Strange Witness Statements

[OxfordBloo]

I'm concentrating on one alert only, in the main bedroom. As I understand it Eddie gave a positive alert with his head in the air. This means he was alerting to the scent he was trained to find, but couldn't give the source of it. It wasn't blood so what was it? If it was cadaver scent where did it come from? Grime mentions a number of possible scenarios but doesn't elaborate as to what they might be. There may be no evidence to explain his alert, but the alert occurred.

Even so your quotes misrepresent the actual statements in one particular direction, removing in each case the caveats made in context.

These are facts about all dog alerts:

Dogs are trained to respond to certain odours.
All dogs are liable to false positives and false negatives- may alert where there is no target odour and fail to alert to the presence of the target odour.
Alerts are only indications, not finding of fact.
Their accuracy is mixed depending on their training and the type of detection.

[pegasus]

I agree with you that people may not have correct recall and that the important thing is that they were there. In that case why didn't Gerald McCann accept that he could have been wrong? Surely the exact place where they spoke wasn't important? His insistence suggests that he attaches some importance to where they stood.

The PJ responded to Gerald McCann's 4th May statement in which he mentioned speaking to Jeremy Wilkins very quickly. They faxed Leicester police on 7th May asking for Jeremy Wilkins to be interviewed. In response, Wembley police were phoned by Leicester police and they faxed Jeremy Wilkin's statement to Leicester police  on 7th May at 21.16; it was passed back to the PJ the same day.

Did Gerald McCann know what Jeremy Wilkins said in his statement? This is a possibility IMO as Leicester police seem to have been happy to share information with them. If he did have knowledge of it, then he had a problem.

Jeremy said he didn't see Jane Tanner pass by. Jeremy's statement was important to Gerald because it confirmed the checking of the children. Jane's sighting was important as it upheld the abduction thesis. If Gerald said he didn't see Jane either he would have diminished her sighting. If he said he did see her he diminished Jeremy's evidence.

Perhaps his solution was to move the meeting across the road, so that he could agree with Jeremy and it was then more believable that they didn't see Jane. This suggests to me that Jane didn't pass the two men when they were talking next to the passageway. I believe Jeremy Wilkins. He spoke to Gerald McCann next to the entrance to the passageway and Jane Tanner didn't pass them in my opinion.

Probably irrelevant but wouldn't voices just outside a lounge window be louder (inside) than voices across the street?

[G-Unit]

Probably irrelevant but wouldn't voices just outside a lounge window be louder (inside) than voices across the street?

Probably they would. He certainly seemed determined to distance himself from either the apartment or the path.

[pegasus]

Probably they would. He certainly seemed determined to distance himself from either the apartment or the path.

If we are in the living room of an apartment and there is a conversation on the other side of the road and some distance further south, it's debatable whether we inside would even hear it. But now move the conversation to just outside the window, and it is likely we will hear it. A second difference would be the angle of view.

[G-Unit]

If we are in the living room of an apartment and there is a conversation on the other side of the road and some distance further south, it's debatable whether we inside would even hear it. But now move the conversation to just outside the window, and it is likely we will hear it. A second difference would be the angle of view.

Are we burglars, abductors or children?

[sadie]

If we are in the living room of an apartment and there is a conversation on the other side of the road and some distance further south, it's debatable whether we inside would even hear it. But now move the conversation to just outside the window, and it is likely we will hear it. A second difference would be the angle of view.

The sound would be clearer from the western corner of the alleyway, but it would be completely out of sight from the lounge.  Bushes in the way and the angle too acute

I am not even going to consider the other side of the road.  From several statements it is clear that Gerry got it wrong

[pegasus]

Are we burglars, abductors or children?

Placing you and me inside the apartment is my way of forcing us to examine the conversation strictly from inside the apartment, in other words from the perspective (initially ears) of a child.

[faithlilly]

The Tapas 9 booking note is mentioned in the PJ files.

Louisa ... Coutinho was receptionist at the Tapas area and gave her statement on 8 May 2007.  She says she made the bookings and her statement says that during the interview she provided a book with the reservations for the Tapas restaurant.

She states that she made the block booking because it had been explained to her that the group had children nearby and wanted to check on them regularly.

Then we get into speculation zone.  I can see nothing in the file that is a note with the bookings explaining that these are authorised on the basis that children are nearby.  Whether that piece of information is accurate is up in the air.  However, it is referred to in Amaral's book as well as Kate's, and it happens to make sense.  But you decide.

The odd part is that Louisa C says a thin man with a child, who was in the T9 but was not Gerry, made the booking, and it was on Sunday (29th).  In Rachael's rogatory statement (made much later of course), she says she made the block booking, on Monday (30th).  Take your pick.

The booking is mentioned and that is shown in the photostats but no written notes and indeed no photo stats of any note appears in the files.

[pegasus]

The sound would be clearer from the western corner of the alleyway, but it would be completely out of sight from the lounge.  Bushes in the way and the angle too acute

I am not even going to consider the other side of the road.  From several statements it is clear that Gerry got it wrong

Yes, the view is at an acute angle, and the bushes may block it, at least partly, IMO..

[misty]

Yes, the view is at an acute angle, and the bushes may block it, at least partly, IMO..

You are moving towards speculating about the distance of the sofa from the window sill which would have allowed a child to overbalance, fall down behind & remain out of sight at the 9.30 check.

[G-Unit]

You are moving towards speculating about the distance of the sofa from the window sill which would have allowed a child to overbalance, fall down behind & remain out of sight at the 9.30 check.

In the 'Madeleine was here' video Jane Tanner was clearly saying that Gerald McCann and Jeremy Wilkins were between the path entrance and the apartment garden gate. Jeremy Wilkins says on the corner where the path meets the road. Gerald McCann over-ruled both and moved the conversation across the road.

[pegasus]

You are moving towards speculating about the distance of the sofa from the window sill which would have allowed a child to overbalance, fall down behind & remain out of sight at the 9.30 check.

Mainly I was commenting on G-unit's post about the conversation location. One location is presumably louder inside, but has a very acute angle of sight. The other location would be presumably be quieter inside, but has a better, less acute angle of sight. The location of the conversation determines its audibility and visibility inside the lounge, also the reverse, the visibility of the window from the conversation. This might be relevant in various theories, including Mr Amaral's sofa climb variant or the opposite "abduction while chat happened outside" theory.   

[sadie]

In the 'Madeleine was here' video Jane Tanner was clearly saying that Gerald McCann and Jeremy Wilkins were between the path entrance and the apartment garden gate. Jeremy Wilkins says on the corner where the path meets the road. Gerald McCann over-ruled both and moved the conversation across the road.

And Jane Tanner VERY CLEARLY showed where it happened on the Mccann video.  Right in front of the corner of the alleyway, but partially on the pavement and partially in the road.

And Jez VERY CLEARLY showed where it happened on his map.  On the alleyway corner.

And, Jezes description also equated to them meeting somewhere in that area by the alleyway corner and NOT at the gate.



Three positions that agree.  They chatted on the alleyway corner but seemingly on the kerb and in the roadway.

Why all the obfuscation?

[pegasus]

And Jane Tanner VERY CLEARLY showed where it happened on the Mccann video.  Right in front of the corner of the alleyway, but partially on the pavement and partially in the road.

And Jez VERY CLEARLY showed where it happened on his map.  On the alleyway corner.

And, Jezes description also equated to them meeting somewhere in that area by the alleyway corner and NOT at the gate.

Three positions that agree.  They chatted on the alleyway corner but seemingly on the kerb and in the roadway.

Why all the obfuscation?

Yes that seems accurate and using that location - the talking outside is likely to have been audible inside the lounge (if lounge window was single glazed??), but a person looking out the closed window would have difficulty seeing the chat, because of the acute angle, and for the same reason would not be seen by the people chatting, IMO.

 

[mercury]

And Jane Tanner VERY CLEARLY showed where it happened on the Mccann video.  Right in front of the corner of the alleyway, but partially on the pavement and partially in the road.

And Jez VERY CLEARLY showed where it happened on his map.  On the alleyway corner.

And, Jezes description also equated to them meeting somewhere in that area by the alleyway corner and NOT at the gate.



Three positions that agree.  They chatted on the alleyway corner but seemingly on the kerb and in the roadway.

Why all the obfuscation?

Jez  said in his statement "by the gate" which is not the same as "by the alley". Im not sure why you are insisting about a matter of a metre or two here?