Lying in the Sun

Drake's Drapes

Drakes Drapes

The Mirror's Matthew Drake has spoken of the curtains which hung in the bedroom where the McCann children slept while on holiday in Portugal.

He spoke of Madeleine's captor perhaps being caught if DNA testing of the drapes was now repeated.

Those who follow the case will know that it is the drapes in the sitting room of the apartment which would most probably hold any "information" -  but then again - who knows if there are drapes held somewhere which are available for testing, or if Drake has just as is the norm in the case, released a story which is not accurate or truthful?   

But as he has - let's look at the curtains in the children's bedroom, look at Kate McCanns WHOOSHING curtain tale.

The window in the bedroom, one side of it was static, the other side the glass pane could be slid open to the centre, the opening was not very wide in fact, quite narrow.

Kate McCann claims the curtains were drawn closed meeting at the centre of the window.

She claimed that a gust of wind blew them open, parting them at the centre, and pushing them to either side of the window panes.

How extraordinary is that, that the curtains were blown wide open and on the static side too?

Must have been quite a strong wind to do this, a gale perhaps?   What was the weather like on that night – gale force winds?

The curtains also were pinned against the wall below the window by the bed which was positioned there.   So indeed it would have taken quite a force of wind to blow open the curtain on the static side of the window as it was this side where the curtain was tucked between the bed and the wall under the window.

This alleged intruder, if he left through the open window:

  • Did he lift Madeleine from her bed, and then proceed to the window, OPENING the window shutter by using the chord, opening the window also, but NOT BEFORE opening THE CURTAIN?


  • Or, did he go into the kids room, go over to the window, open the curtain, the window and the shutter, then to Madeleine's bed, pick her up, move towards the window again, then climb on the bed beneath the window and out of the window?

(Why didn't Madeleine wake?  Why didn't the twin children wake?  All kids we know who were prone to waking in the night!  We could say drugged - but by whom? McCanns to keep them asleep when they went out, or the alleged intruder?  But if the story as it stands now is that it is a burglary gone wrong and the burglar killed Madeleine carried off a dead child, NO burglar would have come with something to drug kids, now would he?  And those kids would be awake and screaming if Madeleine cried out at the sight of the burglar)


If this guy was going to climb out of that window he had to first open it, and to first open it, he would have drawn those curtains open, or at least the one which hung at the sliding window pane, to allow him access to the window catch/handle and to allow him a clear path out through the open window without having to wrestle with a curtain as he carried Madeleine out. 

Apart from the fact that for anyone to go out through this window, and after having opened the curtains, the window and the shutter, they would require to stand on the bed below the window, or on the chair which was there, so as to give them the height to reach the window to climb out, and not forgetting they were supposedly carrying a child -  one has to ask WHY would they, once outside, then stop, and reach back inside the window to try and close the curtains?

Doesn't make any sense at all!

I say the intruder closed the curtains - or at least the curtain on the side where there is the sliding window pane AS Kate McCann in the telling of her whooshing curtains, stated that the curtains were closed, that they met in the middle, she not only verbalised this but she demonstrated this visually also with hand movements, and sound effects to boot - WHOOSH,


She most definitely described curtains as BEING CLOSED MEETING AT THE CENTRE OF THE WINDOW.

Now for me that throws up some questions, and for her some problems!

An abductor who was intending to climb through a window, carrying a little girl, a window framed with drapes, a window which was closed (locked also?) a window which was shuttered - would not this abductor, OPEN the window, the shutter, AND the drapes, and not just the window and shutter?

Would he not have to draw back at least one curtain to reach the handle to open the window?

And why would he open only the window, and the shutter but not the drapes?

Did he think it best just to wrestle, faff around get tangled in the drapes with Madeleine in his arms while he attempted to climb out the narrow opening of the window?

Not likely!

But Kate McCann claims those curtains were closed, that they met in the middle?

So, did this intruder after having exited this open window, did he somehow close the curtains?

For sure if he had climbed out of that window carrying Madeleine, that curtain which framed the sliding glass pane was NOT left all neat, it was not, after he climbed out, still meeting in the centre, its partner, which hung on the static side of the window.   And on a windy, blustery, breezy night, that curtain was NOT still meeting in the middle when Kate McCann arrived for her check of the kids if that window had been lying open.

I purport the theory that it DIDN'T HAPPEN , that her story is untrue!

But Kate McCann claims the following:

“The curtains of the bedroom which were drawn were closed WHOOSH it was like a gust of wind kinda just blew them open..."

What we must not forget is that this gust of wind was THE SECOND GUST.    The FIRST gust blew the door closed, made it slam shut!


Curtains which absolutely must already have been disturbed by an intruder if he had climbed through the open window, and disturbed by the breezy night in general, before 'KATE'S GUSTS!

So, why is it that Kate McCann states that the SECOND GUST OF WIND blew the curtains apart, curtains which she claimed were drawn closed?

At what point did she see the curtains drawn closed?   When?  When did she see the curtains were drawn closed when she was on her check?

Because if she did see them drawn closed when on her check of the children, she also must then have observed that the window and shutter were OPEN!

And after the first gust of wind blew the door slam shut, why would she ONLY look behind her to see if she'd left the patio door open, and NOT do the obvious thing and check the window of the kids bedroom?

In Kate's FULL version (not shown in the link I have given above) she stated that after the door slammed closed, due to the FIRST GUST OF WIND shall we say, that she entered the room, and moved to the top of Madeleine's bed, this is when she discovered Madeleine was not in bed.  She then, she claims looked in her and Gerry McCanns bedroom to see if Madeleine was there, and it was on her RETURN to the kids bedroom that there was a SECOND GUST OF WIND.

Now what makes no sense here, IS:

A FIRST gust of wind blows the bedroom door slam shut.  She looks behind her to see if the patio door is closed, that is the door which she claims she had just come through SECONDS before (so she must have known if it was closed or not) to enter the apartment.  It is, so she knows the gust of wind which caused the door to slam did not come from the patio door side. Obvious to anyone else then the gust of wind had to have come through the bedroom window.   She doesn't check this.   She moves towards Madeleine's bed, discovers the kid isn't there, she then goes and checks out her and Gerry McCanns bedroom to see if Madeleine had gone through there.  She hadn't!   She returns to the kids bedroom and would you believe a SECOND GUST OF WIND BLOWS THE CURTAINS WIDE OPEN.

Is it not the strangest of things - that Madeleine was supposedly taken by someone who clambered out through the window carrying the child on this cold and blustery night, yet the curtains stayed in place from the time the intruder left the apartment until Kate McCann arrived, and then right on schedule the FIRST GUST OF WIND HIT WHEN KATE WAS HOLDING ONTO THE DOOR HANDLE OF THE BEDROOM DOOR, AND THE SECOND GUST HIT WHEN KATE RETURNED TO THE BEDROOM.


No gusts in between the time the intruder left the apartment until Kate arrived, no gusts between Kate leaving the kids room to go check her and Gerry's room, until she returned to the kids room?

We are expected to believe that a window left open on a windy night did not disturb the curtains until Kate McCann made an appearance?

We are expected to believe that an intruder climbed out of that narrow window carrying a child and didn't disturb the curtains?  The after he did so the curtains still met at the centre point?

So that little drama Kate acted out for the camera, her little demonstration of the curtains drawn closed and her WHOOSHING - is she telling us she WITNESSED THESE CLOSED CURTAINS DRAWN CLOSED AND MEETING AT THE CENTRE POINT OF THE WINDOW, BEING BLOWN WIDE OPEN?  That she actually saw that the curtains met in the middle as the second gust struck and parted them?

Because if she is - that just isn't possible after that FIRST GUST!   A gust strong enough to slam that door shut, absolutely would not have left the curtains meeting at the centre point.

What Kate McCann is telling us is, that :

  • Gust 1 - Blew the bedroom door which she was holding the handle of, slam shut, but it DID NOT part the curtains, left them drawn closed meeting at the centre of the window.
  • Gust 2 - Blew the curtains WIDE open WHOOSH,  and to either side but DID NOT cause the bedroom door to slam.

Now there's a thing folks!

The Portuguese Police and the Leicestershire Police UK for sure, had this bunch, their stories sussed!

DCI Redwood and his team must have too, but it is what he now does with what he/they know that is the six million dollar question?

Is he playing a blinder, or playing silly buggers in the disappearance of little Maddie McCann?

Perhaps Drake the intrepid reporter might like to delve a bit deeper and check out Kate and Gerry McCanns stories, Gerry's change of story, and Kate's dramatic tale of the drapes,and report back with honesty and accuracy?

This case is not about pros, antis, trolls or whatever other silly descriptions are attached to those who discuss it.  It is not about taking sides, it is about a little girl who was so cruelly left alone in a dark holiday apartment night after night while her parents met up with their buddies leaving her and her baby brother and sister on their own.  Kids who they knew had been crying upset in their absence.

It is about what happened to this child, what happened to her that necessitated that she vanish without trace.   That necessitated the many lies told.  It's about discovering the truth.  Discovering why the stories told by her parents, their buddies are simply not truthful, and the reason for that being so.

It is about Madeleine McCann a little who lost her life.   It's about her brother and sister, there on that night also when she was reported as missing, and the effects this terrible affair has on them, their lives, as they are continually catapulted by their parents into the limelight.

And for those who will not question, not challenge when there are obvious lies, and inconsistencies in the stories told by this group, they fail Madeleine McCann, they fail her brother and sister, they fail all children abused in whatever way, either by parents, close relatives friends, or strangers.

They place all vulnerable children in a dangerous position when they turn a blind eye.   And that is exactly what many who discuss this case are doing - turning a blind eye.

The columnists, the journalists  too, all turning a blind eye.  None prepared to do some proper investigating.  None prepared to headline, bring to the attention of the public matters relating to the witness statements given by the McCann group, none prepared to bring to the attention of the public the police files available online where people can read and judge for themselves.  None prepared to be honest in their reporting of Dr Goncalo Amaral.

None preferring the truth to the lies!   All failing Madeleine!   All printing absolute nonsense stories about suspects who simply don't exist!


It's about the Drakes of this world not being prepared to do the decent thing, not standing up for Madeleine and all children at risk of harm, its about Madeleine McCann being so badly let down by her parents, being so badly let down by their buddies and so badly let down by the media, the Drake's, the Kelly's of this world who by their press articles, protect the parents, and hang the child out to dry!

Perhaps Drake will reconsider his next headline - Why Two Versions Gerry?   Kate and the Whooshing Window Drapes?
27th October 2014
Website Builder