The moment Kate blunders up, and confesses...
Kate McCann, in “Cutting Edge”:
"I took my check about 10 o’clock, and went in through the, sliding patio doors, and I just stood actually, and I thought Oh, all quiet… and to be honest I might of, been tempted to turn around, then but I just noticed that the door, the bedroom door, where the 3 children were sleeping, was open much further than we had left it, I went to close it to about here…"
The “we had left it”, can only mean herself and Gerry, before going to dinner.
There is no other "we" involving her.
That was the last time she was in the apartment before her return to realize that her daughter had been abducted. According to McCanns & Friends, there were 2 visits where movement of the referred door had to happen: the one at 09.15, by Gerry, who, by the way sees the door open and doesn’t find anything strange about that, and goes to the toilet; and the one at 9.35 by Matt Oldfield who sees only the twins.
Both had to physically open the door from the “we had left it” position, otherwise they wouldn’t be able to see inside.
So, for Kate to find it strange that the door was not as “we had left it” and that fact, all by its own, made her suspicious that something was wrong, means ONLY one thing: to her, there was no visit to the apartment between the time she left it, for dinner, and when she returned, to find Maddie gone.
Gotcha! Explain that.
Kate McCann, in “Cutting Edge”:
"I took my check about 10 o’clock, and went in through the, sliding patio doors, and I just stood actually, and I thought Oh, all quiet… and to be honest I might of, been tempted to turn around, then but I just noticed that the door, the bedroom door, where the 3 children were sleeping, was open much further than we had left it, I went to close it to about here…"
The “we had left it”, can only mean herself and Gerry, before going to dinner.
There is no other "we" involving her.
That was the last time she was in the apartment before her return to realize that her daughter had been abducted. According to McCanns & Friends, there were 2 visits where movement of the referred door had to happen: the one at 09.15, by Gerry, who, by the way sees the door open and doesn’t find anything strange about that, and goes to the toilet; and the one at 9.35 by Matt Oldfield who sees only the twins.
Both had to physically open the door from the “we had left it” position, otherwise they wouldn’t be able to see inside.
So, for Kate to find it strange that the door was not as “we had left it” and that fact, all by its own, made her suspicious that something was wrong, means ONLY one thing: to her, there was no visit to the apartment between the time she left it, for dinner, and when she returned, to find Maddie gone.
Gotcha! Explain that.
*********
Updated Saturday May 9th, 18:15 Last night at least 2 people on www.joana-morais.blogspot.com, Ana and an Anon., commented having realized the same thing I had, before I even posted. It's evident. It's undeniable.
This consolidates the strength of the "we had left it" that I deem as a very strong piece of evidence to reopen the process.
These are the comments, at this time, at the referred blog:
++++++++
Ana said... There's one thing that has stuck with me for the past week, since Kate's new "testimonies" (1st on Opraha and now here): Kate says she went into the room and she felt something was not quite right because the door was opened wide(r) than when they had left the children... But two other people (at least) had been there since, right? First Gerry, than Matt(?). Couldn't one of them had left the door in a different position? Why was that detail of the door such an important indication of an abduction? Unless... the checks story is a lie and no one checked the children but Kate. 08/05/09 20:50
++++++++
Anonymous said... Ana, you're right. How would Kate know if other people were checking before her last check....the door may naturally not be left the same if different people were taking turns to check the kids...this is so obvious yet I missed it...well done! 08/05/09 21:39
++++++++
Anonymous said... Ana, Congrats! You saw exact what I saw: the proof that Kate is lying, thus confessing. I posted it last night, and posted also on the 3Arguido's. Let's all push, and make this count. She's confessing!!! Textusa 09/05/09 07:48
++++++++
Jo said (…) Ana "Why was that detail of the door such an important indication of an abduction?"kate should have cut her tongue,shouldnt she? 09/05/09 13:13
++++++++
Updated Saturday May 9th, 18:15 Last night at least 2 people on www.joana-morais.blogspot.com, Ana and an Anon., commented having realized the same thing I had, before I even posted. It's evident. It's undeniable.
This consolidates the strength of the "we had left it" that I deem as a very strong piece of evidence to reopen the process.
These are the comments, at this time, at the referred blog:
++++++++
Ana said... There's one thing that has stuck with me for the past week, since Kate's new "testimonies" (1st on Opraha and now here): Kate says she went into the room and she felt something was not quite right because the door was opened wide(r) than when they had left the children... But two other people (at least) had been there since, right? First Gerry, than Matt(?). Couldn't one of them had left the door in a different position? Why was that detail of the door such an important indication of an abduction? Unless... the checks story is a lie and no one checked the children but Kate. 08/05/09 20:50
++++++++
Anonymous said... Ana, you're right. How would Kate know if other people were checking before her last check....the door may naturally not be left the same if different people were taking turns to check the kids...this is so obvious yet I missed it...well done! 08/05/09 21:39
++++++++
Anonymous said... Ana, Congrats! You saw exact what I saw: the proof that Kate is lying, thus confessing. I posted it last night, and posted also on the 3Arguido's. Let's all push, and make this count. She's confessing!!! Textusa 09/05/09 07:48
++++++++
Jo said (…) Ana "Why was that detail of the door such an important indication of an abduction?"kate should have cut her tongue,shouldnt she? 09/05/09 13:13
++++++++
Hi Textusa
ReplyDeleteGreat observation!
How did you get the picture like that by the way? I mean, when I took a screenshot it came up with the pause button showing.
I'm one of those people who think that computers came only to solve problems that didn't exist befor computers appeared...
ReplyDeleteDon't understand anything about this machine in front of me. Just timed the pressing of the print-screen button, pasted on paintbrush, cropped it, saved it as *.jpeg, and there it is.
Why, I haven't the faintest.
Why Kate is lying... that I have a pretty good idea...
Ah ha...print-screen button - I never think to use that!
ReplyDeleteThank you.
O print screen pode ter muito que se lhe diga. É fácil,é barato e há que ter cuidado:
ReplyDeleteDepois da imagem ter sido colada,vejam bem se,na foto, ficaram alguns dados que não interessam públicamente. Há que manter a privacidade.
Eu acho que há coisa de comp. que não domino mas quero muito aprender. E acho piada pois o print foi 1 brincadeira girissima que aprendi há imenso tempo (já quarentona-NAQUELA ALTURA; agora sessentonazita). E não estou a fazer troça.Acho 1 delícia este encantamento.
Tão lindinhos,sinceramente e com todo o respeito. E gosto muito de computadores .Tanto que as acções de Formação que eu escolhia no meu local de trabalho,elas eram sempre sobre os "rudimentos" da informática.
Text. : experimente usar o twitter ( eu comecei só agora. Mas é giro e útil).
Inscreva-se com o seu nick completo TEXTUSA.A palavra passe será a que não vai de todo esquecer.
http://twitter.com/
http://twitter.com/mcpois
Bom dia. Ah e acho que os comp. vieram mesmo para dar gozo e são muito úteis. À distância de apenas 1 clique,está onde quer.
Bom, isto se Text. não estiver a mentir patológicamente
Philomena Mccann "..the door was lying open"..I have to say this doesn't provide any answers but it has always bothered me as to which door Phat Philo was referencing.
ReplyDeleteGood observations all round, and certainly food for thought.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_YWCVSjIJk8
ReplyDeleteThey did not check and they did not search. Madeleine was of no importance.
They didn't check and they didn't search ......
ReplyDeletebecause they know there was no point. Unbelievably they couldn't even fake it
They couldn't even fake being sad and distressed 8 days later on Madeleine's 4th Birthday when they came out of church smiling and laughing and grinning.
But still pretending that they believed she was in the hands of a pae***
Kate and Gerrys statement are identical word for word.
ReplyDeletePJ witness.
At 10pm, his wife Kate went to check on the children. She went into the apartment through the door using her key and saw right away that the children’s bedroom door was completely open, the window was also open, the shutters raised and the curtains drawn open. The side door that opens into the living room, which as said earlier, was never locked, was closed.
Faced with this altered scenario, KATE checked that the twins were in their respective beds, unlike MADELEINE, who had disappeared. After thoroughly searching the apartment, his wife, quite scared and upset, went to the restaurant to alert the deponent and the others about the disappearance. Immediately, the group headed for the club and searched across all the facilities, swimming pool, tennis etc., as well as in the apartment, with the help of Ocean Club employees, while at the same time they contacted the authorities, that would later appear.
xxxxxx
USING HER KEY....not inlocked then..
With the help of Ocean Club employees...Charlotte Pennington ??
ReplyDeleteIf only the people who can do something to smash open the case would realise and see what we can see ,at LEAST 2 people who have told bare faced lies from day one
ReplyDeleteIt should also be noted how McCann trivalises and emphasises parts of the events leading up to and including the discovery of Madeleine's disappearance. Words such "actually" "really" and "just". These words are hot spots of deception - the recounting of a fabricated tale.
ReplyDeleteThe latest Mccann comment about the twins..they know they went on holiday they know they went to sleep and when they woke Madeleine was gone...
ReplyDeleteLast year the twins were going to hunt the monster down who took her..What the Mccanns are allowed to get away with in destroying and using their two remaining children is criminal.
One day if something happens to either of them...who shall we blame???
In my humble opinion there was no confession. Going in through the main door with the key was a version designed to safeguard their bottoms should the PJ decide to press charges for child negligence (as indeed they should have had if it weren't for the political strings. Even the Portuguese ambassador Santana Carlos dismissively agreed on these charges. However, once they were cleared of that peccadillo and the case archived, she could afford to tell the "truth" (or indeed another lie)that she had, afteral, gone through the sliding doors. This could suggest (subliminally) several things the most important of which was: the patio's sliding doors location namely, by the staircase, by the access to a public road makes the abduction scenario all the more credible. Any potential thief/abductor could have gone in. This was a particular shrewd move by Kate and/or her "reputation management" team particularly since the window entrance theory had by then been fully de-constructed by now. She is now suggesting an alternative, more obvious scenario, namely that someone could have come in from the street or indeed the child gone out into the night (even if she negates this possibility when trying to stick with the window entry hypothesis!) By "admitting" she went through the sliding doors, she is in fact suggesting: "Look! Forget the window! The back door was open any abductor could have gone in very much as we did. Naturally, our beloved Madeleine could have gone out into the night but I am not going to suggest that openly because that would make our negligence too obvious and we are trying to highlight the Portuguese PJ incompetence ONLY. Yes! I know I said she could not possibly have opened the sliding doors but forget that, will you! You are drifting away from our "official" version of events! Arrgh!"
ReplyDeleteKaren L.
Karen L
ReplyDeleteThe fact that Kate confesses has to do with the bedroom door. No other door. That's the door she says it wasn't the way THEY had left it. No other door. THEY can only be her and Gerry. So she's discarding any checking because THEY left the door like that when THEY went to dinner.
Point taken. But didn't she/they at some stage insisted they always used the front door (key), not the sliding patio doors (locked)? So here we have K. caught saying "I went through the patio's sliding doors..." That's the byte I was referring to - a bit out of context admittedly but that was what flashed through my mind and I thought I would share that. I then went on wondering why K. would have changed her mind about the sliding patio doors? That is not what she told the PJ, was it? And gave some possible "reasons" for the swerve applying the kind of fuzzy logic "reputation managers" seem apt at - think Clarence Mitchell/Burson-Marsteller/Lift Consulting ...
ReplyDeleteKind regards
Karen
Frankly, with her strange accent, how can anyone understand Kate McCann at all?
ReplyDelete#16 Don't worry. The English speaking people can understand what she's saying and the transcript on the post is exactly what she says.
ReplyDeleteKate could have been involved as much as anyone else, she states that before her, her husband and friend (Matt Oldfield) had checked on her too. Yet why didn't they find it important enough to check on Madeline? Is she not as important as her twin siblings? Or is it the fact that she was supposedly old enough to take care of herself? But then theres all the evidence leading up to the abduction, the men staying around before the day of her kidnapping, or the windows being wide open as well as the doors?
ReplyDeleteAnd the fact that SY has eliminated Tanner's sighting of a guy carrying a small child only goes to prove that Gerry is lying as well, because who could have tampered with the bedroom door, he claims he saw on his 9.05 check, if Tannerman was just a dad collecting his child from a creche
ReplyDelete