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: Innominate on June 05, 2017, 11:13:49 AM
Title: Oprah Winfrey Interview
Post by: Innominate on June 05, 2017, 11:13:49 AM
Transcript of the show: http://madeleinemccann.org/blog/2009/05/04/oprah-winfrey-interview/
The following extract is related to the 10pm visit:
Kate: I went at ten and I went into the apartment and there was no crying I stopped and there was no crying. And then I just noticed that the door was quite open
Oprah: Which door?
Kate: Their bedroom door sorry, and we usually have the door as Gerry said sort of not closed but ajar just so that a little bit of light gets in and it’s not too dark in the room so I thought oh Matt must have gone in and left the door open
Oprah: same thing he thought
Kate: Yeah, so I thought well I’ll just close it over again, and as I went to close it over it slammed shut and I thought and it was like sort of you know a draught had caused it to shut so I turned behind me and I thought are the patio doors open and they were closed and I thought well that’s strange so then I opened the door thinking I’ll open it ajar a bit again and that was when I kind of looked into the room and when I just looked and it was quite dark and I was just looking and looking at Madeleine’s bed and I was thinking is that her that I was looking for why isn’t Madeleine there? And then in the end I walked over and thought oh, she’s not in bed and then I thought maybe she’s wandered through to our bed and that’s why the door’s open so I went through to our bedroom and she wasn’t there and then I kind of see then I’m starting to panic a bit and I ran back into their room and literally as I went back into their room the curtains that were drawn over just “foooosh” flew open and that’s when I saw that the shutter was right up and the window was pushed right oper. And that was when I just knew that erm someone had taken her. So I, I mean I ran to the window and I didn’t know what I thought was going to see but I ran to the window and then I quickly hmm quickly looked through the wardrobes I had I suppose this temporary thought she was cowering in a wardrobe or something anyway she wasn’t there and I just ran out and soon as…
===
My thoughts are:
1. "and as I went to close it over it slammed shut and I thought and it was like sort of you know a draught had caused it to shut so I turned behind me and I thought are the patio doors open and they were closed "
I thought she entered through the patio doors, but the wording does not give that impression: "so I turned behind me and I thought are the patio doors open and they were closed".
2. Why did the door slam at that time and not well before she entered the apartment? When she was there she claims two gusts of wind in quick succession. This seems quite a coincidence. If it was windy, the door would likely slammed shut before she arrived in the apartment.
3. "when I just looked and it was quite dark and I was just looking and looking at Madeleine’s bed and I was thinking is that her that I was looking for why isn’t Madeleine there?"
This seems to imply that the curtains were closed especially in context of the hand signals when she states the curtains were drawn over.
20
Title: Re: Oprah Winfrey Interview
Post by: John on June 05, 2017, 03:13:32 PM
Surely if someone had entered the apartment via the children's bedroom window they would have pushed the curtains back to facilitate their entry over what was a relatively high sill, I think Amaral stated that it was 900mm high, and to enable them to see what they were doing in the bedroom? All very odd.
The fact that the curtains were still closed points more to an attempted entry and waking a terrified child imo.
Title: Re: Oprah Winfrey Interview
Post by: G-Unit on June 05, 2017, 03:38:57 PM
As the curtains covering the patio doors were drawn, she wouldn't have been able to see if the door was open.
They arrived at the Tapas around 8:31, taking the direct route, i.e. left by the veranda door, went down to the road and entered the secondary reception of the complex. As they left by the veranda door, this door remained closed but not locked, as this is only possible from the inside. The curtains were closed. http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/KATE-MCCANN_ARGUIDO.htm
Title: Re: Oprah Winfrey Interview
Post by: Eleanor on June 05, 2017, 03:58:29 PM
I don't really understand what all the arguments are about. It's all quite plain and simple to me. Someone probably broke into the appartment through one of the doors or the window, and abducted Madeleine.
Title: Re: Oprah Winfrey Interview
Post by: Brietta on June 05, 2017, 04:05:17 PM
As the curtains covering the patio doors were drawn, she wouldn't have been able to see if the door was open.
They arrived at the Tapas around 8:31, taking the direct route, i.e. left by the veranda door, went down to the road and entered the secondary reception of the complex. As they left by the veranda door, this door remained closed but not locked, as this is only possible from the inside. The curtains were closed. http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/KATE-MCCANN_ARGUIDO.htm
When she entered, I presume she pulled the door curtain aside with the intention of pulling it closed behind her on exit. Therefore her view of the door would not have been obstructed by the curtain.
Who is to say that while she was checking the children, someone hiding in the room may have seized the opportunity to slip out. Whose exit perhaps caused the through draught which caused the bedroom door to slam in the first place?
Title: Re: Oprah Winfrey Interview
Post by: Miss Taken Identity on June 05, 2017, 04:43:47 PM
When she entered, I presume she pulled the door curtain aside with the intention of pulling it closed behind her on exit. Therefore her view of the door would not have been obstructed by the curtain.
Who is to say that while she was checking the children, someone hiding in the room may have seized the opportunity to slip out. Whose exit perhaps caused the through draught which caused the bedroom door to slam in the first place?
Presuming adds nothing to the discussion. Someone was probably hiding with Maddie in their arms? Care to presume where this would be in the apartment. AND how Kate would not see them in her search?
Title: Re: Oprah Winfrey Interview
Post by: Miss Taken Identity on June 05, 2017, 04:48:28 PM
Transcript of the show: http://madeleinemccann.org/blog/2009/05/04/oprah-winfrey-interview/
The following extract is related to the 10pm visit:
Kate: I went at ten and I went into the apartment and there was no crying I stopped and there was no crying. And then I just noticed that the door was quite open
Oprah: Which door?
Kate: Their bedroom door sorry, and we usually have the door as Gerry said sort of not closed but ajar just so that a little bit of light gets in and it’s not too dark in the room so I thought oh Matt must have gone in and left the door open
Oprah: same thing he thought
Kate: Yeah, so I thought well I’ll just close it over again, and as I went to close it over it slammed shut and I thought and it was like sort of you know a draught had caused it to shut so I turned behind me and I thought are the patio doors open and they were closed and I thought well that’s strange so then I opened the door thinking I’ll open it ajar a bit again and that was when I kind of looked into the room and when I just looked and it was quite dark and I was just looking and looking at Madeleine’s bed and I was thinking is that her that I was looking for why isn’t Madeleine there? And then in the end I walked over and thought oh, she’s not in bed and then I thought maybe she’s wandered through to our bed and that’s why the door’s open so I went through to our bedroom and she wasn’t there and then I kind of see then I’m starting to panic a bit and I ran back into their room and literally as I went back into their room the curtains that were drawn over just “foooosh” flew open and that’s when I saw that the shutter was right up and the window was pushed right oper. And that was when I just knew that erm someone had taken her. So I, I mean I ran to the window and I didn’t know what I thought was going to see but I ran to the window and then I quickly hmm quickly looked through the wardrobes I had I suppose this temporary thought she was cowering in a wardrobe or something anyway she wasn’t there and I just ran out and soon as…
===
My thoughts are:
1. "and as I went to close it over it slammed shut and I thought and it was like sort of you know a draught had caused it to shut so I turned behind me and I thought are the patio doors open and they were closed "
I thought she entered through the patio doors, but the wording does not give that impression: "so I turned behind me and I thought are the patio doors open and they were closed".
2. Why did the door slam at that time and not well before she entered the apartment? When she was there she claims two gusts of wind in quick succession. This seems quite a coincidence. If it was windy, the door would likely slammed shut before she arrived in the apartment.
3. "when I just looked and it was quite dark and I was just looking and looking at Madeleine’s bed and I was thinking is that her that I was looking for why isn’t Madeleine there?"
This seems to imply that the curtains were closed especially in context of the hand signals when she states the curtains were drawn over.
Excellent finding this. The whole Oprah show was a show geared to the audience who hade been told Maddie was abducted by a stranger via a window. It was good to see a polished version for their audience none of this errr um you know...um well you know .. cr@p. They also regained their memory, Jane Tanner saw Maddie wearing this * holding up pyjamas* as she was abducted.... Hmmm.
Title: Re: Oprah Winfrey Interview
Post by: Erngath on June 05, 2017, 04:50:51 PM
I don't really understand what all the arguments are about. It's all quite plain and simple to me. Someone probably broke into the appartment through one of the doors or the window, and abducted Madeleine.
Agreed.
Title: Re: Oprah Winfrey Interview
Post by: Brietta on June 05, 2017, 06:59:31 PM
Presuming adds nothing to the discussion. Someone was hiding with Maddie in their arms? care to presume where this would be in the apartment. AND how Kate would not see them in her search?
I did not say anything about anyone hiding with Madeleine in their arms ... I did however say someone exiting (which means they would not have been in the apartment during Kate's search) the apartment could have caused the draught which blew the door shut. Makes as much sense as any of the other presumptions doing the rounds and more than most. imo
Title: Re: Oprah Winfrey Interview
Post by: G-Unit on June 05, 2017, 07:28:55 PM
When she entered, I presume she pulled the door curtain aside with the intention of pulling it closed behind her on exit. Therefore her view of the door would not have been obstructed by the curtain.
Who is to say that while she was checking the children, someone hiding in the room may have seized the opportunity to slip out. Whose exit perhaps caused the through draught which caused the bedroom door to slam in the first place?
Do you mean pushing or pulling it towards the middle? Most curtains are attached to a stopper at the outside edge so they don't do that when you close them. I couldn't see anywhere to hide in that room.
Title: Re: Oprah Winfrey Interview
Post by: misty on June 05, 2017, 09:54:32 PM
Transcript of the show: http://madeleinemccann.org/blog/2009/05/04/oprah-winfrey-interview/
The following extract is related to the 10pm visit:
Kate: I went at ten and I went into the apartment and there was no crying I stopped and there was no crying. And then I just noticed that the door was quite open
Oprah: Which door?
Kate: Their bedroom door sorry, and we usually have the door as Gerry said sort of not closed but ajar just so that a little bit of light gets in and it’s not too dark in the room so I thought oh Matt must have gone in and left the door open
Oprah: same thing he thought
Kate: Yeah, so I thought well I’ll just close it over again, and as I went to close it over it slammed shut and I thought and it was like sort of you know a draught had caused it to shut so I turned behind me and I thought are the patio doors open and they were closed and I thought well that’s strange so then I opened the door thinking I’ll open it ajar a bit again and that was when I kind of looked into the room and when I just looked and it was quite dark and I was just looking and looking at Madeleine’s bed and I was thinking is that her that I was looking for why isn’t Madeleine there? And then in the end I walked over and thought oh, she’s not in bed and then I thought maybe she’s wandered through to our bed and that’s why the door’s open so I went through to our bedroom and she wasn’t there and then I kind of see then I’m starting to panic a bit and I ran back into their room and literally as I went back into their room the curtains that were drawn over just “foooosh” flew open and that’s when I saw that the shutter was right up and the window was pushed right oper. And that was when I just knew that erm someone had taken her. So I, I mean I ran to the window and I didn’t know what I thought was going to see but I ran to the window and then I quickly hmm quickly looked through the wardrobes I had I suppose this temporary thought she was cowering in a wardrobe or something anyway she wasn’t there and I just ran out and soon as…
===
My thoughts are:
1. "and as I went to close it over it slammed shut and I thought and it was like sort of you know a draught had caused it to shut so I turned behind me and I thought are the patio doors open and they were closed "
I thought she entered through the patio doors, but the wording does not give that impression: "so I turned behind me and I thought are the patio doors open and they were closed".
2. Why did the door slam at that time and not well before she entered the apartment? When she was there she claims two gusts of wind in quick succession. This seems quite a coincidence. If it was windy, the door would likely slammed shut before she arrived in the apartment.
3. "when I just looked and it was quite dark and I was just looking and looking at Madeleine’s bed and I was thinking is that her that I was looking for why isn’t Madeleine there?"
This seems to imply that the curtains were closed especially in context of the hand signals when she states the curtains were drawn over.
1. Possibly Kate thought that the patio door had somehow slid back open - it was shown to move quite easily in the runner - or else someone may have come in behind her?
2. The door would not have blown shut prior to Kate entering the apartment because it was open at an angle of 45° or maybe wider. Only when Kate moved the door to a much tighter angle would the wind have caught it & blown it shut. ETA This could also indicate that the window was opened after Gerry's 2110hrs check as he said that he left the door in a slightly ajar position.
4. MO thought that the main curtains were closed at around 2130hrs. http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MATTHEW-OLDFIELD-10MAY.htm "That he did not enter the bedroom where MBM and the twins were sleeping. He recalls that the bedroom door was half open, making an angle of 50 degrees. He does not know how far away he was from the bedroom door. He recalls having the perception that the window curtains - green in colour - were drawn closed but could not determine if the window was closed or open."
The net had to have been already drawn back for Kate to easily see the window was open & shutters were up; therefore the net would not have "whooshed".
JMO.
Title: Re: Oprah Winfrey Interview
Post by: Robittybob1 on June 05, 2017, 10:01:31 PM
When she entered, I presume she pulled the door curtain aside with the intention of pulling it closed behind her on exit. Therefore her view of the door would not have been obstructed by the curtain.
Who is to say that while she was checking the children, someone hiding in the room may have seized the opportunity to slip out. Whose exit perhaps caused the through draught which caused the bedroom door to slam in the first place?
Both are possible, but highly unlikely for the second part to happen.
Title: Re: Oprah Winfrey Interview
Post by: G-Unit on June 06, 2017, 12:46:14 PM
1. Possibly Kate thought that the patio door had somehow slid back open - it was shown to move quite easily in the runner - or else someone may have come in behind her?
2. The door would not have blown shut prior to Kate entering the apartment because it was open at an angle of 45° or maybe wider. Only when Kate moved the door to a much tighter angle would the wind have caught it & blown it shut. ETA This could also indicate that the window was opened after Gerry's 2110hrs check as he said that he left the door in a slightly ajar position.
4. MO thought that the main curtains were closed at around 2130hrs. http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MATTHEW-OLDFIELD-10MAY.htm "That he did not enter the bedroom where MBM and the twins were sleeping. He recalls that the bedroom door was half open, making an angle of 50 degrees. He does not know how far away he was from the bedroom door. He recalls having the perception that the window curtains - green in colour - were drawn closed but could not determine if the window was closed or open."
The net had to have been already drawn back for Kate to easily see the window was open & shutters were up; therefore the net would not have "whooshed".
JMO.
Matthew Oldfield's evidence of what he could see is puzzling. In the 'Madeleine was here' documentary he claims that he could see both the twin's cots as he walked across the living room towards their bedroom. This wasn't tested in the video, however, the bedroom door remained closed. In his 10th May statement he says;
He recalls that the bedroom door was half open, making an angle of 50 degrees......He recalls having the perception that the window curtains - green in colour - were drawn closed........having managed to glimpse the two twins inside their cots, the deponent returned to the restaurant to finish dinner. http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MATTHEW-OLDFIELD-10MAY.htm
Firstly, Matthew couldn't see both twins unless their cots were moved before the police photos were taken, because one had a solid end. Secondly, the bedroom door is opened fully by Gerry in part 3/5 at 9.03. In my opinion Matthew would not have been able to see the curtains if the door was half open. I am basing this on the view of the curtains at 9.30 in the same video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dXtBWNCFt7U
Title: Re: Oprah Winfrey Interview
Post by: misty on June 06, 2017, 01:08:15 PM
Matthew Oldfield's evidence of what he could see is puzzling. In the 'Madeleine was here' documentary he claims that he could see both the twin's cots as he walked across the living room towards their bedroom. This wasn't tested in the video, however, the bedroom door remained closed. In his 10th May statement he says;
He recalls that the bedroom door was half open, making an angle of 50 degrees......He recalls having the perception that the window curtains - green in colour - were drawn closed........having managed to glimpse the two twins inside their cots, the deponent returned to the restaurant to finish dinner. http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MATTHEW-OLDFIELD-10MAY.htm
Firstly, Matthew couldn't see both twins unless their cots were moved before the police photos were taken, because one had a solid end. Secondly, the bedroom door is opened fully by Gerry in part 3/5 at 9.03. In my opinion Matthew would not have been able to see the curtains if the door was half open. I am basing this on the view of the curtains at 9.30 in the same video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dXtBWNCFt7U
MO is quite tall so it is entirely possible he could have seen both twins in their cots from his viewpoint. I can see the curtains at 9.26 & the cameraman is at an angle behind Gerry so doesn't give MO's exact perspective.
Title: Re: Oprah Winfrey Interview
Post by: G-Unit on June 06, 2017, 01:38:56 PM
MO is quite tall so it is entirely possible he could have seen both twins in their cots from his viewpoint. I can see the curtains at 9.26 & the cameraman is at an angle behind Gerry so doesn't give MO's exact perspective.
It's just about possible from right in the doorway of the room to see a head, perhaps. You would then see a lot more than the corner of Madeleine's bed too.
Tell me, could you see those curtains if the door was half closed and tell if they were drawn or open? I think not.
Title: Re: Oprah Winfrey Interview
Post by: Innominate on June 06, 2017, 06:48:08 PM
There is another account of the same visit (right at the start of the video):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhACS6ck-Dw
Transcript:
K: I did my check about 10.00 ‘clock and went in through the sliding patio doors and I just stood, actually and I thought, oh, all quiet, and to be honest, I might have been tempted to turn round then, but I just noticed that the door, the bedroom door where the three children were sleeping, was open much further than we’d left it. I went to close it to about here and then as I got to here, it suddenly slammed and then as I opened it, it was then that I just thought, I’ll just look at the children and I could see S and A in the cot and then I was looking at M’s bed which was here and it was dark and I was looking and I was thinking, is that M or is that the bedding. and I couldn’t quite make her out. It sounds really stupid now, but at the time, I was thinking I didn’t want to put the light on cos I didn’t wanna wake them and literally, as I went back in, the curtains of the bedroom which were drawn,… were closed, … whoosh … It was like a gust of wind, kinda, just blew them open and cuddle cat was still there and her pink blanket was still there and then I knew straight away that she had, er, been taken, you know.
Kate McCann in C4 Cutting Edge documentary - Madeleine was here, april 2008
Title: Re: Oprah Winfrey Interview
Post by: G-Unit on June 06, 2017, 07:15:14 PM
Does she say 'S and A in the cot? Not in their cots? She also seems to point in the direction of the cot on the left in the photos.
Title: Re: Oprah Winfrey Interview
Post by: Robittybob1 on June 06, 2017, 07:18:36 PM
Does she say 'S and A in the cot? Not in their cots? She also seems to point in the direction of the cot on the left in the photos.
To be honest I think Kate couldn't believe she was meeting Oprah and she was suffering stage fright so you can't take what she said in that interview as gospel.
Title: Re: Oprah Winfrey Interview
Post by: Miss Taken Identity on June 07, 2017, 06:33:43 PM
To be honest I think Kate couldn't believe she was meeting Oprah and she was suffering stage fright so you can't take what she said in that interview as gospel.
To be honest I struggle to find anything they say as gospel. it is not little things that can be talked away... as little errors, we have actual physical anomolies. Kate saying she put children to bed, tucked M in as it was cold then Gerry saying he last saw m as he left her on top of the covers as it was hot.. Jane Tanner saying it was cold... Kate claiming windy night... I mean seriously these are things that should be so easy to remember as if it really happened.
Nerves my right eye, they loved the positive attention rememebr the party for Maddie- the smiles the baloons...- it was the negative press they didn't like, and we know why.
Title: Re: Oprah Winfrey Interview
Post by: sadie on June 07, 2017, 11:12:44 PM
To be honest I struggle to find anything they say as gospel. it is not little things that can be talked away... as little errors, we have actual physical anomolies. Kate saying she put children to bed, tucked M in as it was cold then Gerry saying he last saw m as he left her on top of the covers as it was hot.. Jane Tanner saying it was cold... Kate claiming windy night... I mean seriously these are things that should be so easy to remember as if it really happened.
Nerves my right eye, they loved the positive attention rememebr the party for Maddie- the smiles the baloons...- it was the negative press they didn't like, and we know why.
Yes, the oh-so-brave smiles of Kate Mccann as she struggled to try and be positive to the kind people around her.
Anyone who couldn't see the despair etched on her face behind the sad smiles, at that balloon "party", is lacking any sensitivity or compassion IMO
Title: Re: Oprah Winfrey Interview
Post by: Robittybob1 on June 08, 2017, 01:03:41 AM
To be honest I struggle to find anything they say as gospel. it is not little things that can be talked away... as little errors, we have actual physical anomolies. Kate saying she put children to bed, tucked M in as it was cold then Gerry saying he last saw m as he left her on top of the covers as it was hot.. Jane Tanner saying it was cold... Kate claiming windy night... I mean seriously these are things that should be so easy to remember as if it really happened.
Nerves my right eye, they loved the positive attention rememebr the party for Maddie- the smiles the baloons...- it was the negative press they didn't like, and we know why.
Tucking in was at 7:30 was it, and lying out of the blankets was 8:30 and 9:05 so there is time to change position. One minute you are in bed next you are up so as long as the sightings are at different times you can say for sure it is wrong. Sighting her at 8:30 and having the door move and still being in the same place is a little trickier to explain. It can be cold outside but warm inside.
Title: Re: Oprah Winfrey Interview
Post by: Innominate on June 08, 2017, 06:25:45 PM
The window: I described to the police officers exactly what I found that night, as it was and is highly relevant and I knew that every little detail could be helpful in finding my daughter which is our only aim. The window which is a ground floor window was completely open and is large enough for a person to easily climb through it. Whether it had been opened for this purpose remains unknown. It could of course have been opened by the perpetrator when inside the apartment as a potential escape route or left open as a 'red herring'
---
There seems to be an acceptance that the window may not have been used for entry.
But the next statement "It could of course have been opened by the perpetrator when inside the apartment as a potential escape route or left open as a 'red herring'" does not seem to make sense if the curtains were closed as stated on both TV interviews.
Title: Re: Oprah Winfrey Interview
Post by: G-Unit on June 08, 2017, 07:57:11 PM
The window: I described to the police officers exactly what I found that night, as it was and is highly relevant and I knew that every little detail could be helpful in finding my daughter which is our only aim. The window which is a ground floor window was completely open and is large enough for a person to easily climb through it. Whether it had been opened for this purpose remains unknown. It could of course have been opened by the perpetrator when inside the apartment as a potential escape route or left open as a 'red herring'
---
There seems to be an acceptance that the window may not have been used for entry.
But the next statement "It could of course have been opened by the perpetrator when inside the apartment as a potential escape route or left open as a 'red herring'" does not seem to make sense if the curtains were closed as stated on both TV interviews.
The curtains were closed when the parents went out. They had been closed all week. The strap to open the shutters is hidden behind the right hand curtain. If the window was changed three actions were involved. Using the strap to open the shutters, opening the window and opening the curtains because no matter what Kate says later, she and Gerry said the curtains were open at 10 pm on 3rd.
Which of those three actions would dislodge the right hand tie back and leave it lying in between the chair and the bed? I'm assuming it wasn't dislodged when the curtains were drawn at the beginning of the week, because the cleaner would surely have picked it up.
The curtains were closed when the parents went out. They had been closed all week. The strap to open the shutters is hidden behind the right hand curtain. If the window was changed three actions were involved. Using the strap to open the shutters, opening the window and opening the curtains because no matter what Kate says later, she and Gerry said the curtains were open at 10 pm on 3rd.
Which of those three actions would dislodge the right hand tie back and leave it lying in between the chair and the bed? I'm assuming it wasn't dislodged when the curtains were drawn at the beginning of the week, because the cleaner would surely have picked it up.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/KATE-MCCANN.htm ^snipped^ She noticed that the door to her children's bedroom was completely open, the window was also open, the shutters raised and the curtains open, while she was certain of having closed them all as she always did.
As stated on 4/5/07, implying that the curtains were not left untouched all week.
Title: Re: Oprah Winfrey Interview
Post by: G-Unit on June 08, 2017, 09:07:10 PM
As stated on 4/5/07, implying that the curtains were not left untouched all week.
As usual other statements are available.
The window in Madeleine's room remained closed, but she doesn't know if it was locked, blinds and curtains drawn. The window remained like this since the first day, night and day. She never opened it. https://mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/KATE-MCCANN_ARGUIDO.htm
On our arrival we had lowered the blind-style shutters on the outside of the windows, which were controlled from the inside, and closed the curtains. We left them that way all week. [Madeleine]
Title: Re: Oprah Winfrey Interview
Post by: misty on June 08, 2017, 09:25:10 PM
The window in Madeleine's room remained closed, but she doesn't know if it was locked, blinds and curtains drawn. The window remained like this since the first day, night and day. She never opened it. https://mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/KATE-MCCANN_ARGUIDO.htm
On our arrival we had lowered the blind-style shutters on the outside of the windows, which were controlled from the inside, and closed the curtains. We left them that way all week. [Madeleine]
Therein lies the problem, doesn't it? We have an initial statement which refers to the twins crying (not Madeleine), Kate entering by the side door & the inference that the curtains had been adjusted during the week. It is clear, if Amaral is to be believed, that the curtains were opened & the shutter raised at some stage during the week to facilitate the cleaning of the window. The statement of Tracy Dawkins lends weight to the probable routine of the cleaner..(http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TRACY_DAWKINS.htm) So it's a question of which is the correct version. I tend to think Kate was referring to the net being open, rather than the main curtains. There are any number of reasons why the tieback could have been on the floor.
Title: Re: Oprah Winfrey Interview
Post by: G-Unit on June 09, 2017, 09:13:40 AM
Therein lies the problem, doesn't it? We have an initial statement which refers to the twins crying (not Madeleine), Kate entering by the side door & the inference that the curtains had been adjusted during the week. It is clear, if Amaral is to be believed, that the curtains were opened & the shutter raised at some stage during the week to facilitate the cleaning of the window. The statement of Tracy Dawkins lends weight to the probable routine of the cleaner..(http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TRACY_DAWKINS.htm) So it's a question of which is the correct version. I tend to think Kate was referring to the net being open, rather than the main curtains. There are any number of reasons why the tieback could have been on the floor.
I don't know what Amaral based his opinion on, but the cleaner was seen by Tracy Dawkins between Thursday 19th and Tuesday the 23rd April. She would have been cleaning on Saturday 21st in preparation for the Gordon family to arrive. I don't know if she would have cleaned again before Wednesday 24th? Did she clean windows on every visit? I expect that would depend if they needed it or not.
If the main curtains were closed at 10pm why would the nets have any significance? I think curtains are curtains and nets are nets.
Title: Re: Oprah Winfrey Interview
Post by: misty on June 09, 2017, 11:23:49 AM
I don't know what Amaral based his opinion on, but the cleaner was seen by Tracy Dawkins between Thursday 19th and Tuesday the 23rd April. She would have been cleaning on Saturday 21st in preparation for the Gordon family to arrive. I don't know if she would have cleaned again before Wednesday 24th? Did she clean windows on every visit? I expect that would depend if they needed it or not.
If the main curtains were closed at 10pm why would the nets have any significance? I think curtains are curtains and nets are nets.
Amaral stated that the cleaner had thoroughly cleaned the window on Wednesday 1st, despite there being no statement to that effect in the available files. Whoever cleaned them last, they were so forensically clear of any other deposits that Kate's fingerprints were proof of her staging the scene in the PJ hypothesis. The nets had to be drawn back so Kate could immediately see the open window - much more difficult through a net in a dark room.
Title: Re: Oprah Winfrey Interview
Post by: Robittybob1 on June 09, 2017, 11:48:08 AM
Amaral stated that the cleaner had thoroughly cleaned the window on Wednesday 1st, despite there being no statement to that effect in the available files. Whoever cleaned them last, they were so forensically clear of any other deposits that Kate's fingerprints were proof of her staging the scene in the PJ hypothesis. The nets had to be drawn back so Kate could immediately see the open window - much more difficult through a net in a dark room.
How do you know she hadn't turned on the light by that stage? She is a doctor so I'd imagine she went in and put her hand out and felt the window and found it had been slid across. They are trained to poke and prod to make a diagnosis.
Title: Re: Oprah Winfrey Interview
Post by: G-Unit on June 09, 2017, 04:08:27 PM
Amaral stated that the cleaner had thoroughly cleaned the window on Wednesday 1st, despite there being no statement to that effect in the available files. Whoever cleaned them last, they were so forensically clear of any other deposits that Kate's fingerprints were proof of her staging the scene in the PJ hypothesis. The nets had to be drawn back so Kate could immediately see the open window - much more difficult through a net in a dark room.
What was fluttering in the breeze then? The curtains were open according to the parents.
Title: Re: Oprah Winfrey Interview
Post by: G-Unit on June 09, 2017, 04:32:37 PM
How do you know she hadn't turned on the light by that stage? She is a doctor so I'd imagine she went in and put her hand out and felt the window and found it had been slid across. They are trained to poke and prod to make a diagnosis.
She diagnosed an open window? I've heard it all now. @)(++(*
Title: Re: Oprah Winfrey Interview
Post by: misty on June 09, 2017, 05:15:15 PM
Though the early the statement, the more likely it is to be more accurate.
It is only more accurate if it is understood correctly, translated correctly, recorded correctly & re-translated correctly. Too much margin for error imho.
Title: Re: Oprah Winfrey Interview
Post by: G-Unit on June 09, 2017, 06:11:29 PM
It is only more accurate if it is understood correctly, translated correctly, recorded correctly & re-translated correctly. Too much margin for error imho.
You either accept all the statements or you accept none of them. What seems to happen is those that people dislike are rejected and those they like are quoted. Cherry picking.
Title: Re: Oprah Winfrey Interview
Post by: misty on June 09, 2017, 06:43:36 PM
You either accept all the statements or you accept none of them. What seems to happen is those that people dislike are rejected and those they like are quoted. Cherry picking.
When I first became interested in the online case I did accept the statements as being accurate. Now I don't, simply because of translation errors & omissions we have already identified & the clear contradictions with what we have heard straight from the horse's mouth. Spending hours dissecting each & every anomaly in the Tapas 9 statements is only relevant if you believe people within the group have done something criminal. As I don't believe that, I'd rather look at the evidence away from the group.
Title: Re: Oprah Winfrey Interview
Post by: G-Unit on June 09, 2017, 06:58:05 PM
When I first became interested in the online case I did accept the statements as being accurate. Now I don't, simply because of translation errors & omissions we have already identified & the clear contradictions with what we have heard straight from the horse's mouth. Spending hours dissecting each & every anomaly in the Tapas 9 statements is only relevant if you believe people within the group have done something criminal. As I don't believe that, I'd rather look at the evidence away from the group.
You and Operation Grange both! 8((()*/
I agree that there are contradictions, but I don't think translation errors and omissions are the reason for them..
Title: Re: Oprah Winfrey Interview
Post by: Robittybob1 on June 09, 2017, 09:08:21 PM
What is an omission then - what about all those MW guests that didn't get interviewed. wasn't there a person with the surname Topman
Until the poster who mentions omissions explains we don't know what they are. However;
Leicestershire Police were tasked with sending questionnaires to everyone who was there on 3rd. If there was information in the replies it would have been their job to follow it up. See page 6.
Statements not included in file. would be as good example of omissions.
All the formal statements taken by the PJ were filed. Nothing was left out. Some statements were removed before the files were made public, and the reasons are documented.
http://mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MISSING_PAGES.htm
Title: Re: Oprah Winfrey Interview
Post by: Benice on June 10, 2017, 12:06:57 PM
Do they even exist or are they a myth? We had a thread for translation errors and found nothing of interest. I don't know what is meant by omissions.
Not a myth according to this interpreter's own notes:
Quote [M Oldfield's Statement 10th May Again, there were several omissions from, and errors in, the original Portuguese. I corrected those that I found. Also, much of the Portuguese statement is written with a convoluted 'future + past' verb construct that attributes an 'uncertainty' to the words, whereas I have translated much of it in a non-literal manner to make it read more definitively.
Hence, the reader must understand that neither the Portuguese nor my translation necessarily constitute the exact words spoken by Oldfield.
If you read MO's Rogatory Letter testimony you will get a sense of the difficulty the Portuguese interpreter faced when listening to this man.] End quote
The interpretor herself tells us that neither her translation nor the Portuguese translation can be guaranteed to be accurate and explains the difficulties faced by interpreters.
The idea that no errors whatsoeover could have crept into translations of statements which had previously been translated by a different translator is definitely a myth IMO.
Why anyone would dismiss this interpreter's explanation as 'nothing of interest' is a mystery to me. I would say it's extremely pertinent if people are under the misapprehension that it is a fact that translations are always accurate. IMO
Title: Re: Oprah Winfrey Interview
Post by: G-Unit on June 10, 2017, 01:22:30 PM
Not a myth according to this interpreter's own notes:
Quote [M Oldfield's Statement 10th May Again, there were several omissions from, and errors in, the original Portuguese. I corrected those that I found. Also, much of the Portuguese statement is written with a convoluted 'future + past' verb construct that attributes an 'uncertainty' to the words, whereas I have translated much of it in a non-literal manner to make it read more definitively.
Hence, the reader must understand that neither the Portuguese nor my translation necessarily constitute the exact words spoken by Oldfield.
If you read MO's Rogatory Letter testimony you will get a sense of the difficulty the Portuguese interpreter faced when listening to this man.] End quote
The interpretor herself tells us that neither her translation nor the Portuguese translation can be guaranteed to be accurate and explains the difficulties faced by interpreters.
The idea that no errors whatsoeover could have crept into translations of statements which had previously been translated by a different translator is definitely a myth IMO.
Why anyone would dismiss this interpreter's explanation as 'nothing of interest' is a mystery to me. I would say it's extremely pertinent if people are under the misapprehension that it is a fact that translations are always accurate. IMO
There is one note from the volunteer translator warning that Matthew Oldfield's second statement was so difficult to translate that the translation may not represent his exact words. He or she says that it's hardly surprising given the incoherence evident in his rog. interview. I have seen no other statements with this disclaimer. One swallow doesn't make a summer.
Title: Re: Oprah Winfrey Interview
Post by: Robittybob1 on June 10, 2017, 04:28:07 PM
There is one note from the volunteer translator warning that Matthew Oldfield's second statement was so difficult to translate that the translation may not represent his exact words. He or she says that it's hardly surprising given the incoherence evident in his rog. interview. I have seen no other statements with this disclaimer. One swallow doesn't make a summer.
Makes you wonder why he was getting so disjointed, have you looked into it?
Title: Re: Oprah Winfrey Interview
Post by: G-Unit on June 10, 2017, 05:15:34 PM
There is one note from the volunteer translator warning that Matthew Oldfield's second statement was so difficult to translate that the translation may not represent his exact words. He or she says that it's hardly surprising given the incoherence evident in his rog. interview. I have seen no other statements with this disclaimer. One swallow doesn't make a summer.
Quite right.
One swallow doesn't make a summer
Can you imagine the state he must have been in?
poor guy was very willing and did his best, he thought, but he hadn't visually checked Madeleine and also his trip to the Main Reception to report Madekleine missing and could they call the police had fallen on deaf ears.
He must have been devastated by his mistakes and probably they will haunt him for the rest of his life.
This must be especially so since all the fingers unrelentlessly pointing at him over the years. Poor bloke.
Title: Re: Oprah Winfrey Interview
Post by: sadie on June 11, 2017, 01:37:17 AM
All the formal statements taken by the PJ were filed. Nothing was left out. Some statements were removed before the files were made public, and the reasons are documented. http://mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MISSING_PAGES.htm
Yep, and the main gist of that MISSING-PAGES file is that the files that are missing are because of the people being statemented had unsavoury links = paedophilia.
So were all three/ four of the statements by Raj Balu, Neil Berry and the Carpenters missing because of this? Connections to paedophilia? I think not ... and strangely these missing files are the very ones that might have helped Gerry prove where he was at the pertinent time of just after 10pm.
The time that Pathfinder makes so much of. It is even in her signature.
Title: Re: Oprah Winfrey Interview
Post by: pathfinder73 on June 11, 2017, 08:15:34 AM
My testimony dated 6th of May 2007 related the details of the conversation we overheard and the information regarding the paper that Neil and I used in the searches. http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RAJ_BALU.htm
The conversation seems to be the reason the statements have been withheld from the public.
The OC searches didn't start until Emma Knight had visited apartment 5A to get a description of the missing child and that was at around 10:20pm. Therefore, any paper Neil Berry & Raj Balu used in the searches was not at around 10pm but later. Pamela Fenn didn't hear anything above until at around 10:30pm - at least 30 minutes after the disappearance.
Title: Re: Oprah Winfrey Interview
Post by: G-Unit on June 11, 2017, 08:46:37 AM
Yep, and the main gist of that MISSING-PAGES file is that the files that are missing are because of the people being statemented had unsavoury links = paedophilia.
So were all three/ four of the statements by Raj Balu, Neil Berry and the Carpenters missing because of this? Connections to paedophilia? I think not ... and strangely these missing files are the very ones that might have helped Gerry prove where he was at the pertinent time of just after 10pm.
The time that Pathfinder makes so much of. It is even in her signature.
I would assume those statements are in the Crimestoppers file, withheld at the request of the UK.
Title: Re: Oprah Winfrey Interview
Post by: Robittybob1 on June 11, 2017, 08:52:23 AM
You'll never see the information that was held back at the request of the UK. You'll never see the information gathered by OG.
And there is a good reason for this... think about it!
Although the tax payer picked up the tap, to try and exonertate Kate and Gerry's claim that they had nothing to do with their daughters dissapearance, some may question the evidence for such a claim. Because if they had not left their children alone every night without physical checks, then they are duley responsible for her dissapearnce. And no amout of supporters claiming trolls are cruel, making McCanns out to be martyrs/saints is going to change that.
Title: Re: Oprah Winfrey Interview
Post by: sadie on June 11, 2017, 03:59:47 PM
And there is a good reason for this... think about it!
Although the tax payer picked up the tap, to try and exonertate Kate and Gerry's claim that they had nothing to do with their daughters dissapearance, some may question the evidence for such a claim. Because if they had not left their children alone every night without physical checks, then they are duley responsible for her dissapearnce. And no amout of supporters claiming trolls are cruel, making McCanns out to be martyrs/saints is going to change that.
Because if they had not left their children alone every night without physical checks
Are you now trying to make out that they did not check their children? Every half an hour + a chek outside the window by Matt. So better than every half hour they got themselves up, walked the distance and checked their children.
I agree trolls are unthinking and exceptionally cruel... but I doubt they can help it. It's in their make up IMO ?>)()<
(Ten more nasty points? )
Title: Re: Oprah Winfrey Interview
Post by: Benice on June 11, 2017, 04:01:29 PM
And there is a good reason for this... think about it!
Although the tax payer picked up the tap, to try and exonertate Kate and Gerry's claim that they had nothing to do with their daughters dissapearance, some may question the evidence for such a claim. Because if they had not left their children alone every night without physical checks, then they are duley responsible for her dissapearnce. And no amout of supporters claiming trolls are cruel, making McCanns out to be martyrs/saints is going to change that.
I've never read a single post from anyone here claiming the McCanns are martyrs or saints. The fact is many supporters don't agree with their childcare arrangements - but still have no desire to turn them into the world's most evil parents because they committed a human error.
We all make mistakes. To err is human. Nobody is perfect.
Unless their name is McCann of course - and then for some reason they are not allowed to have the same flaws as the rest of humankind. Instead - according to some - everything they do is judged to be wrong and everything they say is judged to be wrong. Inexplicable IMO.
AIMHO
Title: Re: Oprah Winfrey Interview
Post by: Mr Gray on June 11, 2017, 04:08:12 PM
And there is a good reason for this... think about it!
Although the tax payer picked up the tap, to try and exonertate Kate and Gerry's claim that they had nothing to do with their daughters dissapearance, some may question the evidence for such a claim. Because if they had not left their children alone every night without physical checks, then they are duley responsible for her dissapearnce. And no amout of supporters claiming trolls are cruel, making McCanns out to be martyrs/saints is going to change that.
I don't agree that the McCanns are to blame Maddie and her family were simply incredibly unlucky
Title: Re: Oprah Winfrey Interview
Post by: sadie on June 11, 2017, 04:14:37 PM
My testimony dated 6th of May 2007 related the details of the conversation we overheard and the information regarding the paper that Neil and I used in the searches. http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RAJ_BALU.htm
The conversation seems to be the reason the statements have been withheld from the public.
The OC searches didn't start until Emma Knight had visited apartment 5A to get a description of the missing child and that was at around 10:20pm. Therefore, any paper Neil Berry & Raj Balu used in the searches was not at around 10pm but later. Pamela Fenn didn't hear anything above until at around 10:30pm - at least 30 minutes after the disappearance.
Now wasn't she out that night? i rather think she was but please correct me if i am wrong.
Title: Re: Oprah Winfrey Interview
Post by: Eleanor on June 11, 2017, 04:15:23 PM
Now wasn't she out that night? i rather think she was but please correct me if i am wrong.
Not according to her statement.
"When asked, she replied that on 3rd May she did not hear any noise from the McCann apartment, not even the opening of doors. She also said that before hearing the shouts she was watching television, as she often stays up late."
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/PAMELA_FENN.htm
Title: Re: Oprah Winfrey Interview
Post by: Robittybob1 on June 11, 2017, 06:32:10 PM
I have read many times on the forum that Mrs Fenn went out on the 3rd so where does this idea come from?
Title: Re: Oprah Winfrey Interview
Post by: barrier on June 11, 2017, 09:03:39 PM
I think this means she was out during the evening of 2nd, not 3rd;
She did not have anything to report for the 2nd May, because she was only home at night. http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/PAMELA_FENN.htm
Strange because it was the crying at night that was the problem.
Title: Re: Oprah Winfrey Interview
Post by: Robittybob1 on June 12, 2017, 01:16:08 AM
There is a YouTube video where she is saying it is all rubbish what they have written about her. The blurb to the YT says "But yesterday she broke her silence to say it was "absolute rubbish" she had made any such claims to police. Mrs Fenn said: "I didn't even know that family was in there."" but I have listened to it several time s and I don't hear her saying "I didn't even know that family was in there". So this appears to be more rubbish. https://youtu.be/KFHbkbBh5BM?t=71
transcript (not checked but sounds right) "[TRANSCRIPT:
“Honestly, I have... I know nothing. I have been here three months. [She means: ‘This happened three months ago’. Mrs Fenn had lived I Praia da Luz for years] Until all this happened, I've never spoken to a journalist, they've written rubbish in the newspapers. I've never even uttered a word! I've never (sighing)... it's all rubbish! Please, please, just forget it”. ] https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t11939-10-reasons-which-suggest-that-pamela-fenn-did-not-hear-any-child-crying-on-tuesday-1-may-2007
Title: Re: Oprah Winfrey Interview
Post by: Robittybob1 on June 12, 2017, 01:57:36 AM
I have read many times on the forum that Mrs Fenn went out on the 3rd so where does this idea come from?
Misty's quote "Mrs Fenn stated that she was out on the Wednesday evening. Rachel was next door, unwell. The Moyes couple arrived on the Wednesday evening - I will have to check to see if there is any record of the arrival time." http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8240.msg410253#msg410253
Title: Re: Oprah Winfrey Interview
Post by: Innominate on June 22, 2017, 01:10:00 PM
There is something else I noticed in the interview.
Gerry: Just yeah, so I went outside and I was outside the apartment and I met err one of the other guests and he was coming the other way with his kid and I actually crossed the road to erm to chat to him and we were sort of chatting for about five minutes and during that, Jane went to check on her children and it was at that point she was just passed us going up to the corner and she saw a man carrying a young girl with almo.. she described independently the pyjamas that Madeleine had on and she didn’t see the child’s face she didn’t you know she saw me there she’d seen that I’d just been in the apartment and so she at the time she thought it was something odd but it didn’t raise enough alarm bells to challenge the person or anything
---
I've listened to the interview, and I think he was going to say 'almost', i.e. almost the same pyjamas.
It is probably not a major issue, but if there was some doubt about the Tanner sighting I'm surprised he did not also take the opportunity to mention the Smith sighting, which I cannot find in the transcript (unless I've overlooked it).
There may have been time limits for the programme which limited the opportunity to discuss sightings.
Title: Re: Oprah Winfrey Interview
Post by: G-Unit on June 22, 2017, 02:29:10 PM
There is something else I noticed in the interview.
Gerry: Just yeah, so I went outside and I was outside the apartment and I met err one of the other guests and he was coming the other way with his kid and I actually crossed the road to erm to chat to him and we were sort of chatting for about five minutes and during that, Jane went to check on her children and it was at that point she was just passed us going up to the corner and she saw a man carrying a young girl with almo.. she described independently the pyjamas that Madeleine had on and she didn’t see the child’s face she didn’t you know she saw me there she’d seen that I’d just been in the apartment and so she at the time she thought it was something odd but it didn’t raise enough alarm bells to challenge the person or anything
---
I've listened to the interview, and I think he was going to say 'almost', i.e. almost the same pyjamas.
It is probably not a major issue, but if there was some doubt about the Tanner sighting I'm surprised he did not also take the opportunity to mention the Smith sighting, which I cannot find in the transcript (unless I've overlooked it).
There may have been time limits for the programme which limited the opportunity to discuss sightings.
How did Jane know he'd just left the apartment? She didn't see him leave, so she assumed he had or he told her later that he had. At the time he could have still been on his way to the apartment for all she knew.
Title: Re: Oprah Winfrey Interview
Post by: Innominate on June 22, 2017, 03:08:59 PM
How did Jane know he'd just left the apartment? She didn't see him leave, so she assumed he had or he told her later that he had. At the time he could have still been on his way to the apartment for all she knew.
Pass. I guess she may have made an assumption because of the amount of time G had been gone from the table, which was commented upon in the rogatory interviews; it is not entirely clear how long this check took.
MO seemed to feel, from comments in his rogatory interview, that the 9.05 check was unnecessary because he had just listened at the window of 5A.
I feel JT tried her best in her interviews. I am sure she thought she saw someone carrying a child.
The odd thing about the encounter is that neither GMcC or JW saw JT, but I believe she passed them as she indicated in her statements.
Title: Re: Oprah Winfrey Interview
Post by: Brietta on June 22, 2017, 03:44:42 PM
Pass. I guess she may have made an assumption because of the amount of time G had been gone from the table, which was commented upon in the rogatory interviews; it is not entirely clear how long this check took.
MO seemed to feel, from comments in his rogatory interview, that the 9.05 check was unnecessary because he had just listened at the window of 5A.
I feel JT tried her best in her interviews. I am sure she thought she saw someone carrying a child.
The odd thing about the encounter is that neither GMcC or JW saw JT, but I believe she passed them as she indicated in her statements.
She did not think she saw a man carrying a child ... she most certainly did see a man carrying a child. Whether that man is the father who DCI Redwood thought was almost certainly the man carrying his child home or whether that man was in the process of abducting Madeleine McCann ... Jane Tanner saw him.
There are many reasons why Gerry and Jes did not see Jane, all of them discussed on the forum, the fact remains she saw them as well as seeing the man walking briskly away from apartment block five.
Title: Re: Oprah Winfrey Interview
Post by: Robittybob1 on June 22, 2017, 07:21:24 PM
Pass. I guess she may have made an assumption because of the amount of time G had been gone from the table, which was commented upon in the rogatory interviews; it is not entirely clear how long this check took.
MO seemed to feel, from comments in his rogatory interview, that the 9.05 check was unnecessary because he had just listened at the window of 5A.
I feel JT tried her best in her interviews. I am sure she thought she saw someone carrying a child.
The odd thing about the encounter is that neither GMcC or JW saw JT, but I believe she passed them as she indicated in her statements.
Whatever happens in the past becomes a memory and then is accessed as thought. But those thoughts memories have different degrees of certainty. Like what happened the other day, I thought I saw a man but as I got closer I found it was a shadow shaped like a man's torso. So you change your mind, but for Jane there was nothing else that she could put it down to. She saw a person carrying a child.
Title: Re: Oprah Winfrey Interview
Post by: slartibartfast on June 22, 2017, 07:27:29 PM
She did not think she saw a man carrying a child ... she most certainly did see a man carrying a child. Whether that man is the father who DCI Redwood thought was almost certainly the man carrying his child home or whether that man was in the process of abducting Madeleine McCann ... Jane Tanner saw him.
There are many reasons why Gerry and Jes did not see Jane, all of them discussed on the forum, the fact remains she saw them as well as seeing the man walking briskly away from apartment block five.
As a third party we can say JT said she saw a man, we can't state it as a fact, especially given her inability to produce a Photofit.
Title: Re: Oprah Winfrey Interview
Post by: G-Unit on June 22, 2017, 07:49:39 PM
It was nothing to do with Inability. She only saw his profile, and The PJ couldn't do profiles.
To put a full face image on that picture of Tannerman would have been stupid, if Jane didn't see his face properly. Much better to show what she did see properly and leave the face blank.
The drawing was very good because it showed a type of person, his characteristics and his vigorous movement. it also showed his hair and his clothes. Anyone who had seen that man in motion would recognise him from these things, IMO
Title: Re: Oprah Winfrey Interview
Post by: Innominate on June 23, 2017, 07:55:37 AM
Witnesses are pretty unreliable.
In my opinion, the JT sighting was nothing more than a potential sighting - not a certain fact; it was not corroborated by other witnesses.
In addition, there is a question mark over whether the person in the alleged JT sighting could have broken into the apartment (raising the shutters without being heard by GMcC and JW), removed MBM from the apartment and navigated the car park in the time available after GMcC left the apartment and the time JT made the sighting.
A reconstruction would have helped clarify this point.
This does not mean the JT sighting should be ignored, but treating it as something more than a potential sighting to be eliminated could have prevented other sightings, such as the Smith sighting, being reported.
In my view, as soon as possible, there should have been a simple media appeal for any sighting of a child being carried in Luz around 9 to 11pm that evening.
That media appeal should have encouraged anyone who may have been carrying a child to come forward for elimination purposes.
In my view an impression that the JT sighting was, in fact, the abductor was to be avoided, because it may have discouraged people coming forward for elimination purposes and/or reporting sightings.
AIMHO
Title: Re: Oprah Winfrey Interview
Post by: Brietta on June 23, 2017, 10:06:11 AM
In my opinion, the JT sighting was nothing more than a potential sighting - not a certain fact; it was not corroborated by other witnesses.
In addition, there is a question mark over whether the person in the alleged JT sighting could have broken into the apartment (raising the shutters without being heard by GMcC and JW), removed MBM from the apartment and navigated the car park in the time available after GMcC left the apartment and the time JT made the sighting.
A reconstruction would have helped clarify this point.
This does not mean the JT sighting should be ignored, but treating it as something more than a potential sighting to be eliminated could have prevented other sightings, such as the Smith sighting, being reported.
In my view, as soon as possible, there should have been a simple media appeal for any sighting of a child being carried in Luz around 9 to 11pm that evening.
That media appeal should have encouraged anyone who may have been carrying a child to come forward for elimination purposes.
In my view an impression that the JT sighting was, in fact, the abductor was to be avoided, because it may have discouraged people coming forward for elimination purposes and/or reporting sightings.
AIMHO
A prize winning dog about the size of a three year old child is reported missing from a ground floor apartment. A man is seen walking briskly away from the scene carrying a bundle. The dog owner returns to find the dog missing and the window open. Think about it ... also think about the documented reluctance of the Policia Judiciaria to release any information at all ... not even that which might have assisted the investigation in finding Madeleine.
Praia da Luz was a hive of media activity after Madeleine's disappearance ... I believe Hugo Beaty's featured as a busy hub for journalists. It is only recently that I discovered that Hugo Beaty's is situated in the Estrela da Luz holiday complex where the Smith family were holidaying in their apartment.
Your suggestion that "... as soon as possible, there should have been a simple media appeal for any sighting of a child being carried in Luz around 9 to 11pm that evening." might very well have had an effect on jogging their memory of that event just a little bit sooner.
It has to be remembered that Jane Tanner reported her sighting to the police at the earliest opportunity ... and it is easy to make the assumption as I did, that the Smiths did likewise ... they did not. Their sighting was not reported until a fortnight after the event.
Had the police alerted the public, along the lines you suggest, by holding a press conference asking for information I think it possible the Smiths would have responded, but as we are continually reminded, that is not how the PJ operates. Your post has illustrated an occasion when that 'Judicial Secrecy' was a definite obstacle to finding Madeleine.
Title: Re: Oprah Winfrey Interview
Post by: sadie on June 23, 2017, 01:03:48 PM
In my opinion, the JT sighting was nothing more than a potential sighting - not a certain fact; it was not corroborated by other witnesses.
In addition, there is a question mark over whether the person in the alleged JT sighting could have broken into the apartment (raising the shutters without being heard by GMcC and JW), removed MBM from the apartment and navigated the car park in the time available after GMcC left the apartment and the time JT made the sighting.
A reconstruction would have helped clarify this point.
This does not mean the JT sighting should be ignored, but treating it as something more than a potential sighting to be eliminated could have prevented other sightings, such as the Smith sighting, being reported.
In my view, as soon as possible, there should have been a simple media appeal for any sighting of a child being carried in Luz around 9 to 11pm that evening.
That media appeal should have encouraged anyone who may have been carrying a child to come forward for elimination purposes.
In my view an impression that the JT sighting was, in fact, the abductor was to be avoided, because it may have discouraged people coming forward for elimination purposes and/or reporting sightings.
AIMHO
So where has my well researched post gone, showing the Cutting Edge Video and Janes very obvious distress at not having realised that the child being carried by the man she witnessed walking away may well have been Madeleine ?
http://youtu.be/atfDV7imHHY
@12.25 .
Also I suggest that you watch from 9.20 and 10.10 where Jane very forcefully corrects Gerrys memory failing.
Jane Tanner is not a woman who sits at home all day watching the soaps. She is a clever and observant woman, who holds a very responsible post and is as straight as a die IMO.#
Quote
In addition, there is a question mark over whether the person in the alleged JT sighting could have broken into the apartment (raising the shutters without being heard by GMcC and JW), removed MBM from the apartment and navigated the car park in the time available after GMcC left the apartment and the time JT made the sighting.
.
Ample time, especially if directed by someone who was watching (likely from the balcony on block 6 opposite). I am mobility impaired and i have tried doing it myself and I could do it all easily in less than 2 minutes.
Why dont you measure it out, use the necessary additional moves and see how long it takes you? i have assumed that Madeleine was passed over the wall of pathway of 5A from the lifter to Tannerman.
But it could still be done easily by one person in under 2 minutes.