dark and I was looking, and I was thinking, is that, is that Madeleine or is that the bedding, and I couldn't quite make her out."
//www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhACS6ck-Dw (0.47 minutes)
Gerry McCann (Crimewatch 2013)
The windows had a shutter on the outside that was right down and the window was closed and we had curtains that went right across so it was nice and dark in the room.
//www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZ8jmdWlB8Y
Matthew Oldfield:
Pretty much from here from the approach down here you can see straight into the room so you can see the cots as you are walking in so it never really felt like there was any real need to sort of go all the way into the room, so you can see both cots and see them from there..."
"...All I know was just that I had an unimpeded view"
//www.youtube.com/watch?v=na4aBr5PTYY
Now, here is Matthew Oldfield speaking of being able to see the twin McCann children, their little bodies, the breathing movement as they lay in their cotS, from his position outside the bedroom a couple of feet from the bedroom door! This is his reply to the Leicestershire Police Officer asking him if he could see the little bodies clearly.
Oldfield:
"You could make out that it wasn't blankets and just something piled there, you could see the chest moving".
Near the beginning of Oldfield's statement he spoke of the bedroom door being open and the light streaming in which allowed him to see all that he said he did, including the colour of the curtains, the bed under the window, the light came from a lamp which had been left on in the sitting area. He then makes this statement:
Oldfield:
Erm, but, you know, there was nothing, it didn't feel odd when you went into the, erm, into the apartment, it was sort of quiet and, you know, sort of comfortably sort of dark".
And Gerry McCann in a documentary 'Madeleine Was Here' he spoke of his 'proud father moment' of how he stood just inside the bedroom door and looked down on Madeleine, thinking how beautiful she was, and he could see her little pink comfort blanket, and her cuddle cat toy. And he could clearly see his twin children in their cots.
Rachael Oldfield:
"... you came down a ramp, or down some steps into the sort of area in front of the apartments and erm you know they were, there were sort of lights, you press a button and they come on for a certain length of time, so you know, you put those on to get to the front door, it wasn’t pitch black but I’m not keen on the dark anyway so erm”.
----------------------
If there is one thing that stands out in these witness statements, the documentaries, interviews this group have taken part in, it is that they are talking a shed load of shit, as it is IMPOSSIBLE for what they have described to have taken place,
And if the Metropolitan Police cannot see it - time for them to shut up shop!
I do hope DCI Redwood is acting as he should in this investigation, though I am not confident that he is, but hope against hope I am wrong on that count!
This group are up to their necks in it - that is my opinion BASED on THEIR words. They absolutely KNOW much more than they have disclosed. And been more forthcoming with MUCH MORE than what actually happened, all sorts of stories concocted, and the evidence of that is THEIR police witness statements!
Oh so easy to see why this lot didn't want to return to Portugal to speak with police, to help Madeleine.
And Matthew Oldfield - oh lordy, lordy - he got himself in one huge mess. And one has to wonder why, because he was NO FRIEND of McCann that is for sure. So why, oh why would Oldfield get mixed up in this?
He comes across as the most suspicious character in the whole charade due to his ridiculous witness statement. He's the guy who didn't know McCanns well, and sure in hell didn't know the McCann kids.
- So why in hell would he be in their apartment on that night to check on them?
- Why in hell did he suddenly decide to do an impromptu check, a listening check at the shutter window of the bedroom where McCann kids slept.
That is the first shed load of shit in his story!
- Because this guy didn't know McCanns, didn't know McCann kids. He had not a clue which of the bedrooms the McCann kids slept in.
- He did not know if ALL three McCann kids were in the SAME bedroom, when he supposedly put his ear to the shuttered window to listen for crying.
But back to THE LIGHT!
We'll start with the statement above by Kate McCann. She wants us to believe the shutter was up at the time she went into the kids bedroom. If it had been then there would have been difference in the light from what it normally would have been when dark outside.
But Kate tells us:
"...I could see Sean and Amelie in their COT" (not cots)
She then continues:
I was looking at Madeleine's bed which was here, and it was dark and I was looking, and I was thinking, is that, is that Madeleine or is that the bedding, and I couldn't quite make her out."
Now these shutters were up/open according to Kate McCann. She is standing with the bedroom door open, and if there is a lamp on in the sitting room (as Oldfield stated) the room HAD to have been fairly lit by this. WHY could she see the twins clearly, yet could not according to her tale, see Madeleine? She could not distinguish Madeleine her little body, from the bedclothes.
DID SHE PUT THE LIGHT ON AT THIS POINT?
In some other interview or documentary (which I will look out later) I recall Kate McCann saying she went to the top of the bed to see if Madeleine was there.
IF that is true, then I would have to say that she therefore did NOT SWITCH ON the light, despite NOT being able to make out if her daughter was lying in her bed. We know she did not switch the light on initially as she did not want to wake 'them' but later, why not?
That makes no sense. The curtains have WHOOSHED open she sees an open window and shutter, YET doesn't switch on the light.
How was she able to see the twins clearly and not be able to see whether Madeleine was in bed or not? To see the twins she had to have that bedroom door quite wide open as their cots or COT was further inside the room.
Interestingly OLDFIELD he could see everything even the colour of the curtains!
He could see from a distance outside the bedroom, the little bodies of the McCann twins, their breathing. And he could see ALL of this so clearly.
He said:
"...you could make out that it wasn't blankets or something just piled there, you could see the chest moving"
Bear in mind, when Oldfield stood outside the bedroom door with the light from the living area streaming in, the SHUTTER was down.
When Kate McCann was INSIDE the room the SHUTTER she said was UP, but she had the same light streaming through from the lamp in the sitting area as Oldfield had.
Reading their witness statements one would get the impression that they were NOT speaking of the same room.
And then we have Gerry McCann. He described the room as being NICE AND DARK when they left for the evening to meet their buddies.
So earlier in the evening the room was nice and dark with the shutter down and what was left of daylight. When he returned at 9pm approximately it must have been much the same, if not darker, as darkness would have fallen by this time.
So, when he did his check, and he could see Madeleine clearly, see his twins in their cot or cots clearly, one would have to assume, that like Oldfield, the light from the sitting area cast enough light for them to see these children clearly.
So why could Kate McCann NOT see what Gerry McCann could?
OR, did McCann switch the bedroom light on? But then that might wake the kids, and we know they NEVER EVER WANTED TO WAKE THE KIDS!
McCann could see the pinky blanky too and cuddle cat!
THE ONLY person who COULD NOT see the kids clearly (or rather who could not make out if Madeleine was in her bed) the ONLY PERSON who stated it was DARK when inside the room that is a darkness which caused her to be unable to see clearly (Madeleine) was KATE McCANN!
YET ONLY WHEN KATE McCANN WAS IN THE BEDROOM WERE THE SHUTTERS UP, WHICH NOT ONLY WOULD HAVE CAUSED THE LIGHT IN THE ROOM TO BE DIFFERENT FROM OTHER TIMES WHEN SHE CHECKED HER CHILDREN ON A DARK NIGHT as the light from the street lamp outside car park area would have lightened things. BUT SHE ALSO SAID IT WAS COLD WINDY NIGHT. IF THAT SHUTTER HAD BEEN OPEN, THEN THE TEMPERATURE IN THAT ROOM SHE WOULD HAVE FELT IMMEDIATELY (APART FROM ANY DRAUGHT, BREEZE BLOWING THROUGH) TO BE COLDER THAN WHEN SHE HAD LEFT THE KIDS.
We know that the alleged intruder did NOT enter through that open window. Police proved this, and the McCanns spokesperson had to retract the McCanns statement on this count, yet McCanns still insist the alleged intruder left by this route.
How daft is that when s/he could just have walked out the door, in fact the intruder would have had the choice of two doors to leave by.
But let's think about this. That side of the McCann apartment was overlooked by other apartments.
The intruder according to the McCanns must have 'been watching' them as Kate McCann stated in 'Madeleine One Year ON', I believe was the documentary.
If this was so, the intruder would have known of the many checks we are told this lot performed on that night, the night they reported Madeleine as having mysteriously vanished. And he would have known that they 'listened at shuttered windows' (another of their tales)
So WHY would this imaginary intruder even attempt to either enter or leave by this side of the building?
And why would he leave a shutter open for ALL to see?
Which brings me to Rachael Oldfield (and isn't her police statement to Leicestershire Police something to make your jaw drop)
Now Rachael so helpfully told police that the path in front of the shuttered windows there was a switch she said which when flicked turned on a light/lights to allow residents to see their way to their front doors. The lights on a timer remained on, for presumably a reasonable time to allow residents to get inside.
Now the number of times this bunch said they were popping back and forth to check on their kids, those lights must have been popping on and off A LOT. Resident in those apartments which overlooked the McCann apartment I'm sure would have noticed the lights frequently being switched on and off.
Or, are we saying that Oldfield, O'Brien, Tanner, Gerry & Kate McCann, ALL on their trips back and forth never at any time switched on the outside lights?
And as to Jane Tanner, how could she possibly see not only the colour of the child's pyjamas the child who she claimed to have seen being carried by a long haired man, but the pattern on the pyjama bottoms as is her claim, when it was a dark night and the street was dimly lit. More especially if the 'now' pyjamas are the ones which DCI Redwood is claiming she must have seen, the ones worn by crecheman's daughter as it would have been impossible to make out their colour or pattern in the darkness of that night, so muted are the tones.
How the DCI dug up this guy carrying a child is as big a mystery as how Madeleine came to be missing?
Perhaps he will one day shed a little light on the birth date of Crecheman?
l-azzeri-lies-in-the-sun.com
18th November 2014
