Gerry and Kate Mcann promoting Book on Late Late next week

Monfoolio · 07-05-2011 2:23am

opinion guy wrote: »

To be honest I've just been watching some videos of them and I think that the wife shows real genuine emotion and does not know what happened to her. But the husband strikes me as a guy in complete control. At the very least I think he knows what happened.

Does anyone have links to the very early video's of them, the original appeals etc ?

I never believed him to be honest, he comes across very "cold". That story always sticks in my mind, something else going on there

CK2010 · 07-05-2011 2:25am

dark crystal wrote: »

People who lose their posessions as a result of burglary are seen as victims - why not people who lose their child?

because your child isnt a posession that you'd leave unattended on a shelf while you went about your daily activities. because most posessions are replaceable, a child is not, hence the need for constant supervision and care.

i know that parents make mistakes and that things do happen that are beyond our control but i know that i do everything in my power to protect my child from harm and god forbid if anything were to happen to her id know in my heart that i had done everything i could to protect her, that i did everything in my power to keep her from harm.

the McCanns cannot say this.

laura. · 07-05-2011 2:27am

synopsis of this thread.....don't buy the book then so

and rigger i was done, till as usual everything get's picked at....and i see you made an excellent contribution to the thread

dark crystal · 07-05-2011 2:27am

The-Rigger wrote: »

Amazing?? You must be very easily amazed, oh the wonderment of the mundane.

There are a couple of hundred posts on the thread and many many threads that occurred closer to the events, I'm not going to quote and respond to every post.

I'm not even sure who you mean by 'this poster'. I addressed Einhard and quoted laura. After addressing Einhard, I made a general statement towards anyone who shares the opinion that the type of parenting described is acceptable.

I'm far from mundane, but judge how you see fit.

Nobody said this 'type of parenting' was acceptable. However, you can't ascribe a 'type of parenting' to one incident alone. By all accounts, they were very good parents who, along with other parents that night, left their kids alone in a holiday apartment 120 yards from where they were having dinner, checking on them every 15 minutes, never imagining they would be abducted virtually from under their noses.

The piousness of people who claim never to have left their kids alone for any length of time whilst they had a few glasses of wine or ate dinner is beyond a joke. I gave examples earlier of other abduction cases, in which all cases involved the absence of a parental figure in some form, none of which people seem to comprehend.

I'll repeat that quoting Laura's posts over some other much more offensive posts is biased in the extreme.

Jesus Wept · 07-05-2011 2:30am

laura. wrote: »

synopsis of this thread.....don't buy the book then so

and rigger i was done, till as usual everything get's picked at....and i see you made an excellent contribution to the thread

You posted about 6 times after being done.

dark crystal wrote: »

I'm far from mundane, but judge how you see fit.

Jesus christ, I'm not even going to bother to read the rest of your post.
I didn't call YOU mundane. Would you try and read ffs instead of stating that I insulted you.

Monfoolio · 07-05-2011 2:33am

Some people, when reading txt, take it personally immediately! Just because someone has a different opinion doesnt mean that yours is wrong.

I think what happened to Madelyn was untilmately her parents fault and their continous years of telling us the same story does not draw any new conclusions!

It was their fault now they have to live with it!

laura. · 07-05-2011 2:34am

The-Rigger wrote: »

You posted about 6 times after being done.

Isn't it a public forum, or am I missing something here?

dark crystal · 07-05-2011 2:35am

CK2010 wrote: »

because your child isnt a posession that you'd leave unattended on a shelf while you went about your daily activities. because most posessions are replaceable, a child is not, hence the need for constant supervision and care.

i know that parents make mistakes and that things do happen that are beyond our control but i know that i do everything in my power to protect my child from harm and god forbid if anything were to happen to her id know in my heart that i had done everything i could to protect her, that i did everything in my power to keep her from harm.

the McCanns cannot say this.

Of course, any parent worth their salt would protect their child! I'm not saying the McCann's were entirely without blame.

BUT!

Let's not pretend the McCanns were bad parents. They made a bad judgement call, but one incident does not a bad parent make. I do not, for one second, believe the McCanns set out to neglect their child, that they didn't love their child, or that they do not regret that decision every waking second of their lives.

People are being way too hard on them, imo.

kazzdee · 07-05-2011 2:37am

Monfoolio wrote: »

These people were plain wrong to leave their child unattended and were never even punished for doing so. Kids have gone to social services for less!

Sick to think profit is being made from this book for the "Maddie Fund"

Agreed, If they were poor as many had said on this thread the remaining twins who were younger than maddie would be in care as soon as the story broke.

Monfoolio · 07-05-2011 2:38am

dark crystal wrote: »

Of course, any parent worth their salt would protect their child! I'm not saying the McCann's were entirely without blame.

BUT!

Let's not pretend the McCanns were bad parents. They made a bad judgement call, but one incident does not a bad parent make. I do not, for one second, believe the McCanns set out to neglect their child, that they didn't love their child, or that they do not regret that decision every waking second of their lives.

People are being way too hard on them, imo.

Dark do u think they had anything to do with it?

dark crystal · 07-05-2011 2:40am

The-Rigger wrote: »

Jesus christ, I'm not even going to bother to read the rest of your post.
I didn't call YOU mundane. Would you try and read ffs instead of stating that I insulted you.

You said

You must be very easily amazed, oh the wonderment of the mundane.

Perhaps I read it wrong, but that's how it came across - pretty sarcastic and condescending.

Anyhow, why people feel the need to blame the McCanns for the actions of an abductor will never fail to amaze me.

CK2010 · 07-05-2011 2:40am

the same could be said for someone who let their two year old wander onto a main road and get run over. just a bad call but they regret it. it may not make them bad parents on the whole but it'd still be negligence. where do you draw the line?

Jesus Wept · 07-05-2011 2:41am

laura. wrote: »

Isn't it a public forum, or am I missing something here?

It seems that you are.

dark crystal wrote: »

Of course, any parent worth their salt would protect their child! I'm not saying the McCann's were entirely without blame.

BUT!

Let's not pretend the McCanns were bad parents. They made a bad judgement call, but one incident does not a bad parent make. I do not, for one second, believe the McCanns set out to neglect their child, that they didn't love their child, or that they do not regret that decision every waking second of their lives.

People are being way too hard on them, imo.

One incident can make a bad parent.
There is nothing to suggest this was an isolated incident.
It was neglect.
They haven't expressed much remorse.
People are not being too hard on them.
How many people made this 'bad judgement' 7+ people? Many well educated, a number of doctors, people with children, people with brains.

Thread confirms my firmly held belief that the majority of people who have kids just shouldn't. It should be a rare rather than a common thing.

mikom · 07-05-2011 2:42am

dark crystal wrote: »

Anyhow, why people feel the need to blame the McCanns for the actions of an abductor will never fail to amaze me.

Because many smell a rat.

Monfoolio · 07-05-2011 2:42am

CK2010 wrote: »

the same could be said for someone who let their two year old wander onto a main road and get run over. just a bad call but they regret it. it may not make them bad parents on the whole but it'd still be negligence. where do you draw the line?

Agreed 100%

K-9 · 07-05-2011 2:42am

dark crystal wrote: »

Of course, any parent worth their salt would protect their child! I'm not saying the McCann's were entirely without blame.

BUT!

Let's not pretend the McCanns were bad parents. They made a bad judgement call, but one incident does not a bad parent make. I do not, for one second, believe the McCanns set out to neglect their child, that they didn't love their child, or that they do not regret that decision every waking second of their lives.

People are being way too hard on them, imo.

There were witness reports that it wasn't the first time they did it.

I've been away when my son was 2/3 and no, you just don't leave them alone at that age, and not just because of abduction, that actually would be the last thing on your mind. 15 minute checks aren't good and there are doubts it was every 15 minutes, if the twins wake after 5 minutes, there is nobody there to look after them. Toddlers, including Maddie have zero sense at that age.

dark crystal · 07-05-2011 2:43am

Monfoolio wrote: »

Dark do u think they had anything to do with it?

Do you mean her disappearance/death?

Absolutely not. I think she was abducted straight out. Nothing would lead me to believe they had any part in her death (if indeed she is dead).

K-9 · 07-05-2011 2:45am

CK2010 wrote: »

the same could be said for someone who let their two year old wander onto a main road and get run over. just a bad call but they regret it. it may not make them bad parents on the whole but it'd still be negligence. where do you draw the line?

That's why you can't let toddlers out of your sight for 15 or IIRC up to 30/40 minutes in this case. 2 minutes can be enough.

If they are upstairs you have a baby monitor or can hear them cough or noises up stairs.

Monfoolio · 07-05-2011 2:45am

dark crystal wrote: »

Do you mean her disappearance/death?

Absolutely not. I think she was abducted straight out. Nothing would lead me to believe they had any part in her death (if indeed she is dead).

I cant help thinking that they know exactly what happened and they have to keep this show up...........definitely a rat somewhere

Sir Oxman · 07-05-2011 2:46am

dark crystal wrote: »

I'm far from mundane, but judge how you see fit.

Nobody said this 'type of parenting' was acceptable. However, you can't ascribe a 'type of parenting' to one incident alone. By all accounts, they were very good parents who, along with other parents that night, left their kids alone in a holiday apartment 120 yards from where they were having dinner, checking on them every 15 minutes, never imagining they would be abducted virtually from under their noses.

The piousness of people who claim never to have left their kids alone for any length of time whilst they had a few glasses of wine or ate dinner is beyond a joke. I gave examples earlier of other abduction cases, in which all cases involved the absence of a parental figure in some form, none of which people seem to comprehend.

I'll repeat that quoting Laura's posts over some other much more offensive posts is biased in the extreme.

this is really laughable - in nearly every post you've made you have attempted to diminish their responsibility for what happened to the baby, yes baby cos that's all she was along with her siblings.
they weren't 'under their noses' and you even attempt to laughably justify what they did because other parents in their company did the same.

Whatever happened to that girl, both parents have to take partial responsibility and no, I don't gloat over that at all.

dark crystal · 07-05-2011 3:04am

gambiaman wrote: »

this is really laughable - in nearly every post you've made you have attempted to diminish their responsibility for what happened to the baby, yes baby cos that's all she was along with her siblings.
they weren't 'under their noses' and you even attempt to laughably justify what they did because other parents in their company did the same.

Whatever happened to that girl, both parents have to take partial responsibility and no, I don't gloat over that at all.

Ok, I surrender....

I've made the point in multiple posts that I don't absolve them from all responsibility. You choose to interpret my empathy with these poor people as some sort of absolution from their responsibilities. I don't and have stated so.

However, the way people are ripping into this couple, you would swear they were asking for Madeline to be taken. I don't believe this and simply won't conform to the view that their meal that night, automatically makes them bad parents.

That's my personal view - I honestly don't care whether anyone agrees with me or not. I will always hold the view that parents are as fallible as anyone else and that no parent deserves to go through the hell of losing a child, as well as putting up with strangers ready to line up to take pot shots at their parenting methods on top of that grief. It's just not necessary in my view.

sxt · 07-05-2011 3:05am

dark crystal wrote: »

Do you mean her disappearance/death?

Absolutely not. I think she was abducted straight out. Nothing would lead me to believe they had any part in her death (if indeed she is dead).

No one said that she was murdered by the parents, only that she died by accident, while she was left alone , that it is the conclusion by the Officials involved. That would be the fault of the parents! What happened afterwards, was the parents attempt to make it out that an evil abductor took their child. There is no evidence of an abduction

Either you can belive the mcanns who are unreliable when you consider their changing stories and non co operation with the police or you believe the british/portugese investigation who spent months investigating every line of investigation possible ?

CK2010 · 07-05-2011 3:12am

dark crystal wrote: »

Ok, I surrender....

I've made the point in multiple posts that I don't absolve them from all responsibility. You choose to interpret my empathy with these poor people as some sort of absolution from their responsibilities. I don't and have stated so.

However, the way people are ripping into this couple, you would swear they were asking for Madeline to be taken. I don't believe this and simply won't conform to the view that their meal that night, automatically makes them bad parents.

That's my personal view - I honestly don't care whether anyone agrees with me or not. I will always hold the view that parents are as fallible as anyone else and that no parent deserves to go through the hell of losing a child, as well as putting up with strangers ready to line up to take pot shots at their parenting methods on top of that grief. It's just not necessary in my view.

I actually do see where you're coming from. and in a way i do respect you for that, because i cant be as forgiving. that little girl was let down
by her parents that night, the people who should have been protecting her and keeping her from harms way. theres mistakes and then theres neglecting to do the basic tasks required of you as a childs parent. i think its the fact it was for the sake of a nice meal and a few drinks that gets to people the most- it was entirely avoidable. there was no need for her to be left alone and vulnerable to the crime.

K-9 · 07-05-2011 3:14am

dark crystal wrote: »

Ok, I surrender....

I've made the point in multiple posts that I don't absolve them from all responsibility. You choose to interpret my empathy with these poor people as some sort of absolution from their responsibilities. I don't and have stated so.

However, the way people are ripping into this couple, you would swear they were asking for Madeline to be taken. I don't believe this and simply won't conform to the view that their meal that night, automatically makes them bad parents.

That's my personal view - I honestly don't care whether anyone agrees with me or not. I will always hold the view that parents are as fallible as anyone else and that no parent deserves to go through the hell of losing a child, as well as putting up with strangers ready to line up to take pot shots at their parenting methods on top of that grief. It's just not necessary in my view.

The way I look at it is I've been away and seen children at their age and even older left alone while their parents were at the bar drinking away. I was disgusted then.

If somebody posted here that they'd left 3 children, 1 aged 3 and 2 aged 1 alone and went to dinner, what do you think? They'd be savaged for it and rightly so. The thread I posted about leaving toddlers alone in a car shows you how people feel about this. It's a wrong thing to do because you are responsible for them.

dark crystal · 07-05-2011 3:17am

CK2010 wrote: »

I actually do see where you're coming from. and in a way i do respect you for that, because i cant be as forgiving. that little girl was let down
by her parents that night, the people who should have been protecting her and keeping her from harms way. theres mistakes and then theres neglecting to do the basic tasks required of you as a childs parent. i think its the fact it was for the sake of a nice meal and a few drinks that gets to people the most- it was entirely avoidable. there was no need for her to be left alone and vulnerable to the crime.

For me, it's not a case of forgiving the McCanns. I reckon they've paid more than enough for their 'crime' of having a meal outside the apartment with their friends that night.

I blame whoever took that little girl from her bed.

CK2010 · 07-05-2011 3:22am

dark crystal wrote: »

For me, it's not a case of forgiving the McCanns. I reckon they've paid more than enough for their 'crime' of having a meal outside the apartment with their friends that night.

I blame whoever took that little girl from her bed.

you see its not the meal thats the 'crime' its the fact they chose that meal out over the safety of their children. if i want a nice meal with friends i get a sitter.
of course whoever took her is to blame. but again its like blaming the driver for running over an unsupervised kid. the driver is to blame but if the mother had held the childs hand there'd be no reason for blame whatsoever. i guess we're just going round in circles now..

sxt · 07-05-2011 3:24am

dark crystal wrote: »

For me, it's not a case of forgiving the McCanns. I reckon they've paid more than enough for their 'crime' of having a meal outside the apartment with their friends that night.

I blame whoever took that little girl from her bed.

Read this, no matter how many times the mcanns changed their stories, the abduction scenario was still not possible

Here, it is important to examine closely what the Doctors McCann, and the friends who were with them in Praia da Luz, have said about the possibility that Madeline was abducted. We give a long answer because this issue is crucial to enable us to assess whether the Doctors McCann and their friends are telling the truth or not.
We will come to their constantly changing stories about how the alleged abductor may have entered the apartment later in this document.
The scenario that the McCanns and their friends have produced runs as follows:
They say that:

The abductor must have been watching the apartment for several days before snatching Madeleine on 3rd May.
They (the McCanns) went down to the Tapas bar at the Ocean Club at around 8.30pm that evening (though that timing is disputed by others who say it may have been up to half-an-hour later).
Dr Matthew Oldfield says he checked the apartment from the outside at around 9.03pm.
Gerry McCann says he returned to the apartment from the ‘Tapas bar’ to check on his children at around 9.05pm to 9.07pm.
Gerry McCann says he was briefly in all four rooms of their holiday apartment, during which time he checked his children. He also says he spent an unusually long time in the loo. He tells us that he paused briefly over Madeleine’s bed and thought to himself how very lucky he was to have such a beautiful child.
Gerry McCann says that he noticed that the door to the children’s room was ‘wider open than before’. He says that at 8.30pm it was open at an angle of about 45 degrees (half open). He remembers (he says) that when he went to check the children at 9.05pm, the door was now open at an angle of 60 degrees (two thirds open).
The Doctors McCann now say that the door being open more than it was before may suggest that the abductor was already in the room when he checked on the children – though he says he only realised this possibility some months after the events of the day. It is clearly an unlikely scenario. Gerry McCann says the abductor might have been hiding behind the door or in a wardrobe.
Gerry McCann says he left the room, after checking on the children, at around 9.09pm or 9.10pm. He then says he encountered a journalist, Jeremy (’Jes’) Wilkins, on the road back to the Tapas bar at the Ocean Club, and was talking to him for about 10-15 minutes between 9.10pm and 9.25pm. Jeremy Wilkins confirms this.
Jane Tanner maintains that she saw a man walking ‘purposefully’, with a child in his arms, along the top of the road running alongside the McCanns’ apartment (we will come to the reliability of Ms Tanner’s observations later). She initially said the man had been walking in the opposite direction. She has stuck to her account that she saw this man at 9.15pm.
The McCanns now maintain that they left their apartment unlocked. This contrasts with what they said on May 3rd. (Then, they claimed that the abductor had forced entry into the apartment by jemmying open the shutters. They changed this story very soon afterwards, when the evidence did not support that – please see section 9 of this leaflet). The McCanns now say, therefore, that the abductor must have entered through the unlocked patio door.
The McCanns now explain the fact that the window to the children’s room was found open by claiming that the abductor must have climbed through the window and taken Madeleine through that window.
The McCanns maintain that when Kate McCann says she returned to the apartment to check on the children, she ‘knew instantly’ – and then so did Gerry minutes later when he is supposed to have arrived at the apartment – that Madeleine had been abducted. She told a TV interviewer that because of the requirement for secrecy about the police investigation, she could not explain why she ‘knew instantly’. The photographs of the apartment taken by the Portuguese police on the day after Madeleine was reported missing do not show anything which would clearly point to an abduction, certainly not damaged shutters.

Going by the above scenario, the abductor either entered the apartment before Matthew Oldfield’s check at around 9.03pm and Gerry McCann’s check at 9.05pm/9.07pm – the version the McCanns now want us to believe – or after he left at 9.10pm and before he was (allegedly) seen by Jane Tanner at 9.15pm
The problems with this abduction scenario

There are many problems associated with the specific abduction scenario above that has been generated by the Doctors McCann.
For a start, the Portuguese police did a forensic examination of the window-sill, through which it is claimed that the abductor must have climbed out with Madeleine. The Portuguese police said that they found no trace of any other person having made any impression on the window-sill and, in addition;

the lichen on the outside window-sill appeared to be totally undisturbed and,
only Kate Mcann’s fingerprints were found on the window-sill. All of this tells us that the abductor, if there was one, did not escape with Madeleine through the window.

Further, the window is high enough in the children’s room to make it physically very difficult for an abductor to climb through it. It was reported to be 91cm. above the floor – exactly three feet. The abductor would therefore have had to climb some 3 feet, with Madeleine with him, in his arms or over his shoulder. In addition, he would have to have managed this feat without leaving any forensic traces on the window-sill. Madeleine must have weighed at least two stone (12kg). A task such as this would have meant balancing against the window frame itself; even then it would have been almost impossible even if Madeleine had been asleep.
It would clearly have been still more difficult if either Madeleine had woken up whilst being abducted, or one or both twins had done so.
Furthermore, to escape through the window, as the McCanns claim, the abductor would have had to open the shutters. It is a fact, confirmed by Mark Warners, that it was only possible to open the shutters from the inside. It is also a fact (again confirmed by Mark Warners) that if these heavy metal shutters were opened from the outside, the process was extremely noisy. But no-one heard the shutters being opened.
In addition, as the shutters were actually closed when the police and Mark Warners’ staff arrived to check on the shutters, the initial explanations of the Doctors McCann were that the shutters ‘must have been closed by the abductor as well as opened by him’. We have seen that the shutters could not be opened from the outside. The claim by the Doctors McCann that the abductor closed the shutters behind him prompts two related and very obvious questions:

having gained entry through an open patio door, what would possess an abductor to leave via a 3-foot high window when he would also have to open noisy shutters? – and
why and how, having allegedly scooped up Madeleine in his arms and opened the window and the shutters, would he have had the time and the physical ability to then close the shutters, all without making any sound or leaving any trace, and without waking either Madeleine or the twins?

Moreover, all this would have had to have been accomplished in the dark – unless he switched the lights on when he entered the apartment and then remembered to switch them off again as he was making his exit. No-one saw any lights on ion the apartment. The Doctors McCann left the children in the darkness when they went out for their evening’s entertainment.
Therefore, to sum up – according to the McCanns’ scenario, the abductor would have to have:

first – either picked an opportunity to enter the apartment after the Doctors McCann had left for the Tapas bar or entered the apartment immediately after he had seen first Matthew Oldfield and then Gerry McCann enter and leave the apartment [NOTE: if the former of these two alternatives, then the abductor must have been in the apartment with Dr Gerry McCann during the three to five minutes he was checking on the children]
second – walked through the open patio door without being seen
third – found Madeleine in the dark and picked her up without waking her or the twins, opened the window;
fourth – opened the shutters (with nobody hearing him doing so, and without leaving any finger-prints);
fifth – climbed through the window, carrying Madeleine with him — again without being seen by anyone, and
sixth – he would then have had to close the very noisy shutters, using controls operated from the inside.

This latter operation would have been physically very difficult if not impossible to do without (a) even brushing away even a tiny piece of the years-old lichen growing on the window-sill or (b) leaving any clothing fibres or other forensic evidence. He must in addition have accomplished this in near total darkness and without being seen or heard by anyone – except for the highly suspect evidence of Jane Tanner, which we will deal with later. If he had Madeleine in his arms, and bearing in mind he was in near darkness, he would have been unable to see anything below her or much to either side as he fumbled through the window and shutters and tried to escape from the apartment precincts. Why he would do this when there was an open patio door to walk back through is utterly incomprehensible. The reason the Doctors McCann came up with this improbable scenario is that they had to explain to the Portuguese police and to the outside world why the normally-closed shutters were partially open.
This whole incredible abduction scenario – unconfirmed by any forensics whatsoever, and indeed contradicted by Dr Kate McCann’s fingerprints on the window – is so impossible to believe that we can surely say: this did not happen.
Now let us look for a moment at the McCanns’ theory that the abductor had been ‘casing the joint’ for several days beforehand – and then pounced and abducted Madeleine when he had the chance.
The Doctors McCann claim that he would have been closely watching them, including observing what the McCanns claim as the routine of half-hourly checking (though, to be frank, the evidence suggests that neither they nor their ‘Tapas 9? friends checked on their children half-hourly or even at all whilst they were out wining and dining).
The Doctors McCann have gone further and have suggested that the abductor must have been making notes on their movements – carefully noting down the times of their departures from the apartment. But this does not seem plausible given that neither the Doctors McCann, nor their ‘Tapas 9? friends, have given any details of how often (if at all) they were checking on their children whilst they were out wining and dining.
Another problem about that scenario is that there is nowhere that the abductor could have been observing the McCanns’ apartment without being seen – unless, that is, he was living in one of the flats opposite the McCanns’ apartment, some of which overlooked it. It is understood that the occupants of these flats have all been investigated and their statements corroborated. None of them had anyone in their flat who was watching the McCanns’ apartment, nor was anyone seen acting suspiciously or hanging around in that area during the week the Doctors McCann and their friends were there.
The other obvious problem about the claim of an abductor casing the joint is this:- Suppose an abductor had been watching the McCanns’ apartment day in and day out. On the McCanns’ own timeline, he would have seen the McCanns leave for the Tapas bar at 8.30pm.
If, as claimed, an abductor had been watching the premises, he would probably have chosen his ‘moment’ to abduct Madeleine immediately after Drs Gerry and Kate McCann had left for the Tapas bar (on their own account) at around 8.30pm. Yet, if he had entered the flat just after the McCanns left at 8.30pm, how come he was not long gone 35-45 minutes later?
For the Doctors McCann now claim that the abductor either snatched Madeleine a minute or two after Dr Gerry McCann did his (alleged) check at around 9.05pm to 9.10pm, or, just as improbably, was even present for the entire 5 minutes or so Gerry was doing his 9.05pm check.
Yet a further difficulty for this improbable scenario is that Dr Matthew Oldfield claims that he did two checks – one at around 8.55pm/9.00pm, (various times have been given for this alleged check) and the other around 9.30pm. Dr Oldfield claims that during his 9.00pm visit he ‘checked’ from the outside but saw and heard nothing and said that the shutters were tight shut.
If the abductor really had entered before both Dr Matthew Oldfield’s alleged check (around 9.00pm) and Dr McCann’s check (around 9.05pm), then he was exceptionally lucky, to put it mildly, not to have been detected by either man.
But there are equal if not greater problems with the suggestion that the abductor entered the apartment and removed Madeleine only after Drs Oldfield and McCann had done their checks. Would he really have dashed into the apartment after seeing Dr Oldfield checking the outside of the apartment at around 8.55pm/9.00pm and then Gerry spending 3-5 minutes checking between 9.05pm and 9.10pm? It would surely have been far too risky.
And if he entered the apartment after Dr Gerry McCann left at 9.10pm, he would scarcely have had time to enter the flat, remove Madeleine and then be seen by Jane Tanner at 9.15pm. And that is quite apart from all the other difficulties with that scenario that we have already discussed above.