Lying in the Sun

Abductor Strikes Prt 4

The Abductor May Strike Again -  Prt  4

The '
within the bounds of responsible parenting'  out of the way in the last blogs, well sort of, still a bit to be looked at here -

And the    'checking routine out of the way'  sort of -  


Where are we with that little part of their story?   

Well when I last looked:   

  • The shutter was right down.
  • The window was closed.
  • The curtains were drawn closed.

Gerry McCann   Crimewatch UK 2013:   

"The window had a shutter on the outside that was RIGHT DOWN.  And errr the window was CLOSED.   And we had curtains RIGHT ACROSS, so it was NICE AND DARK IN THE ROOM.

(around 11 mins in)   

Kate McCann,      Madeleine Was Here Documentary:   

"The curtains which were DRAWN.   They were CLOSED .   WHOOSH, it was like a gust of wind kinda just blew them open."   


What is interesting about Kate McCanns story is that she said she could see the twins in their cots, but she could not QUITE MAKE MADELEINE OUT due to the darkness?  She thought to herself - 'Is that Madeleine or is that the bedding?'

In Tubridy Show, FOUR YEARS LATER (that is 4 years after Madeleine being reported as missing) she said that it was REALLY DARK, that she could not make Madeleine out, and she was looking at the PILLOW and thinking, is that her HEAD or is it not.

Now this bed of Madeleine's was closer to the bedroom door than the cots.  The cots where the twin children slept.  One child in each.  The side of the cots, or ends of the cots which faced the bedroom door where Kate McCann stood looking in, one was mesh, the other not.   So through the darkness as described by Kate McCann, she could see clearly her twin children but could NOT make out whether Madeleine was or was not in the bed, which was located right beside the door? When Kate McCann opened that bedroom door, the light from the living area had to have shone into the bedroom!  So how dark was it, at that point?   Dark that she could not see clearly Madeleine's bed right beside her.  But but light enough that she could see the twins in their cots further away?

According to police reports and police pictures of the scene, Madeleine's bed was pretty much undisturbed, as though no child had slept there.  The bedding was NOT in a heap, not in a heap that anyone, even in the dark or a badly lit room could have mistaken it for a child being there, as Kate McCann claimed.


What is interesting and as we all know is the case.  The McCanns story is EVER CHANGING.   When they realise they have boobed in a big way - they change it.  They ADD ON, as I like to say.   

Kate McCanns story, like that of husband Gerry's has had NUMEROUS 'Add ons' throughout the years.

And the 'pillow/head' STORY by Kate McCann on Tubridy Show is but one.

Kate McCann knows that her nonsense, saying, she couldn't quite make Madeleine out - 'is that Madeleine or is that the bedding' - had been sussed, as in NO WAY, could the bedding ever have been mistaken for a child lying in bed.

(Gerry McCann who claims to have been in the room, 40 minutes or so earlier, stood where Kate McCann stood, and he saw Madeleine lying there, clear as day according to him, didn't struggle in the least with any 'is that Madeleine or is that the bedclothes' admired her, thought how lucky he was to have her, his proud father moment as he described it - then buggered off back to bar, not bothering to discover how that bedroom door came to be open, the open bedroom door which he also claims was his reason for doing a visual check of his kids.  Something he said he had not done at ANY time throughout that week.   Pretty shocking stuff.  Leaving kids alone in holiday apartment, patio door left unlocked, a kid Madeleine who wakes in the night, able to get out through same door, and you don't bother doing visual check.  Yip responsible parenting McCann style)

Kate's story really had to change.  No one believed that she could have mistaken flat undisturbed bedding for perhaps being Madeleine - Pillow Talk by time of Tubridy Show was introduced - this time round she couldn't make out if she was looking at
Madeleine's head OR the pillow.   Wouldn't Madeleine's head have been resting ON the pillow.

Hell these people, play everyone for mugs!

As for her other little changes to her story on Tubridy Show, the 'add ons'  we will look at them later.

This lady is a piece of work!

You watch them and you think to yourself, how in hell can two people, sit in interview and lie through their teeth, make statements which they must know absolutely the public know to be untrue. Awkward viewing. 

That they do this with such apparent ease when their child disappeared in such mysterious circumstances, when they have thrown vast sums of money shutting people up, makes the whole sick affair, disconcerting.

"Sounds stupid now"  
said she of her story, "but I didn't want to put the light on.  I didn't want to wake them"

Yeah, sounded stupid then and sounds stupid now, like some stupid, cruel, despicable great big fat lie, to cover for what became of a missing child.  

  • Did Gerry McCann put the light on when he did his visual?
  • At what point did Kate McCann put the light on if at all?
  • Perhaps when she went over to the top of Madeleine's bed to see if the child was there - Did she put the light on then?
  • When she discovered she wasn't there - Did she put the light on?
  • Did she put the light on and look in those cots again to make sure the twins were in them in case, like Madeleine, she hadn't made them out, quite as she thought she had?
  • Did Kate McCann put THE LIGHT on while she flew around the apartment searching for Madeleine?
  • Did she put the light on so as to search in the wardrobe as she claimed she did?
  • Did she put the light on BEFORE she ran off down to the tapas bar, leaving the twin kids alone?

Why did these twin kids not wake while she searched that apartment, bashing around calling Madeleine's name as she claimed, looking in wardrobes?

Why did she leave these twins when she KNEW IMMEDIATELY as is her claim also, that MADELEINE HAD BEEN TAKEN?

Left them lying in the apartment, the shutter and window open.

The shutter ALL THE WAY UP, and the window PUSHED OPEN ALL THE WAY ACROSS.

That is what she claimed, and that is what Gerry McCann claimed also when he said that when he reached the apartment, he found it just as Kate had described it. 

The story stinks.

And at this juncture.  Here's another little 'add on.'

McCanns have when it suited them plugged the theory that the twin kids must have been drugged.  Of course they must have been if that is what Kate and Gerry McCann said.  But that little story, like the rest of their little stories, started to become rather a problem for them - people asking - WHY did they not get their twins checked out, if they KNEW a nasty big dirty paedophile had been alone with them, and the kids now after the visit by the paedophile, they were unable to wake, and those two being doctors, surrounded by a whole bunch of doctor buddies.  Looked pretty suspicious, especially when the two who remained in the apartment with the twins after Madeleine vanished, Kate McCann and Fiona Payne, are both trained anaesthetists.  One would think they'd be able to spot a kid who had been drugged.   An 'add on' was needed.   And lo' and behold, would you believe the McCanns when back home in the UK, the smoke alarm went off in their home, and the twins didn't wake! 

Ain't that just neat and dandy!

Which brings me to another point.  Soon after Madeleine vanished, the reporting was that they had left the patio door unlocked for the kids to get out in case of fire (any truth in this?)

But if this was so - Why did they, according to another of their claims, only decide to leave the patio door unlocked on the Wednesday and the Thursday, the two nights they also claim the alleged abductor struck.  First time his plan being foiled by a waking Madeleine? Second time, successful so they say.

But that too, makes no sense.  No sense if we are going to go along with DCI Redwood and his burglary gone wrong story.

If the intruder was in fact a burglar - and he was there Wednesday night, got frightened off by the McCann kids crying.

Why then would he go back.  I mean, come on.  A burglar going back a second night when he knew the same crying kids would be there.

A burglar who went back, got disturbed, killed the kid, drugged the other two and carried of a dead body?

A burglar wouldn't go back, unless he knew the crown jewels were up for grabs.  And he certainly wouldn't be back with 'something' to drug the kids.

Redwood talking as much nonsense as McCanns when it comes to a burglar!

Unless of course Redwood wanted to track down possible burglars who might have been in the area and WITNESSED WHAT McCANNS AND THEIR BUDDIES WERE UP TO!

But Redwood was NOT when on the job, looking for burglars who called Wednesday night, who then called back on Thursday night with the chloroform or whatever, prepared to kill a child and carry her off.


Was there a smoke alarm in apartment 5A?  And even if there was, would their three tots have slept through it?  And the most obvious is how was Madeleine to get two, two year old's out of their cots if there was a fire?

How can Kate McCann be an ambassador for a missing kids charity?

Really, truly - How is that possible?

The reason her daughter is missing lies firmly with the gross negligence of both her and Gerry McCann.  That is the negligence that they want us to believe, which is the crux of their story.

What is of interest, and quite astonishing also is that Kate McCann went over to the bedroom door because she saw that it was MORE OPEN than she/they had left it when they went out for the evening.

Now for a parent to do this, they either thought, that one of the kids (Madeleine) had been out of bed and had opened it, OR that someone had been in that apartment in their absence and opened it.

Either way, what kind of parent having left their kids alone in an unlocked holiday apartment, seeing the bedroom door wide open when it had been closed over, not quite closed completely, at the time they had left the kids, would simply walk over and close it, WITHOUT LOOKING TO MAKE SURE ALL THE KIDS WERE STILL INSIDE?

Not until the DOOR SLAMMED (as she was closing it over again, did she DECIDE, '
 oh  I'll just have a look at the children'



Kate McCanns intention she said was to
simply close that door over, and walk straight back out!

Responsible parenting - my ass!

Ever thought that might in fact be what did happen?

That Madeleine did in fact have an accident in their absence which they discovered later hence the lies and the inconsistencies in their story.  And their story is exactly that, a story - hence Oldfield the husband of Mrs Rachael
'Resuscitation' Oldfield, 'stepping in' shall we say?

Kate McCann -

  • This is the mother whose little girl had said to her that very morning that she and her baby brother had been awake and crying when alone the previous night.
  • This is the mother who told her buddies at the dinner table JUST BEFORE GOING ON THIS CHECK, of her concern, shall we say at Madeleine having been awake the previous night, asking her friends their thoughts on her and Gerry McCann having left the patio door unlocked so that Madeleine may get out of the apartment to go and look for them if she woke up and was upset.
  • This is the mother who has stated, Crimewatch 2013, that when she picked Madeleine up at the creche facility that evening, that this little girl was tired, pale, unable to have a little playtime before bed that evening.  A child not her usual bubbly self.
  • This is the mother who stated on the Tubridy Show that she was UPSET when Madeleine told her that she and her baby brother had been crying the previous evening.

How then is it at all possible that this concerned and upset mother would:

1. Leave her kids AGAIN after discovering they had been awake and crying previous evening.   

2. Leave her kids, knowing Madeleine was not quite her usual self that evening, tired and pale. So tired she required to be carried from the creche to the apartment.  So tired and pale she was not fit for 'playtime' before bed.

3. Enter that apartment on her check, this
worried, upset and concerned mother, WITH NO INTENTION OF DOING A VISUAL CHECK?

2. Forgo what should have been her turn to check on her kids, allowing instead
Matthew Oldfield, to take her place.  A guy SHE did not know before this holiday, met him once at a wedding, years before, a guy who HER KIDS did not know.  A guy who DID not know her kids, never seen the two little ones before this holiday?



But back to that BEDROOM DOOR!

Kate McCann as we know much later, somewhere down the line, then
added to her statement (yip another 'add on') saying that she thought Matthew Oldfield had left the kids bedroom door open. 

Still doesn't cut it.   NO PARENT, that is NO RESPONSIBLE PARENT, walks over to a door, in the circumstances set out above and DOES NOT do a visual check on their kids.

These people have been taking the world for a ride for years!

To be noted also.  In 
 'Madeleine Was Here'    the scene with Kate McCann (filmed at her home in UK?) where she does eventually, due to the door slamming as she was closing, decide THEN to look in on her kids, the door is hung in the same direction as the door of the apartment in Portugal.

In the Crimewatch production for some unknown reason, the bedroom door is not hung in the same way.   The door in this footage opens in the opposite direction to the door in apartment 5A.

As in every production the McCanns have taken part in.  They do not keep strictly to the facts of the case, nor are their productions in keeping with their police witness statements.

They CHOOSE not to be exact or truthful?   This quite obviously misleads the viewer, that is, those viewers who have not followed the case closely.

In Crimewatch the door opening in the OPPOSITE DIRECTION from the actual door of the apartment in Portugal, rather helps them out. Kate McCann saying she couldn't quite make Madeleine out in the dark.   You see when she opened that door, the one in Portugal, the light from the living area would have streamed in, making it impossible for her not to be able to see Madeleine, or rather, the bed, clearly, as it opened away from the bed allowing all the light necessary.

The door opening in the opposite direction, as in Crimewatch, the misleading version, not so much light would be allowed in, that is, in relation to the bed where they say Madeleine slept.  As this door then backs on to the bottom of the bed where they say Madeleine lay sleeping.

This was a BIG change from the earlier documentary.

DCI Andy Redwood must too have known that the production of Crimewatch which the McCanns took part in, was not true to their police witness statements.

Not that the police statements could ever be considered the complete truth of matters, but any film production should not veer from what they have given as their true and honest accounts of the evening they reported Madeleine as missing.


It was 
right down claimed Gerry McCann.

That is the position of the shutter according to McCanns when they left the kids alone.

Okay.  Let's take it the shutter was
right down.

These shutters may be opened from the inside by using a cord designed for that purpose.

The shutters are not able to be opened from the outside.   That is, if they can be raised up a little way, from the outside, they would NOT REMAIN in that position.  They would immediately drop down again when released.  And they certainly could not be raised to the top and remain there.  
 The position which Kate McCann said she found them to be?

Kate McCann
- Tubridy Show

the shutters were ALL the way up, and the window was PUSHED right across..."

And we must of course believe her, as Kate McCann assured the viewers of the Tubridy Show 

"I'm NOT lying about that"

That's all re-assurance I need.  If Kate 'Story Teller'  McCann said its the truth, good enough for me!

What a strange thing to have said, that she is NOT LYING ABOUT FINDING THE SHUTTER AND THE WINDOW OPEN!   Hmm

The shutters we KNOW were not forced open or jemmied  as the McCanns claimed.

Does that mean that they WERE LYING ABOUT THIS?

Oh McCanns, McCanns, McCanns, what have the public to think.

You lie about THIS, but not about THAT?  But everyone has to guess which bits are the truth, which bits are the lies.

Dr Amaral was SPOT ON, with these people!

Why not the truth about EVERYTHING?   Not too much to ask when a child is missing.

McCanns phoned several members of their family and friends also on that night, and told them that the shutters had been jemmied open.

Or did ALL of the family and friends back home in the UK
lie when they contacted the media to tell this story?  Hardly.  They repeated what they had been told by Kate and Gerry McCann.

Now we could say that at first seeing the shutter open (Kate McCanns claim) that she/they thought it had been jemmied.

But NO, one huge problem here.

Gerry McCann IMMEDIATELY on arriving at the apartment went outside and played around with the shutters.  SO HE KNEW at this point, BEFORE phoning his family, that that shutter had not been forced open in any way.

He KNEW there was NO sign of a shutter having been damaged, jemmied or anything else.

'almost caught the abductor'

This is some guy this alleged abductor.  Calling on the Wednesday night, according to Kate McCann in one of her little stories.  And on the Thursday night too, according to Gerry McCanns little story, Jane Tanner ALMOST caught him!

OOPSY Gerry McCann - DCI Redwood's
'revelation moment' says NO!

So, does Gerry McCann now believe that the guy Jane Tanner DIDN'T ALMOST CATCH, the guy the Smith family saw is this alleged abductor?

Well, we don't really know, as Gerry and Kate McCann, and Jane Tanner, and all the rest of the tapas lot have said NOTHING.

Jane Tanner did not come out and say -
I am so pleased that it has been proven that I did see a man carrying a child, albeit not an abductor. 

And Gerry McCann have never come out and said - Great, we now know Madeleine wasn't abducted at the time I was standing on the street outside.  Pleased Jane has been vindicated.  But WHO then opened that bedroom door that I saw lying open WIDE, if the abductor had not as yet CALLED?  Oh and I must phone Sandra Felgueiras to tell her that I got it WRONG in that interview, Jane NEVER almost caught the abductor!

And these people never will!

And WHO INDEED Gerry McCann opened that bedroom door BEFORE you arrived to check on your kids, if the ALLEGED INTRUDER, according to DCI Redwood, DID'T ARRIVE UNTIL around 40 minutes later?

Gerry McCann telling untruths again?

Gerry McCann, Tubridy Show.   Well what do you know, FOUR YEARS after he reported his daughter as missing.  FOUR YEARS after phoning his friends and family to say that those shutters had been jemmied open.  FOUR YEARS after the police forensics reporting that the shutters had not been forced open that they were in perfect condition, tickety boo, GERRY McCANN was still spinning SHUTTER STORIES.

Naughty, Naughty, Gerry McCann.

"I got to the apartment and it was as Kate described it.  I did the same things, checked everything, then I went over to the window, and I lowered the shutter, and I went out through the front door, and I found I could lift the shutter up from the outside.  I just knew as well that somebody had taken her.  There was no way she could have got out that apartment alone, and with the window open like that."

These shutters cannot be raised ALL THE WAY UP as Kate McCann described it, that is, NOT FROM THE OUTSIDE.  

They would only remain in a RAISED POSITION - all the way up - if opened from the INSIDE by using the chord for that purpose.

Gerry McCann said he found the apartment as Kate McCann described it.

Therefore he found the shutter to be ALL THE WAY UP.

McCann then fiddled around with the shutter.  Lowering it he said from the inside, presumably using the chord for that purpose.   He then went outside and tried to raise it up.   He found, that he could, he said.

What he DID NOT SAY was that he ALSO must have found that it could NOT be raised, from the OUTSIDE - ALL THE WAY UP AND REMAIN IN THAT POSITION.   The position which Kate McCann claims to have found it, described, and the position also which he too claims to have found it when he arrived.

McCann would also at this time see that the shutter had NOT BEEN JEMMIED OR MARKED, DAMAGED IN ANY WAY.   

Yet they phoned home to family and friends with this story of a jemmied shutter when they knew absolutely that was not the truth of matters.

But here is the thing.

The shutter being JEMMIED open was the story told by them, the story of how someone had jemmied it open, gone in through this window and taken Madeleine.  Crucial to their tale of abduction.

They continued with this story for quite some time.

Police established the shutter had not been forced open.

McCanns £70,000 per year mouthpiece, Clarence Mitchell then came up with a NEW STORY FOR THEM.   He said that Kate and Gerry McCann FIRMLY believe that the abductor WENT OUT THROUGH THE WINDOW WITH MADELEINE.

He further stated that the alleged abductor did so without leaving any trace of having done so.

Mitchell just 'FORGOT' to tell us how the guy (in this new story) got in?

Meanwhile back at the Camp McCann they were experiencing a communications breakdown - Kate McCann, lover of a good story, was now spinning a nice new one of her own.  Clearly she had not spoken with Clarence.

She put on Madeleine Fund website, that the intruder had opened the window and shutter FROM INSIDE, to create a RED HERRING?

What in the hell for?  A red herring for what?

Oh they were all spinning frantically!

(These are the people who in interview have spouted 'judicial secrecy' when it suited them so as not to answer difficult questions (though Sandra Felguieras, did call them on it. Kate McCann citing judicial secrecy for not wanting to answer, at a time when she was NO LONGER bound by judicial secrecy law. To be expected, this is McCanns we're talking about, they try every trick in the book.  Poor public have just been paying for the tricks of McCann and Mitchell. Vast sums have been paid to this guy for making up the necessary stories.  The crap from the McCanns themselves that comes free!)

How could they now explain that OPEN SHUTTER AND WINDOW, if this nasty paedophile abductor had NOT jemmied it open from outside?

That shutter had to have been opened from inside, hence Clarence with his new story and Kate with hers.

But Gerry, there he was on Tubridy Show still spinning stories of how he found the shutter
just as Kate described it.  How he could open the shutter from outside, though omitting to add also, that the shutter from outside, would not remain raised if released!

FOUR YEARS after the disappearance, Gerry McCann was, on the Tubridy Show, back to leading the viewer up the garden path.

Why was he STILL implying that the alleged intruder had opened that shutter
from the outside to gain access when he knew absolutely this was not the case at all?  Did he think the Irish audience could be fooled more easily or something, that they might not have been following their antics quite so closely as elsewhere.  And did he forget that this would be seen outwith Ireland, or did they darn well just not give two shits and a flying fuck what anybody thought?

Why would he do this, when he knew Mitchell and Kate McCann had both told completely different stories to counter their original version of jemmied shutters?

Why when he knew that not only had the Portuguese Police had established that shutter was not forced open, that the only fingerprints found in the window area were those of Kate McCann, was Gerry McCann still misleading the public?   Think I just answered my own question - the fingerprints!

And as that British forensics guy said - we must be careful not to say that the scene was staged.

But that is exactly what he did say by that statement!


A lot of discussion we have had over the years about the jemmied shutter. We know that it wasn't jemmied.

But the window?

Now I don't know for sure, but I cannot imagine that the window has a handle on the outside.

What kind of handle did it have on the inside?

The window was NOT jemmied open or damaged either.

Even if an abductor could have raised a shutter from outside, and somehow kept it raised, how did he get in through the window.

Are we saying the McCanns are further negligent that they did not lock the window?

But for an intruder to open it from the outside by sliding it, or PUSHING it as Kate McCann described -  it to have been, pushed across said she.  

How was that possible from the outside?

Really depends on the type of locking mechanism/handle on the window.

We concentrate so much on the jemmied shutter, but this alleged abductor if having decided to enter that apartment through the shuttered window, he rather gave himself a whole lot of trouble.   A shutter that he could not raise up fully to remain raised.  And a window that depending on the mechanism, depended on whether he would have to jemmy it open or simply be able to slide it open - LIKE THE PATIO DOORS?   

Now why would any intruder, who had been watching this family as they have also claimed, give himself SO MUCH TROUBLE, if the patio door had been lying unlocked?

Why would he not just enter through the patio door then exit the same way or simply open the front door and exit?


A shuttered window which the buddies of the McCanns SAW every time they went to check on their OWN KIDS.

An intruder would need to have been mad to to do that, especially when there was supposedly a patio door he could just have walked through.

And why if he was there the night previous to Madeleine having been reported as missing would he not have BUSTED the SHUTTER OR WINDOW ON THAT NIGHT?

Well firstly because neither the shutter or window was busted open on the night Madeleine vanished!

Logic tells us if he had busted it open that night then got disturbed, then he wouldn't be back the next night, and the McCanns would surely not have left their kids again on the Thursday had their shutters been fiddled with the night before, which even if they didn't notice, THE TRUSTY OLDFIELD WOULD HAVE NOTICED WHEN HE WAS POKING AROUND THE SHUTTERS, AS HE CLAIMS TO HAVE BEEN.

Said it before and will say it again, and again, and again -

Kate McCanns story of a shutter ALL THE WAY UP, and a window PUSHED OPEN right across, is the one part of their incredulous story that no matter which way you look it, it will not FIT.  The downfall in the whole sorry saga.

They claim to be looking for the missing piece of the puzzle.

The shutter and the window tale is the piece that DOESN'T FIT.   No matter how they try to make it, it never will.

When there was an unlocked/open patio door as they wish us to believe.  An intruder who had been watching them all week, as they wish us to believe.  When they and their buddies had all been running up and down from the bar to the apartments, as they want us to believe, then it is really unlikely that any intruder would attempt to break into the apartment.

And just a nonsense that this alleged intruder would try and get in through a shutter and a window when there was a door lying open, which if he was watching he KNEW OF!

And just a nonsense that an alleged intruder would try and squeeze out of that narrow window with Madeleine, when he simply could walk out the front door which was located right beside the bedroom window.

More of a nonsense that any intruder would stop, as Kate McCann said in her SECOND STORY, and open a shutter and the window from inside to create a red herring.

That is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard.

Why would any intruder do such a silly thing?

Opening the window and the shutter cannot in this case, create a red herring.

It would have however ALERTED anyone going by (any of the others in the group checking) that something was SERIOUSLY WRONG.

It would have alerted someone like 'Crecheman' who was walking around aimlessly carrying his child, dressed only in pyjamas through the dark streets of Praia da Luz, way off track from the creche where he collected his child, and way off track from the apartment where he and his family were staying.

Wouldn't you just love to know WHAT this Crecheman saw on his travels?

Wouldn't you just love to know WHAT this Crecheman heard on his travels?

He absolutely has to have seen Gerry, Jez and Jane IF they were all three on the street at the time they have claimed.  NO WAY this guy didn't notice them all there.  As he went to cross that road he would have checked for traffic, looked in their direction.   He would have heard the loud Gerry McCann, his thunderous voice in the quiet of the night.  And he would have heard Jane flip flops flapping on the concrete pavement.

And he would surely have seen any others who might have been hanging around?

If only crecheman was real eh?

I don't know what the hell the Metropolitan Police, together with the Portuguese Police in this now re-opened investigation, (open now for FOUR YEARS) are up to, if they are not investigating the McCanns and their buddies.

The Curtains

Oh the curtains.

Kate McCanns curtains.

The curtains which a gust of wind, blew open, revealing the open window and shutter.


TWO GUSTS OF WIND that night.

The first one caused, according to Kate McCann the bedroom door to SLAM CLOSED.

Miraculously though it never caused the curtains to move, they remained closed.

The second gust minutes later, well it, would you believe BLEW THE CURTAINS OPEN AND TO THE SIDE (one curtain had been prior to this tucked behind the bed which was pushed up against the wall below the window) but did not cause the door to slam.

Now I could understand a gust of wind causing the door to slam, but NOT without it having caused any shift in the curtains.

Kate McCann wants us to believe that the first gust blew the door closed, SLAM, while she was actually holding the handle of the door as she was in the process of closing it she said.  Now that would be one hell of a strong gust of wind to have done that.  Yet this strong gust of wind left the curtains in place undisturbed.

The next gust, a minute or so later BLEW THE CURTAINS OPEN but didn't cause door to slam.

Funny how if that window and shutter had been lying open for however long before Kate McCanns arrival on this very windy night it would seem, that the bedroom door had not slammed shut at any point before she appeared on the scene.  

Funny too that it had not blown those curtains open before she arrived.

Oh the games and the tales people tell!

And didn't you just love her 'add on' in the Tubridy Show when she said that after the door slammed shut, she just looked behind her to see if she had closed the patio door, and she had!

Course she did!   She needed it to be closed so that the GUST of WIND STORY blowing those curtains open sounded more convincing. She couldn't have the patio door lying open causing a through draught and it being the reason the bedroom door slammed.

No stopping Kate McCann when she's on a roll with the fairytales!

Unfortunately for Kate and Gerry McCann, the public DO see the changes in their story.  They see how, through time, the stories have evolved to take account of anything they had not thought of in their first accounts.  Things Mr Wright when scouring the internet picked up on, things the public were speaking of, all the slip ups they had made and which required an 'add on.'

As yet though, they have NOT been able to come up with an 'add on' that explains their shutter/window/curtain story.

Of course they have tried, but they have only dug themselves a bigger hole by doing so.

It's not us who has committed this crime,
say the McCanns.

What crime?

It is the person who took a little girl from her bed, they say.

What abductor?

For eight years they have been telling us the abductor may strike again.  

I think whoever removed Madeleine from the apartment, it was a one off, job.  Think he must have gone into retirement immediately after. He had never struck before she vanished and has never struck since.

Isn't that a funny thing too?

Perhaps more odd still.

Oldfield's and Tanner/O'Brien - both these couples had little girls, just like Madeleine.

They had apartments right beside McCann apartment.  Oldfield's shuttered bedroom window right next to that of McCann kids bedroom window, and Tanner/O'Brien, their bedroom window just a couple windows along.

Why then are we to believe any intruder would target the McCann apartment and not any of the other two?

More chance of being caught at McCann apartment, everyone when checking their own kids passed the patio/side/back entrance to this apartment as it was roadside. Anyone out walking would pass this entrance.  Taking a real risk to go in that way, and up those stairs, two gates to deal with too?

So why the McCann apartment.

Why would any abductor open the McCann shutter and NOT the others right alongside it?

And if when you think about it.  The McCann apartment, according the stories the group have told police was THE ONE APARTMENT that was being checked MORE times than ANY of the others on that night, being checked by not only the McCann parents but by Oldfield.

Now why would the McCann apartment on that night suddenly become the centre of interest to not only an intruder but to the someone else in the group?

Why would an intruder strike when he could see the checks were being increased BY OLDFIELD!

When he could see OLDFIELD AND O'BRIEN pottering around at the front entrances more than once.  Oldfield going into O'Brien Tanner apartment?


Anyone smell a rat?
21st May 2015
Website Builder