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: Angelo222 on February 25, 2019, 03:16:14 PM
-
With no new incentives in the offing and nothing whatsoever being reported by Scotland Yard it would appear that the Maddie McCann case has at last reached a point where interest is at an all-time low.
Is this the end for the investigation?
-
Almost certainly not. But nothing much is happening at the moment, so Brexit and ISIS Brides are more interesting.
-
A fade away into obscurity may be all that's left.
-
I think it is exactly as it should be.
The police are investigating a crime and when they have finished doing that we will be told the outcome.
-
I think it is exactly as it should be.
The police are investigating a crime and when they have finished doing that we will be told the outcome.
It is indeed as it should be. The constant reporting was rarely based on anything the police said or did. The soources lay elsewhere. Those sources have dried up; mostly since the Portuguese Supreme Court verdict.
-
Not amongst the Lunatic Fringe on Twitter it hasn’t!
-
Not amongst the Lunatic Fringe on Twitter it hasn’t!
I was referring to the media reporting.
-
I was referring to the media reporting.
I was referring to the question in the OP.
-
A fade away into obscurity may be all that's left.
That would suit SY nicely...no tricky questions on funding.
-
I think it is exactly as it should be.
The police are investigating a crime and when they have finished doing that we will be told the outcome.
I wouldn't hold your breath Brietta. Only the PJ will solve this one and they've lost interest imo.
-
That would suit SY nicely...no tricky questions on funding.
It's debate on here that's petered out...
-
It's debate on here that's petered out...
That is the problem. Therre never has been a proper debate on this thread. All snipeing and name calling-pathetic!
There are other places offering a platform for the case to be discussed by educated adults. 15 People who I know used to come to read have stopped. they said the censorship was disgraceful [they also used other words]. lol
-
That is the problem. Therre never has been a proper debate on this thread. All snipeing and name calling-pathetic!
There are other places offering a platform for the case to be discussed by educated adults. 15 People who I know used to come to read have stopped. they said the censorship was disgraceful [they also used other words]. lol
Why are you here then?
-
Why are you here then?
None of your business!
-
None of your business!
According to you there is only sniping and name-calling here so one assumes it is at least partly for these you keep returning to this forum. Anyone intent on having an “educated, serious discussion” about how the parents must be involved has plenty of places to post without having their views challenged so there is obviously something about this place that you enjoy.
-
According to you there is only sniping and name-calling here so one assumes it is at least partly for these you keep returning to this forum. Anyone intent on having an “educated, serious discussion” about how the parents must be involved has plenty of places to post without having their views challenged so there is obviously something about this place that you enjoy.
Who mentioned anything about discussing the parents being involved. you do like to make things up and pass them off as fact. I have never claimed to know what happened- or claimed the parents killing their daughter. That is a problem you have.
I am talking about discussing the case! not the parents. The parents story gets pulled apart quite easily.
Your concern for my enjoyment is quite touching...
You will notice I do not haunt this board as you and the supporters do....
-
Who mentioned anything about discussing the parents being involved. you do like to make things up and pass them off as fact. I have never claimed to know what happened- or claimed the parents killing their daughter. That is a problem you have.
I am talking about discussing the case! not the parents. The parents story gets pulled apart quite easily.
Your concern for my enjoyment is quite touching...
You will notice I do not haunt this board as you and the supporters do....
I didn’t accuse you of claiming the McCann killed their child, perhaps this is a little Freudian slip on your part? Good luck discussing the case without discussing the parents. I shall watch your future contributions with interest as you attempt to do so. @)(++(*
-
I didn’t accuse you of claiming the McCann killed their child, perhaps this is a little Freudian slip on your part? Good luck discussing the case without discussing the parents. I shall watch your future contributions with interest as you attempt to do so. @)(++(*
Your goading is so boring and it should be stopped.
I have not revealed why I come here or why I post on certain threads. I will discuss the parents on this thread @)(++(*.. ^*&&
-
Your goading is so boring and it should be stopped.
I have not revealed why I come here or why I post on ceratian threads. I will discuss the parents on this thread @)(++(*.. ^*&&
More insults, this is obviously why you post here.
I never even insinuated you believe the parents killed their daughter, not once.
-
That is the problem. Therre never has been a proper debate on this thread. All snipeing and name calling-pathetic!
There are other places offering a platform for the case to be discussed by educated adults. 15 People who I know used to come to read have stopped. they said the censorship was disgraceful [they also used other words]. lol
I find it difficult to debate with you to be honest. You always start the 'Kate said a paedo had Madeleine, the curtains whooshed' etc etc. You have a way of talking as if you know better than everyone else, then finish your post with a gum chewing smiley.
-
Who mentioned anything about discussing the parents being involved. you do like to make things up and pass them off as fact. I have never claimed to know what happened- or claimed the parents killing their daughter. That is a problem you have.
I am talking about discussing the case! not the parents. The parents story gets pulled apart quite easily.
Your concern for my enjoyment is quite touching...
You will notice I do not haunt this board as you and the supporters do....
Can you explain how the parents 'story' can be pulled apart quite easily please.
-
Contradictions.
-
Contradictions.
Such as?
-
Such as?
Let’s start with the side of the street Gerry says his chat with Jez Wilkins took place and work from there.
-
Let’s start with the side of the street Gerry says his chat with Jez Wilkins took place and work from there.
It doesn't reallly matter as Jez Wilkins said he did stop and chat to Gerry, if they were facing down the road while they chatted they wouldn't have seen Jane pass by.
-
It doesn't reallly matter as Jez Wilkins said he did stop and chat to Gerry, if they were facing down the road while they chatted they wouldn't have seen Jane pass by.
They would see her at some point, either before she passed or afterwards. Gerry knew this that’s wh6 he attempted to put himself and Jez on the other side of the road.
It has been said many times here, why would Gerry lie if he knew he was going to be found out later. Robert Durst, who almost certainly murdered his wife, said he had a drink in a neighbours house shortly after dropping his wife off at the train station on the night she disappeared. The neighbour denies he saw Durst that night. Perpetrators lie even when they know they will eventually be found out.
-
Let’s start with the side of the street Gerry says his chat with Jez Wilkins took place and work from there.
*groundhog day klaxon*
-
They would see her at some point, either before she passed or afterwards. Gerry knew this that’s wh6 he attempted to put himself and Jez on the other side of the road.
It has been said many times here, why would Gerry lie if he knew he was going to be found out later. Robert Durst, who almost certainly murdered his wife, said he had a drink in a neighbours house shortly after dropping his wife off at the train station on the night she disappeared. The neighbour denies he saw Durst that night. Perpetrators lie even when they know they will eventually be found out.
Your theory makes no sense whatsoever.
-
Dear God, I despair.
-
They would see her at some point, either before she passed or afterwards. Gerry knew this that’s wh6 he attempted to put himself and Jez on the other side of the road.
It has been said many times here, why would Gerry lie if he knew he was going to be found out later. Robert Durst, who almost certainly murdered his wife, said he had a drink in a neighbours house shortly after dropping his wife off at the train station on the night she disappeared. The neighbour denies he saw Durst that night. Perpetrators lie even when they know they will eventually be found out.
Jez said he didn't see Jane, so why would he lie? Or are you saying it's Jane who is lying and why would she lie?
-
Jez said he didn't see Jane, so why would he lie? Or are you saying it's Jane who is lying and why would she lie?
Gerry couldn’t say he’d seen Tanner because if an eye witness had seen them having their chat and come forward Gerry would have been proven to be a liar.
-
Gerry couldn’t say he’d seen Tanner because if an eye witness had seen them having their chat and come forward Gerry would have been proven to be a liar.
@)(++(*
"It has been said many times here, why would Gerry lie if he knew he was going to be found out later. Robert Durst, who almost certainly murdered his wife, said he had a drink in a neighbours house shortly after dropping his wife off at the train station on the night she disappeared. The neighbour denies he saw Durst that night. Perpetrators lie even when they know they will eventually be found out."
Which is it Faithlilly?
-
Gerry couldn’t say he’d seen Tanner because if an eye witness had seen them having their chat and come forward Gerry would have been proven to be a liar.
Rachael - Reply 'Erm so Gerry went off erm came back a couple of minutes later, erm and then Jane went off at about ten past nine to check on Ella and Evie, erm and you know, and then you know yes she came back and everything was quiet there as well, and I think by, when Jane came back, we were all sitting down, we had our starters and ate that'.
So Jane went off about 10 past nine to check on Ella and Evie, just about the time that Gerry was talking to Jez so is Rachael lying too?
-
Rachael - Reply 'Erm so Gerry went off erm came back a couple of minutes later, erm and then Jane went off at about ten past nine to check on Ella and Evie, erm and you know, and then you know yes she came back and everything was quiet there as well, and I think by, when Jane came back, we were all sitting down, we had our starters and ate that'.
So Jane went off about 10 past nine to check on Ella and Evie, just about the time that Gerry was talking to Jez so is Rachael lying too?
Minor variations are allowed.
-
Rachael - Reply 'Erm so Gerry went off erm came back a couple of minutes later, erm and then Jane went off at about ten past nine to check on Ella and Evie, erm and you know, and then you know yes she came back and everything was quiet there as well, and I think by, when Jane came back, we were all sitting down, we had our starters and ate that'.
So Jane went off about 10 past nine to check on Ella and Evie, just about the time that Gerry was talking to Jez so is Rachael lying too?
If I recall correctly Faithlilly believes Gerry and Jez chatted much earlier, say around 9 and that Jez then took around half an hour to get back to his apartment. What she believes re: Gerry's whereabouts when Jane was actually walking up the road, I have no idea. Probably up to no good I bet!
-
Rachael - Reply 'Erm so Gerry went off erm came back a couple of minutes later, erm and then Jane went off at about ten past nine to check on Ella and Evie, erm and you know, and then you know yes she came back and everything was quiet there as well, and I think by, when Jane came back, we were all sitting down, we had our starters and ate that'.
So Jane went off about 10 past nine to check on Ella and Evie, just about the time that Gerry was talking to Jez so is Rachael lying too?
According to what you have quoted, Gerry returns before Jane leaves.
-
According to what you have quoted, Gerry returns before Jane leaves.
I read it as Gerry went off and then Jane went off about 10 past 9.
-
If I recall correctly Faithlilly believes Gerry and Jez chatted much earlier, say around 9 and that Jez then took around half an hour to get back to his apartment. What she believes re: Gerry's whereabouts when Jane was actually walking up the road, I have no idea. Probably up to no good I bet!
Jez met Gerry as he left the apartment after checking on the children, he stopped to chat, Jane left the Tapas bar about 10 past 9 according to Rachael, saw Jez and Gerry chatting, I really don't see what the problem is, why would Jane lie or Rachael or Jez?
-
Jez met Gerry as he left the apartment after checking on the children, he stopped to chat, Jane left the Tapas bar about 10 past 9 according to Rachael, saw Jez and Gerry chatting, I really don't see what the problem is, why would Jane lie or Rachael or Jez?
It is very convoluted but let me try and explain if I can. Gerry needs to be seen at the same time as Crecheman so that he can't be mistaken for a man carrying his child away from the apartment. Sooo, he knows that JT walked up the road and saw a man carrying a child so AFTER the event he conspires with Jane to pretend that she saw the man moments after passing Gerry and Jez on the pavement. But the problem is, silly Jane says he's on one side of the road, and Gerry thinks "well if anyone saw JT walking up the road, then they won't have seen me as I wasn't there so I'd better pretend to be on the other side of the road, even though there was another eyewitness, Jez who would dispute this. But it's more important that Jane is believed, however despite this I will throw her under a bus by throwing her testimony in doubt".
All makes perfect sense doesn't it??! @)(++(*
-
It is very convoluted but let me try and explain if I can. Gerry needs to be seen at the same time as Crecheman so that he can't be mistaken for a man carrying his child away from the apartment. Sooo, he knows that JT walked up the road and saw a man carrying a child so AFTER the event he conspires with Jane to pretend that she saw the man moments after passing Gerry and Jez on the pavement. But the problem is, silly Jane says he's on one side of the road, and Gerry thinks "well if anyone saw JT walking up the road, then they won't have seen me as I wasn't there so I'd better pretend to be on the other side of the road, even though there was another eyewitness, Jez who would dispute this. But it's more important that Jane is believed, however despite this I will throw her under a bus by throwing her testimony in doubt".
All makes perfect sense doesn't it??! @)(++(*
Amaral was of the opinion that Tanner turned left into the alleyway and that was why Gerry and Jez never saw her. He also opinioned that if she did see a man carrying a child she did so from her balcony.
-
Amaral was of the opinion that Tanner turned left into the alleyway and that was why Gerry and Jez never saw her. He also opinioned that if she did see a man carrying a child she did so from her balcony.
So he thinks JT made up the her version of events, to what end?
-
Rachael - Reply 'Erm so Gerry went off erm came back a couple of minutes later, erm and then Jane went off at about ten past nine to check on Ella and Evie, erm and you know, and then you know yes she came back and everything was quiet there as well, and I think by, when Jane came back, we were all sitting down, we had our starters and ate that'.
So Jane went off about 10 past nine to check on Ella and Evie, just about the time that Gerry was talking to Jez so is Rachael lying too?
Someone is.
-
I read it as Gerry went off and then Jane went off about 10 past 9.
Jassi is correct.
-
Someone is.
Prove it.
-
Jassi is correct.
Further more, Rachael being a lawyer, I would expect her to express herself in a clear and precise manner.
-
Jassi is correct.
How can that be? If Gerry returned before Jane it would mean he was back about 10 past 9, having gone to the apartment gone to the toilet and stopped to chat to Jez. Why would Jane lie? Jane didn't even know Gerry that well so please don't say he asked her to say she saw a man carrying a child.
-
Why does Rachael say he was back in a couple of minutes?
Other accounts claim he was away for quite a long time - watching the football, someone thought
-
Why does Rachael say he was back in a couple of minutes?
Other accounts claim he was away for quite a long time - watching the football, someone thought
She couldn’t have been mistaken could she?
-
How can that be? If Gerry returned before Jane it would mean he was back about 10 past 9, having gone to the apartment gone to the toilet and stopped to chat to Jez. Why would Jane lie? Jane didn't even know Gerry that well so please don't say he asked her to say she saw a man carrying a child.
Tanner is history....her sighting is irrelevant.
-
Just for clarification ... there is absolutely no doubt that Gerry met Jes and stopped to have a conversation with him as described by Jane; he mentioned it when he returned to the table.
There is no doubt that Gerry returned to the table and was followed a short time later by Jane.
Snip
... Gerry had come back sort of, erm well you know before Jane had, you know he'd only been gone a few minutes I think, not very long, erm he said he'd seen, to met J, he'd met Jez on the way back, ... and he'd been talking to Jez about the tennis tournament, erm so he'd, yeah stopped and chatted to him on the road and he mentioned that when he got back to the table, erm and then shortly after he got back, Jane got back, ...
Rachael Mampilly interview at Leicestershire Police Headquarters
-
Just for clarification ... there is absolutely no doubt that Gerry met Jes and stopped to have a conversation with him as described by Jane; he mentioned it when he returned to the table.
There is no doubt that Gerry returned to the table and was followed a short time later by Jane.
Snip
... Gerry had come back sort of, erm well you know before Jane had, you know he'd only been gone a few minutes I think, not very long, erm he said he'd seen, to met J, he'd met Jez on the way back, ... and he'd been talking to Jez about the tennis tournament, erm so he'd, yeah stopped and chatted to him on the road and he mentioned that when he got back to the table, erm and then shortly after he got back, Jane got back, ...
Rachael Mampilly interview at Leicestershire Police Headquarters
No one is arguing that Gerry met Jez for chat or that Tanner seaways man crossing the road with a child in his arms, OG has confirmed as much. What is in dispute is the time Gerry met Jez.
-
How can that be? If Gerry returned before Jane it would mean he was back about 10 past 9, having gone to the apartment gone to the toilet and stopped to chat to Jez. Why would Jane lie? Jane didn't even know Gerry that well so please don't say he asked her to say she saw a man carrying a child.
Jane said she left the table at 9:10 and had not seen Gerry and Jez yet so Gerry was not back at the table at that time. Like Jane said to him, 'You were gone a long time, Kate thought you were watching football'. An own goal there Jane @)(++(*
-
Jane said she left the table at 9:10 and had not seen Gerry and Jez yet so Gerry was not back at the table at that time. Like Jane said to him, 'You were gone a long time, Kate thought you were watching football'. An own goal there Jane @)(++(*
You appear to be getting bemused here.
Of course Gerry had not yet returned to the table prior to Jane leaving it. She could not have witnessed him and Jes in conversation in the street if he had.
Did Jane actually say that to Gerry? ... or did she say it is what she might have said in passing ... but did not.
Please provide a cite to substantiate your statement.
-
Jane said she left the table at 9:10 and had not seen Gerry and Jez yet so Gerry was not back at the table at that time. Like Jane said to him, 'You were gone a long time, Kate thought you were watching football'. An own goal there Jane @)(++(*
Jane Tanner: 1:23
It would not be possible to have more concise confirmation than a person making a statement on camera and that is precisely what Jane Tanner has done in the documentary "Madeleine Was Here" https://youtu.be/na4aBr5PTYY
Like much else of the lexicon used by those who have set themselves up as 'doubters' the 'evidence' used in support of their doubts is absolutely and utterly without foundation.
-
Jane said she left the table at 9:10 and had not seen Gerry and Jez yet so Gerry was not back at the table at that time. Like Jane said to him, 'You were gone a long time, Kate thought you were watching football'. An own goal there Jane @)(++(*
That aspect has puzzled me for quite some time.
Take a look at the incident scene photos of the living room.
To me, even by 2007 standards, the TV looks antique. It appears to be an old TV and video cassette combo.
What I can't see is any connection to something akin to a Sky box.
Perhaps 5A was fitted with a communal satellite feed? Perhaps the footie that night was on a Portuguese TV channel as well?
There was BIG football on 1 May and 2 May. And LESSER football on 3 May.
Jane Tanner's statement strongly suggests that Gerry enjoyed watching football, and also that Jane had picked up on this interest.
The problem is - that TV/VHS combo doesn't look up to the task. So where was Gerry getting his football info from?
TV news? Conversations with tennis players?
&%%6
If the walls of Fortress Rothley ever come down, perhaps we will get the answers to several innocuous questions.
I am not holding my breath.
*&^^&
-
It is pointless to fabricate tales to suit a particular narrative when the truth of what happened is a matter of record.
Gerry used the toilet.
He did not mention football ... Jane did in a hypothetical statement ... http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=10587.msg515340#msg515340
Rather introducing the word C++P to my thought process in association with some posts.
Snip
... went to his children's bedroom and checked that the twins were fine, as was Madeleine. "He then went to the WC" where he remained for a few moments, left, and bumped into a person he had played tennis with and who had a child's push chair, he was also British, he had a short conversation with him, "returning after that to the restaurant."
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN.htm
Despite what he said in his previous statements, he states now and with certainty, that he left with KATE by the rear door which he consequently closed but did not lock given that that is only possible from the inside.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN-10MAY.htm
-
Gerry was gone a LONG TIME! A reconstruction would have ruined him.
-
It is pointless to fabricate tales to suit a particular narrative when the truth of what happened is a matter of record.
Gerry used the toilet.
He did not mention football ... Jane did in a hypothetical statement ... http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=10587.msg515340#msg515340
Rather introducing the word C++P to my thought process in association with some posts.
Snip
... went to his children's bedroom and checked that the twins were fine, as was Madeleine. "He then went to the WC" where he remained for a few moments, left, and bumped into a person he had played tennis with and who had a child's push chair, he was also British, he had a short conversation with him, "returning after that to the restaurant."
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN.htm
Despite what he said in his previous statements, he states now and with certainty, that he left with KATE by the rear door which he consequently closed but did not lock given that that is only possible from the inside.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN-10MAY.htm
&%%6
Jane mentioned in a 'hypothetical' statement?
Cobblers!
Jane's statement is real.
The photo of the TV is real.
Perhaps the truth hurts, but in this instance I cannot for the life of me see why.
*%87
-
Gerry was gone a LONG TIME! A reconstruction would have ruined him.
I thought the PJ did a reconstruction?
-
I thought the PJ did a reconstruction?
They did.
-
Gerry was gone a LONG TIME! A reconstruction would have ruined him.
Please don’t be silly.
-
&%%6
Jane mentioned in a 'hypothetical' statement?
Cobblers!
Jane's statement is real.
The photo of the TV is real.
Perhaps the truth hurts, but in this instance I cannot for the life of me see why.
*%87
Is it possible to make a statement containing a hypothesis or not?
-
Please don’t be silly.
He has nearly 10 minutes unaccounted for before Jane saw him and Jez. That's why Jane said he had been gone a long time and Kate was talking about football probably being the reason. This was said at the table before Jane left it. His statement does not add up!
-
He has nearly 10 minutes unaccounted for before Jane saw him and Jez. That's why Jane said he had been gone a long time and Kate was talking about football probably being the reason. This was said at the table before Jane left it. His statement does not add up!
Please stop posting opinion as fact.
-
He has nearly 10 minutes unaccounted for before Jane saw him and Jez. That's why Jane said he had been gone a long time and Kate was talking about football probably being the reason. This was said at the table before Jane left it. His statement does not add up!
How long had Gerry been talking to Jez by the time Jane saw him? What time did Jane see him? What time did he leave the table? Supply exact times with proof please.
-
Matt told you what time he left. Matt returned at 9pm and then he said Gerry left to check which he thought was odd. Even a friend thought it was odd after he had just checked! Jane left at 9:10pm so do the maths. LP investigated Jez and he said 3 minutes chat - they could not have been chatting long before Jane saw them.
"The conversation with Gerry lasted for about three minutes." http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JEREMY_BRIGET.htm
-
Matt told you what time he left. Matt returned at 9pm and then he said Gerry left to check which he thought was odd. Even a friend thought it was odd after he had just checked! Jane left at 9:10pm so do the maths. LP investigated Jez and he said 3 minutes chat - they could not have been chatting long before Jane saw them.
"The conversation with Gerry lasted for about three minutes." http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JEREMY_BRIGET.htm
I’m askng you to do the maths, kindly do so.
-
Matt told you what time he left. Matt returned at 9pm and then he said Gerry left to check which he thought was odd. Even a friend thought it was odd after he had just checked! Jane left at 9:10pm so do the maths. LP investigated Jez and he said 3 minutes chat - they could not have been chatting long before Jane saw them.
"The conversation with Gerry lasted for about three minutes." http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JEREMY_BRIGET.htm
If you figure in that Diane Webster categorically denied seeing Oldfield, in my opinion this part of the timeline is rife with anomalies.
-
If you figure in that Diane Webster categorically denied seeing Oldfield, in my opinion this part of the timeline is rife with anomalies.
In a later interview Dianne admits to seeing Matt. I agree "this part of the timeline is rife with anomalies".
-
In a later interview Dianne admits to seeing Matt. I agree "this part of the timeline is rife with anomalies".
From Diane Webster’s May 11th statement.
‘- Asked directly if someone had gone to her apartment to call them (herself and the PAYNE couple) for dinner the witness said 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.
- That night she judges to have arrived at the restaurant close to 21:00, in the company of the PAYNE couple.
- 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.
- 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. ‘
So Diane thinks Gerry was not at the table at around 9, which backs up my suspicion that Jez’s chat with Gerry was earlier than he claimed.
-
From Diane Webster’s May 11th statement.
‘- Asked directly if someone had gone to her apartment to call them (herself and the PAYNE couple) for dinner the witness said 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.
- That night she judges to have arrived at the restaurant close to 21:00, in the company of the PAYNE couple.
- 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.
- 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. ‘
So Diane thinks Gerry was not at the table at around 9, which backs up my suspicion that Jez’s chat with Gerry was earlier than he claimed.
]She is unreliable all round IMO.
-
]She is unreliable all round IMO.
Which witness statement is and why?
-
]She is unreliable all round IMO.
I think it is a bit unfair to say she is unreliable. She had been caught up in the most shattering of events which must have knocked her for six both at the time and subsequently.
She just told it truthfully and as she saw it.
I think it is terribly unfair that so many years after the event people are still forensically dissecting these witness statements as if they mean anything other than a snapshot of the time and pivotal events in 2007.
Everything else has moved so far beyond that now and anyone who says it hasn't is going to have to explain exactly why not and what they think Scotland Yard and the Judicial police have been investigating for the past few years.
-
I think it is a bit unfair to say she is unreliable. She had been caught up in the most shattering of events which must have knocked her for six both at the time and subsequently.
She just told it truthfully and as she saw it.
I think it is terribly unfair that so many years after the event people are still forensically dissecting these witness statements as if they mean anything other than a snapshot of the time and pivotal events in 2007.
Everything else rhas moved so far beyond that now and anyone who says it hasn't is going to have to explain exactly why not and what they think Scotland Yard and the Judicial police have been investigating for the past few years.
The parents own PIs called Tanner unreliable. From the McCanns and the Conman.
rator: The public has never been told how the investigation was conducted but the files reveal that one of the key witnesses was secretly recorded - Jane Tanner, the woman who had seen a man carrying a child away on the night of the 3rd of May.
Tim Craig-Harvey: We had a device in the room which would pick up what she was saying, and then that conversation was recorded in another room.
Narrator: Kevin Halligen and a colleague conducted the interview. They began by checking details of one of her witness statements.
(Recording of Tanner Interview)
Tim Craig-Harvey: She was then presented with a photograph of this guy George in the market at which point she broke down and said “That is the guy that I saw carrying the child”. This was a pretty strong indication that the guy who had been seen in Portugal, had an integral role in the disappearance of Madeleine. It was extraordinary to be in the room next door on my own, listening to the conversation, and to be part of her reaction.
Narrator: In the search for Madeleine this was possibly the biggest breakthrough anyone had made. …… But when voice analyst Richard Parton heard the recording, doubts crept in.
Richard Parton: Everyone wants to find this guy - don't get me wrong. Everyone wants to find him, but the more she had to describe him, the more inaccurate she became. From the witness statements I had processed before, there was nothing indicating that he was involved - nothing at all. I think the most exciting thing about finding him was that we could finally rule it out.
Narrator: Despite the serious doubts, the files revealed surveillance was continued on the market trader for the next three months, but he was eventually eliminated from all enquiries.
Tim Craig-Harvey: My understanding is that it was felt that she wasn't as credible a witness as we had hoped. Witnesses will give evidence thinking that that is what they saw or understood at the time which is quite often inaccurate. And so Jane Tanner having said “This is the guy that I saw”, it may just have been that she so wanted to help that she fooled herself.
-
Which witness statement is and why?
It is an opinion. I'm not presenting that opinion as fact. But from my reading of her statements I felt she knew more than she let on. I'll take a guess IMO there are at least 10 situations existing where her words were chosen.