The great difference between the truth and a lie

I don't believe Gerry when he said he sat down and read a story with the children. I don't believe he stood there thinking how lucky he was. I don't believe even that Kate did much in the way of playing or interacting with the children. Just the chores, food, cleaning, bed.
I don't believe that Maddie had learned a little dance at the creche and said she would show her the following day. Children live in the now.
I don't believe that Maddie said she had the best day ever either.

tigger wrote:I don't believe Gerry when he said he sat down and read a story with the children. I don't believe he stood there thinking how lucky he was. I don't believe even that Kate did much in the way of playing or interacting with the children. Just the chores, food, cleaning, bed.
I don't believe that Maddie had learned a little dance at the creche and said she would show her the following day. Children live in the now.
I don't believe that Maddie said she had the best day ever either.

Correct and well said Tigger, children lives in the now. And I dont think children are that disiplined she acually would wait instead of show the dance right there in that moment.
Just look at the vid on another topic on here about a vid with Ted about lies. There is a link for an experiment on children not to eat their marsmallow in 15 minutes. 2 of 3 did eat it. And they where in the age 5-6 I think. Children can't (most of them atleast) wait to show something they are really excited about. Again in my opinion based on my excperience on working with kids in kindergarden and elementary schools. And also as a fostermum for two kids..

Re- watching the video of Gerry talking at work, while his discomfort is as clear as ever there are times when you see in his face and eyes in particular a look of genuine sadness. The two of them are I believe trying to contain sorrow but it is not due to their daughter being abducted , it is a secret they need to keep and so they always seem to very quickly get a grip on their emotions and revert to either robotic flat and emotionless delivery as if they are talking about a very mundane scenario, or Kate will over -egg things with all the dramatic gestures. She does this in her book also, mixing the most trivial stuff that no-one interested in this case would be the least bit curious about, with things that are based in fact alongside distortions of real events .
It is of course this byzantine cocktail that has kept the bandwagon going. I too doubt a lot of what the previous poster has alluded to....at times I doubt certain things took place, but more often I end up with the belief that many things did happen, but not at the times or in the context stated.
I think the video clip where Kate does the arm grabbing thing and speaks animatedly and anxiously deserves repeated viewing. She is talking retrospectively and with gennuine feeling here about some event[ not abduction according to the evidence] which resulted in another event which could have been prevented. The sudden onset of this emotion, be it frustration, stress, anxiety seems genuine due to the fact it occurs after a very matter of fact attitude from her. Something occurs to her to trigger the sudden change. And the event that she alludes to is clearly Maddie waking[ I infer Kates demeanour and words suggest surprise, shock...that she should not have stayed asleep....] which resulted in the major catastrophic event [ not an abduction by a stranger].
To my mind, this is when what befell Maddie took place and the crying episode and questions from Maddie never occurred [ or did occur, but it was a sparate incident]. I cant help but recall a harrowing passage in her book in which about a week before her arguido interview she dreams of Maddie for the first time. This passage in an otherwise contrived book contains real anguish and pain as she writes about holding her daughter who is then gone....an intelligent sensitive person who doubts the story could be forgiven for thinking she wasremembering really holding her daughter, not dreaming, and the anguish over a lost child, but not lost as she has described it to us.

Although my teaching has been of teenagers I did a fair bit of my training in primary schools and have a lot of experience as a mother. I have never known even a child of 5 or 6 to have the conceptual ability or the language to express joy sorrow or any other emotion in relation to something like "ever" or " in my life ." and it's even more difficult to accept that a child of 4 would refer to the best time ever or in her life....I have heard both from the McCanns if I remember correctly. The whole phraseology " Mummy I've had the best time ever" sounds as if it's straight out of the Railway Children.

I think a lot of this talk is compensatory as is the dressing up of Maddie in the princess outfits. I know it is common for a lot of little girls to dress up like this but in this case I get the impression that it was a replacement for a lack of real interaction. I think a more benign way of looking at the photos and videos of Maddie might be that they were always recording her like this so she could be shown these as a demonstration of much attention had been paid to her. I am always curious as to how many photos and videos exist of the twins by comparison.
I have a strong suspicion that Kate MCann has suffered from post- natal depression , was stressed and over- tired a lot of the time and did not bond with her daughter, that if true deserves sympathy and support not condemnation. She still looks even now as if she is being medicated and it might not all be related to her daughter's disappearance.
It seems possible that some catastrophic event has happened as a result of psychological imbalance and stress if so then I just wish there had been honesty. It would not have been the first case of this happening whichever parent was involved . I believe this is more plausible than much more sinister scenarios that have been suggested and that maybe the fund is being used to do good for other children in an effort to redeem themselves.

I also feel that both Gerry and Kate seem more confident when they are interwied alone. Maybe that is because when they are interwied together they have to act in front of eachother, which would automaticly make them more uncomfortable, despite the fact they both have to lie. They know the other one is closly monitoring their act.
When alone they can relax more, knowing that no one is monitoring them as they lie.
Just a thought and feeling I got from seeing different interwies of them together , and then alone.

I've always wondered that, IF Tanner saw the abduction at 9.10pm....the abductor was gone by the time kate arrived so the window would already be open.

Now, if there was someone hiding behind the bedroom door as Gerry assumes, how did he enter the apartment?

So assuming there was someone...Gerry then use's the toilet and leaves without checking his suspicion that the position of the bedroom door was odd.

He then bumps into his friend while Tanner walks by unnoticed by both. She sees the alleged abductor?

She says nothing, carry's on to her front door passing what should have been a fully opened Bedroom window?

She never noticed it going to or from her flat?

Mathew Oldfield is next and he doesn't notice the open window, surely you would feel a draft with it being "FULLY" open?

Then Kate checks and firstly the door is in a strange position, then when she goes to open it, it slams shut "Whoosh!"

Why did it slam shut then? The abductor was long gone.....at around 9.15pm!

Surely the door would have slammed shut when Oldfield opened the patio doors at around 9.30pm?

It doesn't add up? You don't have to be a forensic scientist to find flaws in their version of events?

I think the wooshing and over-egged drama comes from too much Harry Pottering? IMHO!

3rd May Timeline

steevo1962 wrote:I've always wondered that, IF Tanner saw the abduction at 9.10pm....the abductor was gone by the time kate arrived so the window would already be open.

Now, if there was someone hiding behind the bedroom door as Gerry assumes, how did he enter the apartment?

So assuming there was someone...Gerry then use's the toilet and leaves without checking his suspicion that the position of the bedroom door was odd.

He then bumps into his friend while Tanner walks by unnoticed by both. She sees the alleged abductor?

She says nothing, carry's on to her front door passing what should have been a fully opened Bedroom window?

She never noticed it going to or from her flat?

Mathew Oldfield is next and he doesn't notice the open window, surely you would feel a draft with it being "FULLY" open?

Then Kate checks and firstly the door is in a strange position, then when she goes to open it, it slams shut "Whoosh!"

Why did it slam shut then? The abductor was long gone.....at around 9.15pm!

Surely the door would have slammed shut when Oldfield opened the patio doors at around 9.30pm?

It doesn't add up? You don't have to be a forensic scientist to find flaws in their version of events?

I think the wooshing and over-egged drama comes from too much Harry Pottering? IMHO!

3rd May Timeline

totally agree with you. The whole wooshin slam shut door story sounds not believeble. If the window was open for 45 minuts, I find it so hard to believe that it didn't slam shut before the moment when Kate is about to close the door. Its like shes trying to say that God gave her a sign to take a closer look by slamming the door in her face ? And if the door didnt slam she then wouldn't have looked into the room and discovered that Madeleine was gone ? It sounds like a fairytale to me.....

I would have expected Kate to comment ,[she states that she recalls every little detail] as she said more than once in her book that she had to wear or go fetch extra layers from 5a for the tapas meals....that 5a was rather on the cold side when she entered at 10 p m on that cool late Spring Portuguese evening.

Yep! And Oldfield at 9.30pm, if he actually did go in to check would have felt something wrong?

I'm sure that if you have a fully opened window and you opened the patio doors, the door would slam shut?

Ask any fireman about 'Backdraft'?

It's all very strange indeed....and I really hope that this new investigation is quietly putting a case together which will bring the perpetrator/s to justice!

steevo1962 wrote:I'm sure that if you have a fully opened window and you opened the patio doors, the door would slam shut?

Correct. But it didn't. So the window could not have been open at that point.

Then that begs the question

If it wasn't opened by the abductor at around 9.10-9.15pm when Tanner claims to have seen him going away from the flat with a child in his arms....

WHO opened the window?

Oldfield?.....Kate?....we can only assume that the window was NEVER opened in the 1st place by any apparent abductor and the whole scenario was made up by Kate and co to make their story more credible and divert the PJ away from their initial thoughts on who was responsible?

Only Kate's prints are found on that window. She claimed to the PJ that she never even opened the shutter that week, she left the chlidren's bedroom in darkness.

If she never opened the shutter, how and when did she touch the inside of the window, taking into consideration it had only just been cleaned?

Correction !! It was not the PJ, it was in her book !!

“She had the bed nearest the door, leaving the one by the window empty. On our arrival we had lowered the blind-style shutters on the outside of the windows, which were controlled from the inside, and closed the curtains. We left them that way all week”.

On the 28th, the shutter and curtain get's closed and is left that way all week.
On the 2nd, the cleaner cleans the window.

Stella wrote:Correction !! It was not the PJ, it was in her book !!

“She had the bed nearest the door, leaving the one by the window empty. On our arrival we had lowered the blind-style shutters on the outside of the windows, which were controlled from the inside, and closed the curtains. We left them that way all week”.

On the 28th, the shutter and curtain get's closed and is left that way all week.
On the 2nd, the cleaner cleans the window.

I guess she claimed the fingerprints came due to her trying to raise the shutter after they noticed Madeleine was gone ? But where is then Gerrys fingerprints because ( stupid as he is) he did try to raise them and destroyed potensial evidence in doing so.(selfish?)
Was it the night 2-3 may she claims to have slept in same room as the kids? or the night 1-2 May ?
How do they get away with their story? Why are everyone who can so afraid of digging in to this case and charge them ? Why are they so protected ? Who is afraid to lose face ? There is so many why and so many obviouse in this case....

But I thought they claimed the abductor must have opened them and that is the reason for the "Whoooosh" comment as the curtains were flapping with the wind from the open window which must have had an open shutter to let the wind in?

I'm sitting at the moment with my kitchen and Bathroom window slightly open to air the house.

It always annoys me that the Bathroom door opens and shuts continously and I have to either shut the Bathroom window or put a wee plastic wedge under it to stop it banging back and forward!

Infact I'm going to do that just now because it's really annoying me!

Moa wrote:
I guess she claimed the fingerprints came due to her trying to raise the shutter after they noticed Madeleine was gone ?

No. She told the PJ she never touched that window. Goncalo Amaral has previously mentioned this.

steevo1962 wrote:But I thought they claimed the abductor must have opened them and that is the reason for the "Whoooosh" comment as the curtains were flapping with the wind from the open window which must have had an open shutter to let the wind in?

I'm sitting at the moment with my kitchen and Bathroom window slightly open to air the house.

It always annoys me that the Bathroom door opens and shuts continously and I have to either shut the Bathroom window or put a wee plastic wedge under it to stop it banging back and forward!

Infact I'm going to do that just now because it's really annoying me!

I have a similar problem, I think most people do. If my back door is open, as soon as the front door is opened, the kitchen door closes quite violently with a loud bang. We have to wedge it open also, but sometimes it gets knocked and the poor dog has to get out of the way quick, or she gets slam dunked.

it is possible to slide the window open and closed with the shutter permanently closed, isn't it, as the shutter is outside the window, and this is how you would have air in but not sunlight? I thought Kates print was found on the inside of the window ?

According to this video from Panorama, the shutter was open which assumes that the window also was open to allow the 'Backdraft' to slam the door on Kate?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=uwmEdg5dzIs

And in this one at 1.20min Kate demonstrates how high the shutters were pulled up.

http://www.bing.com/videos/watch/video/did-madeleine-mccann-s-parents-miss-huge-clue/6xa92a6

thanks but I think I didnt communicate myself clearly.......I know Kate maintained both shutter and window had been opened by a stranger. Aalong with many others I agree there is no evidence for that.
I was wondering if she did leave the shutters closed all week as she maintained...her print could have got on the inside of the window with the shutters closed as in the bedroom she would not need to disturb the shutters to close or open the window. Its just that her fingerprint was on the window not the shutter, I recall.I am just trying to work out what she actually touched in altering the scene to stage the abduction as is suspected. Were there any prints found on the shutters?

Details on the fingerprints:

From the glass located on the inside of childs window,
5 prints were recovered, 3 from the middle finger of LH, 2 from the index finger of LH, all belonging to Kate McCann.

This is consistent not with someone touching the window just once, but at least 3 times. It is also consistent with someone sliding a window open and stopping and starting again 3 times.


From outside of the external blinds, i.e., the shutter,
3 inadequate prints were found. (according to experts, they are in the opening position of someone standing inside)[/color]

Unusable probably due to the surface material, or the condition of the outside weathered surface.

Why would Kate deny touching that window, when it was such an innocent thing to do, under normal circumstances?

The RH window slides from right to left, which means anyone standing in front of it would use their left hand to slide the window open.

Stella wrote:

The RH window slides from right to left, which means anyone standing in front of it would use their left hand to slide the window open.

According to Kate in the Australian interview this is how she found the window - it was pushed right back.

https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t3090p20-mccanns-in-australia