UK Justice Forum 🇬🇧
Disappeared and Abducted Children and Young Adults => Madeleine McCann (3) disappeared from her parent's holiday apartment at Ocean Club, Praia da Luz, Portugal on 3 May 2007. No trace of her has ever been found. => Topic started by: G-Unit on June 28, 2018, 10:18:57 AM
-
Given the difficulties of checking the timeline which have been highlighted in the Reconstitution thread how was it possible for Operation Grange to accept it?
54
-
You'd have to address your question to them, because as far as I know, no one here is a member of Operation Grange.
-
You'd have to address your question to them, because as far as I know, no one here is a member of Operation Grange.
You were happy to point out one of the problems before;
When Gerry and Jane tried to recreate the moment of her sighting they couldn’t agree on detail so imagine that x 9 x 300 minutes
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9756.msg471352#msg471352
-
Given the difficulties of checking the timeline which have been highlighted in the Reconstitution thread how was it possible for Operation Grange to accept it?
Indeed! I also wonder if it only took 30 seconds to get from the tapas to the children how come it took them 10,15/ 30 minutes to get there and back from the 'check'...
However, we don't know if they agreed with the timeline- they smacked JT's sighting as an abductor. We can only read what we are given.
-
You were happy to point out one of the problems before;
When Gerry and Jane tried to recreate the moment of her sighting they couldn’t agree on detail so imagine that x 9 x 300 minutes
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9756.msg471352#msg471352
Did the Met assemble the Tapas 9 to get them to have a big argument about what happened or did they go through the individual timelines forensically and piece them together like a jigsaw, without further input from the relevant protagonists? If they could do this, why couldn't the PJ?
-
You were happy to point out one of the problems before;
When Gerry and Jane tried to recreate the moment of her sighting they couldn’t agree on detail so imagine that x 9 x 300 minutes
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9756.msg471352#msg471352
They agreed to disagree.
How would a reconstruction involving only the T9 + 1 have resolved this?
-
They agreed to disagree.
How would a reconstruction involving only the T9 + 1 have resolved this?
Good question. And the answer is....
-
They agreed to disagree.
How would a reconstruction involving only the T9 + 1 have resolved this?
Is it too late?
-
Did the Met assemble the Tapas 9 to get them to have a big argument about what happened or forensically did they go through the individual timelines and piece them together like a jigsaw, without further input from the relevant protagonists? If they could do this, why couldn't the PJ?
Did the Met assemble the Tapas 9. You will have to ask them that.
If they could do this, why couldn't the PJ?. Great question and the answer is?
-
They agreed to disagree.
How would a reconstruction involving only the T9 + 1 have resolved this?
More to the point, how did the 'forensic examination' by Operation Grange resolve it?
-
More to the point, how did the 'forensic examination' by Operation Grange resolve it?
Yes... How did they do THAT. 8)-)))
-
Yes... How did they do THAT. 8)-)))
Magically.
-
Did the Met assemble the Tapas 9 to get them to have a big argument about what happened or did they go through the individual timelines forensically and piece them together like a jigsaw, without further input from the relevant protagonists? If they could do this, why couldn't the PJ?
Both forces seem to have been unconvinced by the group's suggestion that an abductor took Madeleine and was spotted by Jane Tanner. The PJ proposed testing the story in real time. Operation Grange found crecheman.
Jane didn't see an abductor, so the questions about how she managed to slip past the two men and whether she could see what she described became irrelevant.
Operation Grange made no attempt to explain why the checkers found the children's bedroom door was being moved between visits. Have they just dismissed those reports? It would seem so.
-
Both forces seem to have been unconvinced by the group's suggestion that an abductor took Madeleine and was spotted by Jane Tanner. The PJ proposed testing the story in real time. Operation Grange found crecheman.
Jane didn't see an abductor, so the questions about how she managed to slip past the two men and whether she could see what she described became irrelevant.
Operation Grange made no attempt to explain why the checkers found the children's bedroom door was being moved between visits. Have they just dismissed those reports? It would seem so.
I always thought the door thing was vastly overblown in importance by the sceptics and so it wouldn’t surprise me if Op Grange did too.
-
I always thought the door thing was vastly overblown in importance by the sceptics and so it wouldn’t surprise me if Op Grange did too.
IMO one can take just about everything that supposedly occured between 5.30pm and 10pm with a very large pinch of salt because of the conflicting stories. Just why the tapas group sat down and worked out a timeline has always fascinated me, who were they trying to protect and from what??
-
IMO one can take just about everything that supposedly occured between 5.30pm and 10pm with a very large pinch of salt because of the conflicting stories. Just why the tapas group sat down and worked out a timeline has always fascinated me, who were they trying to protect and from what??
Why does putting together a timeline mean they were trying to protect anyone?
-
IMO one can take just about everything that supposedly occured between 5.30pm and 10pm with a very large pinch of salt because of the conflicting stories. Just why the tapas group sat down and worked out a timeline has always fascinated me, who were they trying to protect and from what??
That appears to be the status of OG,imo.
-
I always thought the door thing was vastly overblown in importance by the sceptics and so it wouldn’t surprise me if Op Grange did too.
KM mentioned it first,its just being discussed that's all.
-
I always thought the door thing was vastly overblown in importance by the sceptics and so it wouldn’t surprise me if Op Grange did too.
There's no definitive evidence that Madeleine was abducted. The story relies heavily on the testimony of her parents. Therefore any investigation worth it's salt needs to assess the reliability of her parent's evidence in any way possible. If Gerry McCann didn't see an open bedroom door perhaps he didn't see an open window and shutters either.
-
IMO one can take just about everything that supposedly occured between 5.30pm and 10pm with a very large pinch of salt because of the conflicting stories. Just why the tapas group sat down and worked out a timeline has always fascinated me, who were they trying to protect and from what??
This facinates me also - how when your child has can can you think logically about times.
Yet let 20 odd people trample rround apartment destroying any evidence.
Causing as much confusion as they possibly could.
The police were not called until there was a state of panic and confusion.
By the time they arrived- all hell had broken loose.
When there is a state of confusion- it is harder to remember
who did what when or where people were at a particular time.
Yet they wrote a timeline.
-
IMO one can take just about everything that supposedly occured between 5.30pm and 10pm with a very large pinch of salt because of the conflicting stories. Just why the tapas group sat down and worked out a timeline has always fascinated me, who were they trying to protect and from what??
It doesn't have to be a major crime though does it?
-
There's no definitive evidence that Madeleine was abducted. The story relies heavily on the testimony of her parents. Therefore any investigation worth it's salt needs to assess the reliability of her parent's evidence in any way possible. If Gerry McCann didn't see an open bedroom door perhaps he didn't see an open window and shutters either.
Any investigation worth its salt knows not to put too much reliance on individual witness statements as these are often inaccurate or incorrect often for the most innocent of reasons. IMO
-
IMO one can take just about everything that supposedly occured between 5.30pm and 10pm with a very large pinch of salt because of the conflicting stories. Just why the tapas group sat down and worked out a timeline has always fascinated me, who were they trying to protect and from what??
Most large organisations foster a CYA attitude IMO. Whenever anything goes wrong the first reaction is to write down the sequence of events that shows you weren’t to blame.
-
Most large organisations foster a CYA attitude IMO. Whenever anything goes wrong the first reaction is to write down the sequence of events that shows you weren’t to blame.
As Kate was shrieking “we’ve let her down” that night allegedly I don’t think they were trying too hard to cover their arses. Also a group of holiday makers is not a large organisation. IMO.
-
Why does putting together a timeline mean they were trying to protect anyone?
Because it does. And then Mrs Fenn goes and blows a hole in it. @)(++(*
-
Because it does. And then Mrs Fenn goes and blows a hole in it. @)(++(*
Erm...how? They only did a timeline for the evening of 3rd May.
-
Erm...how? They only did a timeline for the evening of 3rd May.
Because she singlehandedly destroyed the half hour checking claim.
-
Because she singlehandedly destroyed the half hour checking claim.
Except the waiters at the Tapas confirm that members of the group were constantly leaving the table for minutes at a time to (they assumed) check on their kids. If they weren’t leaving the table to go check on their kids what were they doing instead?
-
Except the waiters at the Tapas confirm that members of the group were constantly leaving the table for minutes at a time to (they assumed) check on their kids. If they weren’t leaving the table to go check on their kids what were they doing instead?
well we don't know do we - because they cant get there stories straight imo.
-
Because she singlehandedly destroyed the half hour checking claim.
You are assuming her testimony is reliable
-
well we don't know do we - because they cant get there stories straight imo.
I expect they were leaving the table every half-hour to shoot up or watch some porn, you know what these doctors are like.
NB: SATIRE NOT LIBEL!!!! I’m not seriously suggesting this as a possibility
-
I expect they were leaving the table every half-hour to shoot up or watch some porn, you know what these doctors are like.
NB: SATIRE NOT LIBEL!!!! I’m not seriously suggesting this as a possibility
We don’t know how close they got to the apartments, listening checks have been mentioned.
-
We don’t know how close they got to the apartments, listening checks have been mentioned.
So they got up every half hour to check on their kids. Angelo is claiming they didn’t.
-
We don’t know how close they got to the apartments, listening checks have been mentioned.
Listening checks are sufficient IMO.
-
Listening checks are sufficient IMO.
So, MM gets out at 8:40....listening check would be fine after that?
-
So, MM gets out at 8:40....listening check would be fine after that?
Matt did a listening check at 9:00 PM and he said it was OK but Gerry felt an internal check was needed so he did it at 9:05.
-
Indeed! I also wonder if it only took 30 seconds to get from the tapas to the children how come it took them 10,15/ 30 minutes to get there and back from the 'check'...
However, we don't know if they agreed with the timeline- they smacked JT's sighting as an abductor. We can only read what we are given.
What are you going on about Mistaken? 10,15/30 minutes ?
Cites please
-
What are you going on about Mistaken? 10,15/30 minutes ?
Cites please
There are various estimates of how long Gerry took on his check.
-
There's no definitive evidence that Madeleine was abducted. The story relies heavily on the testimony of her parents. Therefore any investigation worth it's salt needs to assess the reliability of her parent's evidence in any way possible. If Gerry McCann didn't see an open bedroom door perhaps he didn't see an open window and shutters either.
The problem with your assumption is that Gerry indisputably did see an open bedroom door. Only in retrospect did the full significance of that hit him.
Snip
... 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.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN-10MAY.htm
-
The problem with your assumption is that Gerry indisputably did see an open bedroom door. Only in retrospect did the full significance of that hit him.
Snip
... 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.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN-10MAY.htm
To be accurate Gerry indisputably said he saw an open bedroom door.
-
To be accurate Gerry indisputably said he saw an open bedroom door.
to be even more accurate, it is indisputably reported that Gerry said he saw an open bedroom door.
-
And Matt saw the same half-open door 30 minutes later so what did Gerry really see *%87
-
The problem with your assumption is that Gerry indisputably did see an open bedroom door. Only in retrospect did the full significance of that hit him.
Snip
... 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.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN-10MAY.htm
I made no assumptions. You, on the other hand appear to be assuming that everything said by a witness is correct.
-
I made no assumptions. You, on the other hand appear to be assuming that everything said by a witness is correct.
I do apologise. The word I should have used was insinuation.
-
I do apologise. The word I should have used was insinuation.
Thank you. I don't think insinuation is correct either, but you are entitled to your opinion.
-
We don’t know how close they got to the apartments, listening checks have been mentioned.
The efficacy of which was proven to be minimal, by another poster, due to ambient street noise and noise will not travel from inside to outside or some such.
-
I do apologise. The word I should have used was insinuation.
Could you use insinuation in the actual sentence you are talking about please?
-
The efficacy of which was proven to be minimal, by another poster, due to ambient street noise and noise will not travel from inside to outside or some such.
What does a listening check involve? Walking without stopping past the building in which the children are in, or entering the building to make sure all is quiet - do you know? I guess walking past the building without stopping would tell you all you need to know if the child is crying, right? Because the walls within the building and the outside wall of the building provide no barrier whatsoever to sound travelling outside. Is that correct?
-
The efficacy of which was proven to be minimal, by another poster, due to ambient street noise and noise will not travel from inside to outside or some such.
Can you prove that scientifically?
-
What does a listening check involve? Walking without stopping past the building in which the children are in, or entering the building to make sure all is quiet - do you know? I guess walking past the building without stopping would tell you all you need to know if the child is crying, right? Because the walls within the building and the outside wall of the building provide no barrier whatsoever to sound travelling outside. Is that correct?
At first glance it doesn't seem correct any wall will provide a barrier to sound IMO.
-
Can you prove that scientifically?
Alice's post was just a sly dig at me, no worries.
-
Alice's post was just a sly dig at me, no worries.
Alice will have to answer. Hopefully with a full scientific answer.
-
Alice will have to answer. Hopefully with a full scientific answer.
Don't encourage him - lol.
-
I expect they were leaving the table every half-hour to shoot up or watch some porn, you know what these doctors are like.
NB: SATIRE NOT LIBEL!!!! I’m not seriously suggesting this as a possibility
It has been captured on video fortuately: Madeleine McCann. Hitler Reacts to Columbo https://youtu.be/MCUK1hEPV0E
I just love these historical evidences!
-
The tapas group can make all the claims they want but the evidence shows that half hour checks were forgotten about the later it got.
-
Can you prove that scientifically?
Why sould I tis not I making any kind of scientific assertion.
That was all done to death a few days ago.
Apparently years of experience by one individual showed sound didn't travel well through building fabric .
-
Why sould I tis not I making any kind of scientific assertion.
That was all done to death a few days ago.
Apparently years of experience by one individual showed sound didn't travel well through building fabric .
The suggestion was that the McCanns walking back from the Tapas Bar to Aprtment 5a should have been able to hear clearly what the woman who was inside the apartment above 5a claimed to have heard. Perhaps you can give us the benefit of your scientific expertise to prove that sounds heard in and between adjoining apartments at first floor levels should also be clearly audible to those walking towards and into the apartment at ground level? I look forward to your detailed explanation.
-
Why sould I tis not I making any kind of scientific assertion.
That was all done to death a few days ago.
Apparently years of experience by one individual showed sound didn't travel well through building fabric .
For sure it will be muffled by the building material.
-
Why sould I tis not I making any kind of scientific assertion.
That was all done to death a few days ago.
Apparently years of experience by one individual showed sound didn't travel well through building fabric .
Indeed! and their experience in the listening of children as a baby checking system' proved beyond reasonable doubt that no one could tell who's child was crying and where the crying came from....
Unless it was just Mrs Fenn who had apparently extreme deafness and depleted directional cognations (had no clue where she was, where the sound was coming from)...
-
Indeed! and their experience in the listening of children as a baby checking system' proved beyond reasonable doubt that no one could tell who's child was crying and where the crying came from....
Unless it was just Mrs Fenn who had apparently extreme deafness and depleted directional cognations (had no clue where she was, where the sound was coming from)...
Confused or deaf, she had ample time to decide where the sound was coming from, didn't she?
-
What does a listening check involve? Walking without stopping past the building in which the children are in, or entering the building to make sure all is quiet - do you know? I guess walking past the building without stopping would tell you all you need to know if the child is crying, right? Because the walls within the building and the outside wall of the building provide no barrier whatsoever to sound travelling outside. Is that correct?
So what if maddie had fell out of bed and hit her head on tile floor - would you hear that.
Things/ accidents could happen - that don't make a noise imo
-
Confused or deaf, she had ample time to decide where the sound was coming from, didn't she?
Mrs Fenn had been living in that apartment for many years, she would absolutely know the sound of doors below or above, and would certainly know if a child was crying and where that sound was coming from! Kate HAD to acknowledge that- oh yes Maddie mentioned in passing where were we when she /sibling/s woke up crying.
She didn't know what witnesses, an dhow many would say about the children crying etc...
-
So what if maddie had fell out of bed and hit her head on tile floor - would you hear that.
Things/ accidents could happen - that don't make a noise imo
If you really start thinking like that as a parent you would end up never being able to sleep for fear you would miss hearing your kid fall while you were asleep.
-
If you really start thinking like that as a parent you would end up never being able to sleep for fear you would miss hearing your kid fall while you were asleep.
The mccanns wasnt there was they.
They were in an apartment with unfamiliar surroundings
Maddie was old enough to get out of her bed....it wasn't a low one either.
-
If you really start thinking like that as a parent you would end up never being able to sleep for fear you would miss hearing your kid fall while you were asleep.
At least you're in with a chance, which, as most parents understand, you're not if you've gone out.
-
At least you're in with a chance, which, as most parents understand, you're not if you've gone out.
Do you know that for certain?
-
Do you know that for certain?
Is that a meaningful question?
-
Is that a meaningful question?
It was. You made a claim of fact, so "do you know that for certain?".
-
It was. You made a claim of fact, so "do you know that for certain?".
If you are inside an apartment you have more chance of hearing something than if you're outside the apartment in a restaurant. If you disagree I'd like to hear your reasoning.
-
If you are inside an apartment you have more chance of hearing something than if you're outside the apartment in a restaurant. If you disagree I'd like to hear your reasoning.
We were originally talking about being asleep. The moments you are asleep is that the same as being away?
Checking every 30 minutes seems more checking than what would occur if the parents were sound asleep within the apartment.
OK if the rooms were close enough, a child falling and screaming might wake the parent up, but if the accident was of the type that would cause death, would it wake a parent? How often has a parent at home been woken by a child and when they went to check found the child dead?
-
Here is an extreme example "She went to bed at 9 p.m., but didn't wake up to check on the child until about 22 hours later, when she found the child dead.
She is now facing a felony charge of child neglect resulting in death." http://www.wsaw.com/home/headlines/6943517.html
-
We were originally talking about being asleep. The moments you are asleep is that the same as being away?
Checking every 30 minutes seems more checking than what would occur if the parents were sound asleep within the apartment.
OK if the rooms were close enough, a child falling and screaming might wake the parent up, but if the accident was of the type that would cause death, would it wake a parent? How often has a parent at home been woken by a child and when they went to check found the child dead?
Being asleep isn't the same as being out because there's a chance you'll hear something and wake up if you're asleep. If you're out you will definitely hear nothing.
-
Here is an extreme example "She went to bed at 9 p.m., but didn't wake up to check on the child until about 22 hours later, when she found the child dead.
She is now facing a felony charge of child neglect resulting in death." http://www.wsaw.com/home/headlines/6943517.html
Had been taking drugs....
-
Had been taking drugs....
And the Tapas 9 had been drinking.
-
Being asleep isn't the same as being out because there's a chance you'll hear something and wake up if you're asleep. If you're out you will definitely hear nothing.
But they were doing regular and frequent listening checks.
-
But they were doing regular and frequent listening checks.
So? They went out. They were unavailable for at least 30 minutes at a time.
-
So? They went out. They were unavailable for at least 30 minutes at a time.
Which seemed to be acceptable to the Portuguese authorities.
-
Which seemed to be acceptable to the Portuguese authorities.
It depends what you mean by acceptable.
the parents were not persistently worried about their children [and] that they didn't check on them like they afterwards declared they did, rather neglecting their duty to guard those same children, although not in a temerarious, or gross, manner.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm
-
It depends what you mean by acceptable.
the parents were not persistently worried about their children [and] that they didn't check on them like they afterwards declared they did, rather neglecting their duty to guard those same children, although not in a temerarious, or gross, manner.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm
That is what I mean, it may not have been perfect but they accepted it and didn't prosecute.
-
That is what I mean, it may not have been perfect but they accepted it and didn't prosecute.
No, it wasn't perfect. They were absent for at least 30 minutes between checks, quite possibly longer.
-
No, it wasn't perfect. They were absent for at least 30 minutes between checks, quite possibly longer.
Please provide cites for your claim.
-
No, it wasn't perfect. They were absent for at least 30 minutes between checks, quite possibly longer.
How could they spend 30 minutes or more doing checks when they had a meal to eat?
-
That is what I mean, it may not have been perfect but they accepted it and didn't prosecute.
IMO there could be a reason why they accepted it - and not because they believed them.
Revealed: Why the Portuguese police didn’t charge McCanns for children’s ‘abandonment’ after Maddie disappeared
MADELEINE McCann’s parents were not prosecuted for abandoning their daughter
while they dined near by because of “compassion”, law chiefs have claimed.
Portuguese officials thought Brits had “peculiar customs” where it was “natural
for them to leave the two-year-old twin siblings and the other
three-year-old child alone”.
Former minister of internal affairs Rui Pereira slammed Portuguese cops for
not making Kate, 48, and 47-year-old dad Gerry suspects for abandonment.
Madeleine, who was three at the time, was left sleeping in the family’s
holiday apartment in the Algarve resort with her younger twin siblings as
her parents went for dinner with friends in a nearby restaurant.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/archives/news/1151476/revealed-why-the-portuguese-police-didnt-charge-mccanns-for-childrens-abandonment-after-maddie-disappeared/
-
IMO there could be a reason why they accepted it - and not because they believed them.
Revealed: Why the Portuguese police didn’t charge McCanns for children’s ‘abandonment’ after Maddie disappeared
MADELEINE McCann’s parents were not prosecuted for abandoning their daughter
while they dined near by because of “compassion”, law chiefs have claimed.
Portuguese officials thought Brits had “peculiar customs” where it was “natural
for them to leave the two-year-old twin siblings and the other
three-year-old child alone”.
Former minister of internal affairs Rui Pereira slammed Portuguese cops for
not making Kate, 48, and 47-year-old dad Gerry suspects for abandonment.
Madeleine, who was three at the time, was left sleeping in the family’s
holiday apartment in the Algarve resort with her younger twin siblings as
her parents went for dinner with friends in a nearby restaurant.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/archives/news/1151476/revealed-why-the-portuguese-police-didnt-charge-mccanns-for-childrens-abandonment-after-maddie-disappeared/
Do you believe that to be the case? "Brits had “peculiar customs” where it was “natural
for them to leave the two-year-old twin siblings and the other three-year-old child alone”.
-
Do you believe that to be the case? "Brits had “peculiar customs” where it was “natural
for them to leave the two-year-old twin siblings and the other three-year-old child alone”.
Jane Tanner assured them that it was so;
It is normal (culturally, traditionally, education/examples seen) [for] English tourists to leave, for some time, their small children alone in the bedroom/apartment to sleep while the parents are absent, normally guaranteeing that it is done for short periods of time (15/30 minutes). At those times there is a sporadic check, in time, of the places where the children are.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JANE-TANNER-10MAY.htm
-
Do you believe that to be the case? "Brits had “peculiar customs” where it was “natural
for them to leave the two-year-old twin siblings and the other three-year-old child alone”.
Are you having a laugh @)(++(*
No i don't but it seems imo this is what TM wanted the PJ to think.
-
It depends what you mean by acceptable.
the parents were not persistently worried about their children [and] that they didn't check on them like they afterwards declared they did, rather neglecting their duty to guard those same children, although not in a temerarious, or gross, manner.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm
On the night of MBM's disappearance it was noted that Gerry was gone a while on his check. This does not equate to 30 seconds to get from table to bedroom door to 'listen'.
-
It depends what you mean by acceptable.
the parents were not persistently worried about their children [and] that they didn't check on them like they afterwards declared they did, rather neglecting their duty to guard those same children, although not in a temerarious, or gross, manner.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm
The shit hit the fan though when Maddie was found to be missing so a common approach was needed to the ad-hoc child checking.
-
Jane Tanner assured them that it was so;
It is normal (culturally, traditionally, education/examples seen) [for] English tourists to leave, for some time, their small children alone in the bedroom/apartment to sleep while the parents are absent, normally guaranteeing that it is done for short periods of time (15/30 minutes). At those times there is a sporadic check, in time, of the places where the children are.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JANE-TANNER-10MAY.htm
I cannot accept that Jane Tanner said that at all. My initial reaction is that that paragraph has been added into Jane's statement by the PJ for some reason.
On which page in the original is that paragraph?
-
Are you having a laugh @)(++(*
No i don't but it seems imo this is what TM wanted the PJ to think.
The words are what is found in the PJ files not TM (whoever TM is?).
-
On the night of MBM's disappearance it was noted that Gerry was gone a while on his check. This does not equate to 30 seconds to get from table to bedroom door to 'listen'.
Gerry met Jeremy Wilkins that is why he was longer than normal.
-
Sorry it doesn't add up. Not much longer than a normal check when he said he was only in the apartment 3 minutes and Jez said 3 minutes for their chat. Gerry was gone over 10 minutes. Jane left nearly that time after him and then saw them chatting.
"The conversation with Gerry lasted for about three minutes during which Gerry was chatty and in his normal self. Jeremy then made his way back to his apartment."
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JEREMY_BRIGET.htm
He adds that he never entered any other part of the residence [his bedroom or the kitchen] where he was for only two or three minutes, leaving yet again through the rear door that he closed but did not lock.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN-10MAY.htm
-
It nearly adds up.
-
It nearly adds up.
Does it really have to though? Was there an indication of how long he was in the toilet? Did Jes have a stop watch measuring how long his chat lasted?
The important issue is that the Rebelo investigation found nothing to lay charges on ... Scotland Yard and HOLMES managed to find Totman a lot more interesting, while remembering to insist that neither the McCanns or their friends were either suspects or persons of interest when they reopened Madeleine's case ... and it certainly didn't prevent the Policia Judiciaria from reopening Madeleine's case and declaring that her parents were not suspects.
The mistakes of the past should remain in the past which is exactly where the present investigations have left them.
-
It nearly adds up.
Does it? Read all of this carefully now. You are looking at a real timeline.
00.16.41 4078 'Okay. So what sort of time was it when you did that listening check outside Madeleine's room''
Reply 'Well this would have been, I'd have set off about five to nine or just before nine, and so that round trip would have taken me three or four minutes maybe, because on this occasion I didn't go into our apartment, so it was just walk up, sort of ten or twenty seconds outside the two shutters and then back round'.
4078 'Okay. So take me through from there then, what happened after that''
Reply 'So, erm, back to the table, erm, we have, oh, back to the table, Gerry got up to go and, to go and check on his kids, I mean, and I'd come back and said, you know, I didn't hear any noise when I listened outside your room, so I thought it was a little bit odd that, you know, not kind of a wounded pride that he sort of didn't trust me.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MATTHEW-OLDFIELD-ROGATORY.htm
I think everybody, everybody arrived about nine o’clock. I think we ordered fairly, as soon as Dave and Fi arrived we sort of like ordered almost straight away I think. And almost I think as soon after Dave and Fi arrived Gerry went to do his check, because they’d already been there since sort of half past eight, so, you know, sort of like it was half an hour, a half an hour check for them. So he, yeah, he, he went off to his check and he was longer than a bit, because I can remember Kate sort of saying ‘Oh bet he’s put the footy on’, because I think there was a football match that night and she sort of said ‘Oh I think he’s probably’, erm, you know, ‘got side tracked and put the telly on and catch up on the score’, so he was gone a bit longer than normal.
4078 “Backtrack a little. How long after Gerry had gone was it before you went to do your check?”
Reply “Well I think it must have been, well it must have been at least five minutes, if not more, because, I say, because he was gone, before I actually left there had been the conversations about him being waylaid. So, I mean, if, I think it must have been sort of five or ten minutes, five or ten minutes after he’d gone. I can’t say for sure, but”.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JANE_TANNER_RIGATORY.htm
Jane said she left at 9:10. They were talking about how long Gerry had gone before Jane left the table then she saw Gerry and Jez talking. It takes her a minute to get there. Jez said they only talked for around 3 minutes so what was happening for nearly 10 minutes prior to that chat? Gerry said he was only in the apartment for 2 or 3 minutes. Like I say, It doesn't add up at all!
-
Does it? Read all of this carefully now. You are looking at a real timeline.
00.16.41 4078 'Okay. So what sort of time was it when you did that listening check outside Madeleine's room''
Reply 'Well this would have been, I'd have set off about five to nine or just before nine, and so that round trip would have taken me three or four minutes maybe, because on this occasion I didn't go into our apartment, so it was just walk up, sort of ten or twenty seconds outside the two shutters and then back round'.
4078 'Okay. So take me through from there then, what happened after that''
Reply 'So, erm, back to the table, erm, we have, oh, back to the table, Gerry got up to go and, to go and check on his kids, I mean, and I'd come back and said, you know, I didn't hear any noise when I listened outside your room, so I thought it was a little bit odd that, you know, not kind of a wounded pride that he sort of didn't trust me.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MATTHEW-OLDFIELD-ROGATORY.htm
I think everybody, everybody arrived about nine o’clock. I think we ordered fairly, as soon as Dave and Fi arrived we sort of like ordered almost straight away I think. And almost I think as soon after Dave and Fi arrived Gerry went to do his check, because they’d already been there since sort of half past eight, so, you know, sort of like it was half an hour, a half an hour check for them. So he, yeah, he, he went off to his check and he was longer than a bit, because I can remember Kate sort of saying ‘Oh bet he’s put the footy on’, because I think there was a football match that night and she sort of said ‘Oh I think he’s probably’, erm, you know, ‘got side tracked and put the telly on and catch up on the score’, so he was gone a bit longer than normal.
4078 “Backtrack a little. How long after Gerry had gone was it before you went to do your check?”
Reply “Well I think it must have been, well it must have been at least five minutes, if not more, because, I say, because he was gone, before I actually left there had been the conversations about him being waylaid. So, I mean, if, I think it must have been sort of five or ten minutes, five or ten minutes after he’d gone. I can’t say for sure, but”.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JANE_TANNER_RIGATORY.htm
Jane said she left at 9:10. They were talking about how long Gerry had gone before Jane left the table then she saw Gerry and Jez talking. It takes her a minute to get there. Jez said they only talked for around 3 minutes so what was happening for nearly 10 minutes prior to that chat? Gerry said he was only in the apartment for 2 or 3 minutes. Like I say, It doesn't add up at all!
What an incompetent bunch of criminals if they couln't even ensure to get their stories to add up and what an incompetent bunch of cops who weren't able to nail them on the strength of it.
-
What an incompetent bunch of criminals if they couln't even ensure to get their stories to add up and what an incompetent bunch of cops who weren't able to nail them on the strength of it.
Was there a 'bunch of criminals' there that night? How many? Two, three, nine?
-
What an incompetent bunch of criminals if they couln't even ensure to get their stories to add up and what an incompetent bunch of cops who weren't able to nail them on the strength of it.
Much like the expertise of Scotland Yard who can't fathom it out.
-
Does it? Read all of this carefully now. You are looking at a real timeline.
00.16.41 4078 'Okay. So what sort of time was it when you did that listening check outside Madeleine's room''
Reply 'Well this would have been, I'd have set off about five to nine or just before nine, and so that round trip would have taken me three or four minutes maybe, because on this occasion I didn't go into our apartment, so it was just walk up, sort of ten or twenty seconds outside the two shutters and then back round'.
4078 'Okay. So take me through from there then, what happened after that''
Reply 'So, erm, back to the table, erm, we have, oh, back to the table, Gerry got up to go and, to go and check on his kids, I mean, and I'd come back and said, you know, I didn't hear any noise when I listened outside your room, so I thought it was a little bit odd that, you know, not kind of a wounded pride that he sort of didn't trust me.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MATTHEW-OLDFIELD-ROGATORY.htm
I think everybody, everybody arrived about nine o’clock. I think we ordered fairly, as soon as Dave and Fi arrived we sort of like ordered almost straight away I think. And almost I think as soon after Dave and Fi arrived Gerry went to do his check, because they’d already been there since sort of half past eight, so, you know, sort of like it was half an hour, a half an hour check for them. So he, yeah, he, he went off to his check and he was longer than a bit, because I can remember Kate sort of saying ‘Oh bet he’s put the footy on’, because I think there was a football match that night and she sort of said ‘Oh I think he’s probably’, erm, you know, ‘got side tracked and put the telly on and catch up on the score’, so he was gone a bit longer than normal.
4078 “Backtrack a little. How long after Gerry had gone was it before you went to do your check?”
Reply “Well I think it must have been, well it must have been at least five minutes, if not more, because, I say, because he was gone, before I actually left there had been the conversations about him being waylaid. So, I mean, if, I think it must have been sort of five or ten minutes, five or ten minutes after he’d gone. I can’t say for sure, but”.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JANE_TANNER_RIGATORY.htm
Jane said she left at 9:10. They were talking about how long Gerry had gone before Jane left the table then she saw Gerry and Jez talking. It takes her a minute to get there. Jez said they only talked for around 3 minutes so what was happening for nearly 10 minutes prior to that chat? Gerry said he was only in the apartment for 2 or 3 minutes. Like I say, It doesn't add up at all!
It shows the difference between the hazy recollections of individuals and a created precision timeline based on experience, logic and discussion by a group of individuals.
-
Does it? Read all of this carefully now. You are looking at a real timeline.
00.16.41 4078 'Okay. So what sort of time was it when you did that listening check outside Madeleine's room''
Reply 'Well this would have been, I'd have set off about five to nine or just before nine, and so that round trip would have taken me three or four minutes maybe, because on this occasion I didn't go into our apartment, so it was just walk up, sort of ten or twenty seconds outside the two shutters and then back round'.
4078 'Okay. So take me through from there then, what happened after that''
Reply 'So, erm, back to the table, erm, we have, oh, back to the table, Gerry got up to go and, to go and check on his kids, I mean, and I'd come back and said, you know, I didn't hear any noise when I listened outside your room, so I thought it was a little bit odd that, you know, not kind of a wounded pride that he sort of didn't trust me.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MATTHEW-OLDFIELD-ROGATORY.htm
I think everybody, everybody arrived about nine o’clock. I think we ordered fairly, as soon as Dave and Fi arrived we sort of like ordered almost straight away I think. And almost I think as soon after Dave and Fi arrived Gerry went to do his check, because they’d already been there since sort of half past eight, so, you know, sort of like it was half an hour, a half an hour check for them. So he, yeah, he, he went off to his check and he was longer than a bit, because I can remember Kate sort of saying ‘Oh bet he’s put the footy on’, because I think there was a football match that night and she sort of said ‘Oh I think he’s probably’, erm, you know, ‘got side tracked and put the telly on and catch up on the score’, so he was gone a bit longer than normal.
4078 “Backtrack a little. How long after Gerry had gone was it before you went to do your check?”
Reply “Well I think it must have been, well it must have been at least five minutes, if not more, because, I say, because he was gone, before I actually left there had been the conversations about him being waylaid. So, I mean, if, I think it must have been sort of five or ten minutes, five or ten minutes after he’d gone. I can’t say for sure, but”.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JANE_TANNER_RIGATORY.htm
Jane said she left at 9:10. They were talking about how long Gerry had gone before Jane left the table then she saw Gerry and Jez talking. It takes her a minute to get there. Jez said they only talked for around 3 minutes so what was happening for nearly 10 minutes prior to that chat? Gerry said he was only in the apartment for 2 or 3 minutes. Like I say, It doesn't add up at all!
Interesting that you choose to tell us Jez and Gerry talked for “around 3 minutes” when what he actually said was “The conversation lasted for approximately three to five minutes”.
-
A few minutes of discrepancy does not add up to Gerry rushing with a dead Madeleine to who knows where to hide her, meeting the Smiths on the way, and then getting back to meet Jez and chat as if nothing had happened and then happily go off to eat his dinner.
-
A few minutes of discrepancy does not add up to Gerry rushing with a dead Madeleine to who knows where to hide her, meeting the Smiths on the way, and then getting back to meet Jez and chat as if nothing had happened and then happily go off to eat his dinner.
Well we hope not.
-
A few minutes of discrepancy does not add up to Gerry rushing with a dead Madeleine to who knows where to hide her, meeting the Smiths on the way, and then getting back to meet Jez and chat as if nothing had happened and then happily go off to eat his dinner.
No-one suggested that he did, did they?
-
No-one suggested that he did, did they?
It is an element of Pathfinders theory actually.
-
It is an element of Pathfinders theory actually.
I don't remember it involving Gerry rushing off anywhere before meeting up with Jes.
-
I don't remember it involving Gerry rushing off anywhere before meeting up with Jes.
It involved removing the body and hiding it before meeting Jes - ask Pathfinder.
-
It involved removing the body and hiding it before meeting Jes - ask Pathfinder.
I don't think it involved seeing the Smiths before seeing Jes.
-
I don't think it involved seeing the Smiths before seeing Jes.
No, perhaps not, but certainly involved the body being moved twice that night, once before Jes and once after.
-
What an incompetent bunch of criminals if they couln't even ensure to get their stories to add up and what an incompetent bunch of cops who weren't able to nail them on the strength of it.
Well they let 20 odd people trample round apartment contaminating everything.
Even though kmccann had searched it and knew maddie had been abducted.
Caused no end of confusion - before ringing police imo.
Supposedly jemmied shutters.- lifting them up and down.
Didn't answer 48 questions.
Then cleared off home - no more questions could be asked.
IMO that could have lost evidence forever - no wonder they didn't have enough evidence. IMO
-
What an incompetent bunch of criminals if they couln't even ensure to get their stories to add up and what an incompetent bunch of cops who weren't able to nail them on the strength of it.
That’s the point though isn’t it ? They weren’t criminals. They were just 9 holidaymakers who found themselves in an unimaginable situation and IMO did all they could to negate the damage done to themselves and their families.
-
Well they let 20 odd people trample round apartment contaminating everything.
Even though kmccann had searched it and knew maddie had been abducted.
Caused no end of confusion - before ringing police imo.
Supposedly jemmied shutters.- lifting them up and down.
Didn't answer 48 questions.
Then cleared off home - no more questions could be asked.
IMO that could have lost evidence forever - no wonder they didn't have enough evidence. IMO
Are you blaming the McCanns for the inability of the police to find sufficient evidence to prosecute them?
-
Lace was a bit muddled up there for sure. Unless the story has been really badly told.
-
That’s the point though isn’t it ? They weren’t criminals. They were just 9 holidaymakers who found themselves in an unimaginable situation and IMO did all they could to negate the damage done to themselves and their families.
You mean this bunch of amateurs without a criminal thought in their heads or between them not a single conviction for anything, were able to out think the trained professionals who were on their case?
There you go then. If that makes sense to you and others ... that's fine by me.
-
Lace was a bit muddled up there for sure. Unless the story has been really badly told.
There are often differences between what people say was said or done and what was actually said or done.
-
You mean this bunch of amateurs without a criminal thought in their heads or between them not a single conviction for anything, were able to out think the trained professionals who were on their case?
There you go then. If that makes sense to you and others ... that's fine by me.
What trained professionals? According to some the PJ were untrained and unprofessional, relying on beating confessions out of their suspects rather than bothering to do any detecting.
-
What trained professionals? According to some the PJ were untrained and unprofessional, relying on beating confessions out of their suspects rather than bothering to do any detecting.
Topic please.
-
There are often differences between what people say was said or done and what was actually said or done.
Add to that language barrier and two lots of translations!
-
Add to that language barrier and two lots of translations!
I don't think those excuses apply to what pathfinder has said.
-
Interesting that you choose to tell us Jez and Gerry talked for “around 3 minutes” when what he actually said was “The conversation lasted for approximately three to five minutes”.
LP went round to clarify and this was written in their report.
"The conversation with Gerry lasted for about three minutes during which Gerry was chatty and in his normal self. Jeremy then made his way back to his apartment." http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JEREMY_BRIGET.htm
-
LP went round to clarify and this was written in their report.
"The conversation with Gerry lasted for about three minutes during which Gerry was chatty and in his normal self. Jeremy then made his way back to his apartment." http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JEREMY_BRIGET.htm
The conversation lasted for approximately three to five minutes.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JEREMY-WILKINS-ROGATORY.htm
It is all approximate though isn't it? No-one had a clue about the time of anything.
-
The conversation lasted for approximately three to five minutes.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JEREMY-WILKINS-ROGATORY.htm
It is all approximate though isn't it? No-one had a clue about the time of anything.
A fair summation one would imagine.
-
Lace was a bit muddled up there for sure. Unless the story has been really badly told.
So why is pathfinder saying Gerry was longer on his check? Pathfinder has never hidden the fact that he/she believes Gerry hid Madeleine's body, I would like to know when he is supposed to have done this. Even if Gerry was a bit longer on his check, he was there chatting to Jes Wilkins, behaving normally and then went to have his dinner and behaved normally. What father would be like that if he had just found his daughter dead and hidden her body?
-
The conversation lasted for approximately three to five minutes.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JEREMY-WILKINS-ROGATORY.htm
It is all approximate though isn't it? No-one had a clue about the time of anything.
I would put my next pay packet on Jez knowing how long he spent chatting to Gerry. Briefly! not 20 mins or 15 mins or 30. Just a passing acknowledgement elongated by the sounds of it.
I spoke to my neighbour for about 5 minutes this moring I spoke to my staff for about 1 hour! yeah I know this is not accurate but I know I didn't speak to my staff for 5 mins and didn't chat to my neighbour for an hour. you see where I am going with this?
-
So why is pathfinder saying Gerry was longer on his check? Pathfinder has never hidden the fact that he/she believes Gerry hid Madeleine's body, I would like to know when he is supposed to have done this. Even if Gerry was a bit longer on his check, he was there chatting to Jes Wilkins, behaving normally and then went to have his dinner and behaved normally. What father would be like that if he had just found his daughter dead and hidden her body?
Hopefully Pathfinder could explain that for you.
-
Exclusive: Chief Inspector Olegário Sousa
IN NEWS · 25-08-2007
Speaking to The Portugal News from his office at the Polícia Judiciária (PJ) head office in the centre of Lisbon, Chief Inspector Olegário Sousa (46), who has been in the service for 20 years revealed great sympathy for Kate and Gerry McCann and lamented the ordeal they have been forced to deal with since the disappearance of their daughter almost four months ago. He also explains that contradictions among witnesses are part and parcel of criminal investigations and that police are confident of solving the mystery surrounding what happened to Madeleine McCann, but admits, “We still have some doubts as to what happened” and “It is possible we will never find Madeleine”.
Brendan de Beer: Have there been any contradictions by witnesses interviewed by police?
Olegário Sousa: “Contradictions in witness reports are normal.
People are on holiday, relaxing and having a meal. The last thing on their minds is that something bad is about to happen.
When confronted with a disappearance, it is normal that different versions are given.
Eye-witnesses vary in their credibility, some people are more observant than others.
In a bank robbery, we could have ten descriptions of the robber.
Eye-witness reports are fallible”.
“It could be that if I was at the table I could have not recalled anyone leaving the table.
Only major discrepancies are questioned, such as when a witness says he never left the table and then says he left every ten minutes”.
http://www.theportugalnews.com/news/exclusive-chief-inspector-olegario-sousa/22774
-
I find it hard to believe him sorry.
"Only major discrepancies are questioned, such as when a witness says he never left the table and then says he left every ten minutes”." Who would alter their statements as severe as this?
-
I find it hard to believe him sorry.
"Only major discrepancies are questioned, such as when a witness says he never left the table and then says he left every ten minutes”." Who would alter their statements as severe as this?
Agreed!
Well, now you mention it...
-
Agreed!
Well, now you mention it...
Entered by the front door or by the back door. I wonder if that was severe enough?
-
Just posting on this old Timeline thread because the issue was raised on the New German Suspect thread. It was claimed there that staff witness statements definitely place Gerry McCann in the Tapas Bar at the time of the Smith family sighting. I don't believe that thedir statements do prove any such thing. Times are not precise and because discrepecies are normal it's virtually impossible to guarantee what time GM was absent from the table and for how long.
For example the waiter, Joaquim Jose Moreira Baptista, is reported by the PJ to have told them: "When asked, he said that during dinner the men from the group would leave the table, returning to the table a few minutes later. The witness says that he does not know where they went. These absences would last for about 15 minutes. He cannot say with what regularity these absences occurred.
The witness remembers these occurrences well as would often have to take a plate of food requested by one of them back, due to the guest's absence, when he would find that the guest was not at the table when he came to serve the food.
When questioned, the witness says that he remembers on Thursday 3rd May, on the day of the disappearance, that the parents went to dine at the restaurant with the usual people. He cannot be precise, but the witness says that the group arrived between 20.00 and 21.00. He remembers there being about 9 people in total. He states that he received the food orders from the group.
Later, between 22.00 and 22.30, when the witness was in the kitchen, he was informed by a colleague that in the meantime a client had entered the restaurant shouting and that afterwards the whole English had left in a panic.
"
The bartender, Jeronimo Tomas Rodigues Salcedo, in an interview with the PJ stated: "I remember that when I took notice of the disappearance, I had been in the restaurant speaking with my two colleagues?Ze and Ricardo who were on break. I returned to the restaurant and noticed that the table of nine was empty with the exception of the older woman. I went over to the table and joked with her: ?They've left you alone?? She responded more of less with these words: ?No, they went to see if the little girl was there.? I responded that I hoped they would find her somewhere in the apartment. At saying this, I saw the man. Who I knew later to be Madeleines father, running to the pool and to the childrens play area in the Tapas zone as if looking for someone. It immediately hit me that after talking to the older woman, that the little girl had not been found. I offered to alert the workers at the Milenium Restaurant and the man agreed. He then left again running to continue searching. I believe that this was between 21H30 and 22H00 but do not remember with certainty."[/b]
And the kitchen assistant, Svetlana Starikova Vitorino, who also worked front of house told the PJ: "one individual, purportedly the father of the missing, left the dinner table where a group of friends (in number 8 or 9), for about 30 minutes. After having returned, a woman whom she believed to be his wife, also left the table, there having passed a few moments, all the guests left the table in question, except one elderly lady, who told her [Svetlana's] colleagues that that child had disappeared."
I don't believe that any of these statements can either confirm or disprove that GM was definitely at the Tapas bar at the time of the Smith sighting. Furthermore how much do we know of GM's movements after the alarm was raised?
-
Talk about flogging a dead horse.
-
Talk about flogging a dead horse.
How so? SY believe Smithman is likely to be a person carrying MM away from 5A. We have a new German suspect. It stands to reason that if the new German suspect is involved then he is likely to be linked to Smithman.
Smithman has never been identified. The closest we got to an ID was "60-80% sure it was GM"... but it's widely supported that this can't have been the case because the timeline puts GM in the Tapas Bar. However does the evidence (such as it is) support this?
-
How so? SY believe Smithman is likely to be a person carrying MM away from 5A. We have a new German suspect. It stands to reason that if the new German suspect is involved then he is likely to be linked to Smithman.
Smithman has never been identified. The closest we got to an ID was "60-80% sure it was GM"... but it's widely supported that this can't have been the case because the timeline puts GM in the Tapas Bar. However does the evidence (such as it is) support this?
Yes the evidence does support this. Next question?
-
Yes the evidence does support this. Next question?
Read the staff witness testimony. None of them with any certainty place GM at the Tapas Bar at exactly the same time as the Smith sighting.
-
Read the staff witness testimony. None of them with any certainty place GM at the Tapas Bar at exactly the same time as the Smith sighting.
Exactly what time was the Smith sighting, to the minute please, with proof, ta.
-
The poster ISpyWithMyBigEye probably, imo, hits the nail on the head yesterday when he stated:
I don’t believe none of them had a phone or watch...that’s complete nonsense made up by conspirators.
We know where that claim first came from. It was imo an attempt by Clarence Mitchell to explain the problems with the T9 timeline. It was reported (before he back tracked a little a month later): "Mitchell said he was not surprised by the inconsistencies in the initial accounts. 'You had nine people in a bar without watches on, without mobile phones, and absolute panic set in when they realised what had happened.'"
I personally tend to agree with ISpy - the official CM endorsed narrative in this case is imo "nonsense made up by conspirators"
-
Read the staff witness testimony. None of them with any certainty place GM at the Tapas Bar at exactly the same time as the Smith sighting.
Read the files again.
You will note not only is there no corroboration of the exact time the Smiths left Kelly's bar nor is there corroboration they were ever there on the night or at the time Aoife specified.
The duty staff did not recall them.
There is no doubt as to the presence of the McCanns and their friends in the tapas restaurant; independent testimony verifies their account of individuals regularly coming and going (to check on their children); Gerry's account of meeting and stopping to have a conversation with Jes Wilkins and the approximate time it took place is verified; and the appx time when Kate raised the alarm that Madeleine had disappeared is independently verified and the fact is that Gerry was in the tapas when Kate ran in.
If he hadn't been ... that absence would have been noted by everyone present.
-
Exactly what time was the Smith sighting, to the minute please, with proof, ta.
Good point... this is why the PJ wanted a real time reconstruction with the Smiths and the T9.
The fact that we can't say precisely what time the sighting was adds weight to the argument that we can't rule out GM because we can't know for sure that he was at the Tapas Bar. We only know this if we can prove or test the timeline(s).
-
Read the files again.
You will note not only is there no corroboration of the exact time the Smiths left Kelly's bar nor is there corroboration they were ever there on the night or at the time Aoife specified.
The duty staff did not recall them.
There is no doubt as to the presence of the McCanns and their friends in the tapas restaurant; independent testimony verifies their account of individuals regularly coming and going (to check on their children); Gerry's account of meeting and stopping to have a conversation with Jes Wilkins and the approximate time it took place is verified; and the appx time when Kate raised the alarm that Madeleine had disappeared is independently verified and the fact is that Gerry was in the tapas when Kate ran in.
If he hadn't been ... that absence would have been noted by everyone present.
I also believe GM was back at the Tapas Bar when KM raised the alarm.
How do you verify an approximation???!!
-
The poster ISpyWithMyBigEye probably, imo, hits the nail on the head yesterday when he stated:
We know where that claim first came from. It was imo an attempt by Clarence Mitchell to explain the problems with the T9 timeline. It was reported (before he back tracked a little a month later): "Mitchell said he was not surprised by the inconsistencies in the initial accounts. 'You had nine people in a bar without watches on, without mobile phones, and absolute panic set in when they realised what had happened.'"
I personally tend to agree with ISpy - the official CM endorsed narrative in this case is imo "nonsense made up by conspirators"
Nobody was sitting there with a stop watch timing every second of the evening. Nobody could foresee what was going to happen, such a possibility was the farthest thing from their minds.
When and after Kate raised the alarm they were running around like headless chickens checking on their own children and searching for Madeleine. Imagine the panic and the chaos there was ... nobody was looking at watches!
-
I still think this post by Heri in 2018, is valid:
‘It is very simply, and I had told this to OG many years ago.
In my opinion, she [Jane] did not leave the table at 21:15. He [ROB] saw their daugthers at 21:05, and then he went at 21:30, discovering that one of them had vomited. She went at 21:45-21:50.
After the abduction, not knowing Portuguese laws, they were worried about that half an hour, with their daughters alone, and one of them vomiting, and the police questioning.
So he decided to make timelines clearly showing he was at 21:00, she was at 21:15, he was at 21:30, she was at 21:45. And show them to the rest of the group, implanting false memories.
She did not see Gerry and Jez at 21:15, she heard Gerry saying "I met Jez".
All in my opinion.‘
-
I still think this post by Heri in 2018, is valid:
‘It is very simply, and I had told this to OG many years ago.
In my opinion, she [Jane] did not leave the table at 21:15. He [ROB] saw their daugthers at 21:05, and then he went at 21:30, discovering that one of them had vomited. She went at 21:45-21:50.
After the abduction, not knowing Portuguese laws, they were worried about that half an hour, with their daughters alone, and one of them vomiting, and the police questioning.
So he decided to make timelines clearly showing he was at 21:00, she was at 21:15, he was at 21:30, she was at 21:45. And show them to the rest of the group, implanting false memories.
She did not see Gerry and Jez at 21:15, she heard Gerry saying "I met Jez".
All in my opinion.‘
I have the greatest respect for Heri and seldom disagree with Him, but on this occasion I do.
-
Nobody was sitting there with a stop watch timing every second of the evening. Nobody could foresee what was going to happen, such a possibility was the farthest thing from their minds.
When and after Kate raised the alarm they were running around like headless chickens checking on their own children and searching for Madeleine. Imagine the panic and the chaos there was ... nobody was looking at watches!
I don't suppose anyone expected the group to check or remember what time things happened. It was their idea to create a timeline which they later refused to recreate.
-
I don't suppose anyone expected the group to check or remember what time things happened. It was their idea to create a timeline which they later refused to recreate.
They were available to physically recreate a timeline of events as were some others ~ the Wilkins ~ the Totmans for example; the person responsible for refusing that opportunity was Goncalo Amaral.
-
Nobody was sitting there with a stop watch timing every second of the evening. Nobody could foresee what was going to happen, such a possibility was the farthest thing from their minds.
When and after Kate raised the alarm they were running around like headless chickens checking on their own children and searching for Madeleine. Imagine the panic and the chaos there was ... nobody was looking at watches!
Exactly my point. No-one yet has ruled out that Smithman was GM, least not by reliance on any of the muddled timelines, imo.
-
I don't suppose anyone expected the group to check or remember what time things happened. It was their idea to create a timeline which they later refused to recreate.
I do agree with Anthro that a likely explanation is indeed worry about neglect accusations rather than involvement in MM's death or abduction. I also believe the evidence points towards her death in the apartment.
-
They were available to physically recreate a timeline of events as were some others ~ the Wilkins ~ the Totmans for example; the person responsible for refusing that opportunity was Goncalo Amaral.
That's wide of the mark imo. How do you reach the conclusion that Amaral refused the opportunity to recreate a timeline?
-
That's wide of the mark imo. How do you reach the conclusion that Amaral refused the opportunity to recreate a timeline?
As I understand a reconstruction was suggested early on...it seems amaral refused. Im sure there are posters who can confirm with a cite
-
As I understand a reconstruction was suggested early on...it seems amaral refused. Im sure there are posters who can confirm with a cite
Who suggested the reconstruction?
-
That's wide of the mark imo. How do you reach the conclusion that Amaral refused the opportunity to recreate a timeline?
Misty posted a link to a translation of his latest interview. I suggest you read it if you haven't already and see his blustering admission and his deflection for yourself.
-
You can roughly trace a timeline by when they ate. The Payne's didn't arrive at the Tapas Bar until 9 - - That night she judges to have arrived at the restaurant close to 21:00, in the company of the PAYNE couple.
They would then have ordered their starters. How long would you think before the waiter had taken everyone's order for starters? Then the wait for the starters to arrive? Gerry went to check on the children after ordering his starter. Then he arrived back ate his starter then they ordered the main course. Again the waiter would have had to take everyone's order and again the wait for it to arrive, I would imagine it would be about 10 by the time Kate went for her check.
-
As I understand a reconstruction was suggested early on...it seems amaral refused. Im sure there are posters who can confirm with a cite
Evidence shows the opposite later on. The PJ wanted to arrange a reconstruction. The parents were reportedly accommodating and suggested suitable dates, but the T7 friends refused.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RE_ENACTMENT.htm
(Edited, with apologies, to remove incorrect accusation against the parents)
-
Evidence shows the opposite later on. The PJ wanted to arrange a reconstruction. The parents and their friends refused.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RE_ENACTMENT.htm
The Parents did not refuse.
-
The Parents did not refuse.
Did they fail to respond or do you believe they were not invited (I'll correct my earlier post).... It's hard to know exactly reading the emails. Such as:
Letter from PJ (Paulo Rebelo) regarding details of proposed reconstruction (English)
Dear Stuart,
As agreed during our visit to Leicester last week, and in order to provide an answer to the questions raised by various witnesses in the investigation into the disappearance of the minor Madeleine McCann, regarding the possibility of carrying out a re-enactment on the site of the events, I shall inform you of the following:
1 - Regarding the arguido or formal suspect status of Gerald McCann and Kate McCann, it is not the PJ's competence to take the decision on the respective clearance. Thus, it is not possible to ensure the arguido status will be changed;
2 - There is no need for the witnesses to be accompanied by their children. For efficiency and celerity purposes, we indeed request that the children don't accompany their parents;
3 - The re-enactment, within the LOR, shall take place probably on May 15, 2008, between 5.30 p.m. and 11 p.m., thus covering the time period before dinner, dinner time and about an hour after having checked that the child had gone missing;
4 - A postponing of the re-enactment will only happen if the weather conditions are extremely bad, once the sites where most part of the events took place weren't exposed to such conditions. We also add the draft agenda to the proceedings, which we plan to be as follows:
- May 15 - In the morning - Arrival to Portugal of the participants in the proceedings;
- In the afternoon - The re-enactment
- May 16 - During the day - Preparation, by the PJ, of the records and documents of the proceedings which will be displayed, reviewed and signed by the participants;
- May 17 - In the morning or in the afternoon - Departure of the participants.
5 - The re-enactment will be carried out with the attendance of the nine holidaying friends, as well as, incidentally, any figurant considered to be necessary for a visualization of the events, i.e. a man carrying a child;
6 - The re-enactment site will be isolated, as much as possible, in order to preserve the security and the integrity of the proceedings. However, we can neither assure the evacuation of the population, nor guarantee the press won't interfere out of the security perimeter which will be established. Thus, we will do our best efforts to try and avoid picture taking by the press. However, we can not completely ensure that won't happen;
7 - The re-enactment will only turn out to be efficient if performed by the participants in the events, once the information provided by the same participants needs to be tested and efficiently compared on-site, and that can only be achieved by means of their own performances. Thus, the possibility of using actors has to be put aside;
8 - The request for the presence of witnesses was submitted through the LOR; the notification for the attendance of the arguidos falls under the competence of the Public Prosecutor's Office;
9 - If it is their wish, the witnesses can be assisted by the Foreign Office and, in the proceedings, also by a legal representative, subject to the consent of the Public Prosecutor's Office. Within the scope of the cooperation that has been taking place, the Leicestershire Police has already been invited to be present in the proceedings;
10 - If the conditions to make the re-enactments are achieved, the payments of participants' airfares and the stay costs will be subject of later evaluation;
11 - The PJ will be responsible for ensuring personal security for all the participants in the proceedings and will facilitate transfers from and to the airport, and from and to the proceedings. The PJ does not foresee any hostile environment or the occurrence of events able to put the participants' physical and psychological integrity at risk;
12 - The witnesses will be invited to participate in the re-enactment, but there are no suspicions over them regarding the commission of any criminal acts;
13 - The translation services of these inquiry proceedings will be provided by private officers of the PJ;
14 - The PJ considers this re-enactment to be highly important, and hopes the witnesses show their total cooperation, as they have been doing so far, towards finding out the truth.
We hope we have provided the answers to all the questions raised by the participants and, for logistics and case preparation purposes, we kindly request to be informed about the participants' respective answers until April 25, 2008.
Best regards,
Paulo Rebelo
-
The McCanns offered two dates when they would be available.
-
The McCanns offered two dates when they would be available.
Thanks. Shame the T7 were less accommodating then!
-
Thanks. Shame the T7 were less accommodating then!
Who can blame them ...they may well have seen the PJ as a bunch of corrupt incompetence who had no desire to look for the truth...just to try and pin the blame on the poarents and arrest them as accomplices
-
Evidence shows the opposite later on. The PJ wanted to arrange a reconstruction. I'm unsure of the parents response and their friends refused.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RE_ENACTMENT.htm
Be in no doubt that Kate and Gerry McCann had made arrangements to return.
Jes Wilkins was the first witness to be unhappy with the arrangement to return and refused to do so.
Legal advice to the others also advised against.
-
Be in no doubt that Kate and Gerry McCann had made arrangements to return.
Jes Wilkins was the first witness to be unhappy with the arrangement to return and refused to do so.
Legal advice to the others also advised against.
Why do you think the parents accepted an invitation and suggested two dates and the T7 were advised not to attend? Seems odd they were given conflicting advice or followed advice differently?
-
Who can blame them ...they may well have seen the PJ as a bunch of corrupt incompetence who had no desire to look for the truth...just to try and pin the blame on the poarents and arrest them as accomplices
In the prevailing circumstances I think the witnesses made the right decision.
-
Thanks. Shame the T7 were less accommodating then!
Jez Wilkins was not keen either as I recall. I wonder why not? What do you think we can possibly infer from this?
-
Why do you think the parents accepted an invitation and suggested two dates and the T7 were advised not to attend? Seems odd they were given conflicting advice or followed advice differently?
Part of the correspondence is recorded in the files where you can read it. The rest involves working it out using common sense. If there isn't already exhaustive discussion on the forum I will be amazed so a little research from you might fill in the gaps.
-
Exactly what time was the Smith sighting, to the minute please, with proof, ta.
The smiths provided a receipt from the bar they were in, and just left...
-
Nobody was sitting there with a stop watch timing every second of the evening. Nobody could foresee what was going to happen, such a possibility was the farthest thing from their minds.
When and after Kate raised the alarm they were running around like headless chickens checking on their own children and searching for Madeleine. Imagine the panic and the chaos there was ... nobody was looking at watches!
If they were not clock watching how did they get their 'time line'?
-
Why do you think the parents accepted an invitation and suggested two dates and the T7 were advised not to attend? Seems odd they were given conflicting advice or followed advice differently?
Oh the parents of an 'abducted' child by paedophiles had to check their diaries- Love it -too right, they were busy doncha know!
I mean, if their daughter was abducted by the German suspect, tortured and slaughtered, pity they couldn't have found time in there busy schedules to go and assist the police- who would try and find out what time this could have taken place...
-
The Parents did not refuse.
As I understood it the parents, as arguidos, couldn't refuse. Luckily the other witnesses did so they didn't have to go.
-
The smiths provided a receipt from the bar they were in, and just left...
Paiva went out to look for confirmation and found none. The receipts from Kelly's bar are in the files I suggest you read them. Nor did the staff on duty on the 3rd remember the large party with children. That is in the files too.
-
If they were not clock watching how did they get their 'time line'?
I think you will remember all about it when you refresh your memory by reading the files.
-
Witness Statement
Ricardo Alexandre da Luz Oliveira
Date/Time: 2007/01/30 21H00
Occupation: Waiter
When asked, he says that on 3rd May he only remembers that one guest from the table left for about 10 minutes, given that when he was about to serve the respective plate he was told to hold the food back for a few minutes, and that it was about 15 minutes before the guest returned, at about 21.45.
Dinner would end at about 21.45, a few minutes later the witness looked at the table and saw that there was nobody there and one of his colleagues told them that all the guests had left the table in a hurry. In any case, he remembers having heard shouts from the direction of Madeleine's parents' apartment.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RICARDO-A-D-L-OLIVEIRA.htm
Jane came back and then I returned to the table about quarter to ten.
https://mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RUSSELL-OBRIEN_ROGATORY.htm
2 statements from both witnesses - the waiter that served Russell and both corroborate the time - 9:45pm when Russell returned to the table!
That is corroborated evidence!
-
I think you will remember all about it when you refresh your memory by reading the files.
The files based on what the tapas group told the police? Hmm
-
As I understood it the parents, as arguidos, couldn't refuse. Luckily the other witnesses did so they didn't have to go.
This is true. And the others didn't have to go. Nothing Lucky about it. The PJ refused to give them an undertaking that they wouldn't be made Arguidos.
Now tell me that you would have gone under those circumstances.
-
Witness Statement
Ricardo Alexandre da Luz Oliveira
Date/Time: 2007/01/30 21H00
Occupation: Waiter
When asked, he says that on 3rd May he only remembers that one guest from the table left for about 10 minutes, given that when he was about to serve the respective plate he was told to hold the food back for a few minutes, and that it was about 15 minutes before the guest returned, at about 21.45.
Dinner would end at about 21.45, a few minutes later the witness looked at the table and saw that there was nobody there and one of his colleagues told them that all the guests had left the table in a hurry. In any case, he remembers having heard shouts from the direction of Madeleine's parents' apartment.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RICARDO-A-D-L-OLIVEIRA.htm
Jane came back and then I returned to the table about quarter to ten.
https://mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RUSSELL-OBRIEN_ROGATORY.htm
2 statements from both witnesses - the waiter that served Russell and both corroborate the time - 9:45pm when Russell returned to the table!
That is corroborated evidence!
Can you explain the significance in relation to the Smith sighting please?
-
Can you explain the significance in relation to the Smith sighting please?
They had left the table before 10pm, therefore, any of the men could be Smithman. Keeping to a 10pm timeline and being at the tapas rules them all out of that sighting!
Around 22H00, they left Kelly's Bar. The group headed, on foot, for their apartment.
— Questioned, she responds that she knows the time that they left because her father and her brother decided to leave early that night
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_SMITH.htm
-
Good point... this is why the PJ wanted a real time reconstruction with the Smiths and the T9.
The fact that we can't say precisely what time the sighting was adds weight to the argument that we can't rule out GM because we can't know for sure that he was at the Tapas Bar. We only know this if we can prove or test the timeline(s).
Perhaps then you could explain exactly how a real time reconstruction would have proven that Gerry was Smithman?
-
Perhaps then you could explain exactly how a real time reconstruction would have proven that Gerry was Smithman?
Smithman could be anyone.
Surely the point would be to demonstrate that it Gerry couldn't be Smithman.
-
Witness Statement
Ricardo Alexandre da Luz Oliveira
Date/Time: 2007/01/30 21H00
Occupation: Waiter
When asked, he says that on 3rd May he only remembers that one guest from the table left for about 10 minutes, given that when he was about to serve the respective plate he was told to hold the food back for a few minutes, and that it was about 15 minutes before the guest returned, at about 21.45.
Dinner would end at about 21.45, a few minutes later the witness looked at the table and saw that there was nobody there and one of his colleagues told them that all the guests had left the table in a hurry. In any case, he remembers having heard shouts from the direction of Madeleine's parents' apartment.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RICARDO-A-D-L-OLIVEIRA.htm
Jane came back and then I returned to the table about quarter to ten.
https://mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RUSSELL-OBRIEN_ROGATORY.htm
2 statements from both witnesses - the waiter that served Russell and both corroborate the time - 9:45pm when Russell returned to the table!
That is corroborated evidence!
Interesting! If the main meal was served 15 minutes before Russell returned then it was served at 9:30pm. At that time two people were absent from the table, so why was only one of their meals put on hold?
-
Matt and Russell said they left to check at 9:25. I think Matt was only away for about 5 minutes so he was back in time for his main course.
Jane said she wolfed her meal down at 9:30 and returned to the apartment to help Russell.
-
Smithman could be anyone.
Surely the point would be to demonstrate that it Gerry couldn't be Smithman.
Same question: how would a reconstruction involving 9 Tapas members, Jes Wilkins and the Smiths prove Gerry couldn't be Smithman? I look forward to your answer.
-
Same question: how would a reconstruction involving 9 Tapas members, Jes Wilkins and the Smiths prove Gerry couldn't be Smithman? I look forward to your answer.
If the reconstruction demonstrated Gerry to be elsewhere at the correct time, then he could not be Smithman.
If on the other hand, the time line as constructed by Tapas9 fell to pieces, then further questions would need to be asked
I don't see how Jez could contribute to the Smithman part of the evening.
-
Same question: how would a reconstruction involving 9 Tapas members, Jes Wilkins and the Smiths prove Gerry couldn't be Smithman? I look forward to your answer.
If it was unable to prove that Smithman couldn't be GM then it stands to reason that it could have been, imo.
-
If the reconstruction demonstrated Gerry to be elsewhere at the correct time, then he could not be Smithman.
If on the other hand, the time line as constructed by Tapas9 fell to pieces, then further questions would need to be asked
I don't see how Jez could contribute to the Smithman part of the evening.
Agreed you reconstruct from 9:45 to the Smith sighting. From the time Russell returned to the table. If they left before 10pm as their waiter said any could be Smithman.
-
If the reconstruction demonstrated Gerry to be elsewhere at the correct time, then he could not be Smithman.
If on the other hand, the time line as constructed by Tapas9 fell to pieces, then further questions would need to be asked
I don't see how Jez could contribute to the Smithman part of the evening.
Since all witness statements appear to be suspect how do you know there was a "Smithman part of the evening".
-
Don't worry when Smithman is named you will know this case is over!
-
If the reconstruction demonstrated Gerry to be elsewhere at the correct time, then he could not be Smithman.
If on the other hand, the time line as constructed by Tapas9 fell to pieces, then further questions would need to be asked
I don't see how Jez could contribute to the Smithman part of the evening.
You’re avoiding the question. How could a reconstruction of the 9 tapas group possiblydemonstrate that Gerry was elsewhere at the time of the Smithman sighting, as none of the group suggested in their statements that he was absent from the table at that time?
-
Don't worry when Smithman is named you will know this case is over!
Do you think that’s likely any time soon? And do you think Martin Smith was mistaken with his 60 - 80% certainty?
-
Do you think that’s likely any time soon? And do you think Martin Smith was mistaken with his 60 - 80% certainty?
He had absolutely nothing to gain and a lot to lose, as it turned out.
-
Do you think that’s likely any time soon? And do you think Martin Smith was mistaken with his 60 - 80% certainty?
I don't know what OG are up to so who knows. What is certain is that Smithman doesn't want to reveal himself!
-
Since all witness statements appear to be suspect how do you know there was a "Smithman part of the evening".
Funny isn't it. One thing supporters & sceptics always agree upon is that the Smith family never saw any abductor.
-
You’re avoiding the question. How could a reconstruction of the 9 tapas group possiblydemonstrate that Gerry was elsewhere at the time of the Smithman sighting, as none of the group suggested in their statements that he was absent from the table at that time?
Perhaps you could factor in the staff witness statement that states they left earlier.
-
Funny isn't it. One thing supporters & sceptics always agree upon is that the Smith family never saw any abductor.
I suspect they may have seen someone carrying MM away from the apartment. In fact it's the only credible sighting of such a thing...... given that Tanner is totally unreliable imo and has reportedly been certain at different times who the man she saw was.
-
Perhaps you could factor in the staff witness statement that states they left earlier.
If Amaral hadn't vetoed a reconstitution at the time all those guys would have been available to demonstrate exactly where they were and what they were doing when Madeleine disappeared.
I think that could have provided a meaningful demonstration.
-
I suspect they may have seen someone carrying MM away from the apartment. In fact it's the only credible sighting of such a thing...... given that Tanner is totally unreliable and has reportedly been certain at different times that the man she saw was Robert Murat and George the Roma traveller.
These statements are untrue. Unless you can provide Cites. If not, I shall be deleting this comment.
-
I suspect they may have seen someone carrying MM away from the apartment. In fact it's the only credible sighting of such a thing...... given that Tanner is totally unreliable and has reportedly been certain at different times that the man she saw was Robert Murat and George the Roma traveller.
Proof please for your accusation ... or amend your post. Thank you
-
If Amaral hadn't vetoed a reconstitution at the time all those guys would have been available to demonstrate exactly where they were and what they were doing when Madeleine disappeared.
I think that could have provided a meaningful demonstration.
Have you got a cite please?
-
These statements are untrue. Unless you can provide Cites. If not, I shall be deleting this comment.
Give me 10 minutes 8(0(*
-
These statements are untrue. Unless you can provide Cites. If not, I shall be deleting this comment.
Note the word "reportedly" in my post...
Here's how Amaral reports it in his book:
JANE TANNER FORMALLY RECOGNISES ROBERT MURAT
Before the search, we want to assure ourselves that Jane Tanner recognises him as the individual she saw on the night of the disappearance. She is sitting inside an unmarked car, whose tinted windows allow her to see out without being spotted. The vehicle is parked at the exact spot where she was on the night of May 3rd. Robert Murat, anonymous amongst plain clothes police officers, goes up the road in the same way as the alleged abductor. Jane Tanner is adamant: it certainly is Robert Murat that she saw that night.
And here is where it is reported that it was definitely "George" she saw.....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wYXkK9R0iq0
9:46 When Tanner sees the man she bursts into tears and says that is definitely who she saw.
-
Perhaps you could factor in the staff witness statement that states they left earlier.
You’d then have to factor in the nanny’s statements afterwards that then throw the timings out again. Who are you going to base the timeline on?
-
Note the word "reportedly" in my post...
Here's how Amaral reports it in his book:
JANE TANNER FORMALLY RECOGNISES ROBERT MURAT
Before the search, we want to assure ourselves that Jane Tanner recognises him as the individual she saw on the night of the disappearance. She is sitting inside an unmarked car, whose tinted windows allow her to see out without being spotted. The vehicle is parked at the exact spot where she was on the night of May 3rd. Robert Murat, anonymous amongst plain clothes police officers, goes up the road in the same way as the alleged abductor. Jane Tanner is adamant: it certainly is Robert Murat that she saw that night.
And here is where it is reported that it was definitely "George" she saw.....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wYXkK9R0iq0
9:46 When Tanner sees the man she bursts into tears and says that is definitely who she saw.
you do know the man is an inveterate liar don’t you?
-
you do know the man is an inveterate liar don’t you?
Apart from Kate's book (which I personally don't find convincing) I've not seen any evidence he is making it up that Tanner initially IDs Robert Murat. What would he have to gain from making this up?
-
You’d then have to factor in the nanny’s statements afterwards that then throw the timings out again. Who are you going to base the timeline on?
I think you have to conclude that the T7/T9 timeline is inconsistent (as you would expect from nine friends on holiday) and look instead for concrete evidence.
-
Note the word "reportedly" in my post...
Here's how Amaral reports it in his book:
JANE TANNER FORMALLY RECOGNISES ROBERT MURAT
Before the search, we want to assure ourselves that Jane Tanner recognises him as the individual she saw on the night of the disappearance. She is sitting inside an unmarked car, whose tinted windows allow her to see out without being spotted. The vehicle is parked at the exact spot where she was on the night of May 3rd. Robert Murat, anonymous amongst plain clothes police officers, goes up the road in the same way as the alleged abductor. Jane Tanner is adamant: it certainly is Robert Murat that she saw that night.
And here is where it is reported that it was definitely "George" she saw.....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wYXkK9R0iq0
9:46 When Tanner sees the man she bursts into tears and says that is definitely who she saw.
Sorry, these won't do as reliable Cites.
-
Sorry, these won't do as reliable Cites.
You asked for cites.
He gave you two.
You never said they had to be reliable.
-
Sorry, these won't do as reliable Cites.
I said "reportedly" and showed you exactly where it was REPORTED!! What more would you like?
-
I think you have to conclude that the T7/T9 timeline is inconsistent (as you would expect from nine friends on holiday) and look instead for concrete evidence.
Go on then. What’s the concrete evidence that means Gerry was not at the table at the time of the Smithman sighting?
-
Go on then. What’s the concrete evidence that means Gerry was not at the table at the time of the Smithman sighting?
It's not a smoking gun but one independent witness believes that Smithman was GM. The standard defence to this is "no he was at the Tapas Bar"... but we seem to all agree that the timeline is unreliable i.e we can't say with certainty that he was at the Tapas Bar since he left the table at a time we're not sure of and for a length of time that no-one has yet proven.
-
It's not a smoking gun but one independent witness believes that Smithman was GM. The standard defence to this is "no he was at the Tapas Bar"... but we seem to all agree that the timeline is unreliable i.e we can't say with certainty that he was at the Tapas Bar since he left the table at a time we're not sure of and for a length of time that no-one has yet proven.
So you think a 60% to 80% belief is concrete evidence now do you? Why did the PJ report conclude Gerry was at the Tapas restaurant when the Smithman sighting occurred?
-
So you think a 60% to 80% belief is concrete evidence now do you? Why did the PJ report conclude Gerry was at the Tapas restaurant when the Smithman sighting occurred?
No I said it's NOT a smoking gun.
Well you've told me how inept the PJ are so that could answer your second question, perhaps.
-
No I said it's NOT a smoking gun.
Well you've told me how inept the PJ are so that could answer your second question, perhaps.
OK the PJ were inept, on that we can both agree it seems. You said we had to look for concrete evidence and then when I asked you for some you sighted Smith’s 60-80% sighting then agreed it was not concrete evidence. Come back to me when you have some concrete evidence, ttfn.
-
I don't know what OG are up to so who knows. What is certain is that Smithman doesn't want to reveal himself!
Did he even exist?
-
Did he even exist?
Redwood thought so,that'll do.
-
Redwood thought so, that'll do.
That is a still a mistake. I think we still need to ask did Smithman really exist?
-
That is a still a mistake. I think we still need to ask did Smithman really exist?
Who you gonna call, Ghostbusters?
-
Who you gonna call, Ghostbusters?
We could start there. Then onto a polygraph.
-
That is a still a mistake. I think we still need to ask did Smithman really exist?
I think that is an interesting thought. Why diss Tannerman who at least had the advantage of being reported at the time ... and accept without question a sighting which had been forgotten for a fortnight?
If the CCTV at the Smith hotel had not been scrubbed we would have known the exact time of their return.
-
That is a still a mistake. I think we still need to ask did Smithman really exist?
To believe 9 eye witnesses all told lies to the police including 5 children is fantasy land! Along with other evidence it will be proved that he did exist!
-
To believe 9 eye witnesses all told lies to the police including 5 children is fantasy land! Along with other evidence it will be proved that he did exist!
The book is being re written on this forum. The police had apparently selective language issues. The bit where they are not flattering the McCanns that is an interpretation issue. when it supports the McCanns naritive for supporters its is genuine. Its all good!
-
OK the PJ were inept, on that we can both agree it seems. You said we had to look for concrete evidence and then when I asked you for some you sighted Smith’s 60-80% sighting then agreed it was not concrete evidence. Come back to me when you have some concrete evidence, ttfn.
Likewise with your abduction theory &^&*%
-
It's not a smoking gun but one independent witness believes that Smithman was GM. The standard defence to this is "no he was at the Tapas Bar"... but we seem to all agree that the timeline is unreliable i.e we can't say with certainty that he was at the Tapas Bar since he left the table at a time we're not sure of and for a length of time that no-one has yet proven.
Mr Smith said that Gerry reminded him of the abductor by the way he carried his son down the steps of the aeroplane. Now excuse me for being a bit picky, how the hell else would he carry him?
-
Mr Smith said that Gerry reminded him of the abductor by the way he carried his son down the steps of the aeroplane. Now excuse me for being a bit picky, how the hell else would he carry him?
What position do you think he was carrying him.
-
What position do you think he was carrying him.
Holding him against his body with his head on his shoulder. How else would you carry a sleeping child off a plane?
-
Holding him against his body with his head on his shoulder. How else would you carry a sleeping child off a plane?
Well, I would hold the handrail for a start.
-
Well, I would hold the handrail for a start.
Sean was asleep Gerry used both hands to hold him. Doesn't make him Smithman IMO
-
Sean was asleep Gerry used both hands to hold him. Doesn't make him Smithman IMO
Oh right - good job he didn't fall then isn't it - it is the wrong way to take a child down steep stairs.
Whether it does or it doesn't - its the little things that can jog memories I suppose IMO
-
Oh right - good job he didn't fall then isn't it - it is the wrong way to take a child down steep stairs.
Whether it does or it doesn't - its the little things that can jog memories I suppose IMO
I've done this before, but I've carried my kids down plane steps just like Gerry did; it's the safest way, as you can have a hand free to hold the handrail.
I've never carried my kids in both arms like a bundle of firewood, like Tannerman and I doubt any father would, unless you have arms like Garth - the lactic acid build up would start about 30 seconds in to the journey.
-
Oh right - good job he didn't fall then isn't it - it is the wrong way to take a child down steep stairs.
Whether it does or it doesn't - its the little things that can jog memories I suppose IMO
It certainly jogged Mr McCluskey's memory ... to the extent he reported it to the police.
-
Mr Smith said that Gerry reminded him of the abductor by the way he carried his son down the steps of the aeroplane. Now excuse me for being a bit picky, how the hell else would he carry him?
Smith describes the way he tilted his head as he carried the child as a particular trigger.
-
Smith describes the way he tilted his head as he carried the child as a particular trigger.
Are you going to convict someone on such undefined evidence?
-
Smith describes the way he tilted his head as he carried the child as a particular trigger.
Think about it. Smith was in PdL the night Madeleine went missing. He and his family would surely have taken an interest in the case and seen some news coverage and photos of Gerry McCann during the many months prior to seeing him come down the steps of the plane, but he never once linked the man he saw that night with the man plastered all over the media for months until he saw him tilt his head in a particular way and the. suddenly he’s 60-80% certain it’s the same man. And you consider this to be a reliable witness? REALLY?
-
Are you going to convict someone on such undefined evidence?
No chance.
Same goes for the circumstantial evidence against the new prime suspect. Any charge (never mind a conviction) will require some further forensic evidence (such as DNA etc).
-
Think about it. Smith was in PdL the night Madeleine went missing. He and his family would surely have taken an interest in the case and seen some news coverage and photos of Gerry McCann during the many months prior to seeing him come down the steps of the plane, but he never once linked the man he saw that night with the man plastered all over the media for months until he saw him tilt his head in a particular way and the. suddenly he’s 60-80% certain it’s the same man. And you consider this to be a reliable witness? REALLY?
I recognise in his statement the way the human brain works in terms of facial recognition and triggers. His testimony is very truthful imo, but I think any human ID is questionable (to say the least). It requires further evidence to back it up. As I said it's not enough, on its own, to bring charges never mind a conviction.
-
I'm also highly suspicious of the way it was ignored by sources close to the family. John of this forum fame has explained this perfectly. But if they totally believe it was not GM then you'd expect it to be publicised as a possible abductor. What's more important finding MM or protecting an innocent GM from a false ID?
-
I'm also highly suspicious of the way it was ignored by sources close to the family. John of this forum fame has explained this perfectly. But if they totally believe it was not GM then you'd expect it to be publicised as a possible abductor. What's more important finding MM or protecting an innocent GM from a false ID?
You think the McCanns should have publicised a photofit describing Gerry McCann as the abductor? Novel approach to finding the real abductor for sure!
-
I'm also highly suspicious of the way it was ignored by sources close to the family. John of this forum fame has explained this perfectly. But if they totally believe it was not GM then you'd expect it to be publicised as a possible abductor. What's more important finding MM or protecting an innocent GM from a false ID?
There was no live police investigation at the time the 2 Smith family members helped construct the efits. Who would have handled the information received following any public appeal? Furthermore, in helping with the efits, the Smith family showed themselves to be unreliable witnesses for the PJ in any future prosecution.
-
Smith describes the way he tilted his head as he carried the child as a particular trigger.
Oh well if he tilted his head he must be guilty!! Gerry McCann was at the Tapas Bar when Mr Smith saw the man carrying a child.
-
Witness Statement
Ricardo Alexandre da Luz Oliveira
Date/Time: 2007/01/30 21H00
Occupation: Waiter
When asked, he says that on 3rd May he only remembers that one guest from the table left for about 10 minutes, given that when he was about to serve the respective plate he was told to hold the food back for a few minutes, and that it was about 15 minutes before the guest returned, at about 21.45.
Dinner would end at about 21.45, a few minutes later the witness looked at the table and saw that there was nobody there and one of his colleagues told them that all the guests had left the table in a hurry. In any case, he remembers having heard shouts from the direction of Madeleine's parents' apartment.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RICARDO-A-D-L-OLIVEIRA.htm
Jane came back and then I returned to the table about quarter to ten.
https://mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RUSSELL-OBRIEN_ROGATORY.htm
2 statements from both witnesses - the waiter that served Russell and both corroborate the time - 9:45pm when Russell returned to the table!
That is corroborated evidence!
[/quote
He says 'about' quarter to ten. Russell would have eaten almost all his dinner by the time Kate give her alert. Anyway whether or not Kate left the table at ten to ten, five to ten or 10o'clock. Gerry was sitting at the table in the Tapas Bar when Mr Smith saw a man carrying a child.
-
Gerry McCann may have been at the Tapas table when the alarm was raised, but where's the evidence which confirms that it was raised at 10pm? There's evidence suggesting the alarm was raised earlier.
-
Gerry McCann may have been at the Tapas table when the alarm was raised, but where's the evidence which confirms that it was raised at 10pm? There's evidence suggesting the alarm was raised earlier.
we may get evidence soon taht maddie is dead and how she died. All this debate about something that to all intents and purposes is a complete waste of time seems pointless
-
we may get evidence soon taht maddie is dead and how she died. All this debate about something that to all intents and purposes is a complete waste of time seems pointless
Correcting misunderstandings of the evidence is never pointless.
-
Correcting misunderstandings of the evidence is never pointless.
as gerry is no longer as suspect and its patently clear hes not involved...as you can never be certain of any timings...I would say it is pointless
-
as gerry is no longer as suspect and its patently clear hes not involved...as you can never be certain of any timings...I would say it is pointless
The fact that OG have accepted the group's timeline makes it of interest. Their 'clearing of the ground' seems to rely on accepting the uncorroberated timeline offered by those who were suspected.
-
The fact that OG have accepted the group's timeline makes it of interest. Their 'clearing of the ground' seems to rely on accepting the uncorroberated timeline offered by those who were suspected.
its not unusual for victims of crimes uncorroberated statements to be believed. We may soon get absolute proof tyhe McCanns were not involved and SY will be vindicated.
-
There was no live police investigation at the time the 2 Smith family members helped construct the efits. Who would have handled the information received following any public appeal? Furthermore, in helping with the efits, the Smith family showed themselves to be unreliable witnesses for the PJ in any future prosecution.
Why have the efits commissioned then ?
-
Why have the efits commissioned then ?
That's rather like asking why the Smiths waited 16 months to not help PJ find Madeleine or a potential abductor.
-
The fact that OG have accepted the group's timeline makes it of interest. Their 'clearing of the ground' seems to rely on accepting the uncorroberated timeline offered by those who were suspected.
Don’t forget that OG still have the DNA digital data from the FSS. Surely the pressure to use modern testing methods would be impossible to resist if there are any charges or a court case.
-
Gerry McCann may have been at the Tapas table when the alarm was raised, but where's the evidence which confirms that it was raised at 10pm? There's evidence suggesting the alarm was raised earlier.
How much earlier? Gerry was there to eat his dinner and there when Kate give the alarm.
-
Don’t forget that OG still have the DNA digital data from the FSS. Surely the pressure to use modern testing methods would be impossible to resist if there are any charges or a court case.
The existing digital date is only going to be as good as it was in 2007.
To benefit from newer DNA technology, the samples would need to be re-analysed - with the exception perhaps of Perlin's computerised analysis.
-
How much earlier? Gerry was there to eat his dinner and there when Kate give the alarm.
But gone for half an hour according to an independent witness and who was with him AFTER the alarm was raised??
-
The existing digital date is only going to be as good as it was in 2007.
To benefit from newer DNA technology, the samples would need to be re-analysed - with the exception perhaps of Perlin's computerised analysis.
Dr Perlin’s method has already been tested in court cases. If there is a court case the demands for either the prosecution or defence will, imo, be too great to ignore.
-
There was no live police investigation at the time the 2 Smith family members helped construct the efits. Who would have handled the information received following any public appeal? Furthermore, in helping with the efits, the Smith family showed themselves to be unreliable witnesses for the PJ in any future prosecution.
Who handled the information received following other appeals when there was no live police investigation?
(https://2img.net/h/i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2009/08/15/article-0-05F9243F000005DC-237_468x286.jpg)
-
How much earlier? Gerry was there to eat his dinner and there when Kate give the alarm.
It could quite easily have been earlier its easy done to not have exact times.
Ten minutes here ten minutes there how many times is around tenish used but not meaning dead on ten.
-
Who handled the information received following other appeals when there was no live police investigation?
(https://2img.net/h/i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2009/08/15/article-0-05F9243F000005DC-237_468x286.jpg)
I don’t know why you’re even discussing the Smith family: Martin Smith said YEARS ago that he must have been mistaken.
Interestingly, when he said he watched the news and saw Gerry McCann walking down the steps of the aircraft & had a sudden “flashback”, his wife blatantly refused to agree with him and told the police so, too. So she didn’t “see” what MS thought he saw.
Furthermore, he and his family had arrived in Portugal from Ireland that day and had spent a good few hours in a bar drinking. How much he’d drunk isn’t known, but he must have downed quite a few in those good few hours. But given his door-to-door journey time, and how tired he probably was on top of all his booze, it’s surprising he took in so much detail — and in the dark too...
The two photo-fits he and his family gave are quite different, too...which begs the question: either he or his family were wrong, or couldn’t see properly...
That flashback he had was probably “false memory syndrome” and whatever man had walked down those aircraft steps would have triggered a wrong impression in his head.
In the event, none of it matters as it’s been irrevocably proved that Gerry was inside the Tapas Bar at the time he claimed he saw this man and child.
But looking again at the photo-fits, and studying them with allowances for error, I can actually see a resemblance to to CB. Same hairline. Same long upper lip. Chiselled jaw (in one of the two pics), and going by his description of age, build (slim) it resembles CB in some ways.
Having said that, I doubt CB had his car/van parked that far away...so it’s probably a totally innocent man who never even knew he’d been put in the frame
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
more of a resemblance to gmcc IMO
-
I don’t know why you’re even discussing the Smith family: Martin Smith said YEARS ago that he must have been mistaken.
Interestingly, when he said he watched the news and saw Gerry McCann walking down the steps of the aircraft & had a sudden “flashback”, his wife refused blatantly refused to agree with him and told the police so, too. So she didn’t “see” what MS thought he saw.
Furthermore, he and his family had arrived in Portugal from Ireland that day and had spent a good few hours in a bar drinking. How much he’d drunk isn’t known, but he must have downed quite a few in those good few hours. But given his door-to-door journey time, and how tired he probably was on top of all his booze, it’s surprising he took in so much detail — and in the dark too...
The two photo-fits he and his family gave are quite different, too...which begs the question: either he or his family were wrong, or couldn’t see properly...
That flashback he had was probably “false memory syndrome” and whatever man had walked down those aircraft steps would have triggered a wrong impression in his head.
In the event, none of it matters as it’s been irrevocably proved that Gerry was inside the Tapas Bar at the time he claimed he saw this man and child.
But looking again at the photo-fits, and studying them with allowances for error, I can actually see a resemblance to to CB. Same hairline. Same long upper lip. Chiselled jaw (in one of the two pics), and going by his description of age, build (slim) it resembles CB in some ways.
Having said that, I doubt CB had his car/van parked that far away...so it’s probably a totally innocent man who never even knew he’d been put in the frame
After seeing the BBC news at 10 PM, footage on the 9th September 2007 I contacted Leicestershire police with this information. During that time I spoke to all my family members who were with me on the night of 3rd May 2007 about this and the only one who felt the same way as me was my wife.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_SMITH.htm
-
Who handled the information received following other appeals when there was no live police investigation?
(https://2img.net/h/i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2009/08/15/article-0-05F9243F000005DC-237_468x286.jpg)
Exactly what I was thinking!!
-
Who handled the information received following other appeals when there was no live police investigation?
(https://2img.net/h/i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2009/08/15/article-0-05F9243F000005DC-237_468x286.jpg)
Well don't ask the chap on the right - he obviously hasn't a clue.
-
Gerry McCann may have been at the Tapas table when the alarm was raised, but where's the evidence which confirms that it was raised at 10pm? There's evidence suggesting the alarm was raised earlier.
“There’s evidence SUGGESTING...”
Haha! Funniest thing I’ve read all week @)(++(*
-
No chance.
Same goes for the circumstantial evidence against the new prime suspect. Any charge (never mind a conviction) will require some further forensic evidence (such as DNA etc).
Circumstantial evidence?
The German police have concrete evidence — they just don’t know where the evil creature put her
Incidentally, not all evidence requires forensics or DNA.
Just so you know...as you clearly don’t
-
Gerry McCann may have been at the Tapas table when the alarm was raised, but where's the evidence which confirms that it was raised at 10pm? There's evidence suggesting the alarm was raised earlier.
Give us a minute by minute breakdown of events as you see them unfolding between 9pm and 10pm then, I look forward to reading it.
-
Who handled the information received following other appeals when there was no live police investigation?
(https://2img.net/h/i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2009/08/15/article-0-05F9243F000005DC-237_468x286.jpg)
The information about the woman in Barcelona was not acquired by the PJ & the witnesses were not bound by judicial secrecy - unlike the Smith family.
-
I recognise in his statement the way the human brain works in terms of facial recognition and triggers. His testimony is very truthful imo, but I think any human ID is questionable (to say the least). It requires further evidence to back it up. As I said it's not enough, on its own, to bring charges never mind a conviction.
What’s your profession?
You frequently suggest you’re qualified in medicine...😌
-
Don’t forget that OG still have the DNA digital data from the FSS. Surely the pressure to use modern testing methods would be impossible to resist if there are any charges or a court case.
Digital DNA data isn’t organic
What’s your profession, again?
-
The existing digital date is only going to be as good as it was in 2007.
To benefit from newer DNA technology, the samples would need to be re-analysed - with the exception perhaps of Perlin's computerised analysis.
Ahh, I missed your post before I replied to the OP
And he claims he works in medicine!
-
Dr Perlin’s method has already been tested in court cases. If there is a court case the demands for either the prosecution or defence will, imo, be too great to ignore.
You haven’t answered the question...😌
-
Who handled the information received following other appeals when there was no live police investigation?
(https://2img.net/h/i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2009/08/15/article-0-05F9243F000005DC-237_468x286.jpg)
Give that one a rest, Gunit....you’ve regurgitated it constantly and it was resolved 12 years ago....
-
After seeing the BBC news at 10 PM, footage on the 9th September 2007 I contacted Leicestershire police with this information. During that time I spoke to all my family members who were with me on the night of 3rd May 2007 about this and the only one who felt the same way as me was my wife.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_SMITH.htm
And his wife REFUSED to make a statement to the police
Why do you think that was, eh?
-
And his wife REFUSED to make a statement to the police
Why do you think that was, eh?
Where do you get that from?
-
Where do you get that from?
Tis true.
-
Tis true.
Well, if it's true then it shouldn't be too difficult to prove.
I just did a google search...
"Martin Smith's wife refused to make a statement"
Nothing came up.
-
Well, if it's true then it shouldn't be too difficult to prove.
I just did a google search...
"Martin Smith's wife refused to make a statement"
Nothing came up.
Oh My. Nothing came up on Google.
Didn't Mr. Smith threaten to sue every newspaper in sight if they mentioned one more word about it?
-
Oh My. Nothing came up on Google.
Didn't Mr. Smith threaten to sue every newspaper in sight if they mentioned one more word about it?
I don't know, did he?
-
I don't know, did he?
Yes he did.
Now look what you made me do. Off Blimin Topic, again.
-
Yes he did.
Now look what you made me do. Off Blimin Topic, again.
Well it's the first I've heard of it.
Why has it never been mentioned on this forum before?
-
Well, if it's true then it shouldn't be too difficult to prove.
I just did a google search...
"Martin Smith's wife refused to make a statement"
Nothing came up.
I did a google search and found this
t should be noted that Mary Smith may also have made a statement which has not yet been released by the Portuguese. In January 2008 Martin Smith made another statement. The Irish officer that took this statement noted “I took an additional statement from Mr Smith as requested. His wife [Mary] does not want to make another statement.”
https://reggied123.wordpress.com/resources/wheres-smithman-going/
-
I did a google search and found this
t should be noted that Mary Smith may also have made a statement which has not yet been released by the Portuguese. In January 2008 Martin Smith made another statement. The Irish officer that took this statement noted “I took an additional statement from Mr Smith as requested. His wife [Mary] does not want to make another statement.”
https://reggied123.wordpress.com/resources/wheres-smithman-going/
Who asked her?
-
And his wife REFUSED to make a statement to the police
Why do you think that was, eh?
You’ve settled it for me, Spam.
You put:
“
After seeing the BBC news at 10 PM, footage on the 9th September 2007 I contacted Leicestershire police with this information. During that time I spoke to all my family members who were with me on the night of 3rd May 2007 about this and the only one who felt the same way as me was my wife.”
What you put above shows irrefutably that out of all his family and wife, the only person who thought Gerry McCann may have been the man he saw in Portugal — because he had his head tilted to one side whilst carrying his child — was himself. Not ONE member of his family agreed, hence why they refused to make statements. And even in the statement he’d made in the beginning he said he was “only 60 to 80% sure it was a good likeness to the man he saw”
As I said previously, it was irrefutably proven by many, many witnesses that Gerry was in the Tapas Bar at 10pm: the time Mr Smith claimed he saw a man walking with a child.
For your own sense of relief, you need to forget it.
Everyone else has.
-
You’ve settled it for me, Spam.
You put:
“
After seeing the BBC news at 10 PM, footage on the 9th September 2007 I contacted Leicestershire police with this information. During that time I spoke to all my family members who were with me on the night of 3rd May 2007 about this and the only one who felt the same way as me was my wife.”
What you put above shows irrefutably that out of all his family and wife, the only person who thought Gerry McCann may have been the man he saw in Portugal — because he had his head tilted to one side whilst carrying his child — was himself. Not ONE member of his family agreed, hence why they refused to make statements. And even in the statement he’d made in the beginning he said he was “only 60 to 80% sure it was a good likeness to the man he saw”
As I said previously, it was irrefutably proven by many, many witnesses that Gerry was in the Tapas Bar at 10pm: the time Mr Smith claimed he saw a man walking with a child.
For your own sense of relief, you need to forget it.
Everyone else has.
It say's there his wife agreed.
The fact she didn't want to make a statement means nothing.
Maybe she had some ironing to do, or perhaps she just didn't want to be tainted any further by the acrid stench of the McCann affair.
And at least 2 witnesses report the alarm being raised before 10pm.
-
Who asked her?
An Irish police officer.
-
It say's there his wife agreed.
The fact she didn't want to make a statement means nothing.
Maybe she had some ironing to do, or perhaps she just didn't want to be tainted any further by the acrid stench of the McCann affair.
And at least 2 witnesses report the alarm being raised before 10pm.
At least 7 put it around 10pm.
-
I took an additional statement from Mr Smith as requested. His wife does not want to make another statement.https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_SMITH.htm
-
At least 7 put it around 10pm.
Did they all check their watches, that some of them didn't have on, at around the same time?
Around 10pm could easily be 9:50 imo
-
I took an additional statement from Mr Smith as requested. His wife does not want to make another statement.https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_SMITH.htm
She didn't need to, she told Martin she agreed with him.
"I, Mary Smith, agree with my husband" hardly seems worth leaving the laundry for really.
-
She didn't need to, she told Martin she agreed with him.
"I, Mary Smith, agree with my husband" hardly seems worth leaving the laundry for really.
But Mary Smith didn't actually say that, did she?
Aoife didn't back her father up ... neither did did Peter Smith. So the only two who had false memory syndrome after watching the news were Mr Smith and Mr McCluskey.
Funny that.
-
At least 7 put it around 10pm.
Matt had a watch on! And does anyone know the timeline after the alarm was raised?
-
But Mary Smith didn't actually say that, did she?
Aoife didn't back her father up ... neither did did Peter Smith. So the only two who had false memory syndrome after watching the news were Mr Smith and Mr McCluskey.
Funny that.
I'm yet to see any proof that Martin Smith, & his wife, were wrong.
-
I'm yet to see any proof that Martin Smith, & his wife, were wrong.
The fact remains that the Judicial Police followed the evidence and saw what you are incapable of seeing.
Any chance you could move on from this and desist miring the forum into fixations of yours which were resolved ten years ago.
-
I don’t understand why the “rare stranger abduction” proponents are so keen to discount or discredit the Smith Family sighting. More so given GM has his precise 22:03 alibi. With Tannerman accounted for surely you agree with the super detectives at SY that this is your most significant sighting of the abductor?
-
The fact remains that the Judicial Police followed the evidence and saw what you are incapable of seeing.
Any chance you could move on from this and desist miring the forum into fixations of yours which were resolved ten years ago.
Do you honestly think people here are going to take you seriously when you constantly attempt to discredit almost everything else the PJ did in this case.
-
Do you honestly think people here are going to take you seriously when you constantly attempt to discredit almost everything else the PJ did in this case.
While understanding your chagrin because you are unable to refute the fact contained in my post, there is absolutely no excuse for sinking to the depths of personal comment.
Please desist. Not only is it impolite, it is against forum rules.
-
Did they all check their watches, that some of them didn't have on, at around the same time?
Around 10pm could easily be 9:50 imo
I don’t’ know, did the Smiths all check their watches at the exact time they encountered a man carrying a child?
-
While understanding your chagrin because you are unable to refute the fact contained in my post, there is absolutely no excuse for sinking to the depths of personal comment.
Please desist. Not only is it impolite, it is against forum rules.
I'm not aware that the PJ discounted the Smith sighting as a factual event. I know whilst Amaral was leading the case he saw it as significant because he was making arrangements to bring the family back to Portugal. We also know that SY describe the Smith sighting as "the centre of our focus". So who are you going with the PJ (after Amaral) or SY?
-
I don’t’ know, did the Smiths all check their watches at the exact time they encountered a man carrying a child?
That's the point.... "around 10pm" from both groups could be some time apart and they could still both be correct.
-
I don’t understand why the “rare stranger abduction” proponents are so keen to discount or discredit the Smith Family sighting. More so given GM has his precise 22:03 alibi. With Tannerman accounted for surely you agree with the super detectives at SY that this is your most significant sighting of the abductor?
Why are you fixated withthe 22.03 alibi? What is its significance? Do you think whilst carrying a child in his arms he checked his watch at the exact moment he encountered the Smiths? Did any of them mention this?
-
I don’t’ know, did the Smiths all check their watches at the exact time they encountered a man carrying a child?
Indeed.
Maybe the Smith sighting was at 10:10pm, which means there's even more of a possibility it was Gerry, because he was out searching then.
-
Why are you fixated withthe 22.03 alibi? What is its significance? Do you think whilst carrying a child in his arms he checked his watch at the exact moment he encountered the Smiths? Did any of them mention this?
It's an unusually precise time in an otherwise imprecise timeline.
-
That's the point.... "around 10pm" from both groups could be some time apart and they could still both be correct.
The only way Gerry could be Smithman is if the alarm was raised a lot earlier than 10pm or if The Smiths saw the man a long time after 10pm, IMO.
-
It's an unusually precise time in an otherwise imprecise timeline.
Of course we don’t know if Gerry actually said that, or whether it was a misunderstanding, a mishearing, a misspeak, a typo, etc.
-
Of course we don’t know if Gerry actually said that, or whether it was a misunderstanding, a mishearing, a misspeak, a typo, etc.
If you're saying they got Gerry's words wrong you have to accept that maybe they got the Smith's words wrong too. You can't rely on anything being correct.
-
If you're saying they got Gerry's words wrong you have to accept that maybe they got the Smith's words wrong too. You can't rely on anything being correct.
Which words of the Smiths are contentious or problematic? But yes, you may well be right, in any case witness statements ARE unreliable because human memory is unreliable.
-
It say's there his wife agreed.
The fact she didn't want to make a statement means nothing.
Maybe she had some ironing to do, or perhaps she just didn't want to be tainted any further by the acrid stench of the McCann affair.
And at least 2 witnesses report the alarm being raised before 10pm.
You’re wrong
His wife categorically REFUSED to make a statement
She probably knows he’s either an attention-seeker or has a strange disposition
She certainly couldn’t have thought the man was like Gerry McCann, otherwise she’d have made a statement, not just to back her husband up, but out of moral duty. Would YOU refuse to make a statement if you thought a certain man may have killed a child? Just because you had to iron some pillowcases?!
Anyway, In the event, the police wanted NOTHING from Mr Smith or his family as they knew Gerry McCann was sat in the Tapas Bar when the Irish family poured out the bar & spotted a man carrying his child.
They too probably also figured that Mr Smith was an attention-seeker.
And if Smith thought the man seemed strange, why didn’t he stop him?
I’ll tell you something that happened to me. One sunny Saturday afternoon many years ago I saw a man carrying a young child who looked asleep when I was driving home from the shops. There were a few people around, but because it was daytime and the girl was flat out asleep, I took NO chances. I pulled up and apologised after lowering my window down, and asked him who he was and who the girl was. It sounds rude, but I didn’t care: I couldn’t understand why she looked so floppy. He actually smiled and almost laughed, and said he was taking her home from a birthday party. He INVITED me to walk to his front door where his wife was waiting, and instead of them being annoyed, they THANKED me for my concern.
That’s enough about me because this forum is about Madeleine, but the point I’m making is that if Mr Smith thought the man was carrying the girl in a strange way, why the hell didn’t he APPROACH him?!
He’s clearly a dramatist who wanted publicity IMO
I’m not commenting on this anymore, as his case is CLOSED.
The police told him that 12 years ago. HE never pipes up about it — nor do the police (that file is closed) so why are YOU going on about it?
It’s kaput.
-
I'm not aware that the PJ discounted the Smith sighting as a factual event. I know whilst Amaral was leading the case he saw it as significant because he was making arrangements to bring the family back to Portugal. We also know that SY describe the Smith sighting as "the centre of our focus". So who are you going with the PJ (after Amaral) or SY?
Further on this issue, the testimony of MARTIN SMITH was considered, pages 1606 and following, reporting the sighting of an individual carrying a child, in one of the streets that lead to the beach. It was said that the child could be MADELEINE McCANN, although it was never peremptorily stated. Some time later, the witness alleged that, by its stance, the individual who carried the child could be GERALD McCANN, which was concluded when he saw him descending the stairs from an airplane, pages 2871, 3991 and following and 4135 and following. It was established that at the time that was being mentioned, GERALD McCANN was sitting at the table, in the Tapas Restaurant.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/PJ_Report_English_Translation.pdf
-
You’re wrong
His wife categorically REFUSED to make a statement
She probably knows he’s either an attention-seeker or has a strange disposition
She certainly couldn’t have thought the man was like Gerry McCann, otherwise she’d have made a statement, not just to back her husband up, but out of moral duty. Would YOU refuse to make a statement if you thought a certain man may have killed a child? Just because you had to iron some pillowcases?!
Anyway, In the event, the police wanted NOTHING from Mr Smith or his family as they knew Gerry McCann was sat in the Tapas Bar when the Irish family poured out the bar & spotted a man carrying his child.
They too probably also figured that Mr Smith was an attention-seeker.
And if Smith thought the man seemed strange, why didn’t he stop him?
I’ll tell you something that happened to me. One sunny Saturday afternoon many years ago I saw a man carrying a young child who looked asleep when I was driving home from the shops. There were a few people around, but because it was daytime and the girl was flat out asleep, I took NO chances. I pulled up and apologised after lowering my window down, and asked him who he was and who the girl was. It sounds rude, but I didn’t care: I couldn’t understand why she looked so floppy. He actually smiled and almost laughed, and said he was taking her home from a birthday party. He INVITED me to walk to his front door where his wife was waiting, and instead of them being annoyed, they THANKED me for my concern.
That’s enough about me because this forum is about Madeleine, but the point I’m making is that if Mr Smith thought the man was carrying the girl in a strange way, why the hell didn’t he APPROACH him?!
He’s clearly a dramatist who wanted publicity IMO
I’m not commenting on this anymore, as his case is CLOSED.
The police told him that 12 years ago. HE never pipes up about it — nor do the police (that file is closed) so why are YOU going on about it?
It’s kaput.
Firstly, no, you are wrong. Smith thought it was Gerry & his wife agreed with him.
Secondly, for a man who is an attention seeking dramatist, as you allege, he does seem to keep rather a low profile where the case is concerned.
Thirdly, he thought it was just a father carrying their daughter (I think he was right), so he didn't find the sighting suspicious.
And in closing, STOP WRITING IN CAPITAL LETTERS.
-
The only way Gerry could be Smithman is if the alarm was raised a lot earlier than 10pm or if The Smiths saw the man a long time after 10pm, IMO.
Well do the maths.... how long does it take to walk quickly from the Ocean Club apartments to the location of the Smith family sighting? How much leeway will you give for "around 10pm"? And yes witness statements vary in the estimated time of Kate's check and subsequent raising of the alarm between about 21:45 and 22:13 (i.e. about ten minutes after the "22:03" check).
Tapas Waiter: "Dinner would end at about 21.45, a few minutes later the witness looked at the table and saw that there was nobody there and one of his colleagues told them that all the guests had left the table in a hurry. In any case, he remembers having heard shouts from the direction of Madeleine's parents' apartment."
Matt Oldfield: "By the way, he clarifies that that news had been communicated to all the friends who were in the Tapas by KM subsequent to her having personally been to her flat to check that her children were well.
The question asked, he relates that she had gone there alone to do that at 21:50."
Gerald McCann:
"it being 22h03, he turned to alert KATE that it was time for her to go to see the children. She immediately made her way to the apartment by the usual path, she having entered by the rear door. About 10 minutes later, he started to worry about her lateness and, at the moment he prepared to stand and to go to see the reason for her lateness, KATE appeared running, completely distraught and crying, saying that MADELEINE had disappeared and that she was sure because she had looked throughout the house."
Tapas Barman: Referring to the day of 3rd May when Madeleine disappeared, the witness says that he was working.
At that time, at about 22.20 - 22.30 he noticed that there was only one person sitting at the group's table, the oldest of them and he asked her jokingly whether they had left her alone.
The person in question said that the others had gone to the apartment to look for a girl who had disappeared. Seconds later Madeleine's father appeared, greatly agitated, looking for his daughter everywhere, obviously and immediately heading towards the pool and surrounding areas.
Shortly afterwards Luz Ocean Club was in a state of absolute commotion.
-
Which words of the Smiths are contentious or problematic? But yes, you may well be right, in any case witness statements ARE unreliable because human memory is unreliable.
Indeed... which makes "22:03" stand out.
-
The fact remains that the Judicial Police followed the evidence and saw what you are incapable of seeing.
Any chance you could move on from this and desist miring the forum into fixations of yours which were resolved ten years ago.
@)(++(* How could you be so wrong!
A) Has the man in the efits been identified?
Operation Grange is a live investigation, we do not comment on
identification as this information is held for the purpose of the
investigation and therefore falls within the section 30 exemption.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
In broad terms, the section 30 exemptions exist to
ensure the effective investigation and prosecution of offences
and the protection of confidential sources. They recognise the
need to prevent disclosures that would prejudice either a
particular investigation or set of proceedings, or the
investigatory and prosecution processes generally, including
any prejudice to future investigations and proceedings.
https://ico.org.uk/media/for-organisations/documents/1205/investigations-and-proceedings-foi-section-30.pdf
-
Indeed... which makes "22:03" stand out.
This is also worthy of attention;
About 10 minutes later, he started to worry about her lateness and, at the moment he prepared to stand and to go to see the reason for her lateness, KATE appeared running, completely distraught and crying, saying that MADELEINE had disappeared and that she was sure because she had looked throughout the house.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN-10MAY.htm
Which means they didn't leave the restaurant, according to Gerry, until 22:13.
-
This is also worthy of attention;
About 10 minutes later, he started to worry about her lateness and, at the moment he prepared to stand and to go to see the reason for her lateness, KATE appeared running, completely distraught and crying, saying that MADELEINE had disappeared and that she was sure because she had looked throughout the house.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN-10MAY.htm
Which means they didn't leave the restaurant, according to Gerry, until 22:13.
So ample time for him to have been seen by the Smith and get back to the tapas in time for Kate’s alert.
-
So ample time for him to have been seen by the Smith and get back to the tapas in time for Kate’s alert.
What drop her on the street somewhere and turn back?
-
This is also worthy of attention;
About 10 minutes later, he started to worry about her lateness and, at the moment he prepared to stand and to go to see the reason for her lateness, KATE appeared running, completely distraught and crying, saying that MADELEINE had disappeared and that she was sure because she had looked throughout the house.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN-10MAY.htm
Which means they didn't leave the restaurant, according to Gerry, until 22:13.
Weird isn’t it that Gerry would go to great lengths to undermine his own alibi.
-
Weird isn’t it that Gerry would go to great lengths to undermine his own alibi.
Except he’s not though is he. He’s placing himself at the Tapas from 21:20 ish to 22:13.
-
Except he’s not though is he. He’s placing himself at the Tapas from 21:20 ish to 22:13.
Then why does Faithlilly claim there is ample time for him to have been Smithman, going by his own words? Clearly if he agreed with everyone else that the alarm was raised at 10pm and everyone agreed he was at thr table at the time there is no way he could be Smithman, agreed?
-
Here’s my theory. In his statement Gerry actuall said he turned to Kate at “Ten to” (30 minutes after he returned to the table). This has been misinterpreted by the Portuguese as 10.02pm, they have converted it to the 24 hour clock for written statement and the mistake has been compounded by a typo.
Feel free to scoff and jeer.
-
Here's my theory: timelines often feature in cases and unless some fixed data point is available eg cctv or tel call with digital timings they're only very approx.
You see the same issues with the MM timeline you see with JB, David Bain and Mark Lundy.
-
But gone for half an hour according to an independent witness and who was with him AFTER the alarm was raised??
Gone for half an hour has to be wrong. They arrived at 8. 30 Gerry made his first check around 9 spoke to Jes on the way back sat and ate his dinner Kate made check and he was there when she came back.
-
Gone for half an hour has to be wrong. They arrived at 8. 30 Gerry made his first check around 9 spoke to Jes on the way back sat and ate his dinner Kate made check and he was there when she came back.
So much more interesting to try and juggle half an hour out of one hour and a half when there is no indication that any such thing happened.
Even CMofMM sussed that one by trying to shift Madeleine's disappearance to an earlier day, although they haven't got proof of that either.
-
Why's he sending his missus to go and check on the kids?
A check Kate admitted she almost didn't do. If it wasn't for the 'WOOOOOHHOOOOOSSHH', she admits she was about to turn around - AND NOT CHECK HER BABIES AT ALL!
What?
-
Why's he sending his missus to go and check on the kids?
A check Kate admitted she almost didn't do. If it wasn't for the 'WOOOOOHHOOOOOSSHH', she admits she was about to turn around - AND NOT CHECK HER BABIES AT ALL!
What?
According to both the McCanns the reason they actually looked into the children's bedroom on 3rd was because the door to their bedroom had moved. Therefore I assume that they wouldn't have looked in the bedroom if the door had been as it normally was. That suggests that all their previous checks were listening checks. They listened from inside, but didn't look.
-
According to both the McCanns the reason they actually looked into the children's bedroom on 3rd was because the door to their bedroom had moved. Therefore I assume that they wouldn't have looked in the bedroom if the door had been as it normally was. That suggests that all their previous checks were listening checks. They listened from inside, but didn't look.
Exactly, in my opinion that means non-intrusive. They didn't want a repeat of the previous night and ruin the convivialities. (I don't think that word exists, but it does now, The General has decreed - please feel free to use the word 'convivialities' going forward and I'll email Oxford English tomorrow about it).
-
According to both the McCanns the reason they actually looked into the children's bedroom on 3rd was because the door to their bedroom had moved. Therefore I assume that they wouldn't have looked in the bedroom if the door had been as it normally was. That suggests that all their previous checks were listening checks. They listened from inside, but didn't look.
You don't know what they did. Though when my children were that young, I sometimes just listened outside the door as going in might have woken them up.
-
You don't know what they did. Though when my children were that young, I sometimes just listened outside the door as going in might have woken them up.
Did you then nip back out and join your mates for drinks at the bar and eave them unattended with an open door? Context is everything.
I went to Ninja School for 3 years to ensure I had the necessary skills to ensure I didn't wake my kids up - BY WALKING AROUND THE HOUSE AND ALL THAT!
-
Did you then nip back out and join your mates for drinks at the bar and eave them unattended with an open door? Context is everything.
I went to Ninja School for 3 years to ensure I had the necessary skills to ensure I didn't wake my kids up - BY WALKING AROUND THE HOUSE AND ALL THAT!
I don't agree with the McCann's leaving their children alone, they thought it was safe to do so, they were staying on a child friendly site. They checked the children. No one expects someone to take their child do they?
-
I don't agree with the McCann's leaving their children alone, they thought it was safe to do so, they were staying on a child friendly site. They checked the children. No one expects someone to take their child do they?
Yes, they do. It's a simple risk assessment. At the very least they totally miscalculated the risk. Doctor's do risk assessment in their sleep.
If they would have locked the door as a control measure, that risk becomes almost nil.
And the PJ are idiots? The conceit.
-
Yes, they do. It's a simple risk assessment. At the very least they totally miscalculated the risk. Doctor's do risk assessment in their sleep.
If they would have locked the door as a control measure, that risk becomes almost nil.
And the PJ are idiots? The conceit.
It was not the McCann's fault Madeleine was abducted, its the fault of the sick individual who took her. Children are taken in the day time, should the parents have been watching them then? One child was taken from her bath, should the mother have known that was going to happen?
-
It was not the McCann's fault Madeleine was abducted, its the fault of the sick individual who took her. Children are taken in the day time, should the parents have been watching them then? One child was taken from her bath, should the mother have known that was going to happen?
Look at a slightly different scenario.
Suppose that a child had been abducted while under the supervision of the OC nannies.
Who would be blamed ?
-
It was not the McCann's fault Madeleine was abducted, its the fault of the sick individual who took her. Children are taken in the day time, should the parents have been watching them then? One child was taken from her bath, should the mother have known that was going to happen?
Remove the root cause. If the shutters had been 'jemmied', as was the original fairy tale, I'd have some sympathy.
The actions of a l’homme moyen.
-
Look at a slightly different scenario.
Suppose that a child had been abducted while under the supervision of the OC nannies.
Who would be blamed ?
Wait, what? The OC had nannies?
-
Wait, what? The OC had nannies?
Same ones who looked after them during the day at the creche.
IIRC the MCCS dint want them for the night. babysitting didn't want to leave them with strangers
-
Look at a slightly different scenario.
Suppose that a child had been abducted while under the supervision of the OC nannies.
Who would be blamed ?
The abductor.
-
The abductor.
Nobody else?
You don't think the company would be pilloried and sued for negligence ?
You think the parents would have shrugged and said it was just one of those things ?
-
Nobody else?
You don't think the company would be pilloried and sued for negligence ?
You think the parents would have shrugged and said it was just one of those things ?
You asked me who would be blamed, the abductor would be blamed for taking her obviously.
-
You asked me who would be blamed, the abductor would be blamed for taking her obviously.
So you think the company would not be blamed and sued for negligence?
-
I don't agree with the McCann's leaving their children alone, they thought it was safe to do so, they were staying on a child friendly site. They checked the children. No one expects someone to take their child do they?
The NSPCC don't have a caveat yet, perhaps someone should suggest it;
Infants and young children aged 0-3 years old should never be left alone – even for 15 minutes while you pop down the road. This applies not just to leaving them home alone but also in your car while you run into the shops or in another room on their own.
https://www.nspcc.org.uk/keeping-children-safe/in-the-home/home-alone/#age
Maybe they should add "Unless on holiday in a resort which you consider to be child-friendly and safe and you check on them every 30 minutes"
-
So you think the company would not be blamed and sued for negligence?
Of course it would have done, and those in charge of the children would have been sacked in disgrace-----IMO.
-
I don't agree with the McCann's leaving their children alone, they thought it was safe to do so, they were staying on a child friendly site. They checked the children. No one expects someone to take their child do they?
No but if your child is known to wake and wander you’d worry that they might just do that and / or cry for more than an hour.... imo
-
The abductor.
So if you went out and left the door unlocked and got burgled - you would blame the thief.
But your insurance wouldn't ...they would blame you and not payout.
Not only did the mccs leave them in an unlocked room it was near a road.
No safety whatsoever was thought about for the children ...and they suppose to be the professionals in child care
-
It was not the McCann's fault Madeleine was abducted, its the fault of the sick individual who took her. Children are taken in the day time, should the parents have been watching them then? One child was taken from her bath, should the mother have known that was going to happen?
I don't blame the McCanns.
I suspect they were under a false sense of security because they were on holiday in a child-friendly resort. After all, their friends did exactly the same as them; they were just luckier.
I doubt very much whether any of them would have left their children home alone normally.
I doubt any of them would have done so had they had any inkling of paedophiles being in the area, either. One just doesn't think about that sort of thing when on holiday.
-
Nobody else?
You don't think the company would be pilloried and sued for negligence ?
You think the parents would have shrugged and said it was just one of those things ?
If the nannies left the kids and went to the bar there would be an outcry!!
-
I don't blame the McCanns.
I suspect they were under a false sense of security because they were on holiday in a child-friendly resort. After all, their friends did exactly the same as them; they were just luckier.
I doubt very much whether any of them would have left their children home alone normally.
I doubt any of them would have done so had they had any inkling of paedophiles being in the area, either. One just doesn't think about that sort of thing when on holiday.
There were various reports at the time that paedo's were involved ,some one knew allegedly.
-
No but if your child is known to wake and wander you’d worry that they might just do that and / or cry for more than an hour.... imo
PJ Final Report
As a remote hypothesis, the possibility of the minor leaving the apartment by her own means was explored – that would be highly unlikely ...
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/P_J_FINAL_REPORT.htm
Madeleine was a light sleeper who when younger had been known to come into her parents bed during the night. That is what the star chart that Amaral thought suspicious was all about.
The 'woke and wandered' theory was discarded early on in the investigation for 'drugged and fell off the sofa theory' promoted by Amaral and later on the Final Report found it highly unlikely.
What does your little snipe have to do with the thread topic though?
-
I don't blame the McCanns.
I suspect they were under a false sense of security because they were on holiday in a child-friendly resort. After all, their friends did exactly the same as them; they were just luckier.
I doubt very much whether any of them would have left their children home alone normally.
I doubt any of them would have done so had they had any inkling of paedophiles being in the area, either. One just doesn't think about that sort of thing when on holiday.
On the afternoon of May 3rd, Kate was relaxing on the grass, watching Gerry play tennis & having a friendly chat about paedophiles.
Madeleine page 64.
-
I don't blame the McCanns.
I suspect they were under a false sense of security because they were on holiday in a child-friendly resort. After all, their friends did exactly the same as them; they were just luckier.
I doubt very much whether any of them would have left their children home alone normally.
I doubt any of them would have done so had they had any inkling of paedophiles being in the area, either. One just doesn't think about that sort of thing when on holiday.
According to the Mc's and T7 only the Mc's exited for tapas via the patio doors which can't be locked from outside.
-
On the afternoon of May 3rd, Kate was relaxing on the grass, watching Gerry play tennis & having a friendly chat about paedophiles.
Madeleine page 64.
What is the relevance of this to the thread topic?
-
I don't blame the McCanns.
I suspect they were under a false sense of security because they were on holiday in a child-friendly resort. After all, their friends did exactly the same as them; they were just luckier.
I doubt very much whether any of them would have left their children home alone normally.
I doubt any of them would have done so had they had any inkling of paedophiles being in the area, either. One just doesn't think about that sort of thing when on holiday.
You would think KM more than anyone would be alert to paedophiles found in the most unlikely of places ie her church, the Catholic Church!
-
The NSPCC don't have a caveat yet, perhaps someone should suggest it;
Infants and young children aged 0-3 years old should never be left alone – even for 15 minutes while you pop down the road. This applies not just to leaving them home alone but also in your car while you run into the shops or in another room on their own.
https://www.nspcc.org.uk/keeping-children-safe/in-the-home/home-alone/#age
Maybe they should add "Unless on holiday in a resort which you consider to be child-friendly and safe and you check on them every 30 minutes"
The NSPCC do not have any Legal Rights and never will have. What you are expecting isn't even reasonable.
-
PJ Final Report
As a remote hypothesis, the possibility of the minor leaving the apartment by her own means was explored – that would be highly unlikely ...
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/P_J_FINAL_REPORT.htm
Madeleine was a light sleeper who when younger had been known to come into her parents bed during the night. That is what the star chart that Amaral thought suspicious was all about.
The 'woke and wandered' theory was discarded early on in the investigation for 'drugged and fell off the sofa theory' promoted by Amaral and later on the Final Report found it highly unlikely.
What does your little snipe have to do with the thread topic though?
I meant woke and wandered around the apartment.
-
The NSPCC don't have a caveat yet, perhaps someone should suggest it;
Infants and young children aged 0-3 years old should never be left alone – even for 15 minutes while you pop down the road. This applies not just to leaving them home alone but also in your car while you run into the shops or in another room on their own.
https://www.nspcc.org.uk/keeping-children-safe/in-the-home/home-alone/#age
Maybe they should add "Unless on holiday in a resort which you consider to be child-friendly and safe and you check on them every 30 minutes"
The McCann's were interviewed by Social Services, what more do you want? This is just a diversion by Amaral to cover up the mess he made of the investigation. Whether they left the children or not, they deserved a better investigation than the one they had from Amaral where he was hell bent on accusing the parents.
-
No but if your child is known to wake and wander you’d worry that they might just do that and / or cry for more than an hour.... imo
The McCann's said if Madeleine woke up it would normally be in the early hours of the morning.
I don't believe that Madeleine cried for an hour, it is more likely it was the Tuesday night when Amelie woke and cried which woke Sean who cried and then Madeleine woke and called Daddy. IMO
-
The McCann's said if Madeleine woke up it would normally be in the early hours of the morning.
I don't believe that Madeleine cried for an hour, it is more likely it was the Tuesday night when Amelie woke and cried which woke Sean who cried and then Madeleine woke and called Daddy. IMO
Well that makes perfect sense, because that's the only time at night that they were actually there to witness it.
-
Yes, they do. It's a simple risk assessment. At the very least they totally miscalculated the risk. Doctor's do risk assessment in their sleep.
If they would have locked the door as a control measure, that risk becomes almost nil.
And the PJ are idiots? The conceit.
Interesting take on it, that you perceive by far the biggest risk to the children to be either someone coming in and harming the kids or the kids coming to harm after leaving the apartment via the unlocked door, and that the risks posed to them from fire, drowning, choking, falling, electrocution etc would have been almost nil.
-
Interesting take on it, that you perceive by far the biggest risk to the children to be either someone coming in and harming the kids or the kids coming to harm after leaving the apartment via the unlocked door, and that the risks posed to them from fire, drowning, choking, falling, electrocution etc would have been almost nil.
I love how you log on at the same time every day and fish out my posts to reply to in your inimitable, eloquent manner. It's quite flattering.
-
So if you went out and left the door unlocked and got burgled - you would blame the thief.
But your insurance wouldn't ...they would blame you and not payout.
Not only did the mccs leave them in an unlocked room it was near a road.
No safety whatsoever was thought about for the children ...and they suppose to be the professionals in child care
Didn't the Portuguese say there was no intent? That they couldn't have forseen the events that happened? Madeleine was asleep in her bed she should have been safe.
-
I love how you log on at the same time every day and fish out my posts to reply to in your inimitable, eloquent manner. It's quite flattering.
I love how you notice what time I log on every day, almost as if you were waiting for me to do so, love you too honeybear xx
-
Didn't the Portuguese say there was no intent? That they couldn't have forseen the events that happened? Madeleine was asleep in her bed she should have been safe.
It's the definition of 'safe' that's the problem.
Is it reasonably foreseeable, which is the legal test, that a wee an would, at the very least, wake and wander through an unlocked holiday apartment door looking for her parents?
Yes.
-
Didn't the Portuguese say there was no intent? That they couldn't have forseen the events that happened? Madeleine was asleep in her bed she should have been safe.
Yes. The Portuguese did say that.
-
I love how you notice what time I log on every day, almost as if you were waiting for me to do so, love you too honeybear xx
Oooookayyyy......
Incidentally, coincidentally, Honeybear was remarkably close to my call sign on an op once.....honey badger. Good times.
-
Oooookayyyy......
Incidentally, coincidentally, Honeybear was remarkably close to my call sign on an op once.....honey badger. Good times.
Honeybadger it is then.... 8**8:/:
-
I love how you notice what time I log on every day, almost as if you were waiting for me to do so, love you too honeybear xx
I've also noticed that you log on at about 16.30.
I imagine you rushing home hot foot from work to see what you've missed. @)(++(*
-
I've just been reading Russell O'Brian's statement again.
He says he didn't get back to the table until quarter to 10, he was about to eat his meal when the waiter said no it's cold and took it away. He says it was about ten minutes before the waiter came back with a fresh meal for him. Someone asked the time and someone said it was about 10 o'clock that is when Kate got up to do her check.
-
You would think KM more than anyone would be alert to paedophiles found in the most unlikely of places ie her church, the Catholic Church!
I, too, am a Catholic, and only too aware of the dreadful things that have happened within the Church. However, we went on several holidays with small children, and it would never have occurred to me that a holiday resort would also be home to paedophiles. Nor would it have occurred to me that there might be one or more living close to my home!
-
I've also noticed that you log on at about 16.30.
I imagine you rushing home hot foot from work to see what you've missed. @)(++(*
Who knew I created such interest around these parts?! 8**8:/:
-
The McCann's said if Madeleine woke up it would normally be in the early hours of the morning.
I don't believe that Madeleine cried for an hour, it is more likely it was the Tuesday night when Amelie woke and cried which woke Sean who cried and then Madeleine woke and called Daddy. IMO
The police have a witness statement that said it was Maddy who was crying. Sean and Amelie didn't have a star chart. The way they both slept on 3 May 2007 I doubt they had any problems sleeping unless you can provide some evidence? And don't say because the McCanns said so! Get another source.
-
I've just been reading Russell O'Brian's statement again.
He says he didn't get back to the table until quarter to 10, he was about to eat his meal when the waiter said no it's cold and took it away. He says it was about ten minutes before the waiter came back with a fresh meal for him. Someone asked the time and someone said it was about 10 o'clock that is when Kate got up to do her check.
Keep focusing on what ROB says and you might crack it. Remember he was the writer of 1 of the 2 timelines on the scrapbook covers.
-
I've just been reading Russell O'Brian's statement again.
He says he didn't get back to the table until quarter to 10, he was about to eat his meal when the waiter said no it's cold and took it away. He says it was about ten minutes before the waiter came back with a fresh meal for him. Someone asked the time and someone said it was about 10 o'clock that is when Kate got up to do her check.
Nothing was recooked. That's why Russell had a thin steak as he put it @)(++(*
The witness was asked to keep Russell's meal warm
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RICARDO-A-D-L-OLIVEIRA.htm
The alarm was raised before 10pm. Poor Smithman is trapped in a web of lies ?>)()<
-
Keep focusing on what ROB says and you might crack it. Remember he was the writer of 1 of the 2 timelines on the scrapbook covers.
Is there any difference between those two timelines?
-
Nothing was recooked. That's why Russell had a thin steak as he put it @)(++(*
The witness was asked to keep Russell's meal warm
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RICARDO-A-D-L-OLIVEIRA.htm
The alarm was raised before 10pm. Poor Smithman is trapped in a web of lies ?>)()<
Yes poor Smithman in his web of lies, I just wonder why the spider is taking SUCH a long time to get round to devouring him. Any idea?
-
Yes poor Smithman in his web of lies, I just wonder why the spider is taking SUCH a long time to get round to devouring him. Any idea?
There’s no reason to suggest Martin Smith is lying. He has no reason to want his sighting to be in any way related to GM’s 22:03 alibi. When MS made his first statement he wasn’t thinking he’d seen GM.
-
There’s no reason to suggest Martin Smith is lying. He has no reason to want his sighting to be in any way related to GM’s 22:03 alibi. When MS made his first statement he wasn’t thinking he’d seen GM.
GM wasn't an arguido when MS made his first statement.
-
The police have a witness statement that said it was Maddy who was crying. Sean and Amelie didn't have a star chart. The way they both slept on 3 May 2007 I doubt they had any problems sleeping unless you can provide some evidence? And don't say because the McCanns said so! Get another source.
‘Sean and Amelie didn't have a star chart’ because they were too young and still using nappies?
-
Yes poor Smithman in his web of lies, I just wonder why the spider is taking SUCH a long time to get round to devouring him. Any idea?
They have to do new tests and if they did them with no new suspect then everyone would scream they're going after the McCanns but they're going after the German now so it's all good! Do with tests and nail that evil German!
-
There’s no reason to suggest Martin Smith is lying. He has no reason to want his sighting to be in any way related to GM’s 22:03 alibi. When MS made his first statement he wasn’t thinking he’d seen GM.
That’s got NOTHING to do with what I wrote.
-
They have to do new tests and if they did them with no new suspect then everyone would scream they're going after the McCanns but they're going after the German now so it's all good! Do with tests and nail that evil German!
Aha! They had to invent the German paedo suspect to do the new tests which are really about nailing The McCs. It all makes PERFECT sense now. LOL.
-
I know the police can be very sneaky so we'll have to wait and see what happens.
-
I know the police can be very sneaky so we'll have to wait and see what happens.
Did you ever consider the possibility that they could have re-run the tests im secret without telling the world’s media and having to invent a paedo suspect?
-
It wouldn't surprise me and they could keep the results secret until the time is right.
-
It wouldn't surprise me if they have been done and they could keep the results secret until the time is right.
Of course! They are in no hurry to arrest and charge the McCanns and are just playing with them (and us) by throwing a German paedo into the mix for their own amusement. Maybe in a few more years time when they get bored with it all they’ll finally decide it’s time to pay a visit to Rothley. Yes, I’m sure that’s what’s happening.
-
I don't know what they're doing but when Smithman appears you will know it's game over!
-
I don't know what they're doing but when Smithman appears you will know it's game over!
Right you are dear.
-
Is there any difference between those two timelines?
Yes.
-
Nothing was recooked. That's why Russell had a thin steak as he put it @)(++(*
The witness was asked to keep Russell's meal warm
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RICARDO-A-D-L-OLIVEIRA.htm
The alarm was raised before 10pm. Poor Smithman is trapped in a web of lies ?>)()<
The waiter says Russell was back at quarter to 10 too. Russell O'Brian -
Reply “’Kate left the table, there was nothing significant about her leaving, but I think it was a similar time to my meal arriving’. Oh yeah, yeah, I suppose that’s a point, erm. There it might say ‘The Tapas staff kindly re-cooked my main course’, because I got back at twenty-one forty-five, but the food was probably, you know, the best part of ten minutes later before I got it”.
-
The police have a witness statement that said it was Maddy who was crying. Sean and Amelie didn't have a star chart. The way they both slept on 3 May 2007 I doubt they had any problems sleeping unless you can provide some evidence? And don't say because the McCanns said so! Get another source.
The Police don't have a statement to say Madeleine was crying. Mrs Fenn said she heard crying, it wasn't a baby. It could have been the twins, then Madeleine crying Daddy.
-
The Police don't have a statement to say Madeleine was crying. Mrs Fenn said she heard crying, it wasn't a baby. It could have been the twins, then Madeleine crying Daddy.
Based on the statement we do have how do you conclude that it’s more likely to have been one of the twins crying?
-
Based on the statement we do have how do you conclude that it’s more likely to have been one of the twins crying?
It's my own opinion. I can't imagine an almost four year old crying for almost an hour. It was more likely one of the twins woke up and was grizzling waking the other one up which resulted in Madeleine waking up and calling for her Daddy. The McCann's say that they heard Amelie crying on the Tuesday night and Madeleine came into their bedroom to sleep.
Children of that age don't really understand the 'last night' she said 'why didn't you come when me and Sean were crying.
-
Based on the statement we do have how do you conclude that it’s more likely to have been one of the twins crying?
Can't see that it matters who was crying that night. The parents weren't there to deal with it.
-
There’s no reason to suggest Martin Smith is lying. He has no reason to want his sighting to be in any way related to GM’s 22:03 alibi. When MS made his first statement he wasn’t thinking he’d seen GM.
Problem is, though...Mr Smith had been drinking (was known to get inebriated) and wasn’t wearing his prescription glasses for his poor eyesight
-
Problem is, though...Mr Smith had been drinking (was known to get inebriated) and wasn’t wearing his prescription glasses for his poor eyesight
Let's say that is true; it's not, but let's say it is. Were the rest of the family drinking and miopic?
-
There’s no reason to suggest Martin Smith is lying. He has no reason to want his sighting to be in any way related to GM’s 22:03 alibi. When MS made his first statement he wasn’t thinking he’d seen GM.
The police are well aware that out of all witnesses who come forward to report a sighting, many of them are wrong; mistaken; busybodies; or people who want to feel somewhat important in an investigation.
Their memories are often skewed; and sometimes they “make” features fit to what they think a suspect should be doing.
I personally think that when Mr Smith said his wife called out to the man who was holding the child — who was CLEARLY asleep — and said: “Is she asleep?” very odd. Why would you ask a total stranger that when it was EVIDENT she was asleep?
I find that suspicious..especially if he was almost running
Smith claims the man didn’t reply, but as he was supposedly walking really fast/almost running, the man may not have even realised she asked him a question (if indeed she did). He probably thought she was talking to one of their group of nine.
Or, the man may not have spoken English. They actually said he looked like a local, with a suntanned Mediterranean appearance, and wore clothing like a local rather than a holidaymaker.
There’s also the possibility he was the same man Jane Tanner saw...although he eventually came forward (a long time after Amaral accused her of lying!) and said he was taking his daughter home from night crèche. The Portuguese haven’t said who that man is, except that he exists, he came forward, and his account was checked out.. He could actually be Portuguese and speak no English. Many don’t speak English.
Portuguese, like many Mediterranean people (and I know as I’ve lived on the Med) have a totally different way with childcare than Brits. They allow their children out until late; they’ll often take them to restaurants until late in the evening; and if he was Portuguese it’s perfectly possible he’d finished a shift at work and had collected his daughter from night crèche as his wife was still working in a bar or restaurant. It is a holiday resort, remember.
-
‘Sean and Amelie didn't have a star chart’ because they were too young and still using nappies?
Maybe Pathfinder has no children and doesn’t realise the twins were too young to have a star chart...
What the star chart does show is how caring a mother Kate was
Don’t forget, they went through IVF to have their children, so for someone to think they’d decide to sell her, give her away to paedophiles, or simply get “ged up” with her and toss her away like an unwanted ornament is HIDEOUS. That merely shows what those people’s psyches are like to even IMAGINE that’s possible.
-
I know the police can be very sneaky so we'll have to wait and see what happens.
How do you know that, Pathfinder?
Have you had dealings with them yourself?
-
It's my own opinion. I can't imagine an almost four year old crying for almost an hour. It was more likely one of the twins woke up and was grizzling waking the other one up which resulted in Madeleine waking up and calling for her Daddy. The McCann's say that they heard Amelie crying on the Tuesday night and Madeleine came into their bedroom to sleep.
Children of that age don't really understand the 'last night' she said 'why didn't you come when me and Sean were crying.
You’re right.
Children never cry for an hour...ever.
-
Let's say that is true; it's not, but let's say it is. Were the rest of the family drinking and miopic?
Yes, they’d all been drinking, except the children
No idea if the others had sigh problems...it’s possible, given that Mr Smith was retired and his wife was around the same age.
The daughter, or DIL wasn’t feeling well; I need to check but I think she was dizzy or feeling sick, or possibly sloshed, but her husband was helping her so I’m surprised they even took note of a passing stranger
-
It's my own opinion. I can't imagine an almost four year old crying for almost an hour. It was more likely one of the twins woke up and was grizzling waking the other one up which resulted in Madeleine waking up and calling for her Daddy. The McCann's say that they heard Amelie crying on the Tuesday night and Madeleine came into their bedroom to sleep.
Children of that age don't really understand the 'last night' she said 'why didn't you come when me and Sean were crying.
Apparently Madeleine understood 'last night', unless her parents were mistaken.
Gerry McCann;
4th May w/s "MADELEINE asked her father, GERALD, why he had not come into the room when the twins were crying."
10th May w/s "Madeleine looked at her mother and asked her "why did you not come last night when Sean and I were crying?".
Kate McCann;
Madeleine one year on (documentary) "it was, sort of, fairly early in the morning and she just very casually, really, said: (mimics Madeleine's voice) 'Where were you last night, when me and Sean cried?"
https://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Nigel/id242.htm
-
Apparently Madeleine understood 'last night', unless her parents were mistaken.
Gerry McCann;
4th May w/s "MADELEINE asked her father, GERALD, why he had not come into the room when the twins were crying."
10th May w/s "Madeleine looked at her mother and asked her "why did you not come last night when Sean and I were crying?".
Kate McCann;
That doesn't sound like an almost four child talking.
When asked, he says that on one night, he cannot say which, Madeleine slept in his room in his bed. He thinks it might have been shortly after their arrival at the apartment. Madeleine came to his room saying that Amelie was crying and she couldn't sleep. He thinks that he hadn't heard crying before, and was alerted to this by Madeleine. He does not know if he or his wife comforted Amelie. That night Madeleine slept in his bed.
Madeleine one year on (documentary) "it was, sort of, fairly early in the morning and she just very casually, really, said: (mimics Madeleine's voice) 'Where were you last night, when me and Sean cried?"
https://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Nigel/id242.htm
-
Apparently Madeleine understood 'last night', unless her parents were mistaken.
Gerry McCann;
4th May w/s "MADELEINE asked her father, GERALD, why he had not come into the room when the twins were crying."
10th May w/s "Madeleine looked at her mother and asked her "why did you not come last night when Sean and I were crying?".
Kate McCann;
Madeleine one year on (documentary) "it was, sort of, fairly early in the morning and she just very casually, really, said: (mimics Madeleine's voice) 'Where were you last night, when me and Sean cried?"
https://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Nigel/id242.htm
Kate McCann statement 4th May -
Between the day of the arrival, April 28th, and the time that Madeleine's disappearance was discovered, the interviewee says that she noticed nothing unusual. She reports only one episode where, on the morning of Thursday May 3rd, Madeleine asked the interviewee why she had not come to look in the bedroom when the twins were crying. The interviewee states that she had heard nothing and had therefore not gone into the bedroom. She thought her daughter's comment strange because it was the first time she had talked about it.
Nothing about 'last night'
-
Apparently Madeleine understood 'last night', unless her parents were mistaken.
Gerry McCann;
4th May w/s "MADELEINE asked her father, GERALD, why he had not come into the room when the twins were crying."
10th May w/s "Madeleine looked at her mother and asked her "why did you not come last night when Sean and I were crying?".
Kate McCann;
Madeleine one year on (documentary) "it was, sort of, fairly early in the morning and she just very casually, really, said: (mimics Madeleine's voice) 'Where were you last night, when me and Sean cried?"
https://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Nigel/id242.htm
Interesting difference between GMs statement on the 4th and 10th. Obviously the subtle change of who was crying is of no importance. The statement has probably been badly translated and the PJ are inept but.... it’s quite an interesting change of story.
-
Apparently Madeleine understood 'last night', unless her parents were mistaken.
Gerry McCann;
4th May w/s "MADELEINE asked her father, GERALD, why he had not come into the room when the twins were crying."
10th May w/s "Madeleine looked at her mother and asked her "why did you not come last night when Sean and I were crying?".
Kate McCann;
Madeleine one year on (documentary) "it was, sort of, fairly early in the morning and she just very casually, really, said: (mimics Madeleine's voice) 'Where were you last night, when me and Sean cried?"
https://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Nigel/id242.htm
Oh, for goodness sake, Gunit
When Kate and Gerry and their friends gave their statements, they had to give their evidence sentence by sentence. It was written down, TRANSLATED and typed up line by line, RETRANSLATED and worse still, no interview was RECORED
I guarantee they could have been mistranslated in a variety of ways and just ONE word in English can have a subtly different meaning to Portuguese.
They probably didn’t say all that “word for word”, exactly, it’s how it’s sheen translated, then RETRANSLATED.
You’re making something out if nothing.
-
Oh, for goodness sake, Gunit
When Kate and Gerry and their friends gave their statements, they had to give their evidence sentence by sentence. It was written down, TRANSLATED and typed up line by line, RETRANSLATED and worse still, no interview was RECORED
I guarantee they could have been mistranslated in a variety of ways and just ONE word in English can have a subtly different meaning to Portuguese.
They probably didn’t say all that “word for word”, exactly, it’s how it’s sheen translated, then RETRANSLATED.
You’re making something out if nothing.
Who didn’t see that coming?!! See post above. You’re basically saying that all the statements in the PJ Files can be discounted as a reliable source of information! Remember that works both ways!
-
Who didn’t see that coming?!! See post above. You’re basically saying that all the statements in the PJ Files can be discounted as a reliable source of information! Remember that works both ways!
The rogatory statements are to be trusted for the simple reason they were recorded. None of the statements taken in Portugal were recorded. If memory serves me well on at least one occasion Kate's translator had words of disagreement with her ???
-
Oh, for goodness sake, Gunit
When Kate and Gerry and their friends gave their statements, they had to give their evidence sentence by sentence. It was written down, TRANSLATED and typed up line by line, RETRANSLATED and worse still, no interview was RECORED
I guarantee they could have been mistranslated in a variety of ways and just ONE word in English can have a subtly different meaning to Portuguese.
They probably didn’t say all that “word for word”, exactly, it’s how it’s sheen translated, then RETRANSLATED.
You’re making something out if nothing.
Oh for goodness sake Ispy. The McCanns were educated professionals, not idiots. Do you really think that Gerry wouldn't have corrected the interpreter if he said "Sean and I" on 4th and the interpreter re-translated it as "twins"?
Gerry isn't stupid, he wouldn't sign an incorrect statement.
-
Oh for goodness sake Ispy. The McCanns were educated professionals, not idiots. Do you really think that Gerry wouldn't have corrected the interpreter if he said "Sean and I" on 4th and the interpreter re-translated it as "twins"?
Gerry isn't stupid, he wouldn't sign an incorrect statement.
You are totally wrong to claim gerry wouldnt sign an incorrect statement...there is no guarantee that Gerry knew exactly what was in that statement. For that reason gerry may well have signed an incorrect statement
-
You are totally wrong to claim gerry wouldnt sign an incorrect statement...there is no guarantee that Gerry knew exactly what was in that statement. For that reason gerry may well have signed an incorrect statement
Of course he knew, it was read back to him.
-
You are totally wrong to claim gerry wouldnt sign an incorrect statement...there is no guarantee that Gerry knew exactly what was in that statement. For that reason gerry may well have signed an incorrect statement
I agree. We all sign on the dotted line. I think. Even more so when you are searching for your missing child and have to deal with red tape.
-
Of course he knew, it was read back to him.
Were you there...do you know what was read back to him. No you dont...nobody knows how accurately it was read back to him. You are speculating
-
The rogatory statements are to be trusted for the simple reason they were recorded. None of the statements taken in Portugal were recorded. If memory serves me well on at least one occasion Kate's translator had words of disagreement with her ???
Didn't they sign them?
As for the rogatory statements why is memory months old to be trusted more than recent memory? Well rehearsed imo but I very much doubt the recall of small detail was enhanced months down the line.
-
Were you there...do you know what was read back to him. No you dont...nobody knows how accurately it was read back to him. You are speculating
I'm not speculating, I'm assuming the interpreters did the job they were paid to do. You're suggesting they didn't.
-
I'm not speculating, I'm assuming the interpreters did the job they were paid to do. You're suggesting they didn't.
Assuming is similar to speculating...I'm agreeing with others... including Colin Sutton...and Rebelo if I recall correctly that there was huge possibility for error
-
Didn't they sign them?
As for the rogatory statements why is memory months old to be trusted more than recent memory? Well rehearsed imo but I very much doubt the recall of small detail was enhanced months down the line.
And yet you seem very impressed by Mr Smith’s sudden recall 4 months after the event.
-
And yet you seem very impressed by Mr Smith’s sudden recall 4 months after the event.
I bedlieve his statement to be an honest account of what he experienced. As did the Irish Police as far as I recall (no pun intended).
-
I bedlieve his statement to be an honest account of what he experienced. As did the Irish Police as far as I recall (no pun intended).
I know you believe that, but it wasn’t the point. The point was about whether or not memory that is months old can be trusted. You cast doubt upon the Rogs for this reason but don’t seem to have a problem with months old memory when it suits you.
-
I know you believe that, but it wasn’t the point. The point was about whether or not memory that is months old can be trusted. You cast doubt upon the Rogs for this reason but don’t seem to have a problem with months old memory when it suits you.
It's not that I cast doubt on the rogatory statements. By then the story was well rehearsed imo. What investigators look for is significant changes to a story or things that stand out. So for example if a person giving a statement consistently expresses time as "about" this "around" that and then is quite specific about one particular time then that stands out as significant. Early statements are important. Memory is generally fresher, generally more reliable... when you change your mind about which child was crying (when actually you don't know) based on what your other child has said then this change might possibly point to something of relevance. None of it is incriminatory nor damning in any way. They are just significant points to note for anyone investigating the case.
-
It's not that I cast doubt on the rogatory statements. By then the story was well rehearsed imo. What investigators look for is significant changes to a story or things that stand out. So for example if a person giving a statement consistently expresses time as "about" this "around" that and then is quite specific about one particular time then that stands out as significant. Early statements are important. Memory is generally fresher, generally more reliable... when you change your mind about which child was crying (when actually you don't know) based on what your other child has said then this change might possibly point to something of relevance. None of it is incriminatory nor damning in any way. They are just significant points to note for anyone investigating the case.
”the story was well rehearsed” sounds very much to me like you’re accusing all those who took part in the Rogs of a deliberate cover up, regardless of what you then go on to say.
-
Oh for goodness sake Ispy. The McCanns were educated professionals, not idiots. Do you really think that Gerry wouldn't have corrected the interpreter if he said "Sean and I" on 4th and the interpreter re-translated it as "twins"?
Gerry isn't stupid, he wouldn't sign an incorrect statement.
Gerry doesn’t speak Portuguese, Gunit.
He wouldn’t understand what the interpreter was saying he’d said!
How naive...
-
Gerry doesn’t speak Portuguese, Gunit.
He wouldn’t understand what the interpreter was saying he’d said!
How naive...
That would be a very brief interview.
....and you forgot to insert a crass reference to kicking dogs / cruelty.
-
Of course he knew, it was read back to him.
.
By an INTERPRETER who was interpreting BACK again from Portuguese to English.
I take it you don’t speak a second language?
I do. And I know how just one subtle word can change the whole sentence.
Or, things can be thought differently due to the meaning of those subtle words in different languages,
Then you have the problem with the questions: for example, when the PO asked in Portuguese if Madeleine had said the twin had been crying, he may have verified to the interpreter if that was “last night”. The interpreter would then have asked Gerry or Kate “was that last night?” and they could have agreed , but it all got confused in translation as they never actually SAID that themselves.
It’s too time-consuming to explain to you as you won’t believe it, so I can’t be bothered
-
”the story was well rehearsed” sounds very much to me like you’re accusing all those who took part in the Rogs of a deliberate cover up, regardless of what you then go on to say.
Someone’s got to have a very, very vivid imagination if they think a group of nine people all rehearsed hw to act, what to do, what to say, what to eta, what to drink...FGS. Some people have no brain
-
Were you there...do you know what was read back to him. No you dont...nobody knows how accurately it was read back to him. You are speculating
She doesn’t even understand the difficulties in translation...
-
I'm not speculating, I'm assuming the interpreters did the job they were paid to do. You're suggesting they didn't.
What don’t you understand about the fact that ALL translation is never, never 100% accurate because every language has words which when translated can have different meaning or several meanings.
Do you not speak a second language?
-
That would be a very brief interview.
....and you forgot to insert a crass reference to kicking dogs / cruelty.
Don’t act idiotic. If you can’t grasp what I meant don’t bother commenting
The only thing gross about kicking a little dog in its nose and then SMIRKING with pleasure is the the person who kicked it
-
Don’t act idiotic. If you can’t grasp what I meant don’t bother commenting
The only thing gross about kicking a little dog in its nose and then SMIRKING with pleasure is the the person who kicked it
There you go. Feel better now? Get that tired old 'kicked dog' trope in.
So what are you saying exactly, that Gerry didn't understand the questions, but was able to provide 100% pertinent answers?
Once again, you haven't read either, have you? You're winging it.
-
I bedlieve his statement to be an honest account of what he experienced. As did the Irish Police as far as I recall (no pun intended).
.
Mr Smith had an encounter.
And you say you believe him but all he saw was a man carrying a toddler and it triggered the memory of when he saw the man in Portugal — which it WOULD do. Especially as it was ABOUT the McCanns!
It triggered his memory of the night when it was dark, he’d been drinking, and wasn’t wearing his glasses
And WHY is it he quickly scurried away and hid, refusing to talk to anyone, when the actual PORTUGUESE police told him it was NOT Gerry as they had PROOF he was in the Tapas Bar at 10pm?
Why did his wife REFUSE to corroborate what her husband said? Probably because she knows him very well...
-
There you go. Feel better now? Get that tired old 'kicked dog' trope in.
So what are you saying exactly, that Gerry didn't understand the questions, but was able to provide 100% pertinent answers?
Once again, you haven't read either, have you? You're winging it.
It was YOU who mentioned the dog Gunit kicked, or have you already forgotten...I know your memory is bad...
I have read FYI, difference is, I understand it and you don’t
-
It was YOU who mentioned the dog Gunit kicked, or have you already forgotten...I know your memory is bad...
I have read FYI, difference is, I understand it and you don’t
Crack on, love.
-
It's not that I cast doubt on the rogatory statements. By then the story was well rehearsed imo. What investigators look for is significant changes to a story or things that stand out. So for example if a person giving a statement consistently expresses time as "about" this "around" that and then is quite specific about one particular time then that stands out as significant. Early statements are important. Memory is generally fresher, generally more reliable... when you change your mind about which child was crying (when actually you don't know) based on what your other child has said then this change might possibly point to something of relevance. None of it is incriminatory nor damning in any way. They are just significant points to note for anyone investigating the case.
I don't think anything was rehearsed. There is much too much detail in the answers. The interviewer is clever too asked questions then a bit of casual talk then back into asking the same questions later on. They wouldn't know what they were going to be asked and there is no delay in the answers.
-
I don't think anything was rehearsed. There is much too much detail in the answers. The interviewer is clever too asked questions then a bit of casual talk then back into asking the same questions later on. They wouldn't know what they were going to be asked and there is no delay in the answers.
[/b]
What do you think all the erms and ahs are, but delaying tactics ?
These are articulate people, used to speaking with other articulate people, not teenagers on a street corner.
-
What don’t you understand about the fact that ALL translation is never, never 100% accurate because every language has words which when translated can have different meaning or several meanings.
Do you not speak a second language?
Does that include the word gêmeos? What else does it mean apart from twins?
-
Gerry doesn’t speak Portuguese, Gunit.
He wouldn’t understand what the interpreter was saying he’d said!
How naive...
How ignorant.....
His statement was read back to him IN ENGLISH and he initialled each page and signed at the end of the document.
-
How ignorant.....
His statement was read back to him IN ENGLISH and he initialled each page and signed at the end of the document.
you dont know what was read back to him. what we know is that according to kate there were errors and because of that they made new statements
-
.
By an INTERPRETER who was interpreting BACK again from Portuguese to English.
I take it you don’t speak a second language?
I do. And I know how just one subtle word can change the whole sentence.
Or, things can be thought differently due to the meaning of those subtle words in different languages,
Then you have the problem with the questions: for example, when the PO asked in Portuguese if Madeleine had said the twin had been crying, he may have verified to the interpreter if that was “last night”. The interpreter would then have asked Gerry or Kate “was that last night?” and they could have agreed , but it all got confused in translation as they never actually SAID that themselves.
It’s too time-consuming to explain to you as you won’t believe it, so I can’t be bothered
gunit beleives the statements are 100% accurate with no chance of any error...that in my experience...is ridiculous.
-
Collin Sutton, "We’re talking about interviews given by the McCanns and friends through an interpreter, written down in Portuguese and then translated back into English so officers from Grange can read them. The room for error would be enormous.”
but gunit wants to think they are 100% accurate
-
What do you think all the erms and ahs are, but delaying tactics ?
These are articulate people, used to speaking with other articulate people, not teenagers on a street corner.
Everyone uses erms and ahs they are not delaying tactics at all.
-
you dont know what was read back to him. what we know is that according to kate there were errors and because of that they made new statements
Once again you are accepting the word of a person who became a formal suspect. They made statements to CRG for reasons best known to themselves, but those statements have never been released, so no-one knows what was said.
In my opinion complaining to the PJ about the alleged errors and re-doing their official statements would have made more sense. Waiting to mention the 'errors' for 4 years lessened the impact somewhat imo.
-
Everyone uses erms and ahs they are not delaying tactics at all.
I had reason to visit a consultant yesterday, not a erm and ah in sight.
-
Once again you are accepting the word of a person who became a formal suspect. They made statements to CRG for reasons best known to themselves, but those statements have never been released, so no-one knows what was said.
In my opinion complaining to the PJ about the alleged errors and re-doing their official statements would have made more sense. Waiting to mention the 'errors' for 4 years lessened the impact somewhat imo.
You are reading too much into formal suspects...first none of the evidence used to make them suspects was later confirmed....second it's normal for parents to be suspectd in such cases. You claim the statements are accurate...there is little evidence to support that but more that they are not
-
[/b]
What do you think all the erms and ahs are, but delaying tactics ?
These are articulate people, used to speaking with other articulate people, not teenagers on a street corner.
Villar found that people telling the truth generally used more filler words. In one instance, they reviewed the speeches of people who were telling the truth versus lying. The “results showed that instances of um were significantly more frequent and longer acoustic duration during truth-telling than during lying.”
-
I had reason to visit a consultant yesterday, not a erm and ah in sight.
i'm a similar level to consultant. When i speak to patients theres probably not a umm or err...they do tend to go unnoticed sometimes.
i once had to give a statement under caution for something I was not involved in. there were lots of umms and errs in the transcript. its a completely different situation
-
you dont know what was read back to him. what we know is that according to kate there were errors and because of that they made new statements
If GM wasn't happy then he shouldn't have signed it. Has he ever stated later which parts of the statements made and signed on the 4th and the 10th could on reflection have been poorly tanslated - and that he actually said something else?
-
If GM wasn't happy then he shouldn't have signed it. Has he ever stated later which parts of the statements made and signed on the 4th and the 10th could on reflection have been poorly tanslated - and that he actually said something else?
Kate in her book says that the statements had errors so they made new ones to Control Risks that were passed to the PJ.
-
I had reason to visit a consultant yesterday, not a erm and ah in sight.
I work in critical care and senior doctors are used to answering investigative questions, including those in the coroner's court. When I have shown a colleague the recorded interviews and transcripts of earlier ones she remarked that they were atypical of doctors being asked to recount stressful events. Consultants generally ooze confidence, they are clear about timelines, and they are clear and concise.
-
I work in critical care and senior doctors are used to answering investigative questions, including those in the coroner's court. When I have shown a colleague the recorded interviews and transcripts of earlier ones she remarked that they were atypical of doctors being asked to recount stressful events. Consultants generally ooze confidence, they are clear about timelines, and they are clear and concise.
Your colleagues are no doubt talking about others where there's no emotional involvement.
-
Kate in her book says that the statements had errors so they made new ones to Control Risks that were passed to the PJ.
Did she go into any detail? Did she say what the errors were? I hope when CB is questionned you will afford him the same treatment and call for him to make a new statement to a private risk management consuiltancy firm months later. Then you can hold this statement up as the most accurate one rather than anything taken down in a Police Station.
-
Did she go into any detail? Did she say what the errors were? I hope when CB is questionned you will afford him the same treatment and call for him to make a new statement to a private risk management consuiltancy firm months later. Then you can hold this statement up as the most accurate one rather than anything taken down in a Police Station.
i would certainly support his right to make and sign a statement in his own language.....I doubt it would stand up in court if he didnt
-
Did she go into any detail? Did she say what the errors were? I hope when CB is questionned you will afford him the same treatment and call for him to make a new statement to a private risk management consuiltancy firm months later. Then you can hold this statement up as the most accurate one rather than anything taken down in a Police Station.
Well there's a clue in their name; I doubt they're going to stop 'controlling the risks' by allowing any of them to implicate themselves in any way.
Besides, what an extraordinary additional, voluntary process. There's not being quite happy with the nuances of the original statements, then there's wholesale revisions overseen by a company who specialise in the preservation of client reputation.
-
Your colleagues are no doubt talking about others where there's no emotional involvement.
Not neccesarily. There is often emotional involvement. When a case goes to the coroner's court a doctor is often being asked to account for their own actions in relation to a patient death. The emotional aspect is something they often later include in a reflective account as part of a learning experience.
-
i would certainly support his right to make and sign a statement in his own language.....I doubt it would stand up in court if he didnt
What about writing his statement for a risk consultancy firm and holding that up as the accurate account?
-
I work in critical care and senior doctors are used to answering investigative questions, including those in the coroner's court. When I have shown a colleague the recorded interviews and transcripts of earlier ones she remarked that they were atypical of doctors being asked to recount stressful events. Consultants generally ooze confidence, they are clear about timelines, and they are clear and concise.
Can we infer any guilt from their atypical responses? No - not at all. It's just one point for consideration.
I don't know how anyone would be able to think straight having had their daughter disappear and hardly any sleep.
-
Not neccesarily. There is often emotional involvement. When a case goes to the coroner's court a doctor is often being asked to account for their own actions in relation to a patient death. The emotional aspect is something they often later include in a reflective account as part of a learning experience.
I don't think you can compare a professional setting with patients v parents, who happen to be medics, and their daughter disappearing whilst on a leisure break.
-
I don't know how anyone would be able to think straight having had their daughter disappear and hardly any sleep.
I don't know anyone whose early action would be to construct a timeline on a missing child's sticker book or ensure Sky News is reporting on the case by 8am the next morning. Why does the coherence go out of the window when being questionned by Police? Also the umms and errs are evident a year later in the T7 statements after they've had plenty of sleep.
Here's an example:
1485 "What about a kit bag' Would they have a kit bag with them''
Reply "Err he certainly didn't have a great big tennis bag or a, you know, err I mean I used to be a squash, a semi-professional squash player and you know they certainly didn't have anything that I would call a kit bag from days when I played''
1485 "Yeah.'
Reply "You know, a lot of sport, err if they had a rucksack with some water in that would be, you know, about as big as it got, you know a small rucksack. But it certainly wasn't a big tennis, you know, things that you could put a tennis racquet in.'
1485 "Yeah.'
Reply "There was nothing of that size that you could hide a, a tennis racquet in or anything like that
-
I don't know anyone whose primary action would be to construct a timeline on their missing child's sticker book or ensure Sky News is reporting on the case by 8am the next morning. Why does the coherence go out of the window when being questionned by Police? Also the umms and errs are evident a year later in the T7 statements after they've had plenty of sleep.
Here's an example:
1485 "What about a kit bag' Would they have a kit bag with them''
Reply "Err he certainly didn't have a great big tennis bag or a, you know, err I mean I used to be a squash, a semi-professional squash player and you know they certainly didn't have anything that I would call a kit bag from days when I played''
1485 "Yeah.'
Reply "You know, a lot of sport, err if they had a rucksack with some water in that would be, you know, about as big as it got, you know a small rucksack. But it certainly wasn't a big tennis, you know, things that you could put a tennis racquet in.'
1485 "Yeah.'
Reply "There was nothing of that size that you could hide a, a tennis racquet in or anything like that
It was ROB's idea to construct a timeline.
-
Theres a novel idea, hiding tennis racquets. 8(>((
-
It was ROB's idea to construct a timeline.
But the doctors were willing participants in constructing the timeline before joining the search for the "missing child".
-
I don't know anyone whose primary action would be to construct a timeline on their missing child's sticker book or ensure Sky News is reporting on the case by 8am the next morning. Why does the coherence go out of the window when being questionned by Police? Also the umms and errs are evident a year later in the T7 statements after they've had plenty of sleep.
Here's an example:
1485 "What about a kit bag' Would they have a kit bag with them''
Reply "Err he certainly didn't have a great big tennis bag or a, you know, err I mean I used to be a squash, a semi-professional squash player and you know they certainly didn't have anything that I would call a kit bag from days when I played''
1485 "Yeah.'
Reply "You know, a lot of sport, err if they had a rucksack with some water in that would be, you know, about as big as it got, you know a small rucksack. But it certainly wasn't a big tennis, you know, things that you could put a tennis racquet in.'
1485 "Yeah.'
Reply "There was nothing of that size that you could hide a, a tennis racquet in or anything like that
What a pejorative post.
Who used a child's book to construct a timeline?
Who contacted Sky News? Go on ... you know who don't you. But not nearly as much fun is it.
The umms and errs in real time speech are just what sometimes happens ... everyone does it at one time or another. But at least these are for real and can be seen to be real and what actually happened at the interviews.
The same cannot be said of a single interview emanating from the Judicial Police. Perhaps you could attempt a parody of that. Well you could if it wasn't a parody already.
-
What a pejorative post.
Who used a child's book to construct a timeline?
Who contacted Sky News? Go on ... you know who don't you. But not nearly as much fun is it.
The umms and errs in real time speech are just what sometimes happens ... everyone does it at one time or another. But at least these are for real and can be seen to be real and what actually happened at the interviews.
The same cannot be said of a single interview emanating from the Judicial Police. Perhaps you could attempt a parody of that. Well you could if it wasn't a parody already.
Are you of the belief that K&G were not participants in writing the timeline on the sticker book or that they didn't seek massive media attention from the off? Maybe they did this as a means of attempting to locate the missing child as they were frustrated by the efforts of the locals!
-
I don't think you can compare a professional setting with patients v parents, who happen to be medics, and their daughter disappearing whilst on a leisure break.
That's a fair point. Can it be applied to David Payne also, and still apply a year down the line? Perhaps it can.... food for thought.... thank you.
-
I don't know anyone whose primary action would be to construct a timeline on a missing child's sticker book or ensure Sky News is reporting on the case by 8am the next morning. Why does the coherence go out of the window when being questionned by Police? Also the umms and errs are evident a year later in the T7 statements after they've had plenty of sleep.
Here's an example:
1485 "What about a kit bag' Would they have a kit bag with them''
Reply "Err he certainly didn't have a great big tennis bag or a, you know, err I mean I used to be a squash, a semi-professional squash player and you know they certainly didn't have anything that I would call a kit bag from days when I played''
1485 "Yeah.'
Reply "You know, a lot of sport, err if they had a rucksack with some water in that would be, you know, about as big as it got, you know a small rucksack. But it certainly wasn't a big tennis, you know, things that you could put a tennis racquet in.'
1485 "Yeah.'
Reply "There was nothing of that size that you could hide a, a tennis racquet in or anything like that
It wasn't their primary action though was it? They had been out searching and decided to write the timeline when the Police had arrived and there was a time when they were sat around. How do you know it was Madeleine's sticker book? Two year olds like sticker books too. Anyway it doesn't matter what they wrote the timeline on does it? Here is what an expert on ums and ahs [filler words] has to say -
Villar found that people telling the truth generally used more filler words. In one instance, they reviewed the speeches of people who were telling the truth versus lying. The “results showed that instances of um were significantly more frequent and longer acoustic duration during truth-telling than during lying.”
-
It wasn't their primary action though was it? They had been out searching and decided to write the timeline when the Police had arrived and there was a time when they were sat around. How do you know it was Madeleine's sticker book? Two year olds like sticker books too. Anyway it doesn't matter what they wrote the timeline on does it? Here is what an expert on ums and ahs [filler words] has to say -
Villar found that people telling the truth generally used more filler words. In one instance, they reviewed the speeches of people who were telling the truth versus lying. The “results showed that instances of um were significantly more frequent and longer acoustic duration during truth-telling than during lying.”
I think it would be fair to put Villar's research into context:
Impacts on Credibility
Whatever the cause, scholars are split as to the positive and negative effects of these fillers on a speaker’s credibility. While the majority of scholars agree that the credibility of the speaker decreases with the increase of filler words (Conrad et al. 2013), some scholars suggest that filler words positively affect credibility of the speaker (Villar et al. 2014). Yet still others believe that filler words have absolutely no effect on a speaker’s credibility (Conrad et al. 2013, Pytko and Reese).
Negative Effects
Ultimately, the majority of scholars agree that the overuse of filler words ultimately negates speaker credibility. Frederick Conrad et al., of the Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, conducted a study wherein he recorded the successful acceptance rate of telemarketers’ invitation to participate in a survey (2013). He recorded the telemarketers and examined how frequently the telemarketers used filler words. He then compared that with the success rates and found that success rates drop in proportion to the number of filler words used, especially after the number of filler words per 100 words rises above 1.28%
(Exploring filler words and their impact
ED Duvall, AS Robbins, TR Graham, S Divett )
-
It wasn't their primary action though was it?
Fair point. I fixed my error.
-
I think it would be fair to put Villar's research into context:
Impacts on Credibility
Whatever the cause, scholars are split as to the positive and negative effects of these fillers on a speaker’s credibility. While the majority of scholars agree that the credibility of the speaker decreases with the increase of filler words (Conrad et al. 2013), some scholars suggest that filler words positively affect credibility of the speaker (Villar et al. 2014). Yet still others believe that filler words have absolutely no effect on a speaker’s credibility (Conrad et al. 2013, Pytko and Reese).
Negative Effects
Ultimately, the majority of scholars agree that the overuse of filler words ultimately negates speaker credibility. Frederick Conrad et al., of the Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, conducted a study wherein he recorded the successful acceptance rate of telemarketers’ invitation to participate in a survey (2013). He recorded the telemarketers and examined how frequently the telemarketers used filler words. He then compared that with the success rates and found that success rates drop in proportion to the number of filler words used, especially after the number of filler words per 100 words rises above 1.28%
(Exploring filler words and their impact
ED Duvall, AS Robbins, TR Graham, S Divett )
Sorry I replied to the question that when being interviewed they ummed and ahhed a lot, that makes them guilty of not telling the truth. I replied with an article that stated that actually those using filler words a lot were proven to be telling the truth when they did an experiment. I don't know how success rates dropping has anything to do with it.
-
I had reason to visit a consultant yesterday, not a erm and ah in sight.
Was he or she recalling events in detail from last year?
-
I work in critical care and senior doctors are used to answering investigative questions, including those in the coroner's court. When I have shown a colleague the recorded interviews and transcripts of earlier ones she remarked that they were atypical of doctors being asked to recount stressful events. Consultants generally ooze confidence, they are clear about timelines, and they are clear and concise.
Your colleague has questioned numerous doctors about stressful events that occurred to them in their personal lives? How very unusual!
-
Sorry I replied to the question that when being interviewed they ummed and ahhed a lot, that makes them guilty of not telling the truth. I replied with an article that stated that actually those using filler words a lot were proven to be telling the truth when they did an experiment. I don't know how success rates dropping has anything to do with it.
It's more that most scholars don't support Villar's research with regards to credibility and filler words.
It's not just "credibility" either there is research to contradict Villar's conclusions on "truthfullness". Such as:
Matsumoto, D., & Hwang, H. S., et. al. (2011) “Evaluating truthfulness and Deception: New tools to aid investigators”, FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, (June): 1-9.
Navarro, J. (2008) “What Every Body is Saying”, New York, NY: HarperCollins Publishers.
Vrij, A. (2008) “Detecting Lies and Deceit: Pitfalls and Opportunities”, Wiley-Blackwell; 2nd Edition, ISBN-13: 978-0470516256
-
Your colleague has questioned numerous doctors about stressful events that occurred to them in their personal lives? How very unusual!
It's not unusual at all. We work with doctors. Discussion on stressful events is a daily norm.
-
It's not unusual at all. We work with doctors. Discussion on stressful events is a daily norm.
At work doctors are in their comfort zone...being interviewed by the police re the possible death of a friends child is outside the comfort zone
-
It wasn't their primary action though was it? They had been out searching and decided to write the timeline when the Police had arrived and there was a time when they were sat around. How do you know it was Madeleine's sticker book? Two year olds like sticker books too. Anyway it doesn't matter what they wrote the timeline on does it? Here is what an expert on ums and ahs [filler words] has to say -
Villar found that people telling the truth generally used more filler words. In one instance, they reviewed the speeches of people who were telling the truth versus lying. The “results showed that instances of um were significantly more frequent and longer acoustic duration during truth-telling than during lying.”
The first thing the police (PJ) said they did was chuck the McCanns friends out of 5A. No sitting around.
-
It's not unusual at all. We work with doctors. Discussion on stressful events is a daily norm.
In their personal lives? And record and transcribe them?
-
Let's put this on the correct thread.
Quote from: Lace on Today at 04:24:21 PM
Well, the waiter agrees with Russell about what time he arrived back at the table, which was quarter to ten. It took ten minutes for Russell to have his meal back and he had almost finished it when Kate give the alarm. Dianne Webster says in her statement that Kate said 'she's gone Gerry' so Gerry was at the table end of.
Matt said Kate left at 9:50 and they all agreed except Gerry that she wasn't gone very long before returning.
Russell received his meal at that time and had only had a few bites of his steak as Dianne Webster put it when Kate returned to raise the alarm. That discards your 9:55 time before he even got his meal!
"Well I mean Russell, by the time Russell had got back to the table err he’d err they’d err they’d cooked another steak for him, it didn’t take very long and he literally I suppose just had about two bites of it when err Kate came running." https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/DIANE-WEBSTER-2.htm
The waiter said he kept his meal warm and said nothing about it being recooked! But it was held back a little bit to suggest it was.
My Conclusion: Russell received his meal at the same time as Kate left - 9:50pm
-
Lets also put this on the correct thread
Quote from: Vertigo Swirl on July 03, 2020, 11:38:18 PM
Right. So the alarm must have actually been raised before 9.30pm then. Well that throws a spanner in the works!
No he says he left the Tapas around 9:15 - 9:30 and his wife heard the girls name on the way back to their apartment. Pure speculation but the voice she heard may have been coming from 5a. It could have been someone carrying out the very first action following a "safe approach" in the CPR algorithm: "The majority of paediatric cardiorespiratory arrests are not caused by primary cardiac problems but are secondary to other causes, mostly respiratory insufficiency; hence the order of delivering the resuscitation sequence: airway (A),breathing (B), and circulation (C).Rescuers should [first] assess the responsiveness of a child"
-
Lets also put this on the correct thread
No he says he left the Tapas around 9:15 - 9:30 and his wife heard the girls name on the way back to their apartment. Pure speculation but the voice she heard may have been coming from 5a. It could have been someone carrying out the very first action following a "safe approach" in the CPR algorithm: "The majority of paediatric cardiorespiratory arrests are not caused by primary cardiac problems but are secondary to other causes, mostly respiratory insufficiency; hence the order of delivering the resuscitation sequence: airway (A),breathing (B), and circulation (C).Rescuers should [first] assess the responsiveness of a child"
Right. So Madeleine was still potentially alive and saveable up to 9.30pm, which means the dog alerts can’t be right. Not enough time for cadaver odour to develop you see. And which woman would have been trying to resuscitate her? Bear in mind Gerry McCann had rejoined the table at this point, do you think it might have been him disguising his voice?
-
Let's put this on the correct thread.
Quote from: Lace on Today at 04:24:21 PM
Well, the waiter agrees with Russell about what time he arrived back at the table, which was quarter to ten. It took ten minutes for Russell to have his meal back and he had almost finished it when Kate give the alarm. Dianne Webster says in her statement that Kate said 'she's gone Gerry' so Gerry was at the table end of.
Matt said Kate left at 9:50 and they all agreed except Gerry that she wasn't gone very long before returning.
Russell received his meal at that time and had only had a few bites of his steak as Dianne Webster put it when Kate returned to raise the alarm. That discards your 9:55 time before he even got his meal!
"Well I mean Russell, by the time Russell had got back to the table err he’d err they’d err they’d cooked another steak for him, it didn’t take very long and he literally I suppose just had about two bites of it when err Kate came running." https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/DIANE-WEBSTER-2.htm
The waiter said he kept his meal warm and said nothing about it being recooked! But it was held back a little bit to suggest it was.
My Conclusion: Russell received his meal at the same time as Kate left - 9:50pm
Dianne Webster says further up in her statement that Russell was back about 10 to 10, that they did a fresh steak for him and he was tucking into it when Kate came back. Sorry but I believe that Russell waited about 10 before having his steak back making it 10o'clock which is when Kate left to check. Matthew Oldfield also says this -
Reply 'It probably came up but seemed inappropriate to mention. But, erm, she went off to relieve Russell, as it were, to sort of take over, erm, sort of duties and make sure that Evie was alright and then Russell came back and they actually redid his food, erm, I mean, he was eating it when the next sort of checks went, which were about half an hour later'
Half an hour later so making it 10 o'clock.
-
Right. So Madeleine was still potentially alive and saveable up to 9.30pm, which means the dog alerts can’t be right. Not enough time for cadaver odour to develop you see. And which woman would have been trying to resuscitate her? Bear in mind Gerry McCann had rejoined the table at this point, do you think it might have been him disguising his voice?
Eddie must have been alerting to blood then... Though there is evidence to suggest that cadaverine can be detected in less than one hour. I may be wrong but I believe Grime or Harrison make that point when answering one of the questions in their statements... And you’re wrong with “saveable” and CPR algorithms. You would approach any unresponsive child, shake their shoulder, and call their name... they could already be dead.... and before you say they were doctors they know when someone is dead the first response of a doctor would still be as described. The next step to confirm death would be “look, listen and feel” for 10 seconds. Look for signs of life and respiratory effort, listen for breath sounds, feel for a pulse.
-
Dianne Webster says further up in her statement that Russell was back about 10 to 10, that they did a fresh steak for him and he was tucking into it when Kate came back. Sorry but I believe that Russell waited about 10 before having his steak back making it 10o'clock which is when Kate left to check. Matthew Oldfield also says this -
Reply 'It probably came up but seemed inappropriate to mention. But, erm, she went off to relieve Russell, as it were, to sort of take over, erm, sort of duties and make sure that Evie was alright and then Russell came back and they actually redid his food, erm, I mean, he was eating it when the next sort of checks went, which were about half an hour later'
Half an hour later so making it 10 o'clock.
You are so wrong! More myth-making? Don't worry I will put an end to any of your nonsense!
Dianne did not know what time the alarm was raised as she said!
Dianne Webster Reply “Oh when she came back and Madeleine had been taken, yeah she, at that point she’d disappeared.”
4078 “Do you know what sort of time that was?”
Dianne Webster Reply “Well no, again, you see I didn’t, I didn’t look at my watch, I’m only going on err I mean Dave would have been more aware of the time than I was.”
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/DIANE-WEBSTER-2.htm
Dianne said Russell's meal didn't take long so 10 minutes in your dreams! She said Russell got his meal when Kate left to check so 9:50 according to Matt. Kate raised the alarm by 9:54 IMO.
Minutes later we get this statement
Gerry, just said ‘Look, let’s just’, erm, ‘let’s just split up and find’, erm, you know, ‘see if we can find her.
https://mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RUSSELL-OBRIEN_ROGATORY.htm
What happens next? The Smith sighting!
-
You are so wrong! More myth-making? Don't worry I will put an end to any of your nonsense!
Dianne did not know what time the alarm was raised as she said!
Dianne Webster Reply “Oh when she came back and Madeleine had been taken, yeah she, at that point she’d disappeared.”
4078 “Do you know what sort of time that was?”
Dianne Webster Reply “Well no, again, you see I didn’t, I didn’t look at my watch, I’m only going on err I mean Dave would have been more aware of the time than I was.”
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/DIANE-WEBSTER-2.htm
Dianne said Russell's meal didn't take long so 10 minutes in your dreams! She said Russell got his meal when Kate left to check so 9:50 according to Matt. Kate raised the alarm by 9:54 IMO.
Minutes later we get this statement
Gerry, just said ‘Look, let’s just’, erm, ‘let’s just split up and find’, erm, you know, ‘see if we can find her.
https://mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RUSSELL-OBRIEN_ROGATORY.htm
What happens next? The Smith sighting!
Put an end to any of my nonsense? I am showing you the statements. They all show that Kate was at the table when Russell came back and later went to do her check. This is what Rachael Oldfield had to say -
Russell came back and he'd ordered steak or something but they couldn't do another one and brought him his food, we'd all finished I think, erm so he was eating his dinner and Kate said that she you know was, must have been about five to ten then or ten o'clock, so Kate said you know, she'd go up and check, do her check and within a couple of minutes later she came back and shouting Madeleines gone you know, and then we all just leapt up from the table and went up to her, followed her and Gerry
Notice Kate was still there when Russell was eating his dinner, Russell said he waited about ten minutes for his meal to arrive. The waiter said Russel returned to the table abut a quarter to ten, Russell said he returned to the table at quarter to ten. So at the earliest Kate left at five to ten or ten o'clock.
Then they left the table and went to 5a where Gerry searched the apartment again, what time was it then I wonder? five, ten past ten maybe? Then he was seen by a waiter searching around the pool. By then many had heard about Madeleine disappearing and were gathering to search for her. So Gerry was not Smithman he didn't carry Madeleine down to the beach. You need to think again.
-
Right. So Madeleine was still potentially alive and saveable up to 9.30pm, which means the dog alerts can’t be right. Not enough time for cadaver odour to develop you see. And which woman would have been trying to resuscitate her? Bear in mind Gerry McCann had rejoined the table at this point, do you think it might have been him disguising his voice?
Does SC’s wife say it was a female voice? In their April 200& statement I just remember a reference to “a voice” but the line of questioning appears quite poor given the possible significance of “a voice” saying “Madeleine, Madeleine” at some point “around 9:15 to 9:30”
-
Put an end to any of my nonsense? I am showing you the statements. They all show that Kate was at the table when Russell came back and later went to do her check. This is what Rachael Oldfield had to say -
Russell came back and he'd ordered steak or something but they couldn't do another one and brought him his food, we'd all finished I think, erm so he was eating his dinner and Kate said that she you know was, must have been about five to ten then or ten o'clock, so Kate said you know, she'd go up and check, do her check and within a couple of minutes later she came back and shouting Madeleines gone you know, and then we all just leapt up from the table and went up to her, followed her and Gerry
Notice Kate was still there when Russell was eating his dinner, Russell said he waited about ten minutes for his meal to arrive. The waiter said Russel returned to the table abut a quarter to ten, Russell said he returned to the table at quarter to ten. So at the earliest Kate left at five to ten or ten o'clock.
Then they left the table and went to 5a where Gerry searched the apartment again, what time was it then I wonder? five, ten past ten maybe? Then he was seen by a waiter searching around the pool. By then many had heard about Madeleine disappearing and were gathering to search for her. So Gerry was not Smithman he didn't carry Madeleine down to the beach. You need to think again.
Rachael saying it must have been about 5 to 10 or 10 means she did not know the time @)(++(*
Guesses are just that - a guess! Give me a witness who knew the actual time please.
By the way, he clarifies that that news had been communicated to all the friends who were in the Tapas by Kate McCann subsequent to her having personally been to her flat to check that her children were well.
The question asked, he relates that she had gone there alone to do that at 21:50.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MATTHEW-OLDFIELD-10MAY.htm
For Matt to say 9:50 he had to have looked at his watch to know it! So they can ask him that question to confirm!
-
Does SC’s wife say it was a female voice? In their April 200& statement I just remember a reference to “a voice” but the line of questioning appears quite poor given the possible significance of “a voice” saying “Madeleine, Madeleine” at some point “around 9:15 to 9:30”
OK, let’s say it was a man’s voice. Let’s say it had a Glaswegian accent. Now tell me how it fits in with Jez Wilkins statement, and those of the others sat at the table when Gerry returned.
-
Rachael saying it must have been about 5 to 10 or 10 means she did not know the time @)(++(*
Guesses are just that - a guess! Give me a witness who knew the actual time please.
By the way, he clarifies that that news had been communicated to all the friends who were in the Tapas by Kate McCann subsequent to her having personally been to her flat to check that her children were well.
The question asked, he relates that she had gone there alone to do that at 21:50.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MATTHEW-OLDFIELD-10MAY.htm
For Matt to say 9:50 he had to have looked at his watch to know it! So they can ask him that question to confirm!
You give me a witness that says it was definitely 10 to 10.
I'm going by the time they would have finished starters, they say there is a gap of about 10 minutes between starters and dinner. Russell left when the dinner was arriving. He and the waiter say he was back at about 15 minutes to 10. He then waited about 10 minutes for his food, then someone asks the time and someone says about 10 o'clock. Kate then leaves the table to do her check. It might have been 5 to 10 but I don't think it was any earlier.
-
You give me a witness that says it was definitely 10 to 10.
I'm going by the time they would have finished starters, they say there is a gap of about 10 minutes between starters and dinner. Russell left when the dinner was arriving. He and the waiter say he was back at about 15 minutes to 10. He then waited about 10 minutes for his food, then someone asks the time and someone says about 10 o'clock. Kate then leaves the table to do her check. It might have been 5 to 10 but I don't think it was any earlier.
All a bit in-determinant, don't you think ?
-
OK, let’s say it was a man’s voice. Let’s say it had a Glaswegian accent. Now tell me how it fits in with Jez Wilkins statement, and those of the others sat at the table when Gerry returned.
The statement does not say if it was a male or a female voice.
But you've liked a post earlier by Dave that mocks anyone that suggests the statements (from Portugal) are in any way reliable. So which is it? Do you accept the statements and if so which ones.... then we can look at the timeline as you see it.
-
The statement does not say if it was a male or a female voice.
But you've liked a post earlier by Dave that mocks anyone that suggests the statements (from Portugal) are in any way reliable. So which is it? Do you accept the statements and if so which ones.... then we can look at the timeline as you see it.
when you can show me that the statements are 100% accurate as gunit claims.. i will apologise....as you will never be able to show this .. i will never have to. No opinion...all fact
-
The statement does not say if it was a male or a female voice.
But you've liked a post earlier by Dave that mocks anyone that suggests the statements (from Portugal) are in any way reliable. So which is it? Do you accept the statements and if so which ones.... then we can look at the timeline as you see it.
the germans may well have evidence that proves..
the MccCanns non involement..
that Maddie did not die in the apartment or was removed immediately after death...which would prove the dog alerts BS
im happy to wait and see
-
when you can show me that the statements are 100% accurate as gunit claims.. i will apologise....as you will never be able to show this .. i will never have to. No opinion...all fact
What you therefore demonstrate is that there is no independent witness that has made a statement that you accept as reliable who proves that Smithman can’t be GM.
We don’t know exactly what time the alarm was raised and we don’t know the exact time of the Smith sighting.
-
You give me a witness that says it was definitely 10 to 10.
I'm going by the time they would have finished starters, they say there is a gap of about 10 minutes between starters and dinner. Russell left when the dinner was arriving. He and the waiter say he was back at about 15 minutes to 10. He then waited about 10 minutes for his food, then someone asks the time and someone says about 10 o'clock. Kate then leaves the table to do her check. It might have been 5 to 10 but I don't think it was any earlier.
What about 22:03 for Kate to get up for her check? Is that too late?
-
You give me a witness that says it was definitely 10 to 10.
I'm going by the time they would have finished starters, they say there is a gap of about 10 minutes between starters and dinner. Russell left when the dinner was arriving. He and the waiter say he was back at about 15 minutes to 10. He then waited about 10 minutes for his food, then someone asks the time and someone says about 10 o'clock. Kate then leaves the table to do her check. It might have been 5 to 10 but I don't think it was any earlier.
1. Russell and Matt had finished their starters before they left the table to check at 9:25.
2. Main courses were served at around 9:30 so at least 10 minutes after the starters were served. The waiter was told to keep Russell's meal warm.
3. Russell returned to the table at 9:45 and the waiter was told to hold his meal back a little bit before serving him (he confirms it in his statement and also the 9:45 return time of Russell). Dianne said Russell received his meal at the same time as Kate left to do her check. Matt said she left at 9:50.
Conclusion - Russell waited 5 minutes to get his meal after returning so received it at 9:50.
4. Kate was not gone long on her check and was back within minutes.
Conclusion - Kate had raised the alarm by 9:54.
-
I appreciate that this scrutiny of the timeline is important to some posters here.
Do you believe this scrutiny has taken place by the various police investigations since Madeleine`s disappeatance?
If it has .Do you believe the investigation have ignored the discrepancies or resolved the discrepancies?
-
I appreciate that this scrutiny of the timeline is important to some posters here.
Do you believe this scrutiny has taken place by the various police investigations since Madeleine`s disappeatance?
If it has .Do you believe the investigation have ignored the discrepancies or resolved the discrepancies?
They should have resolved the timeline after 13 years. You ask Matt - how did you know what time it was when Kate left the table? His answer should be - I checked my watch and it was 9:50. Simple!
-
They should have resolved the timeline after 13 years. You ask Matt - how did you know what time it was when Kate left the table? His answer should be - I checked my watch and it was 9:50. Simple!
Nope.
I don't do the scrutiny of the timeline but you do.
I asked if your scrutiny of the timeline will have in your opinion taken place by the investigation by any police force?
Either, Portuguese, British, German and if.so.have these inaccuracies which you have detailed been ignored by these investigations.
-
The timeline will be resolved by SY and the PJ. They are working together and can contact the relevant witnesses to confirm or deny certain times.
The careful and critical analysis of the timeline has been absolutely key - Scotland Yard 2013
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24509235
-
The timeline will be resolved by SY and the PJ. They are working together and can contact the relevant witnesses to confirm or deny certain times.
The careful and critical analysis of the timeline has been absolutely key - Scotland Yard 2013
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24509235
out
Seven years ago?
So still time to bring Kate and Gerry to trial for whatever you believe them to be guilty of??
-
out
Seven years ago?
So still time to bring Kate and Gerry to trial for whatever you believe them to be guilty of??
They also released the Smithman efits in 2013 and he's still not been identified.
-
They also released the Smithman efits in 2013 and he's still not been identified.
Indeed.
Do you believe this is a point of concern by the current investigation by either the Portuguese, UK and now the German police?
-
The timeline will be resolved by SY and the PJ. They are working together and can contact the relevant witnesses to confirm or deny certain times.
The careful and critical analysis of the timeline has been absolutely key - Scotland Yard 2013
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24509235
They all be saying,"I can't remember now it was too long ago".
-
Indeed.
Do you believe this is a point of concern by the current investigation by either the Portuguese, UK and now the German police?
I think the only timeline of interest to anyone who matters for quite some time has been Brueckner's.
-
The statement does not say if it was a male or a female voice.
But you've liked a post earlier by Dave that mocks anyone that suggests the statements (from Portugal) are in any way reliable. So which is it? Do you accept the statements and if so which ones.... then we can look at the timeline as you see it.
I accept the statements are more or less an accurate representation of what the witnesses saw and heard or thought they saw and heard and the time they thought they saw or heard it. I accept the possibility / likelihood of human fallibility at every stage of the witness statement process. It isn’t necessary to try and make every single piece of the jigsaw fit together withing the framework of the timeline you know, as you will find it impossible to do so. You have to use a modicum of judgement and common sense to work out the most likely chain of events even if not every single witness statement supports it.
-
They all be saying,"I can't remember now it was too long ago".
Nonsense. He signed his statement confirming that time!
-
Nonsense. He signed his statement confirming that time!
And now they could claim not even remembering signing that. Look at Prince Andrew and his bad memory, or is it? You can't make a person remember something if they don't want to.
-
Does SC’s wife say it was a female voice? In their April 200& statement I just remember a reference to “a voice” but the line of questioning appears quite poor given the possible significance of “a voice” saying “Madeleine, Madeleine” at some point “around 9:15 to 9:30”
I think the problem you may be having is that you appear to be trying to make a mountain out of a molehill or something out of nothing.
It really is nothing too. Have you ever seen Mrs Carpenter's statement ... I haven't ... I've only read hearsay? There is probably a good reason why she had nothing to say if you carefully read her (deaf ???) husband's statement on her behalf.
Snip
At approximately half past eight, Gerry and Kate and their group of approximately ten people were already seated at their table, which was so close to ours that it was possible to converse with them, we spoke of tennis amongst other things, I vaguely remember that Gerry and Kate and other people from the group would leave the table in intervals (inaudible), I think it was to check on the children , but I do not remember with what frequency or how many times the people left the table to check on the children.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
My wife mentioned on the following day that she vaguely remembered someone calling "Madeleine, Madeleine", this was after we had crossed the road from the MW reception and before entering our apartment. She does not remember where the sound came from or whether it was in an urgent tone, not paying any more attention to it and only remembered the following day when we heard about Madeleine's disappearance".
https://mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/STEPHEN-CARPENTER.htm
-
I accept the statements are more or less an accurate representation of what the witnesses saw and heard or thought they saw and heard and the time they thought they saw or heard it. I accept the possibility / likelihood of human fallibility at every stage of the witness statement process. It isn’t necessary to try and make every single piece of the jigsaw fit together withing the framework of the timeline you know, as you will find it impossible to do so. You have to use a modicum of judgement and common sense to work out the most likely chain of events even if not every single witness statement supports it.
None of the holidaymakers were caring about time. Even Stephen Carpenter was pretty vague, But he seems quite certain the McCann party were seated by half eight ... possibly because he either looked at his watch or had calculated it from the time of his booking.
-
I think the problem you may be having is that you appear to be trying to make a mountain out of a molehill or something out of nothing.
It really is nothing too. Have you ever seen Mrs Carpenter's statement ... I haven't ... I've only read hearsay? There is probably a good reason why she had nothing to say if you carefully read her (deaf ???) husband's statement on her behalf.
Snip
At approximately half past eight, Gerry and Kate and their group of approximately ten people were already seated at their table, which was so close to ours that it was possible to converse with them, we spoke of tennis amongst other things, I vaguely remember that Gerry and Kate and other people from the group would leave the table in intervals (inaudible), I think it was to check on the children , but I do not remember with what frequency or how many times the people left the table to check on the children.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
My wife mentioned on the following day that she vaguely remembered someone calling "Madeleine, Madeleine", this was after we had crossed the road from the MW reception and before entering our apartment. She does not remember where the sound came from or whether it was in an urgent tone, not paying any more attention to it and only remembered the following day when we heard about Madeleine's disappearance".
https://mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/STEPHEN-CARPENTER.htm
What possible reason could SC have for making up what he said his wife told him ?
I noticed you edited my post but didn’t reply to it.
You really do have problems answering my rather straightforward questions, don’t you Brietta ?
-
Indeed.
Do you believe this is a point of concern by the current investigation by either the Portuguese, UK and now the German police?
Absolutely. No-one disputes Smithman. It seems possible (even probable) that this is indeed a person carrying MM away from apartment 5a. SY now agree. CM imo has (quite possibly) missed the early opportunity to publicise this sighting. John, on this forum, has explained why. Yet if it's so easy to prove it's not GM this makes no sense. It's not GM (he has an alibi) so finding out who he was should have been, imo, the central priority.
-
Absolutely. No-one disputes Smithman. It seems possible (even probable) that this is indeed a person carrying MM away from apartment 5a. SY now agree. CM imo has (quite possibly) missed the early opportunity to publicise this sighting. John, on this forum, has explained why. Yet if it's so easy to prove it's not GM this makes no sense. It's not GM (he has an alibi) so finding out who he was should have been, imo, the central priority.
It seems the prime suspect isn't Smith man and that Smith man played no part
-
It seems the prime suspect isn't Smith man and that Smith man played no part
What's your basis for claiming that?
Here's another independent witness that states the alarm was raised earlier. It's also worth bearing in mind that an employee is likely to have a better idea of the time than a group on holiday eating and drinking. It's also worth pointing out that nothing is lost in translation with this statement:
Arlindo Peleja (Executive Chef at the Ocean Club).
...."He remembers having seen in that esplanade, one table, occupied by three couples, without children, and all of them adults. On the esplanade, he encountered no one else.
. A few minutes later, when it was around 21H20, he heard some clamour, which made him leave toward the restaurant, a few meters away, and was then informed that a child had disappeared. Given the importance of this, believed that he should be in the surroundings. At that moment, he did not leave the area of the restaurant, and did not have the opportunity to check if the vehicle mentioned before was situated in the same location;
. Later, at around 21:40, he left the restaurant passing through the same esplanade where moments before, he had seen the same table occupied by the three couples, empty, who had left in the meanwhile various items, principally clothing. He was told by his colleagues that the child who had disappeared was a child of one of those couples...."
-
What's your basis for claiming that?
Here's another independent witness that states the alarm was raised earlier. It's also worth bearing in mind that an employee is likely to have a better idea of the time than a group on holiday eating and drinking. It's also worth pointing out that nothing is lost in translation with this statement:
Arlindo Peleja (Executive Chef at the Ocean Club).
...."He remembers having seen in that esplanade, one table, occupied by three couples, without children, and all of them adults. On the esplanade, he encountered no one else.
. A few minutes later, when it was around 21H20, he heard some clamour, which made him leave toward the restaurant, a few meters away, and was then informed that a child had disappeared. Given the importance of this, believed that he should be in the surroundings. At that moment, he did not leave the area of the restaurant, and did not have the opportunity to check if the vehicle mentioned before was situated in the same location;
. Later, at around 21:40, he left the restaurant passing through the same esplanade where moments before, he had seen the same table occupied by the three couples, empty, who had left in the meanwhile various items, principally clothing. He was told by his colleagues that the child who had disappeared was a child of one of those couples...."
The prime suspect is now Breukner...and he isn't Smith man
-
Absolutely. No-one disputes Smithman. It seems possible (even probable) that this is indeed a person carrying MM away from apartment 5a. SY now agree. CM imo has (quite possibly) missed the early opportunity to publicise this sighting. John, on this forum, has explained why. Yet if it's so easy to prove it's not GM this makes no sense. It's not GM (he has an alibi) so finding out who he was should have been, imo, the central priority.
The central priority was the responsibility of Goncalo Amaral and the Judicial Police; but like so much else in Madeleine's case either Amaral renaged on that or the PJ decided after interviewing the Smiths it was not their central priority.
Extraordinarily, again you still insist on placing all lack of action re Smithman on Clarence Mitchell which seems to be quite an obsession with you and is nonsensical.
Check your timeline.
Clarence Mitchell would not have been in a position to know anything about Smithman ... he was not even in Luz or anywhere near it in the early days.
Indeed no-one knew anything about Smithman for a fortnight after the event not even the Judicial Police whose sole responsibility it was to carry out all the diligences you have assigned to to Clarence Mitchell.
The Portuguese have not publicised Smithman.
Just as a matter of interest ... did he ever make an appearance on the PJ website?
From madeleine written by Kate McCann ...
"It was only through having the police files that we learned of several key sightings of a suspicious individual or individuals near our apartment in the days and hours around Madeleine’s abduction.
________________________________________________________________
In addition to the man and child seen by Jane Tanner at about 9.15pm on the evening Madeleine was taken, and the similar sighting forty-five minutes later by the family from Ireland,
________________________________________________________________
The police did not appear to feel that Jane’s sighting in Rua Dr Agostinho da Silva and the man and child reported by the Irish holidaymakers in Rua da Escola Primária were related. They seem to have concluded that these were in all likelihood two different men carrying two different children (if, they implied, these two men actually existed at all)."
-
The prime suspect is now Breukner...and he isn't Smith man
Just another suspect you mean or IYO
How many have there been up to now who just fizzle as old news till the next one?
-
Just another suspect you mean or IYO
How many have there been up to now who just fizzle as old news till the next one?
There has been a process of elimination over the years ... that is how police go about finding the perpetrators of crime.
Timelines come and go and are obviously a consideration but the main plank of the investigation appears to be the phone calls made by those with particular profiles such as that of the only suspects made arguidos so that they could lawfully be questioned in 2014.
The Germans have unearthed their prime suspect partly using exactly the same phone data which was available in 2007.
But as Amaral has confirmed ... the police knocked ... but Brueckner wasn't in.
-
Just another suspect you mean or IYO
How many have there been up to now who just fizzle as old news till the next one?
Who else is a suspect at the moment..no one...he is the prime suspect...the Germans say they have concrete evidence he killed Maddie...have you not been following the news. Had any police force said that before
-
The prime suspect is now Breukner...and he isn't Smith man
You're missing the point. An employee has made a statement stating that at "around 21:20 he heard some clamour" and that by "21:40" the T9 were no longer in the Tapas Bar.
-
You're missing the point. An employee has made a statement stating that at "around 21:20 he heard some clamour" and that by "21:40" the T9 were no longer in the Tapas Bar.
Can you make his statement fit with the statement by the waiter who served Oldfield his re-heated steak and also Jez Wilkins statement, ta muchly.
-
Who else is a suspect at the moment..no one...he is the prime suspect...the Germans say they have concrete evidence he killed Maddie...have you not been following the news. Had any police force said that before
HCW is a state prosecutor. Let's see how he fares if his appeals don't turn up what he's hoping for ie incriminating evidence.
-
HCW is a state prosecutor. Let's see how he fares if his appeals don't turn up what he's hoping for ie incriminating evidence.
What do you expect to happen to him in such an eventuality?
-
Who else is a suspect at the moment..no one...he is the prime suspect...the Germans say they have concrete evidence he killed Maddie...have you not been following the news. Had any police force said that before
The MET refers to a suspect no prime mentioned.
“While this male is a suspect we retain an open mind as to his involvement and this remains a missing person inquiry.
-
What do you expect to happen to him in such an eventuality?
Fired.
-
Fired.
Then he must be really stupid to put his job on the line over nothing at all. Is that what you think he’s done? Risked his career and livlihood on a whim to deceive?
-
The MET refers to a suspect no prime mentioned.
“While this male is a suspect we retain an open mind as to his involvement and this remains a missing person inquiry.
How many times have the McCanns been referred to as prime suspects...did you ever object.....he's the only suspect at the moment...and therefore by definition the prime suspect
-
The MET refers to a suspect no prime mentioned.
“While this male is a suspect we retain an open mind as to his involvement and this remains a missing person inquiry.
Hedging their bets as they are no longer in control and have no say in how the Germans will proceed.
IMO
-
HCW is a state prosecutor. Let's see how he fares if his appeals don't turn up what he's hoping for ie incriminating evidence.
Do you think he shouldn't be making these appeals
-
Fired.
Utter drivel
-
Utter drivel
You're sounding like Myster.
Wait and see.
-
Can you make his statement fit with the statement by the waiter who served Oldfield his re-heated steak and also Jez Wilkins statement, ta muchly.
Jez Wilkin's with regards to the timeline states:
"Q. Relative to the time I met Gerry McCann on the Thursday night of May 3, 2007;
As stated in my original deposition, I believe that I left the apartment around 20h30. I calculate that I met Gerry on the road between 20h45 and 21h15. I am aware of the importance of this hour and am also aware that the media announced our meeting time as 21h05. Even if this were correct, I have no idea from where such information originated. It is not possible to give you a more exact time. "
Nothing in his statement places GM in the Tapas Bar at a particular time.
-
Can you make his statement fit with the statement by the waiter who served Oldfield his re-heated steak and also Jez Wilkins statement, ta muchly.
According to another waiter some other male left the table after the reheated food been served;
The first to leave was about 40/45 years old (tall, skinny, white complexion, with large [a full head of] hair of color gray) and the period of his absence was about 15 minutes, being that they had to [re-]heat his food, which had cooled;
- The second to leave (about 40/45 years of age, having the physical characteristics of the first, but having less bulky hair) did so for about 30 minutes
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TAPAS-EMPLOYEES.htm
Jez Wilkins was in his apartment by 9:30pm, so he can't say what time the alarm was raised.
-
Mrs Fenn was first alerted to noise from down below just before 10.30 pm.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/PAMELA_FENN.htm
-
Can you make his statement fit with the statement by the waiter who served Oldfield his re-heated steak and also Jez Wilkins statement, ta muchly.
The waiter stated that
"Dinner would end at about 21.45, a few minutes later the witness looked at the table and saw that there was nobody there and one of his colleagues told them that all the guests had left the table in a hurry. In any case, he remembers having heard shouts from the direction of Madeleine's parents' apartment."
-
None of the holidaymakers were caring about time. Even Stephen Carpenter was pretty vague, But he seems quite certain the McCann party were seated by half eight ... possibly because he either looked at his watch or had calculated it from the time of his booking.
There is a time when the McCanns entered the tapas.
I remember seeing, we saw Gerry and Kate walk from, from our apartment, you could see the tables at the Tapas, erm I remember seeing Gerry and Kate sort of walk erm you know, into the Ocean Club and across to the Tapas, erm so Matt and I kind of sort of you know we'd better get going and that was, and walking down, we went out the front, the patio doors were locked, we went out the front door, locked that, erm through the car park and walked down the road and I think I remember going across the car park and asking Matt what the time was and it was about twenty to eight, er twenty to nine sorry. erm and so we were a bit later, erm and then when we got down there, Gerry and Kate were there already and were talking to erm I think he was called Steve, Steve who had played tennis with us and his wife, can't remember what her name was now, erm was erm, anyway they were sitting at the table having dinner and Gerry and Kate were talking to them and Jane was there as well and she was sort of talking with them as well, erm and then we all sat down.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RACHAEL-OLDFIELD-ROGATORY.htm
Steve is Stephen Carpenter. Rachael asked Matt what time it was and he said 8:40 so the McCanns never entered the tapas before 8:35. Matt seemed to be the time-keeper. Interesting with his 9:50 Kate left the table to check time!
Between approximately a quarter past nine and half past nine we left the Tapas bar to go home. we walked across the MW reception area, crossed the road and a semi circular path to return to the apartment, were we put the children to bed and a short while later did the same ourselves. I do not remember seeing or hearing anyone during our return to the apartment. When I crossed the road outside the MW reception I remember there were cars parked, I remember taking some time to see if I could cross the road because there were cars parked to my left and I was carrying I****. They were about six metres away from me and i calculate that some (inaudible) metres from the back of Gerry's apartment, I do not remember anything about these cars, it was normal for cars to be parked there and in the morning they were no longer there. My wife mentioned on the following day that she vaguely remembered someone calling "Madeleine, Madeleine".
https://mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/STEPHEN-CARPENTER.htm
-
The prime suspect is now Breukner...and he isn't Smith man
Thanks for confirming that Brueckner did not do it!
-
The waiter stated that
"Dinner would end at about 21.45, a few minutes later the witness looked at the table and saw that there was nobody there and one of his colleagues told them that all the guests had left the table in a hurry. In any case, he remembers having heard shouts from the direction of Madeleine's parents' apartment."
Thanks and how does thst fit with the waiter’s statement of “some clamour at 21.20” and the table deserted by 21.40?
-
According to another waiter some other male left the table after the reheated food been served;
The first to leave was about 40/45 years old (tall, skinny, white complexion, with large [a full head of] hair of color gray) and the period of his absence was about 15 minutes, being that they had to [re-]heat his food, which had cooled;
- The second to leave (about 40/45 years of age, having the physical characteristics of the first, but having less bulky hair) did so for about 30 minutes
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TAPAS-EMPLOYEES.htm
Jez Wilkins was in his apartment by 9:30pm, so he can't say what time the alarm was raised.
According to the statement I was referring to the alarm was raised at 9.20pm and everyone haad left the table at 9.40pm - do all the "independent" statements fit with that account?
-
Thanks and how does thst fit with the waiter’s statement of “some clamour at 21.20” and the table deserted by 21.40?
There's a few minutes discrepancy with regards to when the group left the table (In one statement there's a clamour around 21:20 and they've left the Tapas Bar around 21:40..... in the other statement the group have left the Tapas Bar "a few minutes" after 21:45). Neither witness places GM in the Tapas Bar at 22:00.
-
There's a few minutes discrepancy with regards to when the group left the table (In one statement there's a clamour around 21:20 and they've left the Tapas Bar around 21:40..... in the other statement the group have left the Tapas Bar "a few minutes" after 21:45). Neither witness places GM in the Tapas Bar at 22:00.
So the witness statements do not tally with each other. Thank you.
PS: nice use of bolding as if to make out the time difference between the two statements is just 5 minutes, which of course it is not.
-
So the witness statements do not tally with each other. Thank you.
Pleasure and exactly as you would expect - just as we also see a discrepancy in the timeline of M.Oldfield and G. McCann.
The important point is that neither independent witness places GM in the Tapas Bar at 22:00.
-
There have been a lot of complaints recently about moderation. Some members feel that they have been unfairly moderated while some moderators are feeling exasperated. I try not to intervene in disputes but sometimes it is simply necessary.
I intend to introduce new moderation rules and enhanced penalties for any member who continues to breach our rules. In the meantime I will be monitoring posts and will be applying severe sanctions should this poor behaviour continue.
-
Pleasure and exactly as you would expect - just as we also see a discrepancy in the timeline of M.Oldfield and G. McCann.
The important point is that neither independent witness places GM in the Tapas Bar at 22:00.
No, he had by then left the table to run to the apartment as the alarm was raised a few minute earlier. And this is important because it means he could not have been anywhere else at the time, as some have desperately tried to prove.
-
What's your basis for claiming that?
Here's another independent witness that states the alarm was raised earlier. It's also worth bearing in mind that an employee is likely to have a better idea of the time than a group on holiday eating and drinking. It's also worth pointing out that nothing is lost in translation with this statement:
Arlindo Peleja (Executive Chef at the Ocean Club).
...."He remembers having seen in that esplanade, one table, occupied by three couples, without children, and all of them adults. On the esplanade, he encountered no one else.
. A few minutes later, when it was around 21H20, he heard some clamour, which made him leave toward the restaurant, a few meters away, and was then informed that a child had disappeared. Given the importance of this, believed that he should be in the surroundings. At that moment, he did not leave the area of the restaurant, and did not have the opportunity to check if the vehicle mentioned before was situated in the same location;
. Later, at around 21:40, he left the restaurant passing through the same esplanade where moments before, he had seen the same table occupied by the three couples, empty, who had left in the meanwhile various items, principally clothing. He was told by his colleagues that the child who had disappeared was a child of one of those couples...."
How on earth could the alert have been given at 21.20? The Payne' s hadn't arrived at the Tapas Bar until 9 o'clock. They would be eating their starters at that time. The waiter saw all the eight plates cleared and that Russell eaten half of dinner that they had remade for him. This man obviously meant 22.20 IMO
-
How on earth could the alert have been given at 21.20? The Payne' s hadn't arrived at the Tapas Bar until 9 o'clock. They would be eating their starters at that time. The waiter saw all the eight plates cleared and that Russell eaten half of dinner that they had remade for him. This man obviously meant 22.20 IMO
Obvious to people who can think logically maybe, and who allow for human error.
-
How on earth could the alert have been given at 21.20? The Payne' s hadn't arrived at the Tapas Bar until 9 o'clock. They would be eating their starters at that time. The waiter saw all the eight plates cleared and that Russell eaten half of dinner that they had remade for him. This man obviously meant 22.20 IMO
No chance. That would mean they all got up to look for MM at 22:40. That doesn’t fit any timeline. It’s not remotely close. One Tapas employee states the group vacated the table around 21:40 and the other just after 21:45. That seems quite consistent to me. Neither independent witness places GM in the Tapas Bar at 22:00.
-
No chance. That would mean they all got up to look for MM at 22:40. That doesn’t fit any timeline. It’s not remotely close. One Tapas employee states the group vacated the table around 21:40 and the other just after 21:45. That seems quite consistent to me. Neither independent witness places GM in the Tapas Bar at 22:00.
I don’t think you’re reading it right.
A few minutes later, when it was around 21H20, he heard some clamour, which made him leave toward the restaurant, a few meters away, and was then informed that a child had disappeared
Now change the time to 2220 and it makes perfect sense. He is talking about the aftermath of the discovery of Madeleine’s disappearance.
-
I don’t think you’re reading it right.
A few minutes later, when it was around 21H20, he heard some clamour, which made him leave toward the restaurant, a few meters away, and was then informed that a child had disappeared
Now change the time to 2220 and it makes perfect sense. He is talking about the aftermath of the discovery of Madeleine’s disappearance.
There is no chance anyone believed the T7 were at the Tapas Bar at 22:20.... Read the employees full statement. He states some other times and the events he witnessed follow chronologically. He did not mean 22:20 imho.
-
There is no chance anyone believed the T7 were at the Tapas Bar at 22:20.... Read the employees full statement. He states some other times and the events he witnessed follow chronologically. He did not mean 22:20 imho.
No one has said anyone believes the T7 were at the Tapas bar at 22:20, I don’t know what you’re on about.
-
No one has said anyone believes the T7 were at the Tapas bar at 22:20, I don’t know what you’re on about.
If the employee meant "22:20" then that is exactly what is implied... it implies his next stated time must be "22:40".... He didn't mean that - that is clutching at straws... Just look at what you are saying....
......"Later, at around 21:40, [22:40 in your opinion] he left the restaurant passing through the same esplanade where moments before, he had seen the same table occupied by the three couples, empty, who had left in the meanwhile various items"
-
If the employee meant "22:20" then that is exactly what is implied... it implies his next stated time must be "22:40".... He didn't mean that - that is clutching at straws... Just look at what you are saying....
......"Later, at around 21:40, [22:40 in your opinion] he left the restaurant passing through the same esplanade where moments before, he had seen the same table occupied by the three couples, empty, who had left in the meanwhile various items"
selective use of red highlighting there. You missed out the word EMPTY toward the end of the sentence.
Later, at around 21:40, he left the restaurant passing through the same esplanade where moments before, he had seen the same table occupied by the three couples, empty, who had left in the meanwhile various items, principally clothing
-
How on earth could the alert have been given at 21.20? The Payne' s hadn't arrived at the Tapas Bar until 9 o'clock. They would be eating their starters at that time. The waiter saw all the eight plates cleared and that Russell eaten half of dinner that they had remade for him. This man obviously meant 22.20 IMO
At approximately half past eight, Gerry and Kate and their group of approximately ten people were already seated at their table, which was so close to ours that it was possible to converse with them
https://mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/STEPHEN-CARPENTER.htm
-
Arlindo Peleja (Executive Chef at the Ocean Club).
...."He remembers having seen in that esplanade, one table, occupied by three couples, without children, and all of them adults. On the esplanade, he encountered no one else.
. A few minutes later, when it was around 21H20, he heard some clamour, which made him leave toward the restaurant, a few meters away, and was then informed that a child had disappeared. Given the importance of this, believed that he should be in the surroundings. At that moment, he did not leave the area of the restaurant, and did not have the opportunity to check if the vehicle mentioned before was situated in the same location;
. Later, at around 21:40, he left the restaurant passing through the same esplanade where moments before, he had seen the same table occupied by the three couples, empty, who had left in the meanwhile various items, principally clothing. He was told by his colleagues that the child who had disappeared was a child of one of those couples...."
This statement makes no sense. How was Peleja informed a child was missing at 21.20, and then 20 minutes later passes the Tapas table to find everyone has left the table? Was he told she was missing before Kate even raised the alarm then?
-
Arlindo Peleja (Executive Chef at the Ocean Club).
...."He remembers having seen in that esplanade, one table, occupied by three couples, without children, and all of them adults. On the esplanade, he encountered no one else.
. A few minutes later, when it was around 21H20, he heard some clamour, which made him leave toward the restaurant, a few meters away, and was then informed that a child had disappeared. Given the importance of this, believed that he should be in the surroundings. At that moment, he did not leave the area of the restaurant, and did not have the opportunity to check if the vehicle mentioned before was situated in the same location;
. Later, at around 21:40, he left the restaurant passing through the same esplanade where moments before, he had seen the same table occupied by the three couples, empty, who had left in the meanwhile various items, principally clothing. He was told by his colleagues that the child who had disappeared was a child of one of those couples...."
This statement makes no sense. How was Peleja informed a child was missing at 21.20, and then 20 minutes later passes the Tapas table to find everyone has left the table? Was he told she was missing before Kate even raised the alarm then?
It points to the possibility that, according to independent witness statements, the T7 were aware MM was missing before 22:00. It points to the possibility that GM's precise account of a 22:03 time for KM check is erroneous, imo. The belief that Gerry was wrong about the time of KM's check is, imo, backed up by Oldfield (KM's check was at 21:50) and two independent witnesses who say the T9 had vacated the table (to look for MM) by "21;40" or "around 21:45".
-
It points to the possibility that, according to independent witness statements, the T7 were aware MM was missing before 22:00. It points to the possibility that GM's precise account of a 22:03 time for KM check is erroneous, imo. The belief that Gerry was wrong about the time of KM's check is, imo, backed up by Oldfield (KM's check was at 21:50) and two independent witnesses who say the T9 had vacated the table (to look for MM) by "21;40" or "around 21:45".
Weird that you are unable to acknowledge how nonsensical the statement is, oh well, you can take a horse to water etc.
-
selective use of red highlighting there. You missed out the word EMPTY toward the end of the sentence.
Later, at around 21:40, he left the restaurant passing through the same esplanade where moments before, he had seen the same table occupied by the three couples, empty, who had left in the meanwhile various items, principally clothing
It's pretty straightforward.
The witness states the group are at the table at 21:20 and that the table is empty by 21:40.
If you follow the entire statement it is quite clear that he doesn't mean 22:20 and 22:40. He was an employee he wouldn't get the time wrong by an hour.
If you believe he's an hour out do you honestly believe the group first heard off MM's disappearance at 22:20?
-
It points to the possibility that, according to independent witness statements, the T7 were aware MM was missing before 22:00. It points to the possibility that GM's precise account of a 22:03 time for KM check is erroneous, imo. The belief that Gerry was wrong about the time of KM's check is, imo, backed up by Oldfield (KM's check was at 21:50) and two independent witnesses who say the T9 had vacated the table (to look for MM) by "21;40" or "around 21:45".
Well it certainly causes many issues. If we are to belie e the team McCann T9.
- they all claimed to have had checks every 30 minutes every evening
- later established as 'listening at door' checks.
-They also claimed they did not check each others children.
Are we accepting one or two had watches if so, as they were all seated at @ 8.30pm the first check would be 9pm then 9.30pm the 10pm.
first check by Gerry,then Kate, then Gerry, or other way round. However, on this particular evening- this time line and form of checking did not take place- hence they had to guess a time line. I personally do not believe they had a 30min checking system at all- it was more 'oh better go check the kids' as and when IMO.
Also on this particular evening we have other people going into the apartment- Gerry (Claiming to use the toilet and noticing a door open wider than he /they left it)and one other male T9 went in (agreed he had a wee look around) (?).
Gerry claims he saw his daughter asleep- moments later he is outside he chats with Jez and at that same few minutes JT sees an abductor run off with MBM.
Seriously! this abductor jemmied the window grabbed a sleeping child and got out of the window within a few minutes. JT saw PJs but no one ever found the 'jemmy' or scuff marks,smudged glove marks, or hair at or near the window apart from Kates.
After Gerrys check, no one else apart from Kate saw and discussed the whooshing curtains blah blah blah...
-
It's pretty straightforward.
The witness states the group are at the table at 21:20 and that the table is empty by 21:40.
If you follow the entire statement it is quite clear that he doesn't mean 22:20 and 22:40. He was an employee he wouldn't get the time wrong by an hour.
If you believe he's an hour out do you honestly believe the group first heard off MM's disappearance at 22:20?
Pelega was the head chef, with responsibility for five kitchens around the site. They were, I think, the Millenium, the Tapas, two snack bars related to swimming pools and one other. As head chef he worked in the Millenium kitchen but organised and oversaw the others, which is why he visited the Tapas on 3rd. It's highly unlikely that he made a mistake with the times, imo, given his seniority and his responsibilities.
-
It's pretty straightforward.
The witness states the group are at the table at 21:20 and that the table is empty by 21:40.
If you follow the entire statement it is quite clear that he doesn't mean 22:20 and 22:40. He was an employee he wouldn't get the time wrong by an hour.
If you believe he's an hour out do you honestly believe the group first heard off MM's disappearance at 22:20?
Over and over again you are misunderstanding, I really cannot help you if you refuse to make any attempt to understand.
-
Pelega was the head chef, with responsibility for five kitchens around the site. They were, I think, the Millenium, the Tapas, two snack bars related to swimming pools and one other. As head chef he worked in the Millenium kitchen but organised and oversaw the others, which is why he visited the Tapas on 3rd. It's highly unlikely that he made a mistake with the times, imo, given his seniority and his responsibilities.
Really? In that case you must give credence to his statement which means that Kate raised the alarm PRIOR to 9.20 pm. Wow. Just wow.
-
Over and over again you are misunderstanding, I really cannot help you if you refuse to make any attempt to understand.
See G-Units post. I’m not failing to understand what you are saying I just don’t believe the employee was out by an hour. I do believe there is evidence to suggest that the T7 were aware that MM was missing before 22:00.
I’m also stating as a fact that at least two employees fail to place GM in the Tapas Bar at 22:00.
-
See G-Units post. I’m not failing to understand what you are saying I just don’t believe the employee was out by an hour. I do believe there is evidence to suggest that the T7 were aware that MM was missing before 22:00.
I’m also stating as a fact that at least two employees fail to place GM in the Tapas Bar at 22:00.
Serting aside the issue of whether it was 9.20pm or 10.20pm how do you account for the complete illogicality of the order of events as he describes them? By his account he was aware of M’s disappearance by 9.20pm before the Tapas group had left the table.
-
See G-Units post. I’m not failing to understand what you are saying I just don’t believe the employee was out by an hour. I do believe there is evidence to suggest that the T7 were aware that MM was missing before 22:00.
I’m also stating as a fact that at least two employees fail to place GM in the Tapas Bar at 22:00.
If Gerry did the 9.30 check and not Oldfield the timeline you suggest would make more sense.
Similarly I think a 9.00 check by Gerry also makes more sense when, according to Wilkins, Gerry was acting normally.
At 9.30 the child was discovered missing.
-
Serting aside the issue of whether it was 9.20pm or 10.20pm how do you account for the complete illogicality of the order of events as he describes them? By his account he was aware of M’s disappearance by 9.20pm before the Tapas group had left the table.
He was told what "the clamour" was about. Also you need to re-read it because it's not quite how you describe:
"A few minutes later, when it was around 21H20, he heard some clamour, which made him leave toward the restaurant, a few meters away, and was then informed that a child had disappeared. Given the importance of this, believed that he should be in the surroundings. At that moment, he did not leave the area of the restaurant, and did not have the opportunity to check if the vehicle mentioned before was situated in the same location;
. Later, at around 21:40, he left the restaurant passing through the same esplanade where moments before, he had seen the same table occupied by the three couples, empty, who had left in the meanwhile various items, principally clothing. "
So around 21:20 he hears "some clamour". He was informed after (or during) "the clamour" what it was about. He comments that the table was empty by 21:40. He does not give a time for when they left. Shortly after the clamour would be a save assumption.
The two employees who are independent witnesses both state that the clamour / alarm being raised was before 22:00. No-ones timings are exact (except GM with 22:03). However it's important that two independent witnesses both state before 22:00 for the group to be aware that MM was missing. SY stated that a thorough understanding of the timeline was important. I personally believe that both employees would be worth questioning further.
-
That would be around the time Paul and Susan Moyes had settled down on their balcony overlooking the tapas area absolutely oblivious to the clamour taking place underneath them; the Carpenters left to walk home within that same timescale and didn't notice a thing either.
Funny that when all Hell was allegedly breaking loose around them.
-
He was told what "the clamour" was about. Also you need to re-read it because it's not quite how you describe:
"A few minutes later, when it was around 21H20, he heard some clamour, which made him leave toward the restaurant, a few meters away, and was then informed that a child had disappeared. Given the importance of this, believed that he should be in the surroundings. At that moment, he did not leave the area of the restaurant, and did not have the opportunity to check if the vehicle mentioned before was situated in the same location;
. Later, at around 21:40, he left the restaurant passing through the same esplanade where moments before, he had seen the same table occupied by the three couples, empty, who had left in the meanwhile various items, principally clothing. "
So around 21:20 he hears "some clamour". He was informed after (or during) "the clamour" what it was about. He comments that the table was empty by 21:40. He does not give a time for when they left. Shortly after the clamour would be a save assumption.
The two employees who are independent witnesses both state that the clamour / alarm being raised was before 22:00. No-ones timings are exact (except GM with 22:03). However it's important that two independent witnesses both state before 22:00 for the group to be aware that MM was missing. SY stated that a thorough understanding of the timeline was important. I personally believe that both employees would be worth questioning further.
By your own interpretation you’ve got the restaurant chef finding out Madeleine had disappeared BEFORE anyone left the table. In other words he was the first person after Kate to learn of Madeleine’s disappearance, and you still think this is logical?
-
He was told what "the clamour" was about. Also you need to re-read it because it's not quite how you describe:
"A few minutes later, when it was around 21H20, he heard some clamour, which made him leave toward the restaurant, a few meters away, and was then informed that a child had disappeared. Given the importance of this, believed that he should be in the surroundings. At that moment, he did not leave the area of the restaurant, and did not have the opportunity to check if the vehicle mentioned before was situated in the same location;
. Later, at around 21:40, he left the restaurant passing through the same esplanade where moments before, he had seen the same table occupied by the three couples, empty, who had left in the meanwhile various items, principally clothing. "
So around 21:20 he hears "some clamour". He was informed after (or during) "the clamour" what it was about. He comments that the table was empty by 21:40. He does not give a time for when they left. Shortly after the clamour would be a save assumption.
The two employees who are independent witnesses both state that the clamour / alarm being raised was before 22:00. No-ones timings are exact (except GM with 22:03). However it's important that two independent witnesses both state before 22:00 for the group to be aware that MM was missing. SY stated that a thorough understanding of the timeline was important. I personally believe that both employees would be worth questioning further.
In my opinion a few witnesses should have been questioned again. It's too late now, but Pelega's statement could have been confirmed (or not) at the time. The receptionist stated he was phoned from the Tapas 'between 21:30 and 22:00 and informed of the disappearance'. That should have been looked into.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/HELDER_LUIS.htm
-
In my opinion a few witnesses should have been questioned again. It's too late now, but Pelega's statement could have been confirmed (or not) at the time. The receptionist stated he was phoned from the Tapas 'between 21:30 and 22:00 and informed of the disappearance'. That should have been looked into.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/HELDER_LUIS.htm
Completely agree. I think that Amaral becomes aware of these inconsistencies early on. It’s quite likely that them shaped his opinion as to what happened. Probably the worst “mistake” GM made was contradicting KM and MO about using the locked door and not the unlocked patio door. SIL posters debate whether this was a “lie” or simply a “mistake” on the SIL website. Abduction theorists also have an issue with MO’s check and whether it happened at all. But I’m not sure if their reasons for their problem with MO’s check in relation to the timeline.
-
Completely agree. I think that Amaral becomes aware of these inconsistencies early on. It’s quite likely that them shaped his opinion as to what happened. Probably the worst “mistake” GM made was contradicting KM and MO about using the locked door and not the unlocked patio door. SIL posters debate whether this was a “lie” or simply a “mistake” on the SIL website. Abduction theorists also have an issue with MO’s check and whether it happened at all. But I’m not sure if their reasons for their problem with MO’s check in relation to the timeline.
SY...and the germans dont seem to regards these inconsistencies as important...they may well be simply as a result of how the statements were taken
-
SY...and the germans dont seem to regards these inconsistencies as important...they may well be simply as a result of how the statements were taken
They may prove significant, someones going to have to prove how Madeleine was abducted, if this indeed happened.
-
They may prove significant, someones going to have to prove how Madeleine was abducted, if this indeed happened.
I dont see how in any way. We need to see what evidence the germans have
-
By your own interpretation you’ve got the restaurant chef finding out Madeleine had disappeared BEFORE anyone left the table. In other words he was the first person after Kate to learn of Madeleine’s disappearance, and you still think this is logical?
Did he say "Madeleine"? I was never sure what he was talking about.
-
In my opinion a few witnesses should have been questioned again. It's too late now, but Pelega's statement could have been confirmed (or not) at the time. The receptionist stated he was phoned from the Tapas 'between 21:30 and 22:00 and informed of the disappearance'. That should have been looked into.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/HELDER_LUIS.htm
If you're taking this statement as read then Gerry was in the OC reception somewhere between 21:30 and 22:00 - was that before or after he supposedly dumped the body in the bin?
-
If you're taking this statement as read then Gerry was in the OC reception somewhere between 21:30 and 22:00 - was that before or after he supposedly dumped the body in the bin?
It’s before the Smith family sighting.
-
By your own interpretation you’ve got the restaurant chef finding out Madeleine had disappeared BEFORE anyone left the table. In other words he was the first person after Kate to learn of Madeleine’s disappearance, and you still think this is logical?
No you’re mistaken. The clamour is caused by the T7 finding out MM is not in the apartment. The witness then learns what the clamour is about. So he’s not the “first person after Kate” to find out. It’s clear the T7 had already found out.
-
It’s before the Smith family sighting.
My response to this was deleted. I will try and put it another way. You have Person X checking that the police have been called and then moments later is seen carrying a corpse through town, knowing that the police have been alerted. I will say no more than that.
-
No you’re mistaken. The clamour is caused by the T7 finding out MM is not in the apartment. The witness then learns what the clamour is about. So he’s not the “first person after Kate” to find out. It’s clear the T7 had already found out.
So, the clamour was at 21.40? So twenty minutes after the Payne's arrive they had eaten their starter and dinner!! Wow.
-
No you’re mistaken. The clamour is caused by the T7 finding out MM is not in the apartment. The witness then learns what the clamour is about. So he’s not the “first person after Kate” to find out. It’s clear the T7 had already found out.
So Kate went to do a check on the kids as soon as Gerry got back from his chat with Jes Wilkins, is that what you're saying happened? But that this was not reported by any of the group?
-
If Gerry did the 9.30 check and not Oldfield the timeline you suggest would make more sense.
Similarly I think a 9.00 check by Gerry also makes more sense when, according to Wilkins, Gerry was acting normally.
At 9.30 the child was discovered missing.
That’s worth consideration. Abduction theorists on the SIL site debate whether MO’s check even happened. Why invent it though??? Also do MO check his own children but didn’t go into 5A?? I could understand that... GM and MO both going might answer why at least one witness said two men had left the table at one point (wasn’t that ROB and MO though???). Whatever happened it’s clear we need to understand the timeline. Amaral was right to concentrate on it even if it could be argued he jumped to conclusions too quickly imo.
-
So Kate went to do a check on the kids as soon as Gerry got back from his chat with Jes Wilkins, is that what you're saying happened? But that this was not reported by any of the group?
I’m not “saying” anything. I wasn’t a witness to the events.
-
That’s worth consideration. Abduction theorists on the SIL site debate whether MO’s check even happened. Why invent it though??? Also do MO check his own children but didn’t go into 5A?? I could understand that... GM and MO both going might answer why at least one witness said two men had left the table at one point (wasn’t that ROB and MO though???). Whatever happened it’s clear we need to understand the timeline. Amaral was right to concentrate on it even if it could be argued he jumped to conclusions too quickly imo.
Two men did leave the table, it was Matthew Oldfield and Russell O'Brian.
-
I’m not “saying” anything. I wasn’t a witness to the events.
It's the Cathy Newman technique.
-
Two men did leave the table, it was Matthew Oldfield and Russell O'Brian.
Yes I put that in brackets. Though you can only post with that certainty if you are convinced we are certain of the timeline. Evidence, for me, actually shows we are far from certain exactly what happened and at what time. Have a look on the SIL site even today abduction theorists are debating whether MO’s check took place and whether GM was “lying” or “mistaken” with regards to which door he used to enter 5A.
-
My response to this was deleted. I will try and put it another way. You have Person X checking that the police have been called and then moments later is seen carrying a corpse through town, knowing that the police have been alerted. I will say no more than that.
The Police weren’t called until after the Smith sighting imo.
-
If you're taking this statement as read then Gerry was in the OC reception somewhere between 21:30 and 22:00 - was that before or after he supposedly dumped the body in the bin?
The OC receptionist said Gerry turned up at some point with John Hill. Neither of those men mentioned this in their statements.
-
The OC receptionist said Gerry turned up at some point with John Hill. Neither of those men mentioned this in their statements.
Waiter Tapas Bar -
Later, between 22.00 and 22.30, when the witness was in the kitchen, he was informed by a colleague that in the meantime a client had entered the restaurant shouting and that afterwards the whole English had left in a panic. The witness' colleague told him that this individual had said that a child had disappeared. A few minutes later the witness noticed great agitation, with many people everywhere searching for the child.
-
So, the clamour was at 21.40? So twenty minutes after the Payne's arrive they had eaten their starter and dinner!! Wow.
20 mins? The Paynes said they arrived just before 9pm. Matt left at 8:55 to go and fetch them and met them by the McCanns gate. Main meals were served at about 9:30.
If Matt's 9:50 is correct in his statement on 10 May 2007 (Kate left to check) the alarm was raised before 9:55.
Aoife Smith said she knew the time they left Kelly's bar in her statement - 10pm.
-
That would be around the time Paul and Susan Moyes had settled down on their balcony overlooking the tapas area absolutely oblivious to the clamour taking place underneath them; the Carpenters left to walk home within that same timescale and didn't notice a thing either.
Funny that when all Hell was allegedly breaking loose around them.
Was all hell breaking loose ?
-
20 mins? The Paynes said they arrived just before 9pm. Matt left at 8:55 to go and fetch them and met them by the McCanns gate. Main meals were served at about 9:30.
If Matt's 9:50 is correct in his statement on 10 May 2007 (Kate left to check) the alarm was raised before 9:55.
Aoife Smith said she knew the time they left Kelly's bar in her statement - 10pm.
If you think that was Gerry carrying Madeleine that the Smiths saw, how do you account for one of the waiters seeing him searching around the Pool? He wasn't in any hurry to carry her to the beach was he? For goodness sake it wasn't Gerry he was at the Tapas Bar when Kate give the alert, I believe the waiter when he said that Russel had arrived back at the table at quarter to ten, Russell says it was quarter to ten, Kate was still there then, I don't think she left before five to ten. Why would she? A check at been done at half nine, they were checking every half an hour not every fifteen minutes.
-
So, the clamour was at 21.40? So twenty minutes after the Payne's arrive they had eaten their starter and dinner!! Wow.
Unless, of course, they arrived earlier;
On the day of the disappearance, all were seated at the table between 20H35 and 20H45. He remembers them arriving as usual. Had they arrived late, this would have been noted by the staff.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RICARDO-A-D-L-OLIVEIRA.htm
-
If you think that was Gerry carrying Madeleine that the Smiths saw, how do you account for one of the waiters seeing him searching around the Pool? He wasn't in any hurry to carry her to the beach was he? For goodness sake it wasn't Gerry he was at the Tapas Bar when Kate give the alert, I believe the waiter when he said that Russel had arrived back at the table at quarter to ten, Russell says it was quarter to ten, Kate was still there then, I don't think she left before five to ten. Why would she? A check at been done at half nine, they were checking every half an hour not every fifteen minutes.
No mention of Gerry from the waiter that served their table! He said he saw David Payne and Matt Oldfield searching that area!
He served Russell and shortly thereafter, he was alerted to strange movements in the restaurant perimeters. He refers to the movements of two men from said group - David Payne and Matthew, who appeared to be searching the gardens the areas near the bar.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RICARDO-A-D-L-OLIVEIRA.htm
-
No mention of Gerry from the waiter that served their table! He said he saw David Payne and Matt Oldfield searching that area!
He served Russell and shortly thereafter, he was alerted to strange movements in the restaurant perimeters. He refers to the movements of two men from said group - David Payne and Matthew, who appeared to be searching the gardens the areas near the bar.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RICARDO-A-D-L-OLIVEIRA.htm
On the night Madeleine disappeared, everything appeared normal. I remember that when I took notice of the disappearance, I had been in the restaurant speaking with my two colleagues?Ze and Ricardo who were on break. I returned to the restaurant and noticed that the table of nine was empty with the exception of the older woman. I went over to the table and joked with her: ?They've left you alone?? She responded more of less with these words: ?No, they went to see if the little girl was there.? I responded that I hoped they would find her somewhere in the apartment. At saying this, I saw the man. Who I knew later to be Madeleines father, running to the pool and to the childrens play area in the Tapas zone as if looking for someone. It immediately hit me that after talking to the older woman, that the little girl had not been found. I offered to alert the workers at the Milenium Restaurant and the man agreed. He then left again running to continue searching.
-
20 mins? The Paynes said they arrived just before 9pm. Matt left at 8:55 to go and fetch them and met them by the McCanns gate. Main meals were served at about 9:30.
If Matt's 9:50 is correct in his statement on 10 May 2007 (Kate left to check) the alarm was raised before 9:55.
Aoife Smith said she knew the time they left Kelly's bar in her statement - 10pm.
Don’t you find it rather odd that Diane Webster was asked whether her family had met Oldfield while making their way to the tapas and she said categorically no ?
“ Asked if there was the possibility of having crossed paths with someone during the journey between her apartment and restaurant, the witness said no.”
“ In this regard, asked specifically whether, on the journey to the restaurant, if they had passed either of the two individuals described in the preceding paragraph, she answered categorically not. “
She also thought Gerry wasn’t at the table when they arrived.
“ That, at that time, the whole group were at the restaurant. The witness did not recall, but thinks that perhaps Gerald and MATT had not been in the restaurant along with the other members of the group. “
This tally’s with an earlier check by Gerry.
-
If you think that was Gerry carrying Madeleine that the Smiths saw, how do you account for one of the waiters seeing him searching around the Pool? He wasn't in any hurry to carry her to the beach was he? For goodness sake it wasn't Gerry he was at the Tapas Bar when Kate give the alert, I believe the waiter when he said that Russel had arrived back at the table at quarter to ten, Russell says it was quarter to ten, Kate was still there then, I don't think she left before five to ten. Why would she? A check at been done at half nine, they were checking every half an hour not every fifteen minutes.
One of the waiters thought he'd seen Gerry, but did he? David Payne searched around the pool and said so. Gerry didn't mention going into the Tapas complex at all.
-
Don’t you find it rather odd that Diane Webster was asked whether her family had met Oldfield while making their way to the tapas and she said categorically no ?
“ Asked if there was the possibility of having crossed paths with someone during the journey between her apartment and restaurant, the witness said no.”
“ In this regard, asked specifically whether, on the journey to the restaurant, if they had passed either of the two individuals described in the preceding paragraph, she answered categorically not. “
She also thought Gerry wasn’t at the table when they arrived.
“ That, at that time, the whole group were at the restaurant. The witness did not recall, but thinks that perhaps Gerald and MATT had not been in the restaurant along with the other members of the group. “
This tally’s with an earlier check by Gerry.
Dianne should have remembered but I heard she drank the most out of all of them so that may explain some of her lapses.
-
On the night Madeleine disappeared, everything appeared normal. I remember that when I took notice of the disappearance, I had been in the restaurant speaking with my two colleagues?Ze and Ricardo who were on break. I returned to the restaurant and noticed that the table of nine was empty with the exception of the older woman. I went over to the table and joked with her: ?They've left you alone?? She responded more of less with these words: ?No, they went to see if the little girl was there.? I responded that I hoped they would find her somewhere in the apartment. At saying this, I saw the man. Who I knew later to be Madeleines father, running to the pool and to the childrens play area in the Tapas zone as if looking for someone. It immediately hit me that after talking to the older woman, that the little girl had not been found. I offered to alert the workers at the Milenium Restaurant and the man agreed. He then left again running to continue searching.
Who is that witness? The waiter who served them is a credible witness to what was going on that night! He said David and Matt were searching that area.
Gerry has never said he was searching the pool area.
-
Who is that witness? The waiter who served them is a credible witness to what was going on that night! He said David and Matt were searching that area.
Gerry has never said he was searching the pool area.
So the waiter confused David and Matt for Gerry? We didn't know Gerry was looking under cars until the Nanny said he was. Look I know you want Gerry to be Smithman, but Gerry could not have carried Madeleine out of 5a or from anywhere else without being seen by someone. Once the alert was out people were searching.
-
On the night Madeleine disappeared, everything appeared normal. I remember that when I took notice of the disappearance, I had been in the restaurant speaking with my two colleagues?Ze and Ricardo who were on break. I returned to the restaurant and noticed that the table of nine was empty with the exception of the older woman. I went over to the table and joked with her: ?They've left you alone?? She responded more of less with these words: ?No, they went to see if the little girl was there.? I responded that I hoped they would find her somewhere in the apartment. At saying this, I saw the man. Who I knew later to be Madeleines father, running to the pool and to the childrens play area in the Tapas zone as if looking for someone. It immediately hit me that after talking to the older woman, that the little girl had not been found. I offered to alert the workers at the Milenium Restaurant and the man agreed. He then left again running to continue searching.
That doesn’t say what time GM was seen by the pool.
-
Dianne should have remembered but I heard she drank the most out of all of them so that may explain some of her lapses.
Who said she drank more than most ? Tanner ?
-
So the waiter confused David and Matt for Gerry? We didn't know Gerry was looking under cars until the Nanny said he was. Look I know you want Gerry to be Smithman, but Gerry could not have carried Madeleine out of 5a or from anywhere else without being seen by someone. Once the alert was out people were searching.
The waiter confused David and Matt for Gerry ? Where is your evidence of that ?
You are presuming that finding Madeleine missing and the alert where simultaneous. What if there was 20 or 30 minutes between the two. What if the friends searched first ?
-
I’m not “saying” anything. I wasn’t a witness to the events.
What you are saying is that we should take this witness statement seriously but in order to do so we would have to stop taking seriously many other witness statements so what is it to be? The Portuguese police had the alarm being raised at 10ppm so it would seem they did not take this man's statement to be accurate time-wise - how do you explain that?
-
So the waiter confused David and Matt for Gerry? We didn't know Gerry was looking under cars until the Nanny said he was. Look I know you want Gerry to be Smithman, but Gerry could not have carried Madeleine out of 5a or from anywhere else without being seen by someone. Once the alert was out people were searching.
Gerry could not have done it but you believe this German could have without being seen. If nobody was around at the time, anybody could have removed Madeleine from the apartment but it would be easier if she wasn't awake.
This is very simple. If Gerry searched the pool area tell me where he has said that in the last 13 years?
-
The Police weren’t called until after the Smith sighting imo.
So when Gerry was seen in reception between 9.30pm and 10pm it wasn't to check that the police had been called? What was he doing there then?
-
The OC receptionist said Gerry turned up at some point with John Hill. Neither of those men mentioned this in their statements.
So is the OC receptionist lying or what?
-
So when Gerry was seen in reception between 9.30pm and 10pm it wasn't to check that the police had been called? What was he doing there then?
Cite?
Gerry did not get to the reception until 10:40. The call to the police is logged at 10:41. FACT!
At 10:30 Pamela Fenn offered Gerry her phone to call the police. He told her they had been called. They had not been called!
At that moment she offered Gerry help, saying that he could use her phone to contact the authorities, to which he replied that this had already been done. It was just after 22.30.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/PAMELA_FENN.htm
-
deleted
-
Cite?
Gerry did not get to the reception until 10:40. The call to the police is logged at 10:41. FACT!
At 10:30 Pamela Fenn offered Gerry her phone to call the police. He told her they had been called. They had not been called!
At that moment she offered Gerry help, saying that he could use her phone to contact the authorities, to which he replied that this had already been done. It was just after 22.30.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/PAMELA_FENN.htm
I think this is what is being referred to.
“He knows about the situation that happened at the Ocean Club concerning the disappearance of a little given that on the day in question (03/05/2007) he was on duty and was contacted by a member of staff from the Tapas Restaurant between 09.30 and 22.00 who informed him that the daughter of some guests who were dining there had disappeared.”
No mention of Gerry.
-
Thanks. Matt went to the reception at 10:10 and did not see Gerry there. Gerry did not go until 10:40 after Mrs Fenn had offered her phone to him.
-
So we're all agreed. The alarm was raised at 9.20pm, shortly after Gerry returned from his chat with Jes Wilkins.
Cool
Someone phone the police and let them know they have had this all wrong for 13 years.
-
I have the alarm time at 9:54 and the Smith family sighting at 10:03. Within 10 minutes after the alarm was raised the Smith sighting happened.
-
I have the alarm time at 9:54 and the Smith family sighting at 10:03. Within 10 minutes after the alarm was raised the Smith sighting happened.
Well you're wrong. According to the chef the alarm was raised at 9.20 pm and according to G-Unit he would know what the time was when it happened and is therefore a credible witness.
-
Pelega was the head chef, with responsibility for five kitchens around the site. They were, I think, the Millenium, the Tapas, two snack bars related to swimming pools and one other. As head chef he worked in the Millenium kitchen but organised and oversaw the others, which is why he visited the Tapas on 3rd. It's highly unlikely that he made a mistake with the times, imo, given his seniority and his responsibilities.
Pelaga hears a commotion at 9.20pm. As the Alpha-Sceptic above has pointed out it's highly unlikely he made a mistake with the times therefore we must accept he is right and everyone else (even Pathfinder) is wrong.
-
I have the alarm time at 9:54 and the Smith family sighting at 10:03. Within 10 minutes after the alarm was raised the Smith sighting happened.
Does anyone of the waiters etc mention Kate coming into the tapas screaming ?
-
So when Gerry was seen in reception between 9.30pm and 10pm it wasn't to check that the police had been called? What was he doing there then?
Why would he be checking the Police had been called before Kate’s 10:03 check? Someone’s timeline doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.
-
Why would he be checking the Police had been called before Kate’s 10:03 check? Someone’s timeline doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.
YeeeeOUCH!
Have some of that!
-
Why would he be checking the Police had been called before Kate’s 10:03 check? Someone’s timeline doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.
What 10.03 check? I thought we'd established the alarm was raised prior to 9.20pm moments after Gerry's encounter with Jez Wilkins?
-
Concerning the time and the place, the facts have taken place on the 3rd of May of 2007, within the time span, according to testimonies, between 9.05 p.m. and 10 p.m., at the resort called "Ocean Club", located in Vila da Luz - Lagos
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm
-
What you are saying is that we should take this witness statement seriously but in order to do so we would have to stop taking seriously many other witness statements so what is it to be? The Portuguese police had the alarm being raised at 10ppm so it would seem they did not take this man's statement to be accurate time-wise - how do you explain that?
Did the PJ accept the timeline in its entirety and Kate's 10pm claim? where did you read that. They just took statements surely?
I am still stuck on the activity of that evening which differed from the other evenings- MO did he really go and check? why? it was every 30 minutes they claimed. One child being ill, had parents going back and forth- not noticing a young blonde German with a van in the area.
-
Concerning the time and the place, the facts have taken place on the 3rd of May of 2007, within the time span, according to testimonies, between 9.05 p.m. and 10 p.m., at the resort called "Ocean Club", located in Vila da Luz - Lagos
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm
The timeline they wrote has never been checked out or challenged.
It's just where they say they were and what they did.
IMO you can even say it's not worth the paper it is written on
Its never been established if it was possible to do or within there times.
-
Did the PJ accept the timeline in its entirety and Kate's 10pm claim? where did you read that. They just took statements surely?
I am still stuck on the activity of that evening which differed from the other evenings- MO did he really go and check? why? it was every 30 minutes they claimed. One child being ill, had parents going back and forth- not noticing a young blonde German with a van in the area.
Concerning the time and the place, the facts have taken place on the 3rd of May of 2007, within the time span, according to testimonies, between 9.05 p.m. and 10 p.m., at the resort called "Ocean Club", located in Vila da Luz - Lagos
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm
-
The timeline they wrote has never been checked out or challenged.
It's just where they say they were and what they did.
IMO you can even say it's not worth the paper it is written on
Its never been established if it was possible to do or within there times.
Concerning the time and the place, the facts have taken place on the 3rd of May of 2007, within the time span, according to testimonies, between 9.05 p.m. and 10 p.m., at the resort called "Ocean Club", located in Vila da Luz - Lagos
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm
-
Concerning the time and the place, the facts have taken place on the 3rd of May of 2007, within the time span, according to testimonies, between 9.05 p.m. and 10 p.m., at the resort called "Ocean Club", located in Vila da Luz - Lagos
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm
Yes, you said....but the timeline has never been checked it was possible to do.
It's still only what mccs and c/o have said IMO what they say doesn't have to be set in stone as gospel.
-
So we're all agreed. The alarm was raised at 9.20pm, shortly after Gerry returned from his chat with Jes Wilkins.
Cool
Someone phone the police and let them know they have had this all wrong for 13 years.
Wow has it taken you 13 years to see it doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.
-
Concerning the time and the place, the facts have taken place on the 3rd of May of 2007, within the time span, according to testimonies, between 9.05 p.m. and 10 p.m., at the resort called "Ocean Club", located in Vila da Luz - Lagos
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm
But the testimonies don’t stand up to scrutiny.
-
Wow has it taken you 13 years to see it doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.
It’s taken me 13 years before encountering anyone seriously suggesting that the alarm was raised moments after Gerry’s chat with Jes Wilkins, yes.
-
Does anyone of the waiters etc mention Kate coming into the tapas screaming ?
No. The waiter said within minutes of Russell receiving his meal he then noticed they had left the table.
-
It’s taken me 13 years before encountering anyone seriously suggesting that the alarm was raised moments after Gerry’s chat with Jes Wilkins, yes.
Is there anywhere in the T9 timeline where you would bet this 'abduction' too place? narrow it down to coincide with Gery and JT's version. minutes apart don't forget.
-
Concerning the time and the place, the facts have taken place on the 3rd of May of 2007, within the time span, according to testimonies, between 9.05 p.m. and 10 p.m., at the resort called "Ocean Club", located in Vila da Luz - Lagos
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm
They were wrong, the alarm was raised before 10pm as will be the case if HOLMES is as good as they say @)(++(*
-
Is there anywhere in the T9 timeline where you would bet this 'abduction' too place? narrow it down to coincide with Gery and JT's version. minutes apart don't forget.
As we’ve been told the alarm was almost certainly raised before 9.20 pm now I guess it must have been some time before that.
-
Concerning the time and the place, the facts have taken place on the 3rd of May of 2007, within the time span, according to testimonies, between 9.05 p.m. and 10 p.m., at the resort called "Ocean Club", located in Vila da Luz - Lagos
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm
That doesn't mean they believed the testimonies; in fact we know they didn't because they wanted to test them by doing a reconstruction.
-
That doesn't mean they believed the testimonies; in fact we know they didn't because they wanted to test them by doing a reconstruction.
The PJ did not necessarily disbelieve the testimonies.
-
It’s taken me 13 years before encountering anyone seriously suggesting that the alarm was raised moments after Gerry’s chat with Jes Wilkins, yes.
And don’t forget if you follow testimony GM was also in Reception checking if the Police had been called before the alarm was raised!!! It would be ridiculous to take as gospel the T9 timeline(s) yet discount other independent witnesses. In any event the T9 timeline changed. On the SIL site abductor theorists still debate if MO’s check actually happened and if GM was mistaken or lying with regards to the changing story about which door he used for his check. It all shows how flawed OG is (was) for adopting the approach that they only need to look at an abduction that fits in with T9 rogatory testimony.
-
And don’t forget if you follow testimony GM was also in Reception checking if the Police had been called before the alarm was raised!!! It would be ridiculous to take as gospel the T9 timeline(s) yet discount other independent witnesses. In any event the T9 timeline changed. On the SIL site abductor theorists still debate if MO’s check actually happened and if GM was mistaken or lying with regards to the changing story about which door he used for his check. It all shows how flawed OG is (was) for adopting the approach that they only need to look at an abduction that fits in with T9 rogatory testimony.
Would it be sensible then to completely ignore the T9 testimony and just stick with eveyone else’s? Perhaps you’d like to have a go at putting together a timeline based on those, ensuring you keep to the 9.20pm time for the alarm being raised of course. Good luck!
-
No. The waiter said within minutes of Russell receiving his meal he then noticed they had left the table.
That’s what I thought. Strange that with all the shouting and commotion that would come with Kate running back to the tapas not one of the staff mention it.
-
Would it be sensible then to completely ignore the T9 testimony and just stick with eveyone else’s? Perhaps you’d like to have a go at putting together a timeline based on those, ensuring you keep to the 9.20pm time for the alarm being raised of course. Good luck!
I believe it would be correct to leave no stone unturned! There are certain times we can prove such as when the Police were called. I think further investigation is needed and a reconstruction to test the timeline. I don’t for a minute think that’s possible with the T9 now but I’m sure various timelines could all be plotted on a computer simulation... In fact didn’t someone already do that. I’m confident a clearer picture can be established even now.
-
I believe it would be correct to leave no stone unturned! There are certain times we can prove such as when the Police were called. I think further investigation is needed and a reconstruction to test the timeline. I don’t for a minute think that’s possible with the T9 now but I’m sure various timelines could all be plotted on a computer simulation... In fact didn’t someone already do that. I’m confident a clearer picture can be established even now.
It’s an exercise the police have had 13 years to undertake and don’t appear to have done so, which suggests they don’t feel the answer lies in the activities of the Tapas Group. As you believe it does, it is not goading IMO to suggest that you and other sceptics undertake this work yourselves, pivoting the entire night’s comings and goings around the now firmly established (by you and G-Unit) alarm being raised just before 9.20pm. If I get more points for writing this, I will want a detailed explanation as to why this suggestion is not permitted.
-
It’s an exercise the police have had 13 years to undertake and don’t appear to have done so, which suggests they don’t feel the answer lies in the activities of the Tapas Group. As you believe it does, it is not goading IMO to suggest that you and other sceptics undertake this work yourselves, pivoting the entire night’s comings and goings around the now firmly established (by you and G-Unit) alarm being raised just before 9.20pm. If I get more points for writing this, I will want a detailed explanation as to why this suggestion is not permitted.
The alarm may have been raised by the staff at 9:20 PM etc but did the staff alert any of the parents immediately, or if they did which group of parents got alerted? It certainly doesn't seem to be the Tapas 9 that get alerted by anyone other than by Kate around 10:00 PM.
-
The alarm may have been raised by the staff at 9:20 PM etc but did the staff alert any of the parents immediately, or if they did which group of parents got alerted? It certainly doesn't seem to be the Tapas 9 that get alerted by anyone other than by Kate around 10:00 PM.
No you’re quite wrong. The chef Pelaga’s statement has a clamour happening around 9.20pm which is when he discovers a child has gone missing. As G-Unit pointed out earlier bring the chef he’d have to be bang on with his timings, therefore his statement is probably the only one we can rely on to be accurate.
-
It’s an exercise the police have had 13 years to undertake and don’t appear to have done so, which suggests they don’t feel the answer lies in the activities of the Tapas Group. As you believe it does, it is not goading IMO to suggest that you and other sceptics undertake this work yourselves, pivoting the entire night’s comings and goings around the now firmly established (by you and G-Unit) alarm being raised just before 9.20pm. If I get more points for writing this, I will want a detailed explanation as to why this suggestion is not permitted.
I had one goal when investigating the T9's timeline; to show that not all the witnesses around the scene agreed with it. I see no point in replacing it but if I thought it was necessary I'm perfectly capable of deciding to do so without any helpful hints, thank you.
-
It’s an exercise the police have had 13 years to undertake and don’t appear to have done so, which suggests they don’t feel the answer lies in the activities of the Tapas Group. As you believe it does, it is not goading IMO to suggest that you and other sceptics undertake this work yourselves, pivoting the entire night’s comings and goings around the now firmly established (by you and G-Unit) alarm being raised just before 9.20pm. If I get more points for writing this, I will want a detailed explanation as to why this suggestion is not permitted.
It's reported on this forum that SY are on record stating that understanding the timeline is crucial.
I haven't firmly establishes that the alarm was raised just before 21:20. There is one independent witness who states:A few minutes later, when it was around 21H20, he heard some clamour, which made him leave toward the restaurant, a few meters away, and was then informed that a child had disappeared. Given the importance of this, believed that he should be in the surroundings. At that moment, he did not leave the area of the restaurant, and did not have the opportunity to check if the vehicle mentioned before was situated in the same location.
IMO opinion "around 21:20" could be some time later (rather than "just before"). It's impossible to "firmly establish" it was "before 21:20" as you keep insisting.
I don't understand the debate on the SIL site about whether MO carried out one of his checks. With regards to his two checks MO's statements seem consistent to me. A listening check around 21:00 and the check which involved entering 5A at around 21:25. I believe any "clamour" must be after this.
One part of MO's rogatory statement also needs further clarity, imo. It reads to me like ROB and MO went to do the second check AFTER the main course: "then Russell came back and they actually redid his food, erm, I mean, he was eating it when the next sort of checks went, which were about half an hour later'
4078: 'So you think it was about half an hour between your check''
Reply: 'It would have been around that sort of time and the reason I think thirty minutes is because I, I don't know whether this is memory now or whether it's since we've been talking about it, Gerry said or Kate said, it's about thirty minutes since the last check, we ought to go, so that's why I think it's thirty minutes, erm, because I think that main course would have taken a bit longer because, you know, Russell came back and we started chatting, you know, how's Evie and all that sort of thing, erm, so, I think he was still eating at the time, so we waited until he'd finished before we went'.
He also describes two visits to Reception to ask them to call the Police. The first on his own at "22:05 - 22:10" the second with GM "about thirty minutes or so later" to check the Police had been called.Of course the actual time the Police were called is verifiable. The Reception staff also offer a time frame for this event.
One other point to note is a glaring error in the Crimewatch reconstruction, imo. I'm as certain as I can be that they had GM leaving for his check before MO got back to the table from his first check. None of the testimony seems to support this scenario.
If you believe an abduction took place then the timeline is crucial as it will indicate the times that an abduction was possible. IMO there can only have been a tiny window of opportunity - unless the checks were further apart than stated.
Is anyone here aware of any independent testimony that verifies KM's check and the time it took place?
-
No you’re quite wrong. The chef Pelaga’s statement has a clamour happening around 9.20pm which is when he discovers a child has gone missing. As G-Unit pointed out earlier being the chef he’d have to be bang on with his timings, therefore his statement is probably the only one we can rely on to be accurate.
But he doesn't say it was the McCann child. Surely if it was the McCann child the Tapas 9's table wouldn't be still wondering about their meals.
-
I had one goal when investigating the T9's timeline; to show that not all the witnesses around the scene agreed with it. I see no point in replacing it but if I thought it was necessary I'm perfectly capable of deciding to do so without any helpful hints, thank you.
By your reckoning the most reliable witness statement is that of the chef Pelaga who puts the raising of the alarm at just before 9.20pm and yet in all my time I have never seen it seriously mooted as the actual time the alarm was raised. Surely this is a massive oversight in a forum dedicated to debating what happened that night? I’m amazed you haven’t made more of it tbh, considering how seriously you take his statement - it changes everything.
-
But he doesn't say it was the McCann child. Surely if it was the McCann child the Tapas 9's table wouldn't be still wondering about their meals.
Ah yes you could be right, it was probably clamour about another missing child, though Pelaga does say in his statement that the child belonged to the group that had all completely left the restaurant by 9.40pm.
-
It's reported on this forum that SY are on record stating that understanding the timeline is crucial.
I haven't firmly establishes that the alarm was raised just before 21:20. There is one independent witness who states:A few minutes later, when it was around 21H20, he heard some clamour, which made him leave toward the restaurant, a few meters away, and was then informed that a child had disappeared. Given the importance of this, believed that he should be in the surroundings. At that moment, he did not leave the area of the restaurant, and did not have the opportunity to check if the vehicle mentioned before was situated in the same location.
IMO opinion "around 21:20" could be some time later (rather than "just before"). It's impossible to "firmly establish" it was "before 21:20" as you keep insisting.
I don't understand the debate on the SIL site about whether MO carried out one of his checks. With regards to his two checks MO's statements seem consistent to me. A listening check around 21:00 and the check which involved entering 5A at around 21:25. I believe any "clamour" must be after this.
One part of MO's rogatory statement also needs further clarity, imo. It reads to me like ROB and MO went to do the second check AFTER the main course: "then Russell came back and they actually redid his food, erm, I mean, he was eating it when the next sort of checks went, which were about half an hour later'
4078: 'So you think it was about half an hour between your check''
Reply: 'It would have been around that sort of time and the reason I think thirty minutes is because I, I don't know whether this is memory now or whether it's since we've been talking about it, Gerry said or Kate said, it's about thirty minutes since the last check, we ought to go, so that's why I think it's thirty minutes, erm, because I think that main course would have taken a bit longer because, you know, Russell came back and we started chatting, you know, how's Evie and all that sort of thing, erm, so, I think he was still eating at the time, so we waited until he'd finished before we went'.
He also describes two visits to Reception to ask them to call the Police. The first on his own at "22:05 - 22:10" the second with GM "about thirty minutes or so later" to check the Police had been called.Of course the actual time the Police were called is verifiable. The Reception staff also offer a time frame for this event.
One other point to note is a glaring error in the Crimewatch reconstruction, imo. I'm as certain as I can be that they had GM leaving for his check before MO got back to the table from his first check. None of the testimony seems to support this scenario.
If you believe an abduction took place then the timeline is crucial as it will indicate the times that an abduction was possible. IMO there can only have been a tiny window of opportunity - unless the checks were further apart than stated.
Is anyone here aware of any independent testimony that verifies KM's check and the time it took place?
You “liked” the following comment made by G-Unit yesterday
“Pelega was the head chef, with responsibility for five kitchens around the site. They were, I think, the Millenium, the Tapas, two snack bars related to swimming pools and one other. As head chef he worked in the Millenium kitchen but organised and oversaw the others, which is why he visited the Tapas on 3rd. It's highly unlikely that he made a mistake with the times, imo, given his seniority and his responsibilities”.
“Highly unlikely he made a mistake with the times” does not square with your rather wooly “could have been some time later”. In order to hear clamour around 9.20pm, the alarm would have to have been raised shortly before “around 9.20pm” so to allow for a few minutes innaccuracy on his part (remember he’s a senior professional) lets agree that the alarm could not have been raised after 9.25pm and proceed from there.
-
It's reported on this forum that SY are on record stating that understanding the timeline is crucial.
Snipped.
Any defence counsel worth their salt will want to know how is it their client was supposed to have got Madeleine out in the time line.
-
Snipped.
Any defence counsel worth their salt will want to know how is it their client was supposed to have got Madeleine out in the time line.
After a forensic study of the timeline the Met concluded that there was a window of opportunity for abduction. Are they mistaken? If so be my guest and demonstrate how.
-
By your reckoning the most reliable witness statement is that of the chef Pelaga who puts the raising of the alarm at just before 9.20pm and yet in all my time I have never seen it seriously mooted as the actual time the alarm was raised. Surely this is a massive oversight in a forum dedicated to debating what happened that night? I’m amazed you haven’t made more of it tbh, considering how seriously you take his statement - it changes everything.
I have never said Pelega's statement is "the most reliable witness statement". Once again, you are trying to put words into my mouth. My point has always been that the alarm could have been raised before 10pm, because various statements disagree with the T9 about the time.
Some of them disagree with their own timeline, in fact. If the alarm was raised at 22:14, as Gerry suggested, then Matthew didn't go to reception at 22:05 - 22:10 as he claimed, did he? The 'unknown woman' didn't tell the nannies about the disappearance at that time either.
-
I have never said Pelega's statement is "the most reliable witness statement". Once again, you are trying to put words into my mouth. My point has always been that the alarm could have been raised before 10pm, because various statements disagree with the T9 about the time.
Some of them disagree with their own timeline, in fact. If the alarm was raised at 22:14, as Gerry suggested, then Matthew didn't go to reception at 22:05 - 22:10 as he claimed, did he? The 'unknown woman' didn't tell the nannies about the disappearance at that time either.
It is not putting words into your mouth to say by your own judgement "It's highly unlikely that he made a mistake with the times, imo, given his seniority and his responsibilities”. In fact that is a direct quote. Highly unlikely that he is wrong. Flipping that on its head means that by your judgement it's highly likely the alarm was raised around 9.20pm. Do you agree, or are you changing your mind?
-
After a forensic study of the timeline the Met concluded that there was a window of opportunity for abduction. Are they mistaken? If so be my guest and demonstrate how.
If and its a big if it ever gets to court the prosecution will have to demonstrate that in from of a Judge,not on here.
-
If and its a big if it ever gets to court the prosecution will have to demonstrate that in from of a Judge,not on here.
If you could prove be means of the timeline that there was literally no way an abductor could strike (a position I believe is echoed by G-Unit, who has previously asserted that abduction is virtually impossible, or words to that effect) then you could shut us all up once and for all.
-
Ah yes you could be right, it was probably clamour about another missing child, though Pelaga does say in his statement that the child belonged to the group that had all completely left the restaurant by 9.40pm.
That would be natural. The people associated with the missing child would get up. Yet the Tapas 9 all claim to be at the table or getting back to the table after that time. I can only think that Pelaga was aware of a different event. That resolved itself rapidly, and then the McCann incident followed on from that.
-
That would be natural. The people associated with the missing child would get up. Yet the Tapas 9 all claim to be at the table or getting back to the table after that time. I can only think that Pelaga was aware of a different event. That resolved itself rapidly, and then the McCann incident followed on from that.
You reckon there was a clamour twice that evening over two missing kids? What are the chances, eh? Still, that would explain it. Pelagia was alerted about the other missing kid but that still doesn't explain why the Tapas group had all rushed off by 9.40pm. Do you reckon when they realised it wasn't a kid from their group they all came back to resume dinner until having to rush off again when Kate raised the alarm later?
-
That would be natural. The people associated with the missing child would get up. Yet the Tapas 9 all claim to be at the table or getting back to the table after that time. I can only think that Pelaga was aware of a different event. That resolved itself rapidly, and then the McCann incident followed on from that.
I think it is simpler than that. Someone just made a mistake in the time. Pelaga could have given the wrong time or more likely the person writing it down could have got it wrong.
I find it odd that the time given in that statement alone conflicts with all the others.
-
I think it is simpler than that. Someone just made a mistake in the time. Pelaga could have given the wrong time or more likely the person writing it down could have got it wrong.
I find it odd that the time given in that statement alone conflicts with all the others.
Pelaga couldn't have given the wrong time as he was a senior professional chef and it's highly unlikely he would get his timings wrong. As for someone writing down the wrong time, really? I mean REALLY? I don't think so. Mistakes like that are virtually unheard of in PT police statements.
-
I have never said Pelega's statement is "the most reliable witness statement". Once again, you are trying to put words into my mouth. My point has always been that the alarm could have been raised before 10pm, because various statements disagree with the T9 about the time.
Some of them disagree with their own timeline, in fact. If the alarm was raised at 22:14, as Gerry suggested, then Matthew didn't go to reception at 22:05 - 22:10 as he claimed, did he? The 'unknown woman' didn't tell the nannies about the disappearance at that time either.
Do you think that Gerry when he said the alarm was raised at 22.14 he meant they asked for the Police to be called alerting the Police that Madeleine was missing?
-
I think it is simpler than that. Someone just made a mistake in the time. Pelaga could have given the wrong time or more likely the person writing it down could have got it wrong.
I find it odd that the time given in that statement alone conflicts with all the others.
Except what Mrs Carpenter is alleged to have heard; someone calling 'Madeleine' way before 22:00. Then there's Weijdom who says he was told about the disappearance between 21:30 and 21:45
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/BAREND_WEIJDOM.htm
-
Except what Mrs Carpenter is alleged to have heard; someone calling 'Madeleine' way before 22:00. Then there's Weijdom who says he was told about the disappearance between 21:30 and 21:45
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/BAREND_WEIJDOM.htm
Or maybe she was wrong?
-
Do you think that Gerry when he said the alarm was raised at 22.14 he meant they asked for the Police to be called alerting the Police that Madeleine was missing?
No.
Half and hour later without anything to signal, it being 22h03, he turned to alert KATE that it was time for her to go to see the children. She immediately made her way to the apartment by the usual path, she having entered by the rear door. About 10 minutes later, he started to worry about her lateness
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN-10MAY.htm
-
G-Unit is building a case for the alarm to have been raised much earlier in the evening than previously believed. Her argument is quite compelling IMO. Given that the alarm was probably raised prior to 9.30pm according to her research, we then have to wrestle with the conundrum of why, having raised the alarm some 40 minutes earlier, anyone wishing to conceal a body would choose then to carry the corpse uncovered through town knowing there was a good chance of bumping into seachers or even the police, who may have been called by that point for all the body occulter knew.
We would also have to come to terms with the fact that the entire Tapas group chose to lie about the time the alarm was raised.
-
Or maybe she was wrong?
Perhaps it was the wind whistling through the resort.
-
Except what Mrs Carpenter is alleged to have heard; someone calling 'Madeleine' way before 22:00. Then there's Weijdom who says he was told about the disappearance between 21:30 and 21:45
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/BAREND_WEIJDOM.htm
Unfortunately we have never seen a statement made by Mrs Carpenter. Nor have we seen Stephen's original statement so we only have his rogatory statement for comparison in which he says ...
"My wife mentioned on the following day that she vaguely remembered someone calling “Madeleine, Madeleine”, this was after we had crossed the road from the MW reception and before entering our apartment. She does not remember where the sound came from or whether it was in an urgent tone, not paying any more attention to it and only remembered the following day when we heard about Madeleine’s disappearance”.
___________________________________________________
My wife vaguely remembers hearing “Madeleine, Madeleine” and that was all until the following morning when I saw the television.
https://missingmadeleine.forumotion.net/t8443-stephen-carpenter-rogatory-statement
He was there. He heard nothing. His wife said nothing until hearing the GMTV television breakfast news.
By your own preferred standards for provenance I do not think the hearsay attributed to Mrs carpenter fits the bill.
-
Redwood has already established a window of opportunity for an abduction. I think right after Gerrys check at 9.05...in through the window...out through the front door to a car waiting in the car park
-
Redwood has already established a window of opportunity for an abduction. I think right after Gerrys check at 9.05...in through the window...out through the front door to a car waiting in the car park
If the abductor wasn't hiding in the appartment already.
-
But he doesn't say it was the McCann child. Surely if it was the McCann child the Tapas 9's table wouldn't be still wondering about their meals.
My point is that wasn’t “before 21:20”
-
Redwood has already established a window of opportunity for an abduction. I think right after Gerrys check at 9.05...in through the window...out through the front door to a car waiting in the car park
In through the window without leaving a trace - I’m not convinced. I’m presuming you can unlock the door from the inside without a key but perhaps you can confirm?
-
Stephen Carpenter's original statement which was discussed during the rogatory interview gives the Carter family's departure from the the tapas as approximately nine thirty.
Which is at total variance with the information being used to suggest the official timeline is wrong and the new supposition is the correct one.
I just don't think the changes necessary to allow this 'new' theory can't withstand scrutiny on very many levels and the Carpenters are only one level of that.
Neither does DCF ask anything here in confirmation of cries of 'Madeleine' and I think the question would have been asked had it been mentioned.
Snip
DCF: At what time did you leave the Tapas bar'
SC: I think it was at about half past nine.
DCF: I think that is what you said.
SC: Yes.
DCF: And you were accompanied, you replied that you were with your children and your wife. Where did you go afterwards, it says here...before going back to your apartment, can you describe the route you took'
SC: Directly to the apartment.
DCF: Did you see anyone outside the Tapas Bar or outside the apartments'
SC: If I saw anyone outside the Tapas bar or, hummm.. on the way home presumably'
DCF: Yes, is there anyone you remember that night, did you see anyone in the area'
SC: No.
https://missingmadeleine.forumotion.net/t8443-stephen-carpenter-rogatory-statement
-
You reckon there was a clamour twice that evening over two missing kids? What are the chances, eh? Still, that would explain it. Pelagia was alerted about the other missing kid but that still doesn't explain why the Tapas group had all rushed off by 9.40pm. Do you reckon when they realised it wasn't a kid from their group they all came back to resume dinner until having to rush off again when Kate raised the alarm later?
I must admit I've never been able to explain it fully. I used to think he must have been intoxicated. But I'd imagine others here would think that is unlikely due to his position.
-
In through the window without leaving a trace - I’m not convinced. I’m presuming you can unlock the door from the inside without a key but perhaps you can confirm?
I'm not sure how thorough the forensic exam of the widow was...so no trace detected doesn't mean a trace wasn't left.
There no reason to think the door could not be opened from the inside
-
Stephen Carpenter's original statement which was discussed during the rogatory interview gives the Carter family's departure from the the tapas as approximately nine thirty.
Which is at total variance with the information being used to suggest the official timeline is wrong and the new supposition is the correct one.
I just don't think the changes necessary to allow this 'new' theory can't withstand scrutiny on very many levels and the Carpenters are only one level of that.
Neither does DCF ask anything here in confirmation of cries of 'Madeleine' and I think the question would have been asked had it been mentioned.
Snip
DCF: At what time did you leave the Tapas bar'
SC: I think it was at about half past nine.
DCF: I think that is what you said.
SC: Yes.
DCF: And you were accompanied, you replied that you were with your children and your wife. Where did you go afterwards, it says here...before going back to your apartment, can you describe the route you took'
SC: Directly to the apartment.
DCF: Did you see anyone outside the Tapas Bar or outside the apartments'
SC: If I saw anyone outside the Tapas bar or, hummm.. on the way home presumably'
DCF: Yes, is there anyone you remember that night, did you see anyone in the area'
SC: No.
https://missingmadeleine.forumotion.net/t8443-stephen-carpenter-rogatory-statement
Apologies but I don’t entirely understand what you’re saying there. I suspect you’ve used a double negative where it wasn’t intended (“don’t think.... can’t withstand “). What your snip of the rogatory statement shows, imo, is poor police questioning. Could there have been political pressure not to stray from the “official” narrative? Here we have someone who has given testimony that his wife heard cries of “Madeleine, Madeleine” before the alleged alarm which supposedly happened just after 22:03. That’s now three independent witnesses that suggest the alarm was raised earlier and the Police fail to ask a question about it??? I do appreciate it’s only a snip and maybe the question comes later.
-
I think it is simpler than that. Someone just made a mistake in the time. Pelaga could have given the wrong time or more likely the person writing it down could have got it wrong.
I find it odd that the time given in that statement alone conflicts with all the others.
It doesn’t two other independent witnesses suggest an earlier time for the alarm being raised. And also look at the conflict that G-Unit points out between GM’s time for the alarm being raised and MO’s testimony about his first visit to Reception.
-
It doesn’t two other independent witnesses suggest an earlier time for the alarm being raised. And also look at the conflict that G-Unit points out between GM’s time for the alarm being raised and MO’s testimony about his first visit to Reception.
Returning to the beginning of the evening we also have Fiona Payne's statement;
She left around 20H45, accompanied by David and her mother, in order to meet the rest of the group in the Tapas restaurant.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/FIONA-PAYNE.htm
Around 20:45 includes just before that time as well as just after it. Her mother agrees with her time;
They left the apartment at around 8.45 and accompanied by her son-in-law and her daughter, they went to join the rest of the group at the "TAPAS" restaurant.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/DIANE-WEBSTER.htm
Matthew Oldfield said;
That the last to arrive at the restaurant was the couple David and Fiona. That the latter arrived at the restaurant at around 9pm.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MATTHEW-OLDFIELD.htm
So it took the Payne family 15 minutes to get from 5H to the Tapas? What's more, they arrived before Matt left to find them;
That around 9.05pm, the interviewee went to the area of the apartments.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MATTHEW-OLDFIELD.htm
No wonder Dianne categorically denied meeting Matthew on her way to the restaurant!
-
Returning to the beginning of the evening we also have Fiona Payne's statement;
She left around 20H45, accompanied by David and her mother, in order to meet the rest of the group in the Tapas restaurant.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/FIONA-PAYNE.htm
Around 20:45 includes just before that time as well as just after it. Her mother agrees with her time;
They left the apartment at around 8.45 and accompanied by her son-in-law and her daughter, they went to join the rest of the group at the "TAPAS" restaurant.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/DIANE-WEBSTER.htm
Matthew Oldfield said;
That the last to arrive at the restaurant was the couple David and Fiona. That the latter arrived at the restaurant at around 9pm.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MATTHEW-OLDFIELD.htm
So it took the Payne family 15 minutes to get from 5H to the Tapas? What's more, they arrived before Matt left to find them;
That around 9.05pm, the interviewee went to the area of the apartments.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MATTHEW-OLDFIELD.htm
No wonder Dianne categorically denied meeting Matthew on her way to the restaurant!
What has this got to do with anything? Unless someone wants to bring The Alarm even further forward.
-
What are we to do with this statement as it throw a spanner in the works somewhat?
Joaquim José Moreira Baptista
Occupation: Waiter
Place of Work: Tapas Bar, OC
Time/Date: 18H50 2007/05/06
Portuguese National
Comes to the process as a witness. He has worked as a waiter at the Tapas restaurant since 12th Feb 2007. His shift is from 16.00 – 24.00 except for Saturdays when he works from 11.30 to 19.00. The clients who frequent the restaurant are mainly English tourists staying at the OC resort.
When asked he says that he clearly recalls the appearance of the girl’s parents, he does not know their names, together with a group of English tourists who generally accompanied them, as for almost a week prior to the disappearance they would dine practically every day in the Tapas restaurant. On the occasions he saw the group dining at the restaurant he never saw the children.
When asked, he says he does not remember ever having seen Madeleine’s face, which only happened when he saw her photograph after the disappearance.
When asked, he said that during dinner the men from the group would leave the table, returning to the table a few minutes later. The witness says that he does not know where they went. These absences would last for about 15 minutes. He cannot say with what regularity these absences occurred.
The witness remembers these occurrences well as would often have to take a plate of food requested by one of them back, due to the guest’s absence, when he would find that the guest was not at the table when he came to serve the food.
When questioned, the witness says that he remembers on Thursday 3rd May, on the day of the disappearance, that the parents went to dine at the restaurant with the usual people. He cannot be precise, but the witness says that the group arrived between 20.00 and 21.00. He remembers there being about 9 people in total. He states that he received the food orders from the group.
Later, between 22.00 and 22.30, when the witness was in the kitchen, he was informed by a colleague that in the meantime a client had entered the restaurant shouting and that afterwards the whole English had left in a panic. The witness’s colleague told him that this individual had said that a child had disappeared. A few minutes later the witness noticed great agitation, with many people everywhere searching for the child.
From information that was coming out, the witness learned that the child was a girl, the daughter of one of the English couple and that she had been in a room nearby.
When asked, the witness says that at the time he was working in the restaurant and referring to the days before the disappearance, he never noticed anything unusual. He said that he was never asked about the habits of the English group nor any questions concerning children. He says that on the day of the disappearance from the time he arrived at work, he did not notice anything unusual.
When asked, he says that at the end of the evening the area surrounding the Tapas is quiet with little circulation of people.
He has no comments as to the motive for the disappearance.
No more is said. Read, ratifies, signs.
-
Apologies but I don’t entirely understand what you’re saying there. I suspect you’ve used a double negative where it wasn’t intended (“don’t think.... can’t withstand “). What your snip of the rogatory statement shows, imo, is poor police questioning. Could there have been political pressure not to stray from the “official” narrative? Here we have someone who has given testimony that his wife heard cries of “Madeleine, Madeleine” before the alleged alarm which supposedly happened just after 22:03. That’s now three independent witnesses that suggest the alarm was raised earlier and the Police fail to ask a question about it??? I do appreciate it’s only a snip and maybe the question comes later.
The purpose of providing a source is for members to substantiate what I have posted ... is for others to access it for verification and to make up their their own minds on points they cannot "entirely understand".
With respect may I suggest you backtrack to read the previous discussion on the thread concerning Carpenter and check the source provided to gain a better understanding of what is going on.
-
What has this got to do with anything? Unless someone wants to bring The Alarm even further forward.
It's on topic, I think? It demonstrates the anomolies between witness statements and between their own statements as time passed.
-
It doesn’t two other independent witnesses suggest an earlier time for the alarm being raised. And also look at the conflict that G-Unit points out between GM’s time for the alarm being raised and MO’s testimony about his first visit to Reception.
What a pity to disagree ... but I think you and anyone else trying to adjust the established timeline to suit some agenda or other are totally misguided.
-
Returning to the beginning of the evening we also have Fiona Payne's statement;
She left around 20H45, accompanied by David and her mother, in order to meet the rest of the group in the Tapas restaurant.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/FIONA-PAYNE.htm
Around 20:45 includes just before that time as well as just after it. Her mother agrees with her time;
They left the apartment at around 8.45 and accompanied by her son-in-law and her daughter, they went to join the rest of the group at the "TAPAS" restaurant.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/DIANE-WEBSTER.htm
Matthew Oldfield said;
That the last to arrive at the restaurant was the couple David and Fiona. That the latter arrived at the restaurant at around 9pm.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MATTHEW-OLDFIELD.htm
So it took the Payne family 15 minutes to get from 5H to the Tapas? What's more, they arrived before Matt left to find them;
That around 9.05pm, the interviewee went to the area of the apartments.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MATTHEW-OLDFIELD.htm
No wonder Dianne categorically denied meeting Matthew on her way to the restaurant!
Fascinating!
-
Furthermore, what are we to make of this waiter's testimony?
"When asked, he says that on 3rd May he only remembers that one guest from the table left for about 10 minutes, given that when he was about to serve the respective plate he was told to hold the food back for a few minutes, and that it was about 15 minutes before the guest returned, at about 21.45".
Was this guest returning after having left the table with the rest of the group after the alarm was raised around 9.20pm, to finish his steak? After all why waste a perfectly good steak just because a child has gone missing!
-
It's on topic, I think? It demonstrates the anomolies between witness statements and between their own statements as time passed.
I just cannot understand how the Judicial Police at the time and Scotland Yard at a later date, failed to miss all these important timeline anomalies being unearthed and repeated day and daily for thirteen years by internet subscribers.
-
It's on topic, I think? It demonstrates the anomolies between witness statements and between their own statements as time passed.
But it doesn't prove anything. This is getting more ridiculous as time goes by.
-
Fascinating!
Really? What did I miss?
-
But it doesn't prove anything. This is getting more ridiculous as time goes by.
There's more evidence that the timeline was suspect than there is that Madeleine was abducted.
-
Then we have this statement by a witness Maria Manuela Martins da Silva
who claims that at 10pm there was nothing at all going on in the vicinity of Apartment 5A which (had the alarm been raised at 9.20pm) should have been abuzz with distraught people searching and shouting
"Declares further that on the night 03-05-07, she left the apartment at around 21H58—she remembers the exact time because she asked her friend the time and she responded after checking this on the telephone in the lounge;
. They left the building and the deponent and her boyfriend took the Opel Frontera, previously indicated, which was parked out front of the apartment, in the private parking area of Block 6 where her freind’s apartment was located;
. She declares that the night was good with a breeze, and that it was dark;
. After leaving Block 6, they turned right and after left, passing in front of the block occupied by the McCanns. She states that she saw no movement of people, and that in the immediate areas of the blocks she saw no vehicle with the exception of a small car, that appeared to her grey in colour, parked close to the window of the McCann apartment;
She declares further that she mentioned this fact to her boyfriend and that it wasn’t yet summer given the movement on the roads, and at that hour movement was nill;
. States that she looked at the exit of the apartment and that from the flat above the McCanns, she saw light, and also in from of the apartment, but she could not define, concretely, where she saw the light when she passed the McCann apartment;
. Next to the tree, she did not detect any movement of people or vehicles, and nothing struck her as abnormal in that zone that would have raised her suspicions;
. She only learnt of what had happened to little Madeleine the next day after having received a telephone call from her friend, who alerted her to what had happened;
How can we account for this? Does this not suggest the alarm was raised AFTER 10pm? If not, why not?
-
There's more evidence that the timeline was suspect than there is that Madeleine was abducted.
So The McCanns dunnit. You might have a job and a half proving that.
-
So The McCanns dunnit. You might have a job and a half proving that.
That's what the PJ found, so they gave up.
IMO
-
and must we ignore this statement as well, if we want to stick to an earlier time for the alarm to have been raised? this guy Salcedas was only a waiter and therefore not a senior professional, nor a chef, so can we disregard his testimony?
Referring to the day of 3rd May when Madeleine disappeared, the witness says that he was working.
At that time, at about 22.20 – 22.30 he noticed that there was only one person sitting at the group’s table, the oldest of them and he asked her jokingly whether they had left her alone.
The person in question said that the others had gone to the apartment to look for a girl who had disappeared. Seconds later Madeleine’s father appeared, greatly agitated, looking for his daughter everywhere, obviously and immediately heading towards the pool and surrounding areas.
-
There's more evidence that the timeline was suspect than there is that Madeleine was abducted.
I have today provided three cites from independent witness statements which tend to suggest the alarm was raised much later than the 9.20pm cite you set such store by. Please explain why you pick and choose which testimony to believe in and which to ignore?
-
Madeleine was found missing around. 9.30. There was searching by the group. The alarm was raised, according to Gerry, at 10.13. It really isn’t that hard to get your head around.
-
Madeleine was found missing around. 9.30. There was searching by the group. The alarm was raised, according to Gerry, at 10.13. It really isn’t that hard to get your head around.
Presumably In Your Opinion.
-
Presumably In Your Opinion.
As ever.
-
As ever.
Then please say so. Contrary to popular opinion I don't actually enjoy deleting comments.
-
Presumably In Your Opinion.
an opinion which is contradicted by numerous independent witness statements as I have demonstrated.
-
Fascinating!
Their timeline falls apart under scrutiny. ... (IMO)
-
Then please say so. Contrary to popular opinion I don't actually enjoy deleting comments.
Delete away.
-
Their timeline falls apart under scrutiny. ... (IMO)
Hardly surprising when you have so many people's witness statements to try and weave together - even if you completely disregard the Tapas 9 statements it's virtually impossible to come up with a workable timeline of events from the statements of the independent witnesses which is why when challenged no one here even bothers to try.
-
an opinion which is contradicted by numerous independent witness statements as I have demonstrated.
Yes, but it could not be worth anything or prove anything it was never tested.
It's not evidence of anything ..not even worth the paper it was written on.
Something was done by a group who had been drinking wine ..Oh, and thinking Maddie had been taking by an abductor.
So how could they think so rationally exact times?
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TAVARES_ALMEIDA.htm
Although the entire group was at the table and starting the meal, they began the 'visits' to the children in a way that is neither coherent nor acceptable; that could not be confirmed and only the group defends it, in a sort of 'unique version'.
Although they say in the 'Autos' that their strategic position in the Tapas restaurant allowed them, the McCann, to see the apartment where they'd left their children, minor, sleeping, the exam of the local reveals it is false.
It must be noted, also, that by the stated in the 'Autos' everything points to their position at the table with their back to the apartment.
-
Yes, but it could not be worth anything or prove anything it was never tested.
It's not evidence of anything ..not even worth the paper it was written on.
Something was done by a group who had been drinking wine ..Oh, and thinking Maddie had been taking by an abductor.
So how could they think so rationally exact times?
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TAVARES_ALMEIDA.htm
Although the entire group was at the table and starting the meal, they began the 'visits' to the children in a way that is neither coherent nor acceptable; that could not be confirmed and only the group defends it, in a sort of 'unique version'.
Although they say in the 'Autos' that their strategic position in the Tapas restaurant allowed them, the McCann, to see the apartment where they'd left their children, minor, sleeping, the exam of the local reveals it is false.
It must be noted, also, that by the stated in the 'Autos' everything points to their position at the table with their back to the apartment.
I was referring to inconsistencies between independent witness statements - I guess everyone must have been drunk that night, staff and guests.
-
One thing absolutely stands out to me.
Not one of the tapas staff who must have been milling about around ten o’clock have said that they saw Kate raising the alarm.
-
Madeleine was found missing around. 9.30. There was searching by the group. The alarm was raised, according to Gerry, at 10.13. It really isn’t that hard to get your head around.
The group did this but didn't inform Kate. Is that how it happens?
Is this your scenario?
1. Madeleine was found missing around. 9.30. by one member of the T9.
2. There was searching by other members the group.
3. The alarm was raised, according to Gerry, at 10.13. after Kate goes to the apartment on her check.
It really isn’t that hard to get your head around.
-
Hardly surprising when you have so many people's witness statements to try and weave together - even if you completely disregard the Tapas 9 statements it's virtually impossible to come up with a workable timeline of events from the statements of the independent witnesses which is why when challenged no one here even bothers to try.
I think people have done a fine job. I’ve learnt some new things about the events. And then what we’re left with is looking for concrete evidence. I’m yet to see any that supports rare stranger abduction.
-
I think people have done a fine job. I’ve learnt some new things about the events. And then what we’re left with then is concrete evidence. I’m yet to see any that supports rare stranger abduction.
That’s your problem.
-
I think people have done a fine job. I’ve learnt some new things about the events. And then what we’re left with then is concrete evidence. I’m yet to see any that supports rare stranger abduction.
Perhaps that's because you don't know where to look. I would say the evidence supports stranger abduction to be the most probable solution and it probably fits in well with the statistics
-
Perhaps that's because you don't know where to look. I would say the evidence supports stranger abduction to be the most probable solution and it probably fits in well with the statistics
The statistics say that children are in far more danger from their parents than a stranger. You know that.
-
It’s a wonder children aren’t removed from their parents at birth and given to strangers for their own safety
-
The statistics say that children are in far more danger from their parents than a stranger. You know that.
The statistics also point to stranger abduction being rare.so in the last 15 years how many stranger abductions have there been in Portugal...if Maddie was abducted would that fit in with the stats .yes it would
-
and must we ignore this statement as well, if we want to stick to an earlier time for the alarm to have been raised? this guy Salcedas was only a waiter and therefore not a senior professional, nor a chef, so can we disregard his testimony?
Referring to the day of 3rd May when Madeleine disappeared, the witness says that he was working.
At that time, at about 22.20 – 22.30 he noticed that there was only one person sitting at the group’s table, the oldest of them and he asked her jokingly whether they had left her alone.
The person in question said that the others had gone to the apartment to look for a girl who had disappeared. Seconds later Madeleine’s father appeared, greatly agitated, looking for his daughter everywhere, obviously and immediately heading towards the pool and surrounding areas.
Maybe Dianne stayed there to finish the wine?
-
Maybe Dianne stayed there to finish the wine?
Well, it was Free.
-
Maybe Dianne stayed there to finish the wine?
Nice.
Now, are you serious about getting to the truth of the timeline? Because you have studiously avoided commenting on the three statements I have linked to today - why?
-
The statistics also point to stranger abduction being rare.so in the last 15 years how many stranger abductions have there been in Portugal...if Maddie was abducted would that fit in with the stats .yes it would
That's the statistical equivalent of the tail wagging the dog!
The statistical reality is that in cases of missing children abduction by a stranger is incredibly rare. It is not a statistical probability.
-
That's the statistical equivalent of the tail wagging the dog!
The statistical reality is that in cases of missing children abduction by a stranger is incredibly rare. It is not a statistical probability.
If it's got statistics then it's a possibility.
-
Furthermore, what are we to make of this waiter's testimony?
"When asked, he says that on 3rd May he only remembers that one guest from the table left for about 10 minutes, given that when he was about to serve the respective plate he was told to hold the food back for a few minutes, and that it was about 15 minutes before the guest returned, at about 21.45".
Was this guest returning after having left the table with the rest of the group after the alarm was raised around 9.20pm, to finish his steak? After all why waste a perfectly good steak just because a child has gone missing!
It contradicts what MO says.... I'm pretty sure you'd prefer the MO version. He says the re-heated food had been eaten before the 21:25 check with ROB?
"then Russell came back and they actually redid his food, erm, I mean, he was eating it when the next sort of checks went, which were about half an hour later'
4078: 'So you think it was about half an hour between your check''
Reply: 'It would have been around that sort of time and the reason I think thirty minutes is because I, I don't know whether this is memory now or whether it's since we've been talking about it, Gerry said or Kate said, it's about thirty minutes since the last check, we ought to go, so that's why I think it's thirty minutes, erm, because I think that main course would have taken a bit longer because, you know, Russell came back and we started chatting, you know, how's Evie and all that sort of thing, erm, so, I think he was still eating at the time, so we waited until he'd finished before we went'.
-
If it's got statistics then it's a possibility.
Absolutely! It's a distinct possibility. I just don't see any evidence for it and our Dave won't point me in the right direction.
-
Absolutely! It's a distinct possibility. I just don't see any evidence for it and our Dave won't point me in the right direction.
Think Logistics.
-
It contradicts what MO says.... I'm pretty sure you'd prefer the MO version. He says the re-heated food had been eaten before the 21:25 check with ROB?
"then Russell came back and they actually redid his food, erm, I mean, he was eating it when the next sort of checks went, which were about half an hour later'
4078: 'So you think it was about half an hour between your check''
Reply: 'It would have been around that sort of time and the reason I think thirty minutes is because I, I don't know whether this is memory now or whether it's since we've been talking about it, Gerry said or Kate said, it's about thirty minutes since the last check, we ought to go, so that's why I think it's thirty minutes, erm, because I think that main course would have taken a bit longer because, you know, Russell came back and we started chatting, you know, how's Evie and all that sort of thing, erm, so, I think he was still eating at the time, so we waited until he'd finished before we went'.
Why would I prefer one version over another? Which version do you prefer?
-
Absolutely! It's a distinct possibility. I just don't see any evidence for it and our Dave won't point me in the right direction.
If Davel won’t help, why not ask Holly? She believes Madeleine was abducted by strangers yet she never gets asked by those of a sceptical persuasion to justify her beliefs. Why not?
-
The statistics also point to stranger abduction being rare.so in the last 15 years how many stranger abductions have there been in Portugal...if Maddie was abducted would that fit in with the stats .yes it would
Absolute nonsense.
-
Why would I prefer one version over another? Which version do you prefer?
I prefer G-Units "question everything... accept nothing" model.
-
I prefer G-Units "question everything... accept nothing" model.
Aww, bless. The only problem with that is it gets you absolutely nowhere. At sone point you have to accept some things otherwise you just go round in circles, it’s pointless imo. G-Unit herself seemed to come to a conclusion (very rare I know) when she decided it would be highly unlikely for the chef to get his times wrong and that therefore in her opinion the alarm was raised as he said at around 9.20pm but she seems to have backtracked a bit since.
-
Who is that witness? The waiter who served them is a credible witness to what was going on that night! He said David and Matt were searching that area.
Gerry has never said he was searching the pool area.
The very same witness said this -
I would normally see them during the day if I went to the complex for a swim, or when they were going to get their children for lunch in the zone next to the Tapas. Nothing in their behaviour called my attention. They dined in the restaurant every night from Sunday until Thursday when Madeleine disappeared. The table was booked then for 19H30 to 20H00. It was nine adults in total, four couples and an older woman who was also with them. I always found them educated, good clients. They appeared to get along well amongst each other and each time I served the table they would comment on the food. It was a happy group who would often laugh during dinner. There was a man who particularly stood out from the rest of the group as she spoke a lot and told many jokes. At this time, I did not know who he was, but later found out it was Madeleine McCanns father. Frequently, when I served the table I noticed that one or two elements of the group had left the restaurant. I could not imagine where they had gone to. After seeing the news stories, I figured that they had gone to check on their children. On some occasions, I also saw some infant monitors on the same table but never related this to the facts.
So he is saying that Gerry stood out from the crowd as he spoke a lot and told many jokes. You say he wouldn't have recognised him searching around the pool? He realised afterwards he was Madeleine's father, I don't think he would say that if he wasn't sure. Just because Gerry doesn't mention he searched around the pool doesn't mean he didn't he was seen. The nanny said he looked under cars too, did he mention that?
-
Absolutely! It's a distinct possibility. I just don't see any evidence for it and our Dave won't point me in the right direction.
Ive tried and im happy to do so again...So first..
what is the probablity of the parents being involved?
-
Absolute nonsense.
As is applying statistics to show parental involvement....my statistics are bang on
-
Ive tried and im happy to do so again...So first..
what is the probablity of the parents being involved?
That depends on what you mean by "involved" and depends on which particular outcome you are asking about.
-
The very same witness said this -
I would normally see them during the day if I went to the complex for a swim, or when they were going to get their children for lunch in the zone next to the Tapas. Nothing in their behaviour called my attention. They dined in the restaurant every night from Sunday until Thursday when Madeleine disappeared. The table was booked then for 19H30 to 20H00. It was nine adults in total, four couples and an older woman who was also with them. I always found them educated, good clients. They appeared to get along well amongst each other and each time I served the table they would comment on the food. It was a happy group who would often laugh during dinner. There was a man who particularly stood out from the rest of the group as she spoke a lot and told many jokes. At this time, I did not know who he was, but later found out it was Madeleine McCanns father. Frequently, when I served the table I noticed that one or two elements of the group had left the restaurant. I could not imagine where they had gone to. After seeing the news stories, I figured that they had gone to check on their children. On some occasions, I also saw some infant monitors on the same table but never related this to the facts.
So he is saying that Gerry stood out from the crowd as he spoke a lot and told many jokes. You say he wouldn't have recognised him searching around the pool? He realised afterwards he was Madeleine's father, I don't think he would say that if he wasn't sure. Just because Gerry doesn't mention he searched around the pool doesn't mean he didn't he was seen. The nanny said he looked under cars too, did he mention that?
He doesn't even know what time their dinner reservation was booked for.
-
The very same witness said this -
I would normally see them during the day if I went to the complex for a swim, or when they were going to get their children for lunch in the zone next to the Tapas. Nothing in their behaviour called my attention. They dined in the restaurant every night from Sunday until Thursday when Madeleine disappeared. The table was booked then for 19H30 to 20H00. It was nine adults in total, four couples and an older woman who was also with them. I always found them educated, good clients. They appeared to get along well amongst each other and each time I served the table they would comment on the food. It was a happy group who would often laugh during dinner. There was a man who particularly stood out from the rest of the group as she spoke a lot and told many jokes. At this time, I did not know who he was, but later found out it was Madeleine McCanns father. Frequently, when I served the table I noticed that one or two elements of the group had left the restaurant. I could not imagine where they had gone to. After seeing the news stories, I figured that they had gone to check on their children. On some occasions, I also saw some infant monitors on the same table but never related this to the facts.
So he is saying that Gerry stood out from the crowd as he spoke a lot and told many jokes. You say he wouldn't have recognised him searching around the pool? He realised afterwards he was Madeleine's father, I don't think he would say that if he wasn't sure. Just because Gerry doesn't mention he searched around the pool doesn't mean he didn't he was seen. The nanny said he looked under cars too, did he mention that?
So he is saying that Gerry stood out from the crowd as he spoke a lot and told many jokes.
Yes, we saw a bit of that on the bus.
Why don't you look at kmcs reaction and Maddies ...as to what he came out with and it wasn't a joke IMO.
-
The very same witness said this -
I would normally see them during the day if I went to the complex for a swim, or when they were going to get their children for lunch in the zone next to the Tapas. Nothing in their behaviour called my attention. They dined in the restaurant every night from Sunday until Thursday when Madeleine disappeared. The table was booked then for 19H30 to 20H00. It was nine adults in total, four couples and an older woman who was also with them. I always found them educated, good clients. They appeared to get along well amongst each other and each time I served the table they would comment on the food. It was a happy group who would often laugh during dinner. There was a man who particularly stood out from the rest of the group as she spoke a lot and told many jokes. At this time, I did not know who he was, but later found out it was Madeleine McCanns father. Frequently, when I served the table I noticed that one or two elements of the group had left the restaurant. I could not imagine where they had gone to. After seeing the news stories, I figured that they had gone to check on their children. On some occasions, I also saw some infant monitors on the same table but never related this to the facts.
So he is saying that Gerry stood out from the crowd as he spoke a lot and told many jokes. You say he wouldn't have recognised him searching around the pool? He realised afterwards he was Madeleine's father, I don't think he would say that if he wasn't sure. Just because Gerry doesn't mention he searched around the pool doesn't mean he didn't he was seen. The nanny said he looked under cars too, did he mention that?
That witness, Jeronimo Tomas Rodrigues Salcedas, states in May 2007 that the time he saw GM searching around the pool was "22:20 - 22:30".
-
wonder what this is all about.... wonder if it the mccs were not on very good terms the day Maddie went missing.
Nip
“As a result, we went back to our apartments a little later than normal and it also meant that the time between our last check of the children and our return was longer, closer to 45 minutes.”
Kate then explained how Gerry had "hurt" her by his actions during dinner.
She added: “At about 11.50pm, Gerry abruptly announced, 'Right, I'm off to bed. Goodnight.'
“As he turned to leave, Dave said jokingly, 'She's not that bad, Gerry!'
“I must admit I was slightly hurt that Gerry should just go off without me, as if I was unimportant – irrelevant, even – and Dave's remark was an indication that it wasn’t just me being over-sensitive.
Madeleine McCann: How Kate recalled ‘potentially crucial event’ night before disappearance
MADELEINE MCCANN's mother, Kate McCann, recalled during her book an "unprecedented event" on the night before her daughter's disappearance that could be "potentially crucial".
By CALLUM HOARE
PUBLISHED: 08:33, Wed, Jul 8, 2020 | UPDATED: 15:09, Wed, Jul 8, 2020
https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1306327/madeleine-mccann-kate-gerry-crucial-information-disappearance-maddie-algarve-portugal-spt
-
wonder what this is all about.... wonder if it the mccs were not on very good terms the day Maddie went missing.
Nip
“As a result, we went back to our apartments a little later than normal and it also meant that the time between our last check of the children and our return was longer, closer to 45 minutes.”
Kate then explained how Gerry had "hurt" her by his actions during dinner.
She added: “At about 11.50pm, Gerry abruptly announced, 'Right, I'm off to bed. Goodnight.'
“As he turned to leave, Dave said jokingly, 'She's not that bad, Gerry!'
“I must admit I was slightly hurt that Gerry should just go off without me, as if I was unimportant – irrelevant, even – and Dave's remark was an indication that it wasn’t just me being over-sensitive.
Madeleine McCann: How Kate recalled ‘potentially crucial event’ night before disappearance
MADELEINE MCCANN's mother, Kate McCann, recalled during her book an "unprecedented event" on the night before her daughter's disappearance that could be "potentially crucial".
By CALLUM HOARE
PUBLISHED: 08:33, Wed, Jul 8, 2020 | UPDATED: 15:09, Wed, Jul 8, 2020
https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1306327/madeleine-mccann-kate-gerry-crucial-information-disappearance-maddie-algarve-portugal-spt
Don't start another conspiracy.
-
Don't start another conspiracy.
Is it me... I don't write the stories
I'm only asking why they have printed part of kmc book when they are reporting on CB.
Especially that part the night before maddie went missing.
Especially imo the discussion about why DP went.to check on them
-
Is it me... I don't write the stories
I'm only asking why they have printed part of kmc book when they are reporting on CB.
Especially that part the night before maddie went missing.
Especially imo the discussion about why DP went.to check on them
Do you even know or care what the "unprecedented event" referred to was?
I do and so does anyone else who bothers to read full paragraphs in context.
-
Do you even know or care what the "unprecedented event" referred to was?
I do and so does anyone else who bothers to read full paragraphs in context.
It doesn't answer the question of why are they printing that part of kmc book.
When they are reporting on the CB suspect....and show the video for DNA evidence.
Why does the excerpt from her book help the german investigation in any way...is what I find odd.
-
It doesn't answer the question of why are they printing that part of kmc book.
When they are reporting on the CB suspect....and show the video for DNA evidence.
Why does the excerpt from her book help the german investigation in any way...is what I find odd.
How is it crucial information to know its the first time they slept apart ect ect ect
What has that got to do with the investigation of CB?
-
wonder what this is all about.... wonder if it the mccs were not on very good terms the day Maddie went missing.
Nip
“As a result, we went back to our apartments a little later than normal and it also meant that the time between our last check of the children and our return was longer, closer to 45 minutes.”
Kate then explained how Gerry had "hurt" her by his actions during dinner.
She added: “At about 11.50pm, Gerry abruptly announced, 'Right, I'm off to bed. Goodnight.'
“As he turned to leave, Dave said jokingly, 'She's not that bad, Gerry!'
“I must admit I was slightly hurt that Gerry should just go off without me, as if I was unimportant – irrelevant, even – and Dave's remark was an indication that it wasn’t just me being over-sensitive.
Madeleine McCann: How Kate recalled ‘potentially crucial event’ night before disappearance
MADELEINE MCCANN's mother, Kate McCann, recalled during her book an "unprecedented event" on the night before her daughter's disappearance that could be "potentially crucial".
By CALLUM HOARE
PUBLISHED: 08:33, Wed, Jul 8, 2020 | UPDATED: 15:09, Wed, Jul 8, 2020
https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1306327/madeleine-mccann-kate-gerry-crucial-information-disappearance-maddie-algarve-portugal-spt
It explained the used bed under the window.
-
That witness, Jeronimo Tomas Rodrigues Salcedas, states in May 2007 that the time he saw GM searching around the pool was "22:20 - 22:30".
That is interesting because Matt went to the main reception at 22:10
-
That is interesting because Matt went to the main reception at 22:10
He also said this in his rogatory.
‘ On the night Madeleine disappeared, everything appeared normal. I remember that when I took notice of the disappearance, I had been in the restaurant speaking with my two colleagues?Ze and Ricardo who were on break. I returned to the restaurant and noticed that the table of nine was empty with the exception of the older woman. I went over to the table and joked with her: ?They've left you alone?? She responded more of less with these words: ?No, they went to see if the little girl was there.? I responded that I hoped they would find her somewhere in the apartment. At saying this, I saw the man. Who I knew later to be Madeleines father, running to the pool and to the childrens play area in the Tapas zone as if looking for someone. It immediately hit me that after talking to the older woman, that the little girl had not been found. I offered to alert the workers at the Milenium Restaurant and the man agreed. He then left again running to continue searching. I believe that this was between 21H30 and 22H00 but do not remember with certainty. ’
-
Looks like they are back to quotes from kmc book.
What a poor excuse we felt so secure.....what on the corner of an open road
https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1307477/madeleine-mccann-kate-gerry-regret-disappearance-maddie-portugal-praia-da-luz-spt
Mrs McCann also discusses how the “baby-listening” service, offered by other resorts in the hotel chain to check on young children in the evenings, was not available at that particular resort and also that the family had not considered a babysitter.
She said: “I could argue that leaving my children alone with someone neither we nor they knew would have been unwise and it's certainly not something we’d do at home.
"In fact, we didn’t even consider it. We felt so secure we simply didn’t think it was necessary.”
-
Looks like they are back to quotes from kmc book.
What a poor excuse we felt so secure.....what on the corner of an open road
https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1307477/madeleine-mccann-kate-gerry-regret-disappearance-maddie-portugal-praia-da-luz-spt
Mrs McCann also discusses how the “baby-listening” service, offered by other resorts in the hotel chain to check on young children in the evenings, was not available at that particular resort and also that the family had not considered a babysitter.
She said: “I could argue that leaving my children alone with someone neither we nor they knew would have been unwise and it's certainly not something we’d do at home.
"In fact, we didn’t even consider it. We felt so secure we simply didn’t think it was necessary.”
Didn’t the babysitters also work at the kids club during the day ?
-
Didn’t the babysitters also work at the kids club during the day ?
Exactly, they would have been the one's babysitting.
What has always astonished me is how you get 3 under 4year old children to sleep at the same time.
Especially in a strange room/country and all together in one room.
-
Exactly, they would have been the one's babysitting.
What has always astonished me is how you get 3 under 4year old children to sleep at the same time.
Especially in a strange room/country and all together in one room.
Erm....They were tired.
-
Erm....They were tired.
Indeed.
We had three children aged three, two and one in a holiday rental in Rothesay.
All in one room and all thoroughly exhausted and all fast asleep by seven o'clock.
ETA
The children were in one room......not all of us. ?{)(**
-
Indeed.
We had three children aged three, two and one in a holiday rental in Rothesay.
All in one room and all thoroughly exhausted and all fast asleep by seven o'clock.
ETA
The children were in one room......not all of us. ?{)(**
Did they have sleep charts at home?
-
Did they have sleep charts at home?
Who?
-
Did they have sleep charts at home?
What is wrong with Sleep Charts?
-
Exactly, they would have been the one's babysitting.
What has always astonished me is how you get 3 under 4year old children to sleep at the same time.
Especially in a strange room/country and all together in one room.
By keeping them to a routine, bath story bed. They were kept active all day. Where they were would not make any difference to children that age they adapt very quickly.
-
Indeed.
We had three children aged three, two and one in a holiday rental in Rothesay.
All in one room and all thoroughly exhausted and all fast asleep by seven o'clock.
ETA
The children were in one room......not all of us. ?{)(**
Fascinating
-
Exactly, they would have been the one's babysitting.
What has always astonished me is how you get 3 under 4year old children to sleep at the same time.
Especially in a strange room/country and all together in one room.
The twins weren't so obliging later when they moved to the villa.
WEDNESDAY, MAY 30: (After trip to see Pope detailed above) The kids went to bed again around 9pm!!!
https://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/press/19-Sep8/NOTW-14-09-08.htm
-
Fascinating
Strange comment to make.
I doubt anyone else finds my post fascinating.
But thank you for your interest.
-
Who?
The children you referred to in your post.
-
What is wrong with Sleep Charts?
Nothing at all ...for children who are not very good sleepers.
-
The twins weren't so obliging later when they moved to the villa.
WEDNESDAY, MAY 30: (After trip to see Pope detailed above) The kids went to bed again around 9pm!!!
https://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/press/19-Sep8/NOTW-14-09-08.htm
Not really surprising, IMO. They would have been unsettled, since Madeleine was missing, and their parents would have been behaving somewhat differently from normal.
-
Strange comment to make.
I doubt anyone else finds my post fascinating.
But thank you for your interest.
Oh I always find your homespun anecdotes fascinating. Pointless by fascinating. ?{)(**
-
By keeping them to a routine, bath story bed. They were kept active all day. Where they were would not make any difference to children that age they adapt very quickly.
Lol in an ideal world.
They were on holiday
-
Oh I always find your homespun anecdotes fascinating. Pointless by fascinating. ?{)(**
Duly noted.
-
Not really surprising, IMO. They would have been unsettled, since Madeleine was missing, and their parents would have been behaving somewhat differently from normal.
Perhaps. As it happened Auntie Trish was available to provide stability, cook and baby-sit while the McCanns spent their time in meetings.
-
Lol in an ideal world.
They were on holiday
They get tired out more on holiday, everything is new something to do every day. Haven't you taken children on holiday? Mine were fine.
-
Oh I always find your homespun anecdotes fascinating. Pointless by fascinating. ?{)(**
You need to get a life.
-
The twins weren't so obliging later when they moved to the villa.
WEDNESDAY, MAY 30: (After trip to see Pope detailed above) The kids went to bed again around 9pm!!!
https://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/press/19-Sep8/NOTW-14-09-08.htm
That could be because they knew something was going on, they were left whilst Kate and Gerry went to meet the Pope. What time did they get back to see the twins?
-
Oh I always find your homespun anecdotes fascinating. Pointless by fascinating. ?{)(**
.
And yours so much more Pointless.
-
Perhaps. As it happened Auntie Trish was available to provide stability, cook and baby-sit while the McCanns spent their time in meetings.
Don't d this. Otherwise I might get cross.
-
.
And yours so much more Pointless.
Not so, I am always relevant and to the point, even if it's not to your liking. ?{)(**
-
Not so, I am always relevant and to the point, even if it's not to your liking. ?{)(**
No you’re not.
-
No you’re not.
Oh yes I am @)(++(*
-
Not so, I am always relevant and to the point, even if it's not to your liking. ?{)(**
You, Sweet Cheeks, are only good at putting the boot in.
-
You, Sweet Cheeks, are only good at putting the boot in.
As I said, not to your liking.
And according to the stats, I'm more popular than you. Now why should I be surprised 8(0(*
-
As I said, not to your liking.
And according to the stats, I'm more popular than you. Now why should I be surprised 8(0(*
Delusions of Grandma.
-
Exactly, they would have been the one's babysitting.
What has always astonished me is how you get 3 under 4year old children to sleep at the same time.
Especially in a strange room/country and all together in one room.
Especially when one had woken up scared and alone the evening before.
-
Especially when one had woken up scared and alone the evening before.
Knock-out drops. Works every time.
-
As I said, not to your liking.
And according to the stats, I'm more popular than you. Now why should I be surprised 8(0(*
You are absolutely right. Oh My. Jassi has got more Likes than I have. But then I don't post a load of uninformed shite or play to the gallery.
-
Knock-out drops. Works every time.
What’s the brand name of these drops, out of interest?
-
You are absolutely right. Oh My. Jassi has got more Likes than I have. But then I don't post a load of uninformed shite or play to the gallery.
But people like my shite much more than they like yours
-
But people like my shite much more than they like yours
How do you account for the fact that my posts are more popular than yours?
-
But people like my shite much more than they like yours
You are absolutely right. Now there's a laugh. How thick are they?
PS. that is the funniest reply that I have ever had. Bloody good show. We could become friends if you aren't awfully careful.
-
How do you account for the fact that my posts are more popular than yours?
Let's not be picky about this. You aren't an unkind person. This could be a bit worrying if one had the time and patience.
-
How do you account for the fact that my posts are more popular than yours?
You vote for yourself . No other possible explanation
-
You vote for yourself . No other possible explanation
This is not possible.....unless you have discovered a way to vote for yourself.
Don't you just love the Elipses. What.
-
You vote for yourself . No other possible explanation
How closed minded are you that you can’t possibly conceive that other people might actually enjoy my posts.
-
This is not possible.....unless you have discovered a way to vote for yourself.
Don't you just love the Elipses. What.
It is possible. Stephen set up a dummy account specifically to award himself likes, which is why he used to be the most popular poster. Really sad behaviour, to be that desperate to be seen to be more popular than others.
-
You vote for yourself . No other possible explanation
Or posts three times as many posts ?
-
Or posts three times as many posts ?
Well that's certainly true
-
Well that's certainly true
Not very good at maths either of you, are you?
-
It is possible. Stephen set up a dummy account specifically to award himself likes, which is why he used to be the most popular poster. Really sad behaviour, to be that desperate to be seen to be more popular than others.
Ah, I didn't know that this was possible. But we all know where that ended.
Personally, I am always amazed if anyone Likes my posts. I am such a Smart Arse that this is difficult to contemplate.
-
Not very good at maths either of you, are you?
It's always been difficult keeping up with your multiple persona.
-
It's always been difficult keeping up with your multiple persona.
What rubbish are you talking now?
-
It's always been difficult keeping up with your multiple persona.
But never at the same time. So let's not twist it.
-
But never at the same time. So let's not twist it.
Crikey no, one at a time is more than enough @)(++(*
-
Crikey no, one at a time is more than enough @)(++(*
Still more popular than you though. 8(>((
-
Still more popular than you though. 8(>((
Remind me who you are again.
-
Remind me who you are again.
I really would make an appointment about your memory loss asap. Good luck!
-
It's always been difficult keeping up with your multiple persona.
17.627 per day to 4.987...it’s actually worse than I thought.
-
I really would make an appointment about your memory loss asap. Good luck!
It's OK. I remember the important things.
It's the trivia that eludes me.
-
It's OK. I remember the important things.
It's the trivia that eludes me.
That’s how it starts...
-
Crikey no, one at a time is more than enough @)(++(*
Too blimin true. More than one at a time would be too much.
-
Remind me who you are again.
Could you let me know when you find out?
-
"there is a massive window of opportunity between 9.05 and 9.25"
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=11585.msg608527#msg608527
Really? According to the typed timeline from 21:05 to to 21:20 Gerry, Jane and Jez were all in the vicinity. I assume the 'massive window' is between 21:20 and 21:25 therefore, when Matt and Russell went to check.
Russell casts some doubt on the timings, however;
Then Gerry came back at around 9.25/9.30 and they started to eat the first course.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RUSSELL-OBRIEN.htm
There is also the evidence of the chef Pelega, who arrived at the Tapas entrance at 21:10. The Moyes couple were in the vicinity at the same time, as was the child carrying 'Creche dad'.
-
"there is a massive window of opportunity between 9.05 and 9.25"
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=11585.msg608527#msg608527
Really? According to the typed timeline from 21:05 to to 21:20 Gerry, Jane and Jez were all in the vicinity. I assume the 'massive window' is between 21:20 and 21:25 therefore, when Matt and Russell went to check.
Russell casts some doubt on the timings, however;
Then Gerry came back at around 9.25/9.30 and they started to eat the first course.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RUSSELL-OBRIEN.htm
There is also the evidence of the chef Pelega, who arrived at the Tapas entrance at 21:10. The Moyes couple were in the vicinity at the same time, as was the child carrying 'Creche dad'.
They may have been in the vicinity...did they have sight of the front door during this 20 mins...and the window reported to be found open...I think the answers no
-
"there is a massive window of opportunity between 9.05 and 9.25"
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=11585.msg608527#msg608527
Really? According to the typed timeline from 21:05 to to 21:20 Gerry, Jane and Jez were all in the vicinity. I assume the 'massive window' is between 21:20 and 21:25 therefore, when Matt and Russell went to check.
Russell casts some doubt on the timings, however;
Then Gerry came back at around 9.25/9.30 and they started to eat the first course.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RUSSELL-OBRIEN.htm
There is also the evidence of the chef Pelega, who arrived at the Tapas entrance at 21:10. The Moyes couple were in the vicinity at the same time, as was the child carrying 'Creche dad'.
I thought you had no reason to doubt Pelaga's witness statement that the alarm was raised around 9.20pm?
-
They may have been in the vicinity...did they have sight of the front door during this 20 mins...and the window reported to be found open...I think the answers no
If that's what you think is a massive window of opportunity I think you're in denial.
-
If that's what you think is a massive window of opportunity I think you're in denial.
20 minutes is a massive window of opportunity...you seem to think there none. It's quite possible the abductor watched Gerry at 9.05...he would have known once Gerry left he had plenty of time.
-
20 minutes is a massive window of opportunity...you seem to think there none. It's quite possible the abductor watched Gerry at 9.05...he would have known once Gerry left he had plenty of time.
Twenty minutes during which Jane, Jez, the Moyes and Tannerman were all going to, from or past Block 5A. Not a chance he went there too, imo.
-
20 minutes is a massive window of opportunity...you seem to think there none. It's quite possible the abductor watched Gerry at 9.05...he would have known once Gerry left he had plenty of time.
What was the time when gmcc went and kmc thought he must be watching football because of the time it took.
-
Twenty minutes during which Jane, Jez, the Moyes and Tannerman were all going to, from or past Block 5A. Not a chance he went there too, imo.
Who saw Jane? No-one, but we know she was there doing and seeing what she said she was.
Who ~ other than Jane and Gerry ~ saw Jes? No-one.
Who saw Mr and Mrs Moyes? No-one.
Apart from Jane who saw the man carrying the child walking from the direction of 5A? No-one.
There was plenty of time for an individual to enter and leave the apartment without being seen by anyone or interrupted by anyone. Although I am certain if Jane had been just a couple of minutes earlier that would not have been the case.
-
Twenty minutes during which Jane, Jez, the Moyes and Tannerman were all going to, from or past Block 5A. Not a chance he went there too, imo.
the abduction would have taken place from the front door.....not the patio doors facing the pool. Wouldnt these people be walking along the pool side of 5a and not see the dark car park...where an abductor could have been
-
the abduction would have taken place from the front door.....not the patio doors facing the pool. Wouldnt these people be walking along the pool side of 5a and not see the dark car park...where an abductor could have been
No. They were all on R. Dr Agnostinho da Silva at some point.
The Moyes between 21:00 & 21:15
Jane Tanner & Tannerman between 21:15 & 21:20 (twice)
Jez Wilkins between 21:15 & 21:30
Quite surreal how none of them saw each other OR an abductor, isn't it? No wonder OG changed the time to between 21:30 and 22:00! IMO Redwood's 'revelation' was the impossibility of an abduction between 9:05 and 9:30.
-
No. They were all on R. Dr Agnostinho da Silva at some point.
The Moyes between 21:00 & 21:15
Jane Tanner & Tannerman between 21:15 & 21:20 (twice)
Jez Wilkins between 21:15 & 21:30
Quite surreal how none of them saw each other OR an abductor, isn't it? No wonder OG changed the time to between 21:30 and 22:00! IMO Redwood's 'revelation' was the impossibility of an abduction between 9:05 and 9:30.
Why is it do you think that Op Grange didn’t conclude the alarm was raised around 9.20pm as you have done?
-
No. They were all on R. Dr Agnostinho da Silva at some point.
The Moyes between 21:00 & 21:15
Jane Tanner & Tannerman between 21:15 & 21:20 (twice)
Jez Wilkins between 21:15 & 21:30
Quite surreal how none of them saw each other OR an abductor, isn't it? No wonder OG changed the time to between 21:30 and 22:00! IMO Redwood's 'revelation' was the impossibility of an abduction between 9:05 and 9:30.
were they far enough up to see the door and window of the McCanns apartment....SY and the Germans seem convinced an abduction was possible and they are the professionals
-
Gerry and Kate would normally return home at about 22.30 and before this I would check whether she was all right, by looking around the bedroom door.
You cannot look around an ajar door. You can if the door is half-open.
-
No. They were all on R. Dr Agnostinho da Silva at some point.
The Moyes between 21:00 & 21:15
Jane Tanner & Tannerman between 21:15 & 21:20 (twice)
Jez Wilkins between 21:15 & 21:30
Quite surreal how none of them saw each other OR an abductor, isn't it? No wonder OG changed the time to between 21:30 and 22:00! IMO Redwood's 'revelation' was the impossibility of an abduction between 9:05 and 9:30.
del
-
No. They were all on R. Dr Agnostinho da Silva at some point.
The Moyes between 21:00 & 21:15
Jane Tanner & Tannerman between 21:15 & 21:20 (twice)
Jez Wilkins between 21:15 & 21:30
Quite surreal how none of them saw each other OR an abductor, isn't it? No wonder OG changed the time to between 21:30 and 22:00! IMO Redwood's 'revelation' was the impossibility of an abduction between 9:05 and 9:30.
Mr and Mrs Moyes could very well have been out of sight just ahead of Gerry and Jes meeting and stopping to converse.
I think the abductor entered from the front immediately after Gerry left the apartment via the patio door and before Mr and Mrs Moyes turned into the car park.
He lifted Madeleine from her bed and left via the wooden door. He would have stood in the shadows at the recess checking to make sure the coast was clear if Mr and Mrs Moyes were crossing the car park he would have waited until they had entered the building before walking up the path turning right and briskly crossing the car park; turning right and walking on before crossing Jane's path and making his way a short distance to where his vehicle was parked.
Until proved otherwise I think Jane Tanner witnessed Madeleine's abduction and I think there was a tight window of opportunity which enabled it to be done with only one witness to the proceedings.
-
Mr and Mrs Moyes could very well have been out of sight just ahead of Gerry and Jes meeting and stopping to converse.
I think the abductor entered from the front immediately after Gerry left the apartment via the patio door and before Mr and Mrs Moyes turned into the car park.
He lifted Madeleine from her bed and left via the wooden door. He would have stood in the shadows at the recess checking to make sure the coast was clear if Mr and Mrs Moyes were crossing the car park he would have waited until they had entered the building before walking up the path turning right and briskly crossing the car park; turning right and walking on before crossing Jane's path and making his way a short distance to where his vehicle was parked.
Until proved otherwise I think Jane Tanner witnessed Madeleine's abduction and I think there was a tight window of opportunity which enabled it to be done with only one witness to the proceedings.
Jane doesn't think so.
-
Mr and Mrs Moyes could very well have been out of sight just ahead of Gerry and Jes meeting and stopping to converse.
I think the abductor entered from the front immediately after Gerry left the apartment via the patio door and before Mr and Mrs Moyes turned into the car park.
He lifted Madeleine from her bed and left via the wooden door. He would have stood in the shadows at the recess checking to make sure the coast was clear if Mr and Mrs Moyes were crossing the car park he would have waited until they had entered the building before walking up the path turning right and briskly crossing the car park; turning right and walking on before crossing Jane's path and making his way a short distance to where his vehicle was parked.
Until proved otherwise I think Jane Tanner witnessed Madeleine's abduction and I think there was a tight window of opportunity which enabled it to be done with only one witness to the proceedings.
Then where does Totman and the jemmied shutters fit in?
-
Mr and Mrs Moyes could very well have been out of sight just ahead of Gerry and Jes meeting and stopping to converse.
I think the abductor entered from the front immediately after Gerry left the apartment via the patio door and before Mr and Mrs Moyes turned into the car park.
He lifted Madeleine from her bed and left via the wooden door. He would have stood in the shadows at the recess checking to make sure the coast was clear if Mr and Mrs Moyes were crossing the car park he would have waited until they had entered the building before walking up the path turning right and briskly crossing the car park; turning right and walking on before crossing Jane's path and making his way a short distance to where his vehicle was parked.
Until proved otherwise I think Jane Tanner witnessed Madeleine's abduction and I think there was a tight window of opportunity which enabled it to be done with only one witness to the proceedings.
Is that why Redwood never elaborated on why Totman was going in the wrong direction, if he was supposed to be coming away from the nursery, do you think?
-
were they far enough up to see the door and window of the McCanns apartment....SY and the Germans seem convinced an abduction was possible and they are the professionals
No-one has said it was between 21:05 and 21:25; except you, obviously.
-
Jane doesn't think so.
She certainly thought so at the time and for many years thereafter as well as being called 'liar' by many sceptics and sceptic fora.
Dr Totman being identified as the carrier gave some respite from the slurs and gave her blessed respite from her fear that she had seen Madeleine being carried away.
But my opinion is my opinion and I see it as I have outlined in my post.
-
Then where does Totman and the jemmied shutters fit in?
Please remember that the shutters were never jemmied.
Please remember that no material witness ever claimed that they were.
-
"Gerry told me when they went back the shutters to the room were broken, they were jemmied up and she was gone," said Mr Healy
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2007/may/05/world.topstories31
-
Please remember that the shutters were never jemmied.
Please remember that no material witness ever claimed that they were.
Yes, all Kate & Gerry's friends & family just imagined the shutters being described by them as forced, jemmied & smashed.
It was a collective hallucination, much like the Smith family suffered.
-
Is that why Redwood never elaborated on why Totman was going in the wrong direction, if he was supposed to be coming away from the nursery, do you think?
In conjunction with the "almost certain" the direction of travel was a consideration.
-
Yes, all Kate & Gerry's friends & family just imagined the shutters being described by them as forced, jemmied & smashed.
It was a collective hallucination, much like the Smith family suffered.
Yes and Gerry told them all they’d been jemmied despite knowing the truth would be known almost instantly. Did he forget to jemmy them himself or is he just incredibly stupid?
-
"Gerry told me when they went back the shutters to the room were broken, they were jemmied up and she was gone," said Mr Healy
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2007/may/05/world.topstories31
Hearsay and not a material witness and an excessively desperate clinging onto long discredited shibboleths; I understand the desperation behind posts of this type though, I think it is all sceptics have left to cling to.
-
Hearsay and not a material witness and an excessively desperate clinging onto long discredited shibboleths; I understand the desperation behind posts of this type though, I think it is all sceptics have left to cling to.
“As a lawyer once said to me, apropos another matter, ‘One coincidence, two coincidences – maybe they’re still coincidences. Any more than that and it stops being coincidence.’” Kate McCann
-
Yes and Gerry told them all they’d been jemmied despite knowing the truth would be known almost instantly. Did he forget to jemmy them himself or is he just incredibly stupid?
Maybe he was concerned with other matters & forgot.
Either way, there's no doubt the family were told about the broken shutters, they can't all have imagined hearing it.
-
Maybe he was concerned with other matters & forgot.
Either way, there's no doubt the family were told about the broken shutters, they can't all have imagined hearing it.
Broken yes, jemmied no. It’s quite understandable if Gerry thought the shutters had been forced, unless you can tell us why this was a ridiculous conclusion for someone to draw in such a scenario.
-
Hearsay and not a material witness and an excessively desperate clinging onto long discredited shibboleths; I understand the desperation behind posts of this type though, I think it is all sceptics have left to cling to.
Some desperately cling to Tannerman despite him being dismissed in 2013.
-
Broken yes, jemmied no. It’s quite understandable if Gerry thought the shutters had been forced, unless you can tell us why this was a ridiculous conclusion for someone to draw in such a scenario.
Because Kate had opened the window & shutters, her prints were there, if they were ever actually open that is.
-
Some desperately cling to Tannerman despite him being dismissed in 2013.
& Smithman is never the abductor in McCann land.
-
Some desperately cling to Tannerman despite him being dismissed in 2013.
Some desperately clinging to the McCanns despite being dismissed years before that!
-
Some desperately cling to Tannerman despite him being dismissed in 2013.
Denial- as Davel would say. 8(0(*
-
Because Kate had opened the window & shutters, her prints were there, if they were ever actually open that is.
You have no evidence she did, believing something doesn’t make it a fact.
-
You have no evidence she did, believing something doesn’t make it a fact.
The evidence is good enough for me, & I don't have to prove anything to anyone.
-
Yes, all Kate & Gerry's friends & family just imagined the shutters being described by them as forced, jemmied & smashed.
It was a collective hallucination, much like the Smith family suffered.
The Smiths did appear to have had some kind of belated 'event'. Whether or not a 'collective hallucination' I have no idea.
Snip
"We were home two weeks when my son rang up and asked was he dreaming or did we meet a man carrying a child the night Madeleine was taken. We all remembered that we had the same recollection."
https://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Nigel/id162.htm
-
The Smiths did appear to have had some kind of belated 'event'. Whether or not a 'collective hallucination' I have no idea.
Snip
"We were home two weeks when my son rang up and asked was he dreaming or did we meet a man carrying a child the night Madeleine was taken. We all remembered that we had the same recollection."
https://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Nigel/id162.htm
Yes & a group of them decided to fly to Portugal & spend a few hours lying to the police about it all for some reason.
Get real.....oh wait, you can't, you're a McCann supporter.
-
Yes & a group of them decided to fly to Portugal & spend a few hours lying to the police about it all for some reason.
Get real.....oh wait, you can't, you're a McCann supporter.
Is that really your opinion?? I know it did take them a fortnight to recollect that it wasn't a dream, but that is no excuse for you to accuse them of lying, is it?
-
The evidence is good enough for me, & I don't have to prove anything to anyone.
No evidence is good evidence to you is it? If you say so.
-
The Smiths did appear to have had some kind of belated 'event'. Whether or not a 'collective hallucination' I have no idea.
Snip
"We were home two weeks when my son rang up and asked was he dreaming or did we meet a man carrying a child the night Madeleine was taken. We all remembered that we had the same recollection."
https://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Nigel/id162.htm
Imagine if the Tapas group all suddenly recalled seeing a man carrying a child at the same time two weeks after the event! Oh the ridicule that would have abounded!
-
Imagine if the Tapas group all suddenly recalled seeing a man carrying a child at the same time two weeks after the event! Oh the ridicule that would have abounded!
Another Smithman denier.
I've never seen a McCann supporter who thought Smithman was an abductor, so at least we can all agree on something.
-
No evidence is good evidence to you is it? If you say so.
Kate's dabs were on the window. That's evidence. She didn't tell the police she touched the window, she saved that up for Oprah.
-
"Gerry told me when they went back the shutters to the room were broken, they were jemmied up and she was gone," said Mr Healy
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2007/may/05/world.topstories31
And is sister Phenomena said on the TV interview (long lost footage).
"Because Kate had opened the window & shutters, her prints were there, if they were ever actually open that is. "
Well they had to be didn't they! because if they mentioned at the time they left a door unlocked and there was a possibility MBM walked ... Hmmmm bad publicity.
No , the parents are innocent of ANY blame at all- as they tell us in many interviews- If it was wake and wandered then that would be Madeleine's own bloody fault eh? Putting her poor parents through hell worrying about her.
I don't know anyone who believes that story about abduction via a window within their timeline-apart from few supporters on this forum and that is weird.
"
Imagine if the Tapas group all suddenly recalled seeing a man carrying a child at the same time two weeks after the event! Oh the ridicule that would have abounded!"
Oh they out did that one. Kate n gerry went onto Oprah and showed them them MBM's Pjs which was how their friend JT knew it was their daughter who was abducted.
Nice one! ooops.
-
Please remember that the shutters were never jemmied.
Please remember that no material witness ever claimed that they were.
So why was their reports the next morning of jemmied shutters and open windows..... and how does Totman fit into your timeline? SY are looking at a later time for MM being taken out of the apartment imo (and according to their public statements from 2013).
-
So why was their reports the next morning of jemmied shutters and open windows..... and how does Totman fit into your timeline? SY are looking at a later time for MM being taken out of the apartment imo (and according to their public statements from 2013).
I agree with Brietta. they were NEVER jemmied AND the window was NEVER opened AND an abductor NEVER got in and out of it as claimed by the parents!
all made up for dramatic effect. IMO whoooooooshing curtains, that solitary gust of wind at that precise time... meanwhile, as Jez is chatting with daddy who just left the apartment where she was sleeping on top of the covers, the bogie man comes jemmies shutters- opens window runs out and bumps into JT well not quite bumping into, but it was HIM WITH Maddie.
-
I agree with Brietta. they were NEVER jemmied AND the window was NEVER opened AND an abductor NEVER got in and out of it as claimed by the parents!
all made up for dramatic effect. IMO whoooooooshing curtains, that solitary gust of wind at that precise time... meanwhile, as Jez is chatting with daddy who just left the apartment where she was sleeping on top of the covers, the bogie man comes jemmies shutters- opens window runs out and bumps into JT well not quite bumping into, but it was HIM WITH Maddie.
I’ve no doubt in my own mind that you’re correct about the shutters and the window.... but then do you believe Tannerman and Smithman are the same person and Totman just a coincidence?
-
So why was their reports the next morning of jemmied shutters and open windows..... and how does Totman fit into your timeline? SY are looking at a later time for MM being taken out of the apartment imo (and according to their public statements from 2013).
I really do not have a clue what you are trying to say here ... you are not making sense.
-
I’ve no doubt in my own mind that you’re correct about the shutters and the window.... but then do you believe Tannerman and Smithman are the same person and Totman just a coincidence?
Of that I am unsure. I don't have a theory of my own, not smart enough in that department!
I note a few things which gives me though-No one else saw 'Tannerman' so did he actually exist. Was Totman placed in the vicinity at the approximate time,and believed to be Tannerman?
I do believe Smithman is key for some strange reason I can't even explain.
Do I think CB could be involved in some way- it is very difficult not to assume he may know something, if not directly involved in some capacity.
Re 'Smithman' if the Smiths have seen photographs of the German suspect, I am sure they would come forward to say ye or ney it was him. I wonder if they have been asked.
-
I really do not have a clue what you are trying to say here ... you are not making sense.
You posted that "the shutters were never jemmied" (for the record I'm also of that opinion) but my question to you was why was there talk of jemmied shutters in the UK media by the next day (or certainly in the first two or three days)?
Also - correct me if I'm wrong - but you seem to believe an abduction took place before 9:20pm and that JT saw the abductor. So my other question is - how does Totman fit in with that? SY apparently believe (at least after 2013) that the abductor was not Tannerman (Totman accounted for that sighting) but that it was Smithman - who then became their target of interest. You seem to discount Smithman and believe JT saw an abductor and therefore NOT Totman.
-
Kate's dabs were on the window. That's evidence. She didn't tell the police she touched the window, she saved that up for Oprah.
Child’s mum touches window in children’s bedroom at some point during the week is evidence that she staged an abduction? You’re going to have to do better than that.
-
You posted that "the shutters were never jemmied" (for the record I'm also of that opinion) but my question to you was why was there talk of jemmied shutters in the UK media by the next day (or certainly in the first two or three days)?
Also - correct me if I'm wrong - but you seem to believe an abduction took place before 9:20pm and that JT saw the abductor. So my other question is - how does Totman fit in with that? SY apparently believe (at least after 2013) that the abductor was not Tannerman (Totman accounted for that sighting) but that it was Smithman - who then became their target of interest. You seem to discount Smithman and believe JT saw an abductor and therefore NOT Totman.
You appear to have read my posts in which I think I have expressed myself succinctly ... when I think you are asking sensible questions worthy of being answered ... please don't hesitate to think of one.
-
You appear to have read my posts in which I think I have expressed myself succinctly ... when I think you are asking sensible questions worthy of being answered ... please don't hesitate to think of one.
Where do you think the story came from about the jemmied shutters?
I don't think I can get more succint than that.
-
Where do you think the story came from about the jemmied shutters?
I don't think I can get more succint than that.
I know exactly where it originated and I also know it was not a "story".
-
Where do you think the story came from about the jemmied shutters?
I don't think I can get more succint than that.
No, you can't.
So you can be assured that the account of MBMs disappearance to the media that evening was via friends and family from Kate and Gerrys mouth. The shutters were jemmied,window was open, curtains were whooshing, Kate just knew MBM has been abducted. Well she kinda sort of knew that because she ran to friends, leaving the twins alone, who all ran to the flat to check- all in the room with the twins. sleeping soundly!
They searched a little more in case the abductor was still hiding in plain sight,waiting for a chance to run off with MBM.
Fantastic story... utterly fantastic!
Once these awkward questions were beginning to be asked- the hate fulled T9 took to discredit those who dared to ask them to explain themselves. Vile trolls and all that came from those horrible people who let a child down and refused to accept any responsibility- not one of those cowards have come to discuss what happened in any detail in any documentary or show remorse,or express any feeling of guilt. The silence is deafening!
-
I know exactly where it originated and I also know it was not a "story".
Please do elaborate!!
-
Another Smithman denier.
I've never seen a McCann supporter who thought Smithman was an abductor, so at least we can all agree on something.
I prove you wrong.
I think that Smithman might be Tannerman and that he stopped off somewhere when he was let down by the getaway driver rushing off panic stricken. I think that he probably stopped off at the Staff quarters which were about 45 metres up the road from where the first Smith (Peter?) was standing with his group. He probably visited an accomplice (woman?), made a phone call from there and had a cuppa tea or a quick shot of whisky to calm him … and he also picked up a warm top for Madeleine IMO.
To remind you. According to someone on the 3A's forum, a scream was heard coming from the Staff quarters.
-
Way too complex and as daft as your Royal bloodlines. Brueckner wanted Madeleine for himself and acted alone... that is if he was the abductor.
-
Way too complex and as daft as your Royal bloodlines. Brueckner wanted Madeleine for himself and acted alone... that is if he was the abductor.
I believe much more will be forthcoming, including some of Sadie’s suggestions and research.
-
I believe much more will be forthcoming, including some of Sadie’s suggestions and research.
Which pieces of Sadie’s suggestions and research ?
-
Which pieces of Sadie’s suggestions and research ?
Sadie hasn't told you most of her suggestions and research, but Anthro knows a little more than most. She is very good at reading between the lines too. She has a very sensitive and agile mind … and works really hard uncovering new things. Some too sensitive to post publicly. As is much of mine.
…. And your hair would stand up if you saw some of her own research ! POW !
-
No, you can't.
So you can be assured that the account of MBMs disappearance to the media that evening was via friends and family from Kate and Gerrys mouth. The shutters were jemmied,window was open, curtains were whooshing, Kate just knew MBM has been abducted. Well she kinda sort of knew that because she ran to friends, leaving the twins alone, who all ran to the flat to check- all in the room with the twins. sleeping soundly!
They searched a little more in case the abductor was still hiding in plain sight,waiting for a chance to run off with MBM.
Fantastic story... utterly fantastic!
Once these awkward questions were beginning to be asked- the hate fulled T9 took to discredit those who dared to ask them to explain themselves. Vile trolls and all that came from those horrible people who let a child down and refused to accept any responsibility- not one of those cowards have come to discuss what happened in any detail in any documentary or show remorse,or express any feeling of guilt. The silence is deafening!
What are you talking about? Gerry rang his sister distraught she said herself she could hardly understand what he was saying he was crying so much. Gerry no doubt thought the window was broken as it could be opened from the outside, is it supposed to open from the outside? They thought the shutters were extra security. Gerry's sister said the window had been jemmied not Gerry [Chinese whispers]
You don't believe the window was open, I do. If I was a mother finding my child missing and a window was open I would think 'abduction' what parent wouldn't. Though even with that thought they still searched hoping they were wrong, they searched in the hope that Madeleine had wandered off not that the abductor was still about.
Your story is fantastic, you have a very vivid imagination.
-
Sadie hasn't told you most of her suggestions and research, but Anthro knows a little more than most. She is very good at reading between the lines too. She has a very sensitive and agile mind … and works really hard uncovering new things. Some too sensitive to post publicly. As is much of mine.
…. And your hair would stand up if you saw some of her own research ! POW !
I’m sure my hair would stand up....though to be fair it’s usually my eyebrows that have that pleasure when reading some of Anthro and your theories.
-
What are you talking about? Gerry rang his sister distraught she said herself she could hardly understand what he was saying he was crying so much. Gerry no doubt thought the window was broken as it could be opened from the outside, is it supposed to open from the outside? They thought the shutters were extra security. Gerry's sister said the window had been jemmied not Gerry [Chinese whispers]
You don't believe the window was open, I do. If I was a mother finding my child missing and a window was open I would think 'abduction' what parent wouldn't. Though even with that thought they still searched hoping they were wrong, they searched in the hope that Madeleine had wandered off not that the abductor was still about.
Your story is fantastic, you have a very vivid imagination.
" They thought the shutters were extra security. Gerry's sister said the window had been jemmied not Gerry [Chinese whispers] "
Oh and you have evidence of this? No, then you have the vivid imagination.
So in essence you are saying not to believe a word any of the McCanns 'spokesperson' says as it is all down to chinese whispers? OK.
FGS make up your mind "they searched in the hope that Madeleine had wandered off not that the abductor was still about.
"
She wandered off even though she was abducted? yeah right OK that makes- whew!
-
" They thought the shutters were extra security. Gerry's sister said the window had been jemmied not Gerry [Chinese whispers] "
Oh and you have evidence of this? No, then you have the vivid imagination.
So in essence you are saying not to believe a word any of the McCanns 'spokesperson' says as it is all down to chinese whispers? OK.
FGS make up your mind "they searched in the hope that Madeleine had wandered off not that the abductor was still about.
"
She wandered off even though she was abducted? yeah right OK that makes- whew!
Remember all those posters highlighting Madeleine's coloboma which wasn't? Was that more chinese whispers?
-
Remember all those posters highlighting Madeleine's coloboma which wasn't? Was that more chinese whispers?
Like you'd ever be able to spot her eye defect from further than one metre away.
Were we supposed to go up to every blonde girl we saw & shove our faces right in theirs.
-
Like you'd ever be able to spot her eye defect from further than one metre away.
Were we supposed to go up to every blonde girl we saw & shove our faces right in theirs.
Unbelievably, some did just that.
-
" They thought the shutters were extra security. Gerry's sister said the window had been jemmied not Gerry [Chinese whispers] "
Oh and you have evidence of this? No, then you have the vivid imagination.
So in essence you are saying not to believe a word any of the McCanns 'spokesperson' says as it is all down to chinese whispers? OK.
FGS make up your mind "they searched in the hope that Madeleine had wandered off not that the abductor was still about.
Its perfectly clear to me it was a chinese whisper...you believe what you want...doesnt make a scrap of difference what anyone beleives here
"
She wandered off even though she was abducted? yeah right OK that makes- whew!
-
" They thought the shutters were extra security. Gerry's sister said the window had been jemmied not Gerry [Chinese whispers] "
Oh and you have evidence of this? No, then you have the vivid imagination.
So in essence you are saying not to believe a word any of the McCanns 'spokesperson' says as it is all down to chinese whispers? OK.
FGS make up your mind "they searched in the hope that Madeleine had wandered off not that the abductor was still about.
"
She wandered off even though she was abducted? yeah right OK that makes- whew!
Nothing you write makes any sense to me. You abuse words like no other person on this Forum.
-
Nothing you write makes any sense to me. You abuse words like no other person on this Forum.
Argumentum ad hominem! 8(0(*
-
Argumentum ad hominem! 8(0(*
An honest opinion.
-
I’m sure my hair would stand up....though to be fair it’s usually my eyebrows that have that pleasure when reading some of Anthro and your theories.
And what is your theory? Please tell.
-
And what is your theory? Please tell.
This isn’t about my theory.
-
This isn’t about my theory.
What is it about?
-
What is it about?
About yours...Sadie says you have a stoater.
-
About yours...Sadie says you have a stoater.
Can you please explain the word ‘stoater’. English is my third language.
-
Argumentum ad hominem! 8(0(*
I don't think so. It is a rather disjointed post typical of the posting style. I think the problem might lie in trying to squeeze in too many sceptic shibboleths at once which is probably no bad thing; I have difficulty with reading it - but I've got to try, I doubt very much if the casual observer will bother.
-
Can you please explain the word ‘stoater’. English is my third language.
A brilliant theory.
-
Does anyone have more information regarding calls made from the phone booth outside the Dolphin restaurant in the afternoon of 3 May 2007? Amy Tierney’s UK, Doncaster number was activated 3 times from this phone booth. Also her cell number on one occasion. The phone booth number is 282789210.
-
Does anyone have more information regarding calls made from the phone booth outside the Dolphin restaurant in the afternoon of 3 May 2007? Amy Tierney’s UK, Doncaster number was activated 3 times from this phone booth. Also her cell number on one occasion. The phone booth number is 282789210.
How did you work that out?
-
Hi Rob, I didn’t. Like SIL, Ben Salmon has been studying phone calls etc. He mentions the phone booth - Amy Tierney.
-
Hi Rob, I didn’t. Like SIL, Ben Salmon has been studying phone calls etc. He mentions the phone booth - Amy Tierney.
The phone box isn't far from the apartments where the nannies lived. Maybe Amy used the phone box to phone home because it was cheaper than using her mobile. She may even have been able to reverse the charges.
-
The false alibi will prove who Smithman is. When you have been seen the timeline has to change.
-
The false alibi will prove who Smithman is. When you have been seen the timeline has to change.
Who can falsify it?
-
The phone box isn't far from the apartments where the nannies lived. Maybe Amy used the phone box to phone home because it was cheaper than using her mobile. She may even have been able to reverse the charges.
Can you please share where the nannies lived at the time?
-
Can you please share where the nannies lived at the time?
R. da Escola Primaria; where Smithman was seen.
-
R. da Escola Primaria; where Smithman was seen.
Do you have an actual number on that road. So could Smithman have been taking the child to the nannies address?
Smithman had gone beyond "R. da Escola Primaria", cross the road and down the steps?
-
Do you have an actual number on that road. So could Smithman have been taking the child to the nannies address?
No, but it's a big blue and white apartment building. He had passed the building when he was seen.
-
Do you have an actual number on that road. So could Smithman have been taking the child to the nannies address?
Smithman had gone beyond "R. da Escola Primaria", cross the road and down the steps?
This is what Sadie suggested many moons ago.
-
This is what Sadie suggested many moons ago.
I don't remember that, sorry.
-
Just shows you how things go round in circles without getting anywhere.
-
No, but it's a big blue and white apartment building. He had passed the building when he was seen.
Is it this one, next to the tennis courts on the same road?
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Is it this one, next to the tennis courts on the same road?
Yes, but not the OC tennis courts.
-
Yes, but not the OC tennis courts.
Jesus G, you're on a Mcannerette straightening rampage. Pack it in or they'll all log out.
-
Yes, but not the OC tennis courts.
Yep, looks like you have got it. Actually there is one tennis court and one, I think its called, multipurpose court.
It is about 40 metres north of where the leading Smith was. IIRC that was Martin Smith and wife. Please correct me if I have that name wrong. I always wondered if the man carrying Madeleine took refuge with a helper in there? I have always thought that it was likely that the actual lifter was someone female that Madeleine knew and trusted, possibly a nanny..
I want to make it clear that Amy Teirney is no more likely in my thoughts than any of the other female staff there. I think all the nannies lived there … and anyway I know that I could be wrong about it being a nanny.
It goes on the back burner with other stuff that feel worth keeping.
~~~~~~~~~~
I have always thought that the person carrying Madeleine was let down by the get away driver, who failed to turn up. In my opinion, the getaway vehicle was parked on the little car parking area immediately opposite the Tapas reception. I think that the driver of the getaway vehicle took fright when he saw Gerry chatting with Jez on his drive past route … and then saw Jane walking up the road to where Tannerman suddenly appeared. I think he whizzed off in the opposite direction leaving the person who carried Madeleine in the lurch.
Now who have we come across recently who always runs for it when he smells trouble for himself ? *%6^
I am probably wrong on that one, but he fits the Bill, so on the back burner with him, just in case. All IMO
-
The phone box isn't far from the apartments where the nannies lived. Maybe Amy used the phone box to phone home because it was cheaper than using her mobile. She may even have been able to reverse the charges.
I wonder why she didn’t mention the calls in both her statements.
-
I wonder why she didn’t mention the calls in both her statements.
I don't suppose she thought they were relevant.
-
" I have always thought that the person carrying Madeleine was let down by the get away driver, who failed to turn up. In my opinion, the getaway vehicle was parked on the little car parking area immediately opposite the Tapas reception. I think that the driver of the getaway vehicle took fright when he saw Gerry chatting with Jez on his drive past route … and then saw Jane walking up the road to where Tannerman suddenly appeared. I think he whizzed off in the opposite direction leaving the person who carried Madeleine in the lurch."
what time do place the 'abduction' and do you suspect it was smithman?
The reason I ask is it couldn't have been Tannerman as Gerry was in the apartment and claims he saw sleeping MBM a few minutes before.
No one saw CB's van in PDL between 7pm and 9.ish this is the time scale as given by T9. well sort of kind of.
-
... snip ...
No one saw CB's van in PDL between 7pm and 9.ish this is the time scale as given by T9. well sort of kind of.
How do you know this? After all these years would anyone remember an old van passing by?
-
How do you know this? After all these years would anyone remember an old van passing by?
Its what OG are appealing info on,in hope or desperation?
-
Its what OG are appealing info on,in hope or desperation?
Why do you think they shouldn't be 'desperate' to get some resolution to thirteen year old case on every occasion a chance for resolution presents itself.
The question I'm asking myself is why wasn't Amaral looking for the two tone camper van covered with distinctive cartoon graffiti that he saw fit to mention recently in his criticism of the German investigation.
Should have been easy enough to spot to check out its status back in 2007.
-
Why do you think they shouldn't be 'desperate' to get some resolution to thirteen year old case on every occasion a chance for resolution presents itself.
The question I'm asking myself is why wasn't Amaral looking for the two tone camper van covered with distinctive cartoon graffiti that he saw fit to mention recently in his criticism of the German investigation.
Should have been easy enough to spot to check out its status back in 2007.
First ask yourself why the PJ would have been looking for the van. Afaik it wasn't associated with any crimes or any criminals.
-
Why do you think they shouldn't be 'desperate' to get some resolution to thirteen year old case on every occasion a chance for resolution presents itself.
The question I'm asking myself is why wasn't Amaral looking for the two tone camper van covered with distinctive cartoon graffiti that he saw fit to mention recently in his criticism of the German investigation.
Should have been easy enough to spot to check out its status back in 2007.
With the way the case has been dissected here and elsewhere, there's nothing to suggest any vehicle was used, nothing was flagged up about this van.The van is of interest because 13 yrs down the line a suspect has turned up who surprise surprise owned a vehicle that had not been flagged.Tanner nor Smith's saw a van,if they did it didn't register so he wasn't parked any where close by or if it was how the devil is it supposed to jog some one's memory 13 yrs down the line if in no way at the time it was deemed suspicious.
Still its a timeline thread no doubt some one can pinpoint the moment of opportunity to spirit Madeleine away to said van.
-
With the way the case has been dissected here and elsewhere, there's nothing to suggest any vehicle was used, nothing was flagged up about this van.The van is of interest because 13 yrs down the line a suspect has turned up who surprise surprise owned a vehicle that had not been flagged.Tanner nor Smith's saw a van,if they did it didn't register so he wasn't parked any where close by or if it was how the devil is it supposed to jog some one's memory 13 yrs down the line if in no way at the time it was deemed suspicious.
Still its a timeline thread no doubt some one can pinpoint the moment of opportunity to spirit Madeleine away to said van.
Perhaps someone will be kind enough to get round to Brueckner to ask him what his timeline was for the week of Madeleine's disappearance and after.
For certain he seems to have slipped through the net back in 2007 when it really did matter.
Amaral acknowledged Brueckner was a known paedophile ... him - and was it a hundred? others ... and Amaral has also confirmed the Portuguese police 'knocked' at his door but he wasn't in.
He never disclosed why it didn't occur to them to check up on the whereabouts of a known paedophile to quiz him about his timeline. Probably too caught up in "the badly told story" he was concocting for the media and for inclusion in his book.
-
Perhaps someone will be kind enough to get round to Brueckner to ask him what his timeline was for the week of Madeleine's disappearance and after.
For certain he seems to have slipped through the net back in 2007 when it really did matter.
Amaral acknowledged Brueckner was a known paedophile ... him - and was it a hundred? others ... and Amaral has also confirmed the Portuguese police 'knocked' at his door but he wasn't in.
He never disclosed why it didn't occur to them to check up on the whereabouts of a known paedophile to quiz him about his timeline. Probably too caught up in "the badly told story" he was concocting for the media and for inclusion in his book.
The German police haven't even been arsed to interview him, so don't start with that.
-
The German police haven't even been arsed to interview him, so don't start with that.
I have explained several times why the Germans haven't interviewed him
-
The German police haven't even been arsed to interview him, so don't start with that.
Oh right, it’s laziness that has prevented the Germans from interviewing him is it?
-
The German police haven't even been arsed to interview him, so don't start with that.
At the moment there is no requirement for them to do so as far as Madeleine's case is concerned, They will in all likelihood have him until January as a result of his drug offences ... we shall find out about that later on when the German courts decide if he is a flight risk or not.
It is also looking as though he will have to serve his time for the vicious torture and rape he perpetrated, if the Advocate General's opinion that his 2019 conviction for it was lawful is accepted by the European Court of Justice.
Again we shall just have to wait and see.
It doesn't alter the fact that Brueckner was a viable suspect with firm connections to Luz who was not interviewed back in 2007 about his timeline by the Portuguese police.
Amaral now claims knowledge of him I think in an attempt to smear the German investigation without stopping for a second to work out how that information actually reflects on his own botched efforts.
Brueckner had a timeline covering the events ... it's just the Portuguese police under Amaral's direction couldn't be be bothered to find him to ask him what it might have been.
-
I have explained several times why the Germans haven't interviewed him
Yeh, yeh, the lamest excuse in criminal investigation history - '....oooh, we don't want him to know what evidence we've got'. What's the point in that? Everyone who is familiar with the case know that HCW has also stated that this 'evidence' isn't enough to even think about putting it before the prosecutor.
As I've said before, if he did do it, he absolutely knows what they've got and what they're looking for - it's not rocket surgery (or cardiac, even). Besides, if you put out a public appeal for information on about a phone number and a couple of vehicles - guess what - some of the 'evidence' is about a phone number and some vehicles.
If it was even remotely 'concrete' they would arrest him, interview him and give him the squeeze for as long as they possibly could.
-
At the moment there is no requirement for them to do so as far as Madeleine's case is concerned, They will in all likelihood have him until January as a result of his drug offences ... we shall find out about that later on when the German courts decide if he is a flight risk or not.
It is also looking as though he will have to serve his time for the vicious torture and rape he perpetrated, if the Advocate General's opinion that his 2019 conviction for it was lawful is accepted by the European Court of Justice.
Again we shall just have to wait and see.
It doesn't alter the fact that Brueckner was a viable suspect with firm connections to Luz who was not interviewed back in 2007 about his timeline by the Portuguese police.
Amaral now claims knowledge of him I think in an attempt to smear the German investigation without stopping for a second to work out how that information actually reflects on his own botched efforts.
Brueckner had a timeline covering the events ... it's just the Portuguese police under Amaral's direction couldn't be be bothered to find him to ask him what it might have been.
That's all great, but even HCW himself has said he's looking to wrap it up or drop it. I agree it's not time bound for the case, but you take your leads, you chase them down and either go with what you've got or abandon it.
In addition, my curry has just arrived and I can't remember what crap I was typing.
-
That's all great, but even HCW himself has said he's looking to wrap it up or drop it. I agree it's not time bound for the case, but you take your leads, you chase them down and either go with what you've got or abandon it
In addition, my curry has just arrived and I can't remember what crap I was typing.
I don't think HCW has said that..no need for a cite it's not that important..none of it is
-
I don't think HCW has said that..no need for a cite it's not that important..none of it is
If you want a screenshot of my Just Eat account, just to put a stop to this charade, I'll do it. That curry was delivered.
-
If you want a screenshot of my Just Eat account, just to put a stop to this charade, I'll do it. That curry was delivered.
As was my Singapore Vermicelli....
-
As was my Singapore Vermicelli....
Dude, we're like brothers! That's my go to Chinese!
Can we turn our beds into bunk beds so that there's more room for activities?
-
Dude, we're like brothers! That's my go to Chinese!
Can we turn our beds into bunk beds so that there's more room for activities?
Who's getting the top bunk?
-
Who's getting the top bunk?
The one with the weakest bladder get the bottom bunk.