Madeleine McCann: it was not his first lie, how many more can there be?

it was not his first lie, how many more can there be?

the first lie by the fathers mouth was maybe the story as told to their family at home.
the broken shutters, wide open doors, open windows.

the second was to mrs. pamela fen the lady who lived upstairs from unit 5a.
when she offered her phone to call for the police, he told her that had already be done.

this is a proven lie, because the phone logs are in the pj files. the first phonecall from the ocean club that can fit in a timeline around 22.00 hours was clocked as 22.41.29 hours to the phone number of the gnr.
a second call was made to the same number from the ocean club, at 22.51. 39 hours.

the number of the ocean club desk was registered under the name greentrust the holding it was part of.

the last call from that number at the ocean club reception was to an other number at 21.21.55 hours.

https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/CALLS_TO_GNR.htm

the third lie happened the next day at the police office in portimao, where the witness statements of the parents been taken.
the father told he used the wooden front door, at the side of the parking before block 5, to enter unit 5a, he used his key to open the door and gone in.

this have been the first important interviews given to the people who had to look for his daughter. he even sat in when his wife had her turn. still he did not take the time to correct his ‘mistake’ about how he entered unit 5a. and he also had already state they both had used the front door with the key, his wife told in het interview later that day she entered through the patio door at the back, that was not locked and could be opened by sliding it open.

both had many contact moments the first days with officers from the portuguese and the english police, both had already family liaison officers available.

it took him up to his second interview on may 10, 2007 before he changed it to using the patio door at the back;
may 4, 2007;

As usual, every half hour and as the restaurant was near, the witness or his wife, would check whether the children were all right. In this way, at about 21.05 the witness came to the Club, entered the room using his respective key, the door being locked, went to his children's bedroom and checked that the twins were fine, as was Madeleine.

and;
At about 22.00 it was his wife Kate who went to check on the children. She entered the apartment by the door using the key and saw immediately that the door to the children's bedroom was completely open, the window was also open, the blinds were raised and the curtains were drawn open.
The side door leading to the living room was closed, which as previously stated, was never left locked.

https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN.htm



may 10, 2007;

----- He followed the normal route up to the rear door, which being open he only had to move [slide] it, that being the way in which he entered [was entering] the lounge, he noted that the children's bedroom door was not ajar as he had left it but half-way open, which he thought strange, having then put together the thought of MADELEINE having got up to go to sleep in his bedroom so as to avoid the noise produced [created] by her siblings. In this way he entered the children's bedroom and established visual contact with each of them, checking and is certain of this, that the three were sleeping deeply. He left the children's bedroom returning to place the door how he had already previously described, [then] going to the bathroom. Everything else was normal, the blinds, curtains and windows closed, very dark, there only being the light that came from the lounge.

https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN-10MAY.htm

it looks not that big, but it changes a lot, even if they still had to look into a third party that took his daughter, that there was no need to break in at all, but just a door was left accessible, not locked that was only little distance to the public road, is different.

you need these statements to back up questions to other witnesses, and it could be a different set of witnesses if the front side had been a point of entry, or the back side. certainly because at the other side of the road, there also been blocks of units, with a view from balconies and walkways to that area around the front door and parking.
at the back there was another block, that could have notice things happening around the entrance to the little garden and the patio area of unit 5a.

so starting out with a lie, and telling the world through family members mouth how bad the assistance of the police was, does not help if you yourself send them around the bushes by telling porkies.

and even when it was just playing the game of keeping up appearances, as being the responsible parent that locked the door, you could have let that be corrected earlier.

and it becomes even stranger, when the story came out that the father had a kind of feeling there could have been already someone in unit 5a, during his check around ‘21.00 hours’. because even burglars or abduction people do not half way back outside to jemmy the shutters and breaking open windows, go back in and take a child.

if the break in already had taken place, it would be very hard to pass first the already open shutters and window, and by his statement the father was also the last who was near the door of the bedroom of his children, he pushed the door a little further open even, just before they left unit 5a.

you have to pass first the shutters before you can get to that wooden front door.
and not only that, but it was in view when you access the parking, the opening in the little wall before the units has a opening much more to the right (west)side to the parking itself, so in total that would even have given 4 moments to notice damage of a break in, or at least opened shutters and a visible window.

still there are 3 lies in the first 24 hours in the case of his daughters missing.
and the police already had question marks out because of those differences when his wife gave her first interview. if it was that same day corrected, or even the day after, a lie about how he entered unit 5a during his check. that could have been accepted as ‘a mistake’.
some people do it out of habit. that the family had the idea they had stayed in a villa, could be a sign from that. but all in all, if people tell lies in that moment, and you as parents are only want to hear that the child is abducted, it gets itchy.
it is not helpful at all, it sucks up time you can use to investigate.

and we have it done in 3 different instances, to his own family at home, to a helpful neighbour and to the police. how much leniency can you still give to such a person. can you still going further on by his other words?