Gerry and Kate Mcann promoting Book on Late Late next week

iamwhoiam

barone wrote: »

lest we not forget the other two innocent victims in this case,

sean and amelie, madeleine's brother and sister, what does the future hold for them,and how much will it affect their lives as they grow older.

i hope the truth comes out one way or another before their lives are consumed with this case aswell.

I think it was on the Late late show that Gerry mentioned Sean .I found it really sad at the time and a little disturbing . They mentioned that they told the twins a bad man had taken Madeleine and that Sean had a toy sword and told Kate he that when he was big he was going to find the bad man and slay him with the sword
Firstly I dont think its a great idea to tell small children a bad man has their sister, it must be deeply distressing for a little boy to feel helpless and wait till he is older to kill the bad man .
I think bending the truth for small children is okay and maybe telling them that Madeleine is just missing and maybe with a family waiting to be found is kinder .Little kids dont always need grim reality .
I felt for Sean when Gerry said that and realized that two small children are also deeply emtwined and the victims in this too .

mrsbyrne

maebee wrote: »

It is not an opinion that the window couldn't be opened from the outside. It has been proven so. Gerry McCann lied. (late now, but I'll look for links tomorrow to support this)





As you are, to believe every iota the McCanns utter.


.

Indeed.

It was proved that the window couldn't be opened from the outside!?! Who proved it!? There are pictures or some kind of independently verified statement that the windows couldn't be opened from the outside!?!
You ignored a post i made earlier, borrowed from another forum which represents how I and many other feel about this case. This has been posted many times on many McCann hate threads. Anti McCann posters always ignore this post because they cannot answer any of the allegations. easier just to ignore, i cant say i blame you. you constantly implore people to "read the files". Well i would ask you, respectfully to read my earlier post and respond in some way, also may i refer you to this wiki site were there are rebuttals of all the more popular forum myths. i look forward to your reply.
http://madeleinemythsexposed.pbworks.com/w/page/39076140/Main-Page

K-9

That post has been responded to and at this stage already answered in this long thread, it is a good post but it's very dismissive.

Personally, I don't usually respond to aggressively dismissive posters that show no ability of taking on any information that contradicts their opinion.

Kess73

Mountainsandh wrote: »

DexyDrain wrote: »

According to KMcC in the book, Jane Tanner never formally identified Murat, the PJ put her on the spot, and while she was mumbling she wasn't sure, they took that as a statement that she did identify him. Again, it depends who you choose to believe, anti McC blogs/media, or KMcC.
I'm pretty sure the group's witness identification might have not have been as black and white as it was portrayed either, as in : they might not have identified him for sure, but their statement was taken as formal ID. As in : "we saw a man we think could be him on the night" turned into : " it was him, I'm sure of that".


Not accepted as evidence, so not that reliable after all. 10% error is significant actually.

That's because the Portuguese police failed to conduct them earlier. Eventually the McCs felt they had to do something.




Because as she says herself in the book, they should really have been conducted way earlier, so they could be absolutely sure of their accuracy. Along with blood and urine, which weren't taken either after the event, although the McC had pointed out their suspicions that the twins had been sedated to the PJ the next day or on the night itself.

It does not matter a damn what Kate McCann claims in her book regarding the statements of other people.

Kate McCann's own version at the time of the events actually taking place were logged by her in her own journal and her own jopurnal enteries contradict what she claims to be fact in her book.

The Portugese and British police have it on record what Jane Tanner actually said so again what Kate McCann now claims a few years later is just revisionist ramblings to change how the story is perceived.

Funny how the courts thought that Murat has enough of a case to go after Tanner for her comments and comments made in public by Tanner about Murat. His criminal complaint against her for Calumnious Denunciation
was filed last year.

So Kate McCann can make up whatever she likes about what Tanner said. She was not there when Tanner spoke with the police. Simple fact is that there are records of what Tanner actually said and records of Tanner identifying Murat more than once as the man she saw carrying the child before Tanner then changed her story to it having being a wom,an that she saw with the child before finally changing again to say it was a sallow skinned man with a long moustaches and longish greasy hair.

iamwhoiam

K-9 wrote: »

That post has been responded to and at this stage already answered in this long thread, it is a good post but it's very dismissive.

Personally, I don't usually respond to aggressively dismissive posters that show no ability of taking on any information that contradicts their opinion.

I agree with you . Me neither , nor to those who call others fools for not agreeing with them . I am open to constructive informed opinions from both sides and happy to reply to those who are willing to be opn minded . But like real life I simply try to ignore those who will not listen to anyone who disagrees with them .
One one point I will not be swayed as I saw it with my own two eyes and that is that the children were left in a safe place " like dining in your own garden " That is utter nonsense and bullsh!t . ,. But on most points I will listen to anyone who is also willing to take on board that I may have a valid point .

DexyDrain

mrsbyrne wrote: »

maebee wrote: »

It was proved that the window couldn't be opened from the outside!?! Who proved it!? There are pictures or some kind of independently verified statement that the windows couldn't be opened from the outside!?!
You ignored a post i made earlier, borrowed from another forum which represents how I and many other feel about this case. This has been posted many times on many McCann hate threads. Anti McCann posters always ignore this post because they cannot answer any of the allegations. easier just to ignore, i cant say i blame you. you constantly implore people to "read the files". Well i would ask you, respectfully to read my earlier post and respond in some way, also may i refer you to this wiki site were there are rebuttals of all the more popular forum myths. i look forward to your reply.
http://madeleinemythsexposed.pbworks.com/w/page/39076140/Main-Page

Can't say it would be my idea of a fun time, but we could go through that point by point. First reading of the shutter/window situation doesn't bode well. Gerry said on the Late Late that the window was open and the shutters were down when he got there, so he tried to open them from the outside and 'found he could'. Total contradiction of that whole argument on your link which tries to maintain the shutters were open when Kate got there and remained open.

Kate said she opened the shutters to look outside, from the inside, and her prints are indisputably the only ones found on the inside window.

No explanation for telling everyone the shutters were 'jemmied' up when they were found down, no up, no down, or how there was this dramatic, almost cinematic 'gust of wind' that blew the curtains open at the moment it dawned on Kate that Madeleine was missing. Whoooooooosh indeed.

AudreyHepburn

AskMyChocolate wrote: »

Sorry, but is it not the position of the British and Portuguese police forces that Madeleine died in the apartment and her body was disposed of?

You on the other hand choose to believe Kate McCann who may be a suspect in the case.

Am I missing something here, or are you arguing the point that you are a fool?

And I suppose the police are infallible?

maebee

K-9 wrote: »

That post has been responded to and at this stage already answered in this long thread, it is a good post but it's very dismissive.

Indeed it has. Many times. That is why I do not intend to keep repeating myself.

Personally, I don't usually respond to aggressively dismissive posters that show no ability of taking on any information that contradicts their opinion.

Me neither.

DerekWaters

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

And I suppose the police are infallible?

Rather strange that you choose to believe a couple of negligent parents who have told blatant lies from day one (again on the LLS) over the findings of a joint police operation. A couple who still maintain that it was like having dinner in your backyard while the kids are upstairs



:mad:

mrsbyrne

iamwhoiam wrote: »

[/B]
I agree with you . Me neither , nor to those who call others fools for not agreeing with them . I am open to constructive informed opinions from both sides and happy to reply to those who are willing to be opn minded . But like real life I simply try to ignore those who will not listen to anyone who disagrees with them .
One one point I will not be swayed as I saw it with my own two eyes and that is that the children were left in a safe place " like dining in your own garden " That is utter nonsense and bullsh!t . ,. But on most points I will listen to anyone who is also willing to take on board that I may have a valid point .

no. ive just checked and this post:
I know snoop at PFA2 wont mind if i post this here. Note i am not ashamed to mention that i post on a particular forum.
Motive, means, opportunity, and indicative character history.

There is not a single, credible, coherent account of how the parents (and/or friends) could or would have committed the crime of disposing of Madeleine’s body. Nor is there any evidence that they did so. No case, indicative or otherwise, could be constructed by the PT police, and none has been subsequently by any of the internet colombos following this case.

We accordingly have 2 anti camps: those who simply invent outlandish stories piled on top of each other to account for the key questions. And those who simply avoid them, dwelling instead on their ‘suspicions’ and snippets of information, considered entirely in isolation of they key questions.

The dog alerts, the samples, the forensic analysis - all have been put under the microscope by those less qualified than the experts who conducted the investigation, and in every case, our forumistas consider themselves qualified to cast doubt upon the actual findings.

This is wishful thinking with no more credibility than the crazy conspiracy theories. It is all there in the reports: no evidence. And not only no evidence, but no expert opinion backing up the, er, forum experts. Martin grime does not say: ‘no forensic evidence but my dogs are never wrong and I consider this highly indicative that a corpse was present’. No, he says the alerts are only ‘suggestive’ of contaminant and that ‘no evidential or intelligence reliability can be made from them’. Unless or until one of our forum ‘experts’ can produce the credentials to challenge the findings under peer review conditions, I think I’ll stick with the real experts, and anyone who does otherwise is a fool.

And even if you narcissistically believe your suspicions to have sufficient weight to cast doubt on the experts in the confines of your egotistical mind (cos it means F all in the real world), you still need to account for the basics: who, when, why, where, how.

A word on ‘demeanour’ because this keys into character. Its often claimed that the McCanns demeanour was inappropriate for the events. If you actually read the accounts of those around them, who have seen them, over time, it seems to be entirely within normal range: hope, despair, grief, determination; and caused no suspicions amongst those qualified to comment. To maintain the ‘demeanour’ accusation, demands that our pitchforkers selectively analyse mere moments in the thousands of hours that have passed since the events, and pin entire character histories and accusations to these fragments of time. Caught smiling – must be guilty. Reported to be crying – must be acting.

The illogicality and sheer nastiness of this particular line of suspicion in incredible. There is no manual on how to respond to a tragedy, and history is full of examples of people reacting in all sorts of ways. Rarely can it ever be analysed as an indicator of complicity, and in the few cases that it can be, there is a substantial and clear evidence base analysed over time by those qualified to do so. Not by pitchforkers who hate the sight of them, and twist anything and everything to suit their pre-set agenda.

More significantly, there is absolutely no character history to indicate any of these people have the psychological mind set to both commit a terrible crime (perfectly) and then go on to parade their criminality in our faces though setting up a fraudulent fund and barefaced maintaining the lie over a substantial period of time. Any ‘normal’ person attempting to do this would have collapsed under the strain. Only a psychopath could maintain such a level of incongruity, and there is nothing in either character history (let alone both or more) to indicate psychopathy. Psychopaths cannot sustain careers, jobs, friendships, relationships; they lie, cheat and damage people around them. Anyone who has ever been ‘close’ to a psychopath knows it, even if they cannot put a diagnostic term upon it. Psychopaths are not created overnight, they leave a long history trail behind them, and there is nothing in the McCann family histories to indicate anything of the sort, and significant indicators to rule them out of this category. These are facts.

And finally, statistics: statistically the likelihood of the parents pulling off the most successful and audacious crime in living memory under the circumstances we know is incalculable, because it would be unprecedented, therefore it is statistically far less likely than an abduction. Its that simple.

And still, there is motive, means and opportunity to be accounted for.

No motive: Most that have ever been offered -such as risk of loss of career, status etc, are predicated upon a psychopath’s response to a situation, and there is no evidence to substantiate this, nothing to suggest these people would be anything but devastated and immobilised by grief had they found their child dead. Accordingly, more and more bizarre motives are invented, all without any evidence base. Illegal drugs, swinging, paedophilia, murder. Nothing to support any of these claims.

No means: How would these parents have disposed of a body, unseen? Only by resorting to methods that are again predicated upon an assumption of psychopathy. Stuffing bodies into bags, burying them on the beach, digging them up again, freezing them, driving around with a corpse in your car, nipping off between media appearances to dig graves without even breaking sweat, wandering brazenly through PDL openly with the corpse of your child in your arms. All without being spotted, or your actions being discovered, or the body ever being found. None of this is credible, not for one moment.

No opportunity: to have done all or any the above would take an army of resources and local knowledge, it would certainly take more than two people (thereby increasing the unliklihood of it having happened), it would have taken ‘staging’ of proportions the opera house would struggle to muster, since no person was absent from others view for anything like the time required to pull these stunts off. It just didn’t happen.

I’ve heard it all before, and no where, no time, has any anti ever come up with a credible refutation of what I have posted here. Yes, I have heard all the stories about parents who hid their child’s body. Yes I’ve heard the stories of those who pretended to be looking, or set up some sort of fund. Yes I’ve heard all about medical negligence. Yes, I know far too much about the psychopaths and narcissists who have blighted the lives of a rather high percentage of the hater types on these forums. But there is not, by definition, any existing case that can compound all these factors to draw a parallel.

And part parallels are pointless. Anyone can stitch together a patchwork of completely disparate and separate events and link them to different parts of the case, but that in no way makes the coalescence of all these types of events into this one event in any way possible let alone likely. Anyone can pick one picture and wonder about the quality of the expression on someone’s face. Anyone can pick one piece of information from the files and, in exclusivity from all other pieces, wonder if there isn’t more to the story. This is not thoughtful, this is not credible curiosity, this is not intelligent reasoning, this is not the pursuit of truth and justice, it’s a witchunt.
]
has not been replied too. It never is. If askmychocolate replied to it i wouldnt know because he is the one and only person on my ignore list.

maebee

For "Motive" Refer to the Gaspars' statements. Imo, there was something "not right" about the goings on in this group. I believe that Madeleine died accidentally and that her little body could not be presented for autopsy and had to be disposed of.


For "Means" There have been thousands of pages wriiten on how it could have been done and I could spend a week here c&ping it. I wasn't there so I don't know exactly how it was done but I believe the joint police forces when they say that Madeleine died in the apartment and her body was disposed of.

For "Opportunity" There's always an opportunity. They weren't watched 24/7

K-9

It's a 89 page thread, what do you think we've been discussing?

The where did they hide the body is the part I can't see anybody credibly answering, it is possible though, the Irish couple did report seeing Gerry McCann carrying Madeline. I don't think their evidence would stand up though, but to totally dismiss it?

The dog evidence is suggestive definitely, it suggests an accident may have happened.

The phone records being deleted is very suggestive and that's something they did themselves, the variance in times and discrepancies over somebody besides the McCann's, having last seen Maddie alive.

goat2

where does common sense come in,,
firstly the mccannes had been in the spotlight within minuits of their daughers disappearance, there is no way could they hide their daughter, secondly, if their friends knew anything, someone would have fessed up by now, there is not a hope that everyone would have kept it together this long without letting it slip,
I do hope this little girl is found, and prove all who think the parents hade something to do with their childs disappearance, are wrong

iamwhoiam

goat2 wrote: »

where does common sense come in,,
firstly the mccannes had been in the spotlight within minuits of their daughers disappearance, there is no way could they hide their daughter, secondly, if their friends knew anything, someone would have fessed up by now, there is not a hope that everyone would have kept it together this long without letting it slip,
I do hope this little girl is found, and prove all who think the parents hade something to do with their childs disappearance, are wrong

But what time was the " abduction " ? How do we know it was minutes since Madeleine went missing ? When was Madeleine last seen by an independant witness ? Just a few questions to be asked and proven .

Mistyeyes321

mrsbyrne wrote: »

maebee wrote: »

It was proved that the window couldn't be opened from the outside!?! Who proved it!? There are pictures or some kind of independently verified statement that the windows couldn't be opened from the outside!?!
You ignored a post i made earlier, borrowed from another forum which represents how I and many other feel about this case. This has been posted many times on many McCann hate threads. Anti McCann posters always ignore this post because they cannot answer any of the allegations. easier just to ignore, i cant say i blame you. you constantly implore people to "read the files". Well i would ask you, respectfully to read my earlier post and respond in some way, also may i refer you to this wiki site were there are rebuttals of all the more popular forum myths. i look forward to your reply.
http://madeleinemythsexposed.pbworks.com/w/page/39076140/Main-Page

Thank-You for this link I haven't seen it before!

Kess73

iamwhoiam wrote: »

But what time was the " abduction " ? How do we know it was minutes since Madeleine went missing ? When was Madeleine last seen by an independant witness ? Just a few questions to be asked and proven .

Sometime between 17:30 and 18:00 going by the statements from the creche worker/workers. That is when she was meant to have been collected and then brought to the apartment the McCanns were staying in.

So basically from that time there are really only two routes for the stroy to follow, depending on what you suspect happened that night.


If she was abducted by an unknown party, then that abduction had to have taken place between 20:30 and 22:00, as the McCanns left the three toddlers at 20:30 and said at 22:00 that one was missing.


If an accident of some sort happened in the apartment, then that event happened between 18:00 and 22:00.

Kess73

Here is a link to the 50 "facts" leaflet that was sent out to many households in the UK, and whick took it's "facts" from the police records on the case.

http://whathappenedtomadeleinemccann.blogspot.com/2011/03/50-facts-about-case-that-british-media.html

Now I have put inverted comma/quotation marks around the word facts on purpose as some of the stuff is very open to one's own interpretation, and in my eyes any parts that open to differing interpretations are hard to pin down as fact.

But what is interesting is that up to the end of May this year there has been no legal action or legal challenge to the leaflet or anything in it.

iamwhoiam

Kess73 wrote: »

Here is a link to the 50 "facts" leaflet that was sent out to many households in the UK, and whick took it's "facts" from the police records on the case.

http://whathappenedtomadeleinemccann.blogspot.com/2011/03/50-facts-about-case-that-british-media.html

Now I have put inverted comma/quotation marks around the word facts on purpose as some of the stuff is very open to one's own interpretation, and in my eyes any parts that open to differing interpretations are hard to pin down as fact.

But what is interesting is that up to the end of May this year there has been no legal action or legal challenge to the leaflet or anything in it.

Thank you for the link , but was it sent via e mail to households or was it a leaflet print out ,I will have a good read later .

Kess73

iamwhoiam wrote: »

Thank you for the link , but was it sent via e mail to households or was it a leaflet print out ,I will have a good read later .

It was sent to a number of households in actual leaflet form, and also available online.

mrsbyrne

iamwhoiam wrote: »

Thank you for the link , but was it sent via e mail to households or was it a leaflet print out ,I will have a good read later .

Just to be fair, here once again, is a wiki site, brand new, which presents a rebuttal to each of the 50 "facts". Ive posted it before, but, strangely enough, its being ignored. Funny, that. I wonder why?
http://madeleinemythsexposed.pbworks.com/w/page/39076140/Main-Page

AudreyHepburn

DerekWaters wrote: »

Rather strange that you choose to believe a couple of negligent parents who have told blatant lies from day one (again on the LLS) over the findings of a joint police operation. A couple who still maintain that it was like having dinner in your backyard while the kids are upstairs

:mad:

See I don't see the lies everyone talks about. I can see instances where they may have made mistakes though I accept they may not be truthful on how often they checked the children.

Are the police to be considered infallible? Is it not possible they could be mistaken?

mrsbyrne

maebee wrote: »

For "Motive" Refer to the Gaspars' statements. Imo, there was something "not right" about the goings on in this group. I believe that Madeleine died accidentally and that her little body could not be presented for autopsy and had to be disposed of.


For "Means" There have been thousands of pages wriiten on how it could have been done and I could spend a week here c&ping it. I wasn't there so I don't know exactly how it was done but I believe the joint police forces when they say that Madeleine died in the apartment and her body was disposed of.

For "Opportunity" There's always an opportunity. They weren't watched 24/7

Is this a reply to my post? I'm genuinely disappointed maebee. All my other posts were parsed so well by you, answered point for point. Never mind, its quite an old post now. Its been posted all over the place and not once has any one ever tried to address it, so no change there then. Its hard to argue with the truth.

Kess73

mrsbyrne wrote: »

Just to be fair, here once again, is a wiki site, brand new, which presents a rebuttal to each of the 50 "facts". Ive posted it before, but, strangely enough, its being ignored. Funny, that. I wonder why?
http://madeleinemythsexposed.pbworks.com/w/page/39076140/Main-Page

Never seen that before, and as with the 50 "facts" list, I am going to take what is on that "sourced" list with a similar dose of salt.


Although I can spot a few things on the wiki link that you put up that are already wrong.

Like where it is claimed that the distance of 120 yards is false. The police release has already confirmed the distance so the writer of that wiki piece claiming Google earth as a source is wrong on that straight away.


I think if one were top sit down and read through some of what the more extreme pro and anti McCann types say and publish, then it would be pretty easy to find flaws in the arguements and "facts" of both sides.

DexyDrain

mrsbyrne wrote: »

Just to be fair, here once again, is a wiki site, brand new, which presents a rebuttal to each of the 50 "facts". Ive posted it before, but, strangely enough, its being ignored. Funny, that. I wonder why?
http://madeleinemythsexposed.pbworks.com/w/page/39076140/Main-Page

Eh, WTF? I responded, made initial remarks about the first item on their list and offered to do more. Have not had time to read all of it, but their reliance on the rogatory interviews after the group had their pre-interview 'think-in' does not bode well, looks to me like cherry picking the interviews that most support each other.

Their David Payne visit section is pretty dumb too, they don't think it is strange that Kate answered in a towel but all David can remember is that the kids were all so healthy and happy and dressed for bed? Kate is confused about whether a man came inside the apartment while she wore nothing but a towel? Would any woman not feel self conscious and imprint a memory of a family friend intruding while they are in a state of undress? Would any red blooded man take absolutely no mental note that they have just seen a good friends wife straight from the bath in nothing but a towel, instead noticing only the three tiny children and how much healthy fun they are having??

They say the time difference given was only a few minutes, that's fine if it was a case of 1 hour versus 1 hour 5 mins, but in this case Kate says no more than thirty seconds and he never came in, David said three to five minutes and he definitely did go in.

mrsbyrne

Kess73 wrote: »

Never seen that before, and as with the 50 "facts" list, I am going to take what is on that "sourced" list with a similar dose of salt.


Although I can spot a few things on the wiki link that you put up that are already wrong.

Like where it is claimed that the distance of 120 yards is false. The police release has already confirmed the distance so the writer of that wiki piece claiming Google earth as a source is wrong on that straight away.


I think if one were top sit down and read through some of what the more extreme pro and anti McCann types say and publish, then it would be pretty easy to find flaws in the arguements and "facts" of both sides.

Hi kess,
you havnt seen the link before because its only up in the last week. Did you look at the Google Earth images? Do you dispute the measurements? police are humans and make human mistakes. i doubt if Google Earth deliberately falsified their measurements to suit the McCanns. Thats a conspiracy theory too far!

Kess73

mrsbyrne wrote: »

Hi kess,
you havnt seen the link before because its only up in the last week. Did you look at the Google Earth images? Do you dispute the measurements? police are humans and make human mistakes. i doubt if Google Earth deliberately falsified their measurements to suit the McCanns. Thats a conspiracy theory too far!

What conspiracy theory? The distance used by the police matches the official site records at the hotel.

So maybe the police got the measurement wrong, the people who drew up the plans for the hotel got their measurements wrong, and the plans of the finished hotel are wrong.


Some random guy who says he used google earth to check it is a far better source than what is already on record.

iamwhoiam

In my opinion the exact distance doesnt really matter , but the visibility sure does and the likeness by Gerry as being in the garden is ludicrous . From the Tapas bar you cannot see the patio doors, its impeded by bushes and growth . The group were eating in the covered area of the Tapas bar and it was very difficult to see out as the area is enclosed with a plastic sheeting .
To walk from the Tapas bar to 5a you must walk passed the swimming pool out of the complex via the arched gate onto a road , not a little lane a road with footpaths and room for two cars to pass each other.Up the road to the steps leading to 5a .These steps lead from the patio door area straight down on to this road .
In the normal garden that we all know the way to the bedrooms dont lead past a pool out onto a public road and up steps .
Unless you ate your meal standing on a chair you cannot see the steps or the lower end of the door , within very very good eyesight and a clear sunny day maybe you could see the top of the patio doors .
The children were sleeping at the other side of the apartment , the front door facing away from the complex and cannot be seen unless you keep going up the road past the steps and into a car park on your left . No garden I know has this layout .
I didnt count steps but be it 120 yards or less its simply too far , because they could not see their children , the steps , the front door or indeed the back patio doors in full .

Mistyeyes321

chucken1 wrote: »

This Thread was closed..then opened again.

It WAS about the book??

I wish IF MY CHILD WAS MISSING

Id have all you on the case..


Fantastic lots of b s

HAVE you LOT any clue about the LAW IN PORTUGAL

No I admit I haven't got a clue regarding the Law in Portugal....You could always enlighten us with you knowledge! I for one will await it with great anticipation!

mrsbyrne

iamwhoiam wrote: »

In my opinion the exact distance doesnt really matter , but the visibility sure does and the likeness by Gerry as being in the garden is ludicrous . From the Tapas bar you cannot see the patio doors, its impeded by bushes and growth . The group were eating in the covered area of the Tapas bar and it was very difficult to see out as the area is enclosed with a plastic sheeting .
To walk from the Tapas bar to 5a you must walk passed the swimming pool out of the complex via the arched gate onto a road , not a little lane a road with footpaths and room for two cars to pass each other.Up the road to the steps leading to 5a .These steps lead from the patio door area straight down on to this road .
In the normal garden that we all know the way to the bedrooms dont lead past a pool out onto a public road and up steps .
Unless you ate your meal standing on a chair you cannot see the steps or the lower end of the door , within very very good eyesight and a clear sunny day maybe you could see the top of the patio doors .
The children were sleeping at the other side of the apartment , the front door facing away from the complex and cannot be seen unless you keep going up the road past the steps and into a car park on your left . No garden I know has this layout .
I didnt count steps but be it 120 yards or less its simply too far , because they could not see their children , the steps , the front door or indeed the back patio doors in full .

Did you actually walk the distance at the start of May before the foliage was in full bloom?

iamwhoiam

mrsbyrne wrote: »

Did you actually walk the distance at the start of May before the foliage was in full bloom?

The distance wont change if a tree is in leaf or not , the distance stays the same , too far to see your sleeping children .Be the leaves green or the petunia in bloom
What about the need to go out on the road , what about the steps leading onto a public road , what about it was dark so you cant see much ahead of you ? Funny you didnt jump on those points mrs byrne .