m.
[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]At around 10pm, the witness came to check on the children. She went into the apartment by the side door, which was closed, but unlocked, as already said, and immediately noticed that the door to her children's bedroom was completely open, the window was also open, the shutters raised and the curtains open, while she was certain of having closed them all as she always did.[/FONT]

 

[LucyOso]

Interesting to note that Kate doesn't mention any of this in her witness statement where she states that she immediately noticed the open door and the open window:

Under police questioning in a foreign country, typically the police do the talking and ask questions they think are pertinent. She may not have had the opportunity to just "speak" and be understood. It was strictly the basics as there was a language issue.

 

[ami]

Speculating on the basis of how oneself would have acted is always problematic because it can influence one's own interpretation of others' behavior.
I for example always went inside to check on my young child when she was sleeping, although her bedroom was right next to ours.

What struck me as odd was that Kate obviously wasn't going to look inside the children's room despite the door being unusually wide open, coupled with the fact that the children had been left alone at quite a distance from the parents.
So my gut feeling is that an unusually wide open door would probably cause a parent to do some more checking than just listening; for example, Kate herself points out that the open door led Gerry to check whether Madeleine had wandered into their own bedroom.

In the book she explained this. She thought the friend who had checked on them had opened the door wider during his check. This was not something that alarmed her - a friend of the family who had been there to check on the children leaving the door a bit wider than Kate and Gerry usually did. Since she didn't expect her daughter to have been kidnapped, the most likely explanation for a wider door was the last adult she knew to have been in the apartment checking on them.

Gerry found the open door odd during his check because the McCanns themselves had been the last adults the room, and therefore he KNEW they had not left the door that way. Therefore his immediate concern was completely warranted.

Your gut feeling is every bit as much based on your own experiences as mine are. I didn't feel the need to visually check on my 3-4 year old every 30 minutes while she was sleeping, because I didn't expect her to have gone anywhere. You apparently found it necessary to clap eyes on your child and verify they were still there. So each of us (not just me) are using our own experiences to inform our beliefs. Your speculations are as good or bad as my own in that regard.