Sonntag, 8. Januar 2012

The family outing

From Kate's book regarding the family outing she claims happened on the Tuesday:

""In the afternoon Gerry and I decided to take the children down to the beach. To be honest, I think they’d have been just as happy to go back to their clubs, but we wanted to do something slightly different with them, just the five of us. We borrowed a double buggy from Mark Warner to make the walk easier for Sean and Amelie. The weather wasn’t great: in fact, on the beach it started to rain. A bit of rain is not something that bothers a Scotsman like Gerry, but Sean and Amelie didn’t like the feel of the wet sand and insisted, in the way two-year-olds do, on being carried. Our trip to the beach wasn’t exactly a roaring success and the kids certainly weren’t thanking us for it. Still, we made the best of it, and the suggestion of ice-creams soon brought smiles to three little faces. The children and I sat down on a bench and Gerry went off to fetch them. The shop was only about 25 feet away, yet when he called to me asking me to give him a hand with the five ice-creams he was paying for, I was momentarily torn. Would the children be OK on the bench while I nipped over? I hurried across, watching them all the time.....Having polished off her ice-cream, Madeleine asked if she could go back to Mini Club now, please. So much for extra family time!""
First of all we have the date that does not fit. Taking the children from the beach to the creche would mean dropping Madeleine off first and the twins later because her creche was closer to the beach. The only day this happened was on the Monday. Madeleine was dropped off at 15:15 and the twins at 15:25, later than usual. According to the creche records Madeleine was picked up again only 10 minutes later. Was she so delighted at seeing her parents leave the so much loved creche WITH her siblings for the first time after dropping her off that the staff had to call the number provided and called Kate to collect her? And is this in direct relation to the "sunburn" on her right forearm to be seen on the photo of the tennis lesson the next day, the Tuesday?

Second we have a slightly different account from Gerry's 10th May statement:

Concerning the routine, on Tuesday there was a slight change given that after lunch, at 13h30, the deponent and KATE decided to take the three children to Praia da Luz, having gone on foot, taking only the twins in baby buggies. They all left by the main door because of the buggies, went around to the right, down the street of the “BATISTA” supermarket and went to the beach along a road directly ahead.

They were at the beach for about 20 minutes, the deponent and MADELEINE having put their feet in the water. During this time the weather changed with a cloudy sky and cold, therefore they went to a terrace at a café near the beach, on the left, where they bought five ice-creams and two drinks. Asked, he said that at that place there was an individual playing latin music on a guitar, to whom he intended to give some coins, but having none at the time, he didn't. That the individual had a neglected and careless appearance, unshaven and somewhat raggedy. He was Caucasian, 175cm tall, thin, 70 to 75kg in weight, dark, short hair, almost shaven-headed with grey sides, and not wearing glasses. Wearing a light brown-coloured sports jacket, with a hood at the back, and dark denim trousers, not noticing the footwear. He said that he never behaved strangely, nor approached or looked at the children in an ostensive manner. On returning they left the children at their crèches, as usual, the deponent and his
wife having gone to play tennis or jogging.
Now what about the additional two drinks? It seems to be a totally different outing if you are just sitting on a bench at the promenade having an icecream each or if you are sitting in the cafe having icecreams and drinks. Why again the differing statements? To make room for the little tale about safety conscious Kate not wanting to leave the children at the bench while fetching the icecreams or were there two different stories in the parent's head and the whole outing had a different purpose and they never had any icecreams at that place, that contrary to the one on the beach, which would have been the logical choice when at the beach and heading back to the creche had no CCTV that could have given evidence of their being there?

Why the wrong day and why the conflicting statements about the bench and the drinks?

Das Sofa


Es wird allgemein angenommen, dass Madeleine beim Versuch aus dem Seitenfenster des Apartments nach einem Elternteil zu schauen, vom Sofa stürzte und dort starb, da hinter dem Sofa die einzigen "Körperflüssigkeiten" entdeckt wurden und beide Hunde dort anschlugen.

In der Nacht in der ihr Verschwinden bekannt wurde, war das Fenster mit Rolläden verschlossen und alle Gardinen waren zugezogen. Warum sollte sie dort die Lehne erklettert haben um hinaus zu sehen? Das Fenster musste also nachträglich verschlossen und das Sofa an die Wand gerückt worden sein. Warum aber sollte sie überhaupt versucht haben aus diesem Fenster zu schauen? Wenn sie, wie die Polizeiuntersuchung vermutete, aufgewacht war und ihre Eltern suchte, vielleicht milde sediert worden war, würde sie doch mit Sicherheit zur nicht verschlossenen Verandatür gehen und sie versuchen zu öffnen um von dort einen Blick auf das erleuchtete Tapas Restaurant und evtl. ihre Eltern zu erhaschen.

Das Seitenfenster, das auf die Straße hinausgeht, die die Eltern nehmen würden, wenn sie zur Vordertür hinausgegangen wären um zum Tapas Restaurant zu gehen, wäre nur dann interessant, wenn jemand dort gerade vorbeiging oder dort stand. Wenn man voraussetzt, dass die Eltern das Apartment Abends nur verließen wenn alle Kinder schliefen, gibt es nur zwei Möglichkeiten, wann dieser Umstand gegeben war. Wenn jemand unter dem Fenster stand und sich unterhielt oder wenn gerade jemand das Apartment verlassen hatte und unter dem Fenster vorbeigehen würde.

Lt. erstem Szenario hörte Madeleine ihren Vater am Donnerstag Abend vor dem Fenster mit Jez Wilkins sprechen und versuchte ihn vom Fenster aus zu sehen. Gerry war aber keine 2 Minuten zuvor im Apartment gewesen und hatte sie angeblich tief schlafend dort gesehen. Und laut seiner Aussage stand er ja auch gar nicht unter dem Fenster, sondern 20 Meter weiter die Straße hinunter bei seinem kurzen Plausch mit Jeremy Wilkins. Glaubt man Jeremy Wilkins Aussage, hätte der Plausch ebenfalls nicht unter dem Fenster sondern in der Nähe des Gartentörchens stattgefunden. In diesem Fall wäre die Verandatür ebenfalls die wahrscheinlichere Alternative für Madeleine gewesen sich ihm bemerkbar zu machen wäre sie in der kurzen Zeit aufgewacht.

Im zweiten Fall war Madeleine noch gar nicht am Schlafen und eine Person war noch im Apartment (wenn wir die Prämisse aufrechterhalten, dass beide Eltern das Apartment nur verließen wenn alle Kinder schliefen). Dieses Szenario passt zum Mittwoch Abend, als Gerry bereits im Restaurant gesehen wurde und erzählte, Kate müsse noch die Kinder ins Bett bringen. Kate war also noch im Apartment und Gerry hatte gerade das Apartment durch die Vordertür verlassen um zum Tapas Restaurant zu gehen. In diesem Fall ging er die Strasse unter dem Fenster entlang und Madeleine hätte einen Grund gehabt aufs Sofa zu springen um ihn zu sehen.


It is generally alleged that Madeleine died by a fall from the sofa while looking out of the side window of the apartment for one of her parents because behind this sofa the only "bodily fluids" were detected and both dogs alerted to that spot.

The night her disappearance became known the window was closed with shutters and all curtains were drawn. Why should she have climed the sofa to look out of the window? The window must have been closed later on and the sofa been pushed to the wall. But why would she have tried to look out of this window? If, as the police investigation suspected, she woke up, possibly mildly sedated, and looked for her parents, why did she not go to the open patiodoor, try to open it and get a glimpse of the lighted Tapas area where her parents were dining?

The side window that opens onto the street the parents would take if they had left via the frontdoor on their way to the Tapas Restaurant would only have been interesting to her if somebody was standing there or would just be passing. If we presume that the parents only left the apartment at night when all children were asleep, there are only two possible incidents when this circumstance was given. When somebody was standing and talking under the window or when somebody had just left the apartment and was about to pass under the window.

Regarding the first scenario Madeleine heard her father talking to Jez Wilkins on Thursday night in front of the window and tried to catch a look at him. But Gerry had only been in her room 2 minutes previously and had allegedly seen her sleeping deeply. And according to his statement he was not standing under the window at all, but 20 metre further down the road while chatting to Jeremy Wilkins. If we are to believe Jeremy Wilkins statement the chat did not happen under the window as well, but in the region of the patio gate. In this case the patiodoor would have been the logical choice for Madeleine to have tried to contact her father had she woken up in this short space of time.

Regarding the second scenario Madeleine was not yet asleep and one adult was still in the apartment (if we keep the premiss that both parents only left the apartment when the children were sleeping). This scenario fits Wednesday evening when Gerry was already at the Restaurant informing Jeremy Wilkins that Kate was still in the apartment trying to get the children to bed. Kate was still in the apartment and Gerry had left the apartment via the frontdoor for the Restaurant. He followed the road under the window and Madeleine would have had a reason to jump onto the sofa to see him leaving.