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: carlymichelle on May 03, 2017, 09:15:15 AM
Title: australian article by Mark Saunokonoko who supports amaral discussion
Post by: carlymichelle on May 03, 2017, 09:15:15 AM
How the discrediting of former top cop helps shut down damning Madeleine McCann theories Mark Saunokonoko By Mark Saunokonoko
Crusading hero to many and vindictive villain to others, the figure of Goncalo Amaral is almost as much a part of the Madeleine McCann story as her parents, Kate and Gerry.
Amaral was the original supervising detective in the Maddie McCann case, an unsolved mystery which has captivated the world since Portuguese police were called at 10.41pm on May 3, 2007.
That first phone call, made some 41 minutes after Kate McCann claimed to have discovered Maddie was missing, sparked a 15-month police investigation that came under the most extraordinary media and political pressures.
Five months into the investigation, and following the naming of Kate and Gerry as suspects in the disappearance of their four-year-old daughter, Amaral found himself removed from the case.
Kate and Gerry McCann, whose daughter Madeleine disappeared in Portugal ten years ago, during an interview with the BBC's Fiona Bruce at Prestwold Hall on April 28, 2017. Source: AFP
However, Amaral sensationally reappeared just days after the Portuguese police investigation was eventually shelved in July 2008, with an explosive book that was hugely damaging to the McCanns.
His 22-chapter account, titled Truth of the Lie, concluded Maddie had probably died in some kind of accident inside holiday apartment 5A, that an abduction was staged and her tiny body had been disposed of by Kate and Gerry.
The McCanns launched an expensive and protracted legal battle, using money from the millions of dollars donated to the Find Madeleine Fund, to have Amaral's personal account of the investigation banned.
Initially the McCanns succeeded, before a 2016 court tossed that decision out and ruled that the injunction had violated Amaral's freedom of expression.
Throughout the investigation, and continuing to the present day, Amaral, now aged 57, has been continuously and methodically mauled by the British tabloids and to a lesser extent various UK broadsheets.
Amaral's supporters believe the ongoing assassination of his character and policing methods helps shape the perception that his theories must be wild and fanciful.
A man named Clarence Mitchell, a former British government media mastermind, has been the key strategist in the McCann's meticulous public relations campaign for each of the 10 years since Maddie vanished.
Over the past week, as the milestone tenth anniversary of Madeleine's approached, maneuverings to discredit Amaral were once again evident in the pages of the powerful and wide-reaching UK red tops.
Two high profile stories which ran this week in The Sun and The Mirror both painted Amaral as, there's no other way to say it, a kind of crackpot.
The first attributed quotes to Amaral about Maddie being secretly placed inside a coffin with a dead body which was later cremated; the second pushed Amaral's supposed belief that British spy agency MI5 had helped hide Maddie's body.
Amaral, in both instances, was selectively edited and his comments were twisted out of context.
The former cop has previously spoken about the cremated coffin and related police information about three figures seen entering a church in Praia da Luz carrying a bag. Madeleine Beth McCann: still missing since May 3, 2007. Source: AFP
Madeleine Beth McCann: still missing since May 3, 2007. Source: AFP
In a 2016 interview on CMTV, he confirmed the McCanns were given keys to the local church, close to where the family was staying. Inside there was a coffin of an adult woman that was later incinerated.
During the TV appearance Amaral explained that all possible angles of a missing persons case should be explored by detectives.
"No one is saying that the parents did that [put Madeleine's body in the coffin]," he said.
The startling claim that spooks from MI5 helped hide Madeleine's body is another disturbing manipulation of the truth.
The facts are in the days following Maddie's disappearance the UK government made the remarkably unusual step of becoming closely involved in another sovereign nation's police investigation.
British police were sent to Portugal to assist, while the British ambassador to Portugal and other officials also arrived in Praia Da Luz within 48 hours of Madeleine being reported missing. Goncalo Amaral with his book, Truth of the Lie. Source: AFP
Goncalo Amaral with his book, Truth of the Lie. Source: AFP
A former UK ambassador to Uzbekistan and ex Foreign Office civil servant, Craig Murray, publicly questioned "the exceptional treatment from British authorities" for the McCanns.
"British diplomatic staff were under direct instruction to support the McCanns far beyond the usual and to put pressure on the Portuguese authorities over the case," Murray wrote in an April, 2016 blog post.
"I have direct information that more than one of those diplomatic staff found the McCanns less than convincing and their stories inconsistent.
"Embassy staff were perturbed to be ordered that British authorities were to be present at every contact between the McCanns and Portuguese police."
There were criticisms that the Policia Judiciaria were leaking rumours and unsubstantiated facts of the case to Portuguese journalists, while starving the hungry British press corp.
Ian Woods, a Sky News reporter on the ground in Praia Da Luz, explained how that dynamic divided the British and Portuguese journalists, creating an 'us' and 'them' agenda.
"For the first few weeks or months the British media were largely pro-McCann and the Portuguese media seemed largely anti-McCann," Woods wrote in a 2009 study examining media coverage of the case.
As the days ticked over into weeks, and with no sign of Maddie's return, the British press began to attack the way the investigation was handled.
On reflection, Amaral has admitted the Portuguese investigation, inevitably, made mistakes.
One of his biggest regrets, he said, was not immediately putting surveillance traces on Kate and Gerry's phones.
Amaral also lamented the failure of police to immediately obtain the clothes Maddie had worn at the resort crèche on the day she disappeared.
The McCanns have not ruled out trying to again ban The Truth of the Lie by taking the legal fight with Amaral all the way to the European Court of Human Rights.
Meanwhile, rumours have circulated that Amaral is planning a second book.
Ten years on, Madeleine Beth McCann remains missing.
Read more at http://www.9news.com.au/world/2017/05/03/14/02/how-discrediting-former-top-cop-helps-shut-down-damning-madeleine-mccann-theories#xcWeOU4DlImqr42L.99
87
Title: Re: awesome australian article by Mark Saunokonoko supports amaral
Post by: Mr Gray on May 03, 2017, 11:56:02 AM
No one is discrediting amaral he has done it all by himself
Title: Re: awesome australian article by Mark Saunokonoko supports amaral
Post by: Alfie on May 03, 2017, 12:02:34 PM
No one has yet explained why the coffin theory is so ridiculous?
The three that entered the church, were these including Kate and Gerry were they? When in the story of events that night does Kate get the chance to go down to the church? What time did she get the key? Did they know there was a cadaver in there? Hello - a source of cadaver odour then becomes evident if they did go down there and touched the coffin.
Title: Re: awesome australian article by Mark Saunokonoko supports amaral
Post by: Brietta on May 03, 2017, 06:19:10 PM
No one has yet explained why the coffin theory is so ridiculous?
Quite a few people have and I must say most sceptics prefer to clear their throats in embarrassment and change the subject when it is mentioned. Congratulations on your chutzpah 8((()*/
Title: Re: awesome australian article by Mark Saunokonoko supports amaral
Post by: ferryman on May 03, 2017, 06:23:48 PM
Quite a few people have and I must say most sceptics prefer to clear their throats in embarrassment and change the subject when it is mentioned. Congratulations on your chutzpah 8((()*/
Chutzpah!
I had to google that.
Supreme self-confidence.
Hmmmm!
Title: Re: awesome australian article by Mark Saunokonoko supports amaral
Post by: Eleanor on May 03, 2017, 06:24:59 PM
Quite a few people have and I must say most sceptics prefer to clear their throats in embarrassment and change the subject when it is mentioned. Congratulations on your chutzpah 8((()*/
You just can't help some people.
Title: Re: awesome australian article by Mark Saunokonoko supports amaral
Post by: Eleanor on May 03, 2017, 06:28:46 PM
Quite a few people have and I must say most sceptics prefer to clear their throats in embarrassment and change the subject when it is mentioned. Congratulations on your chutzpah 8((()*/
I am commenting on the ease of hiding something in a coffin prior to cremation, which some seem to find hard to understand.
Title: Re: awesome australian article by Mark Saunokonoko supports amaral
Post by: Eleanor on May 03, 2017, 06:43:16 PM
I am commenting on the ease of hiding something in a coffin prior to cremation, which some seem to find hard to understand.
It's probably enormously easy to hide something in a coffin if you have ready and easy access to a coffin prior to cremation, and don't have to creep about at night in a town crawling with media folk and police, whilst carrying a days old dead body with you. Do you seriously think this is a valid theory of how the parents got rid of the body, and not some ludicrously far fetched and macabre tale out of some Edgar Alan Poe novella?
Title: Re: awesome australian article by Mark Saunokonoko supports amaral
Post by: Robittybob1 on May 03, 2017, 06:49:56 PM
Strangely enough protective clothing and gloves are worn, same as any other profession which has to deal with bodies.
You being the expert would know this and will be able to verify that there is zero chance of an undertaker cross-contaminating his home or holiday villa with cadaver odour, with a cite of course. 8)--))
Title: Re: australian article by Mark Saunokonoko who supports amaral discussion
Post by: Alfie on May 03, 2017, 07:08:52 PM
SERIOUS QUESTION:
Why does this post keep getting removed?
Ridiculous AND offensive. It depends on so many improbable events as to be totally in the realms of sick fantasy. Firstly - Amaral talks about 3 individuals seen going in to the church late one night - 3? So we have the McCanns and a helper do we? OK. What night was that then? Before or after the world's press descended on their doorstep? It must have been after because Amaral said the McCanns had a key - I doubt they acquired one before Madeleine went missing. So, after temporarily hiding their kid's body and going out of their way to attract the world's attention to their missing daughter, they then at some point discover there is a coffin with a loose lid lying unattended in the church, they acquire the key, enlist a third party, dodge the world's media and police, dig up the corpse (now several days old at least) and trundle it under the cover of darkness into the church, take off the coffin lid, shove in the body (and hope no one bothers to look in prior to the cremation) - job's a good 'un.
Ridiculous in the extreme. Now over to you to tell us it's not nearly as ridiculous as a stranger abduction @)(++(*
Title: Re: awesome australian article by Mark Saunokonoko supports amaral
Post by: Eleanor on May 03, 2017, 07:10:49 PM
Title: Re: australian article by Mark Saunokonoko who supports amaral discussion
Post by: Alfie on May 03, 2017, 07:19:53 PM
Not for those of a sensitive disposition but I think it puts paid to the notion that an undertaker cannot come into direct contact with cadaver odour and so transfer it far and wide:
Ridiculous AND offensive. It depends on so many improbable events as to be totally in the realms of sick fantasy. Firstly - Amaral talks about 3 individuals seen going in to the church late one night - 3? So we have the McCanns and a helper do we? OK. What night was that then? Before or after the world's press descended on their doorstep? It must have been after because Amaral said the McCanns had a key - I doubt they acquired one before Madeleine went missing. So, after temporarily hiding their kid's body and going out of their way to attract the world's attention to their missing daughter, they then at some point discover there is a coffin with a loose lid lying unattended in the church, they acquire the key, enlist a third party, dodge the world's media and police, dig up the corpse (now several days old at least) and trundle it under the cover of darkness into the church, take off the coffin lid, shove in the body (and hope no one bothers to look in prior to the cremation) - job's a good 'un.
Ridiculous in the extreme. Now over to you to tell us it's not nearly as ridiculous as a stranger abduction @)(++(*
It would be interesting to see Amaral's version of the logistics involved in this operation.
Title: Re: awesome australian article by Mark Saunokonoko supports amaral
Post by: ferryman on May 03, 2017, 07:35:38 PM
It's probably enormously easy to hide something in a coffin if you have ready and easy access to a coffin prior to cremation, and don't have to creep about at night in a town crawling with media folk and police, whilst carrying a days old dead body with you. Do you seriously think this is a valid theory of how the parents got rid of the body, and not some ludicrously far fetched and macabre tale out of some Edgar Alan Poe novella?
I rather suspect Edgar Alan Poe would devise a plot a tad more plausible than that.
Title: Re: australian article by Mark Saunokonoko who supports amaral discussion
Post by: pathfinder73 on May 03, 2017, 07:47:08 PM
“We had information that they (the McCanns) went to an apartment near the cemetery on many nights,” he told his interviewers. “We tried to find out which apartment it was.”
“We had information that they (the McCanns) went to an apartment near the cemetery on many nights,” he told his interviewers. “We tried to find out which apartment it was.”
“We had information that they (the McCanns) went to an apartment near the cemetery on many nights,” he told his interviewers. “We tried to find out which apartment it was.”
Not sure of your point ? Does the fact that the police are looking somewhere else now for the body erase the fact that at one time they believed Moira's body may have been disposed of in a similar fashion to the one Amaral is suggesting?
Title: Re: australian article by Mark Saunokonoko who supports amaral discussion
Post by: Alfie on May 05, 2017, 02:59:59 PM
Not sure of your point ? Does the fact that the police are looking somewhere else now for the body erase the fact that at one time they believed Moira's body may have been disposed of in a similar fashion to the one Amaral is suggesting?
And I'm not sure of your point either - did the police in Moira's case actually believe someone had gained access to a church, prized open a coffin lid and stuck her body inside with another corpse? If so, then I guess they're not the only police with vivid and macabre imaginations. And, as time has told it was a barking theory anyway!
Title: Re: australian article by Mark Saunokonoko who supports amaral discussion
Post by: faithlilly on May 05, 2017, 03:51:04 PM
And I'm not sure of your point either - did the police in Moira's case actually believe someone had gained access to a church, prized open a coffin lid and stuck her body inside with another corpse? If so, then I guess they're not the only police with vivid and macabre imaginations. And, as time has told it was a barking theory anyway!
To paraphrase Rowley ' armchair detectives have no idea how criminals will react'
Title: Re: australian article by Mark Saunokonoko who supports amaral discussion
Post by: Alfie on May 05, 2017, 04:03:38 PM
To paraphrase Rowley ' armchair detectives have no idea how criminals will react'
He was talking about the burglary gone wrong theory wasn't he, about a criminal who acts impulsively, not about a couple who plan to hide their child's body in a coffin days after her death. I suppose you find the former scenario less credible than the latter... *&*%£
Title: Re: australian article by Mark Saunokonoko who supports amaral discussion
Post by: faithlilly on May 05, 2017, 04:25:51 PM
He was talking about the burglary gone wrong theory wasn't he, about a criminal who acts impulsively, not about a couple who plan to hide their child's body in a coffin days after her death. I suppose you find the former scenario less credible than the latter... *&*%£
He was talking about a burglary at that time but it is obviously his view in wider terms.
Title: Re: australian article by Mark Saunokonoko who supports amaral discussion
Post by: Alfie on May 05, 2017, 04:48:51 PM
He was talking about a burglary at that time but it is obviously his view in wider terms.
A view which I very much doubt extends to the pre-meditated disposal of a corpse in a coffin by the child's parents. He was talking specifically about burglars / criminals.
Title: Re: australian article by Mark Saunokonoko who supports amaral discussion
Post by: faithlilly on May 05, 2017, 06:30:24 PM
A view which I very much doubt extends to the pre-meditated disposal of a corpse in a coffin by the child's parents. He was talking specifically about burglars / criminals.
He was talking about perpetrators in general.
Title: Re: australian article by Mark Saunokonoko who supports amaral discussion
Post by: Alfie on May 05, 2017, 06:32:08 PM
A view which I very much doubt extends to the pre-meditated disposal of a corpse in a coffin by the child's parents. He was talking specifically about burglars / criminals.
Did anyone ever say "pre-meditated" in this connexion?
Title: Re: australian article by Mark Saunokonoko who supports amaral discussion
Post by: Robittybob1 on May 05, 2017, 09:21:30 PM
He was talking about the burglary gone wrong theory wasn't he, about a criminal who acts impulsively, not about a couple who plan to hide their child's body in a coffin days after her death. I suppose you find the former scenario less credible than the latter... *&*%£
It wouldn't be so difficult to understand if they told us which days they were talking about when they use the terms " a couple who plan to hide their child's body in a coffin days after her death".
When did she die and when did they put her in the coffin? What days was the coffin in the church?
Title: Re: australian article by Mark Saunokonoko who supports amaral discussion
Post by: Eleanor on May 06, 2017, 06:17:44 AM
It wouldn't be so difficult to understand if they told us which days they were talking about when they use the terms " a couple who plan to hide their child's body in a coffin days after her death".
When did she die and when did they put her in the coffin? What days was the coffin in the church?
I would like to know this.
Title: Re: australian article by Mark Saunokonoko who supports amaral discussion
Post by: Brietta on May 06, 2017, 10:06:05 AM
It wouldn't be so difficult to understand if they told us which days they were talking about when they use the terms " a couple who plan to hide their child's body in a coffin days after her death".
When did she die and when did they put her in the coffin? What days was the coffin in the church?
Should be easy enough to pin down.
there must be records for the reception of a body into the church
there must be a record of funerals taking place there
there must be a record of the deceased
there must be a record of a cremation after a church ceremony in Nossa Senhora
A poster on the forum would be required to furnish a cite in support of such an accusation. Why is it acceptable that Goncalo Amaral can repeatedly make such unsubstantiated statements with impunity?
Title: Re: australian article by Mark Saunokonoko who supports amaral discussion
Post by: Robittybob1 on May 06, 2017, 10:22:28 AM
there must be records for the reception of a body into the church
there must be a record of funerals taking place there
there must be a record of the deceased
there must be a record of a cremation after a church ceremony in Nossa Senhora
A poster on the forum would be required to furnish a cite in support of such an accusation. Why is it acceptable that Goncalo Amaral can repeatedly make such unsubstantiated statements with impunity?
So has he totally abandoned the idea of having the cadaver in the boot of the rental car or the disposal of the body in Spain? It can't be all of the above.
Title: Re: australian article by Mark Saunokonoko who supports amaral discussion
Post by: Brietta on May 06, 2017, 06:27:57 PM
Gerry McCann was sitting elsewhere at the time of the Smith sighting. Think about it and the point I make will dawn on you.
Or do you think we have a case of bilocation here?
Title: Re: australian article by Mark Saunokonoko who supports amaral discussion
Post by: slartibartfast on May 06, 2017, 06:35:10 PM
It's all a question of which witness timing to use.
There is no doubt that Gerry McCann was sitting in the tapas restaurant when the Smiths saw their man ... the Policia Judiciaria have said so ... do you presume to know better than them?
Title: Re: australian article by Mark Saunokonoko who supports amaral discussion
Post by: faithlilly on May 07, 2017, 05:24:18 PM
Did any of Gerry's fellow diners remark upon his prolonged absence of his just prior to the alarm being raised at "10.13"?
Nary a one. I think Gerry may have been wide of the mark in his timing though :-) Good to see that Faith has confidence in at least one sentence he may have uttered over the past ten years.
Title: Re: australian article by Mark Saunokonoko who supports amaral discussion
Post by: Alfie on May 07, 2017, 06:37:14 PM
Nary a one. I think Gerry may have been wide of the mark in his timing though :-) Good to see that Faith has confidence in at least one sentence he may have uttered over the past ten years.
Yes, but she doesn't explain why in her opinion the one and only occasion Gerry decides to tell the truth it's to completely destroy his own alibi. It makes no sense at all (which is par for the course with regard to the rest of Faithlilly's theory).
Title: Re: australian article by Mark Saunokonoko who supports amaral discussion
Post by: pathfinder73 on May 08, 2017, 11:53:34 AM
There is no doubt that Gerry McCann was sitting in the tapas restaurant when the Smiths saw their man ... the Policia Judiciaria have said so ... do you presume to know better than them?
LOL Kate could have left the table as early as 9:50 according to Matt who was wearing a watch at the table. Aoife said they left Kelly's bar at 10 not before and said she knew the time. That would put the Smith sighting after the alarm was raised and when they were searching for Madeleine.
(https://image.ibb.co/jb4vJ5/checkingtimes.jpg)
Title: Re: australian article by Mark Saunokonoko who supports amaral discussion
Post by: Miss Taken Identity on May 30, 2017, 07:19:23 PM
Yes, but she doesn't explain why in her opinion the one and only occasion Gerry decides to tell the truth it's to completely destroy his own alibi. It makes no sense at all (which is par for the course with regard to the rest of Faithlilly's theory).
Well you could factor in him not seeing JT or the 'alleged' abductor either... not noticing shutters and all that jazz.
Title: Re: australian article by Mark Saunokonoko who supports amaral discussion
Post by: sadie on May 31, 2017, 12:40:19 AM
Well you could factor in him not seeing JT or the 'abductor either... not noticing shutters and all that jazz.
All of which are totally understandable if only you put your thinking cap on .... and read the posts of others.
1) Not seeing JT = his back was towards her as he stood on the kerb and she passed by. The footpath was very wide at the point where Gerry and Jez were chatting. [See Amarals latest video. He is standing where Gerry was standing and there is a massive space behind him]
2) Not seeing the 'alleged' abductor (Tannerman) = Tannerman was 30 metres away and furthermore uphill. The lighting was bad. Most important of all he was talking to Jezz and Tannerman was at right angles to his path of vision. Nobody sees things at right angles to their line of vision
3) Not noticing the shutters = Gerry did not pass the shutters when he checked the children at about 9pm. How could he have noticed them? Furthermore, Gerry saw Madeleine in her bed when he did his check. SY say Madekleine was abducted ... so the 'alleged abductor' had not struck at that time.
As I say, there is absolutely NO REASON why Gerry could have witnessed any of these happenings. NO CHANCE
Title: Re: australian article by Mark Saunokonoko who supports amaral discussion
Post by: ferryman on May 31, 2017, 03:05:02 PM
Because they had formed an opinion as to who they saw can the E-fits be considered safe?
So many questions about those e-fits. The only story I can find in the media is in a local newspaper dated 8th August 2007.
A DROGHEDA family who may hold vital clues as to the disappearance of Madeleine McCann have hit out at media distortion of evidence that they have given to Portuguese police. http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/press/4aug7/drogheda_independent_08_08_07.htm
How the media found out about the Smith's evidence isn't known. The next significant date seems to be 20th September when Mr Smith contacted Leicestershire police saying he had recognised Gerry McCann on 9th September on BBC News. They told the PJ and Inspector Paiva rang Mr Smith on 27th September and Smith agreed to return to Portugal to make another statement.
The idea was abandoned and instead some questions were sent on 7th November 2007 which were dealt with by the Drogheda police who took Mr Smith's statement on 30th January 2008.
That's when Mr Smith reported that he had been contacted by Brian Kennedy asking him to do an e-fit, but he had refused. Why Kennedy was interested in the Smith sighting is unknown.
So why did Mr Smith agree to create an e-fit when approached again by Exton? What had changed?
So many questions about those e-fits. The only story I can find in the media is in a local newspaper dated 8th August 2007.
A DROGHEDA family who may hold vital clues as to the disappearance of Madeleine McCann have hit out at media distortion of evidence that they have given to Portuguese police. http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/press/4aug7/drogheda_independent_08_08_07.htm
How the media found out about the Smith's evidence isn't known. The next significant date seems to be 20th September when Mr Smith contacted Leicestershire police saying he had recognised Gerry McCann on 9th September on BBC News. They told the PJ and Inspector Paiva rang Mr Smith on 27th September and Smith agreed to return to Portugal to make another statement.
The idea was abandoned and instead some questions were sent on 7th November 2007 which were dealt with by the Drogheda police who took Mr Smith's statement on 30th January 2008.
That's when Mr Smith reported that he had been contacted by Brian Kennedy asking him to do an e-fit, but he had refused. Why Kennedy was interested in the Smith sighting is unknown.
So why did Mr Smith agree to create an e-fit when approached again by Exton? What had changed?
Have I got the order of events right sighting on the 3rd seeing Gerry return on the News in Sept "The next significant date seems to be 20th September when Mr Smith contacted Leicestershire police saying he had recognised Gerry McCann on 9th September on BBC News. '
At that stage no e-fits had been drawn.
So when the e-fits are drawn it is after he had seen Gerry and thought it was Gerry. There is no way those e-fits are not from a distorted memory if that is the case.
Title: Re: australian article by Mark Saunokonoko who supports amaral discussion
Post by: John on June 05, 2017, 09:42:10 PM
Have I got the order of events right sighting on the 3rd seeing Gerry return on the News in Sept "The next significant date seems to be 20th September when Mr Smith contacted Leicestershire police saying he had recognised Gerry McCann on 9th September on BBC News. '
At that stage no e-fits had been drawn.
So when the e-fits are drawn it is after he had seen Gerry and thought it was Gerry. There is no way those e-fits are not from a distorted memory if that is the case.
Firstly, if I recall properly, Mr Smith went to the Irish Garda with his concerns and not Leicestershire Police. I believe it was the day after the McCanns returned from Portugal.
Milllionaire businessman Brian Kennedy origionally approached Smith in order to clarify the situation if you get the drift but he was rebuffed. It took another Irishman in the form of conman Halligen to persuade the Smiths to help create e-fits of the man they saw in Praia da Luz. I'm sure you can work out why these e-fits were needed so badly.
The e-fits were created but as the man the Smiths saw did resemble Gerry McCann the whole exercise backfired with the e-fits being withheld. It was only when SY and Redwood started investigating that they were revealed to the public in an episode of BBC Crimewatch.
Have I got the order of events right sighting on the 3rd seeing Gerry return on the News in Sept "The next significant date seems to be 20th September when Mr Smith contacted Leicestershire police saying he had recognised Gerry McCann on 9th September on BBC News. '
At that stage no e-fits had been drawn.
So when the e-fits are drawn it is after he had seen Gerry and thought it was Gerry. There is no way those e-fits are not from a distorted memory if that is the case.
Proven fact, or just your opinion ?
Title: Re: australian article by Mark Saunokonoko who supports amaral discussion
Post by: Brietta on June 05, 2017, 10:02:44 PM
Firstly, if I recall properly, Mr Smith went to the Irish Garda with his concerns and not Leicestershire Police. I believe it was the day after the McCanns returned from Portugal.
Milllionaire businessman Brian Kennedy origionally approached Smith in order to clarify the situation if you get the drift but he was rebuffed. It took another Irishman in the form of conman Halligen to persuade the Smiths to help create e-fits of the man they saw in Praia da Luz. I'm sure you can work out why these e-fits were needed so badly.
The e-fits were created but as the man the Smiths saw did resemble Gerry McCann the whole exercise backfired with the e-fits being withheld. It was only when SY and Redwood started investigating that they were revealed to the public in an episode of BBC Crimewatch.
It certainly could be claimed as a fact. If the case went to court and they say "Gerry looks like the e-fit", it would be countered by "the person saw Gerry before they drew the e-fit, hence drawn from a corrupted memory".
Title: Re: australian article by Mark Saunokonoko who supports amaral discussion
Post by: John on June 06, 2017, 06:31:33 PM
Please note, I have changed the above e-fits photo. Thanx Sadie for pointing out the error.
Title: Re: australian article by Mark Saunokonoko who supports amaral discussion
Post by: Robittybob1 on June 06, 2017, 08:46:29 PM
Firstly, if I recall properly, Mr Smith went to the Irish Garda with his concerns and not Leicestershire Police. I believe it was the day after the McCanns returned from Portugal.
Milllionaire businessman Brian Kennedy origionally approached Smith in order to clarify the situation if you get the drift but he was rebuffed. It took another Irishman in the form of conman Halligen to persuade the Smiths to help create e-fits of the man they saw in Praia da Luz. I'm sure you can work out why these e-fits were needed so badly.
The e-fits were created but as the man the Smiths saw did resemble Gerry McCann the whole exercise backfired with the e-fits being withheld. It was only when SY and Redwood started investigating that they were revealed to the public in an episode of BBC Crimewatch.
The e-fits and the location in Praia da Luz where the Smith family encountered the unidentified child-carrying stranger.
The whole episode sounds messy. The E-fits could have been made by the PJ much earlier, just leaving it isn't going to make it any easier for the Smith family to remember what they saw.
Title: Re: australian article by Mark Saunokonoko who supports amaral discussion
Post by: sadie on June 07, 2017, 12:05:56 AM
Firstly, if I recall properly, Mr Smith went to the Irish Garda with his concerns and not Leicestershire Police. I believe it was the day after the McCanns returned from Portugal.
Milllionaire businessman Brian Kennedy origionally approached Smith in order to clarify the situation if you get the drift but he was rebuffed. It took another Irishman in the form of conman Halligen to persuade the Smiths to help create e-fits of the man they saw in Praia da Luz. I'm sure you can work out why these e-fits were needed so badly.
The e-fits were created but as the man the Smiths saw did resemble Gerry McCann the whole exercise backfired with the e-fits being withheld. It was only when SY and Redwood started investigating that they were revealed to the public in an episode of BBC Crimewatch.
Are you sure of what you are saying about the reason the efits were not released, John? .... or is it in your opinion?
Cite please
Your female child disappears from her bed and e-fits are eventually produced of a mystery man seen a few hundred yards away carrying a similarly aged and clad female child in his arms yet despite the advantages of releasing said e-fits to the public they are hidden away and forgotten. I can think of only one reason why this occurred and it wasn't in any way related to Madeleine's best interest.
Amaral was subjected to a legal witch-hunt for years with a principal claim being that he damaged the search for Madeleine yet e-fits which could have assisted the search and identified the mystery man never saw the light of day when it really mattered.
Halligen claimed that he was subject to a gagging clause in the contract his firm Oakley International had with the Madeleine Fund which prevented him from disclosing the truth about the e-fits and the critical report which accompanied them.
Title: Re: australian article by Mark Saunokonoko who supports amaral discussion
Post by: Robittybob1 on June 07, 2017, 07:24:56 AM
Your female child disappears from her bed and e-fits are eventually produced of a mystery man seen a few hundred yards away carrying a similarly aged and clad female child in his arms yet despite the advantages of releasing said e-fits to the public they are hidden away and forgotten. I can think of only one reason why this occurred and it wasn't in any way related to Madeleine's best interest.
Amaral was subjected to a legal witch-hunt for years with a principal claim being that he damaged the search for Madeleine yet e-fits which could have assisted the search and identified the mystery man never saw the light of day when it really mattered.
Halligen claimed that he was subject to a gagging clause in the contract his firm Oakley International had with the Madeleine Fund which prevented him from disclosing the truth about the e-fits and the critical report which accompanied them.
If the McCanns are working on the hope that Madeleine has survived the 'ALLEGED' initial abduction, I'm thinking the most serious threat to her would be identification of her 'ALLEGED' abductor. If the Oakley International firm was actually tasked with procuring the E-fits you would wonder why Gerry would go along with that if and when he knew that he was guilty. They then would be the employers of the PIs who are going to draw up e-fits of one of them. If that is what happened it seems illogical.
Title: Re: australian article by Mark Saunokonoko who supports amaral discussion
Post by: Robittybob1 on June 07, 2017, 08:23:15 AM
If the McCanns are working on the hope that Madeleine has survived the 'ALLEGED' initial abduction, I'm thinking the most serious threat to her would be identification of her 'ALLEGED' abductor. If the Oakley International firm was actually tasked with procuring the E-fits you would wonder why Gerry would go along with that if and when he knew that he was guilty. They then would be the employers of the PIs who are going to draw up e-fits of one of them. If that is what happened it seems illogical.
I'm talking about the actions and thoughts of the McCanns before anyone has alleged an abduction. Once I add in "IF" and hope there is no way we need the word alleged, that is why I Left it out. If I was to say "If there was an abduction ...... there would be evidence of an abduction". Do we really need the word alleged ahead of those uses of abduction surely you can't say "If there was an alleged abduction .... there would be evidence of an alleged abduction."? For the conditional statement "IF THERE WAS" makes the word "alleged" superfluous.
Title: Re: australian article by Mark Saunokonoko who supports amaral discussion
Post by: stephen25000 on June 07, 2017, 08:28:33 AM
I'm talking about the actions and thoughts of the McCanns before anyone has alleged an abduction. Once I add in "IF" and hope there is no way we need the word alleged, that is why I Left it out. If I was to say "If there was an abduction ...... there would be evidence of an abduction". Do we really need the word alleged ahead of those uses of abduction surely you can't say "If there was an alleged abduction .... there would be evidence of an alleged abduction."? For the conditional statement "IF THERE WAS" makes the word "alleged" superfluous.
The rules have been given Rob.
I may favour another scenario, but i will not state it as fact, because I know there isn't enough evidence to show it to be so, along with the other possibilities.
Title: Re: australian article by Mark Saunokonoko who supports amaral discussion
Post by: G-Unit on June 07, 2017, 08:47:23 AM
If the McCanns are working on the hope that Madeleine has survived the initial abduction, I'm thinking the most serious threat to her would be identification of her abductor. If the Oakley International firm was actually tasked with procuring the E-fits you would wonder why Gerry would go along with that if and when he knew that he was guilty. They then would be the employers of the PIs who are going to draw up e-fits of one of them. If that is what happened it seems illogical.
I don't think the McCanns were micro-managing their PI's. I wonder who this was?
An independent consultant was also employed by the fund to liaise with Oakley and oversee the work they were doing. [Madeleine]
Oakley were used for six months from the end of March 2008 to the end of September 2008
The termination of the contract, in September 2008, was quite acrimonious, and unfortunately, that was not the end of it. Several months later, one of the investigators subcontracted by Oakley contacted us to demand payment for his services. [Madeleine].
According to the Sunday Times, the e-fits and a dossier were given to the McCanns in November 2008, which was after the Oakley contract had ended.
So we don't know when the e-fits were produced, but it's alleged that they weren't handed to the McCanns until after the contract with Oakley ended.
Co-incidentally a demand for payment was made after the contract ended too.
Title: Re: australian article by Mark Saunokonoko who supports amaral discussion
Post by: Angelo222 on June 07, 2017, 10:14:30 AM
If the McCanns are working on the hope that Madeleine has survived the 'ALLEGED' initial abduction, I'm thinking the most serious threat to her would be identification of her 'ALLEGED' abductor. If the Oakley International firm was actually tasked with procuring the E-fits you would wonder why Gerry would go along with that if and when he knew that he was guilty. They then would be the employers of the PIs who are going to draw up e-fits of one of them. If that is what happened it seems illogical.
I'm guessing they were hoping that Smithman looked nothing like Gerry and that it was all just one huge misunderstanding by all involved.
Title: Re: australian article by Mark Saunokonoko who supports amaral discussion
Post by: G-Unit on June 07, 2017, 12:32:56 PM
I'm guessing they were hoping that Smithman looked nothing like Gerry and that it was all just one huge misunderstanding by all involved.
What on earth was Redwood thinking? An entire Crimewatch programme was dedicated to getting rid of Tannerman, moving the time of the alleged abduction to after 9.30 pm and appealing for Smithman to be identified.
He seemed to be following some of the recommendations in the Oakley dossier and ignoring the other concerns it raised.
An earlier sighting by one of the McCanns’ friends was dismissed as less credible after “serious inconsistencies” were found in her evidence. The report also raised questions about “anomalies” in the statements given by the McCanns and their friends......Their report said the Smiths were “helpful and sincere” and concluded: “The Smith sighting is credible evidence of a sighting of Maddie and more credible than Jane Tanner’s sighting”. The evidence had been “neglected for too long” and an “overemphasis placed on Tanner”.
The new focus shifted the believed timeline of the abduction back by 45 minutes. The report, delivered to the McCanns in November 2008, recommended that the revised timeline should be the basis for future investigations and that the Smith E-Fits should be released without delay. http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/press/78oct13/Times_27_10_2013.htm
Title: Re: australian article by Mark Saunokonoko who supports amaral discussion
Post by: John on June 07, 2017, 02:52:21 PM
What on earth was Redwood thinking? An entire Crimewatch programme was dedicated to getting rid of Tannerman, moving the time of the alleged abduction to after 9.30 pm and appealing for Smithman to be identified.
He seemed to be following some of the recommendations in the Oakley dossier and ignoring the other concerns it raised.
An earlier sighting by one of the McCanns’ friends was dismissed as less credible after “serious inconsistencies” were found in her evidence. The report also raised questions about “anomalies” in the statements given by the McCanns and their friends......Their report said the Smiths were “helpful and sincere” and concluded: “The Smith sighting is credible evidence of a sighting of Maddie and more credible than Jane Tanner’s sighting”. The evidence had been “neglected for too long” and an “overemphasis placed on Tanner”.
The new focus shifted the believed timeline of the abduction back by 45 minutes. The report, delivered to the McCanns in November 2008, recommended that the revised timeline should be the basis for future investigations and that the Smith E-Fits should be released without delay. http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/press/78oct13/Times_27_10_2013.htm
It's difficult to know what to say about Tannerman. The alleged sighting has always raised concerns within the investigation.
The Jane/Gerry/Jez incident and the identifying of Murat as Tannerman by the way he walked being two of them.
Title: Re: australian article by Mark Saunokonoko who supports amaral discussion
Post by: Robittybob1 on June 07, 2017, 05:20:18 PM
I may favour another scenario, but i will not state it as fact, because I know there isn't enough evidence to show it to be so, along with the other possibilities.
I don't remember that rule being made. I have been here long enough to know you don't like the word abduction being used but would insist people use the term alleged abduction. OK Kate's original words were to the effect "they've taken her" so there was an alleged abduction from the very beginning. But what happens if I am promoting an abduction different to the one Kate did, is that an abduction alleged by me? I know John seems to promote an abduction secondary to a woke and wandered scenario, so he too does not believe in the alleged abduction as promoted by Kate. I have no problem using the word alleged in the same sentence but I don't want to promote the abduction alleged by Kate McCann.
Title: Re: australian article by Mark Saunokonoko who supports amaral discussion
Post by: stephen25000 on June 07, 2017, 05:24:19 PM
I don't remember that rule being made. I have been here long enough to know you don't like the word abduction being used but would insist people use the term alleged abduction. OK Kate's original words were to the effect "they've taken her" so there was an alleged abduction from the very beginning. But what happens if I am promoting an abduction different to the one Kate did, is that an abduction alleged by me? I know John seems to promote an abduction secondary to a woke and wandered scenario, so he too does not believe in the alleged abduction as promoted by Kate. I have no problem using the word alleged in the same sentence but I don't want to promote the abduction alleged by Kate McCann.
It applies to all the scenarios Rob.
Bottom line remains, what happened to Madeleine is unknown.
Loads of opinions, very few facts.
Title: Re: australian article by Mark Saunokonoko who supports amaral discussion
Post by: John on June 07, 2017, 05:27:00 PM
Abduction or theft of a cadaver all amounts to the same thing and that is that someone took her. The only alternative is that she fell into an excavation, was covered over and suffocated.
Title: Re: australian article by Mark Saunokonoko who supports amaral discussion
Post by: Miss Taken Identity on June 07, 2017, 05:43:37 PM
What on earth was Redwood thinking? An entire Crimewatch programme was dedicated to getting rid of Tannerman, moving the time of the alleged abduction to after 9.30 pm and appealing for Smithman to be identified.
He seemed to be following some of the recommendations in the Oakley dossier and ignoring the other concerns it raised.
An earlier sighting by one of the McCanns’ friends was dismissed as less credible after “serious inconsistencies” were found in her evidence. The report also raised questions about “anomalies” in the statements given by the McCanns and their friends......Their report said the Smiths were “helpful and sincere” and concluded: “The Smith sighting is credible evidence of a sighting of Maddie and more credible than Jane Tanner’s sighting”. The evidence had been “neglected for too long” and an “overemphasis placed on Tanner”.
The new focus shifted the believed timeline of the abduction back by 45 minutes. The report, delivered to the McCanns in November 2008, recommended that the revised timeline should be the basis for future investigations and that the Smith E-Fits should be released without delay. http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/press/78oct13/Times_27_10_2013.htm
I BELIEVE they had to get rid of Tammerman as the alleged abductor due to the 'timeline' It would have been moments for Gerry to have his proud dad moment to Jane seeing the alleged abductor. Now if we are having a burglar in this child snatching event. They would be surprised to see children! He/she would have a few seconds to decide to steal the child not knowing if she would wake up or not AND why not take smaller twin girl? That is the reason I believe this. Someone making up the time line didn't quite think this through...AND a smart detective analysing this part of the files would have picked that up as everyone else (apart from supporters) has.
Title: Re: australian article by Mark Saunokonoko who supports amaral discussion
Post by: sadie on June 07, 2017, 10:59:17 PM
I BELIEVE they had to get rid of Tammerman as the alleged abductor due to the 'timeline' It would have been moments for Gerry to have his proud dad moment to Jane seeing the alleged abductor. Now if we are having a burglar in this child snatching event. They would be surprised to see children! He/she would have a few seconds to decide to steal the child not knowing if she would wake up or not AND why not take smaller twin girl? That is the reason I believe this. Someone making up the time line didn't quite think this through...AND a smart detective analysing this part of the files would have picked that up as everyone else (apart from supporters) has.
Soz, Mistaken, your thinking is flawed.
When has it definitely been an ordinary burglar involved? From the people watching before hand (according to at least 3 witnesses) it seems more likely that an abduction was planned. Geerry had his proud moment and then went to the loo before going out where he met Jez.
IIRC whilst Gerry thought that they chatted for only a few minutes, Jez thought that they chatted for about 15 minutes. Either way there was ample time to abduct Madeleine.
I have actually timed how long it took me to enter via a locked door (with a key) walk the disatance Gerry walked to Madeleines room. Go to the window, slide it open and the shutters up before picking Madeleine up and returning out of the front door, closing it behind me using the key to pull it closed.
I am mobility impaired and it took me 50 seconds.
Then Madeleine had to be passed to Tannerman, over the pathway wall and Tannerman had to walk to the spot where Jane saw him, another 30 seconds max.
So from accomplis/lifter entering the apartment via the front door to Tannerman crossing the road in front of Jane, took a total of no more than 1 min 20 seconds.
Ample time + more to achieve an abduction if planned beforehand.
This is only a theory and is clearly stated as such. So NO need for adding "alleged" or IMO to anything. Being a theory explains that.
Title: Re: australian article by Mark Saunokonoko who supports amaral discussion
Post by: G-Unit on June 08, 2017, 07:55:30 AM
When has it definitely been an ordinary burglar involved? From the people watching before hand (according to at least 3 witnesses) it seems more likely that an abduction was planned. Geerry had his proud moment and then went to the loo before going out where he met Jez.
IIRC whilst Gerry thought that they chatted for only a few minutes, Jez thought that they chatted for about 15 minutes. Either way there was ample time to abduct Madeleine.
I have actually timed how long it took me to enter via a locked door (with a key) walk the disatance Gerry walked to Madeleines room. Go to the window, slide it open and the shutters up before picking Madeleine up and returning out of the front door, closing it behind me using the key to pull it closed.
I am mobility impaired and it took me 50 seconds.
Then Madeleine had to be passed to Tannerman, over the pathway wall and Tannerman had to walk to the spot where Jane saw him, another 30 seconds max.
So from accomplis/lifter entering the apartment via the front door to Tannerman crossing the road in front of Jane, took a total of no more than 1 min 20 seconds.
Ample time + more to achieve an abduction if planned beforehand.
This is only a theory and is clearly stated as such. So NO need for adding "alleged" or IMO to anything. Being a theory explains that.
Do you have a cite for your assertion about Wilkins saying they chatted for 15 minutes please?
We spoke for a few minutes.
The conversation lasted for about three (3) to five (5) minutes.
The conversation lasted for approximately three to five minutes http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JEREMY-WILKINS.htm
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 http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN.htm
both having chatted for 3 to 4 minutes, http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN-10MAY.htm http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JEREMY-WILKINS-ROGATORY.htm
Title: Re: australian article by Mark Saunokonoko who supports amaral discussion
Post by: Benice on June 08, 2017, 08:42:23 AM
It's difficult to know what to say about Tannerman. The alleged sighting has always raised concerns within the investigation.
The Jane/Gerry/Jez incident and the identifying of Murat as Tannerman by the way he walked being two of them.
There is no evidence that anyone has ever identified Murat as Tannerman. If a positive identification existed it would have been recorded in the prosecutor's Final report as a reason (in fact probably the most important reason) why he was made an Arguido. It wasn't mentioned - because it doesn't exist.
AIMHO
Title: Re: australian article by Mark Saunokonoko who supports amaral discussion
Post by: sadie on June 08, 2017, 12:03:56 PM
Do you have a cite for your assertion about Wilkins saying they chatted for 15 minutes please?
We spoke for a few minutes.
The conversation lasted for about three (3) to five (5) minutes.
The conversation lasted for approximately three to five minutes http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JEREMY-WILKINS.htm
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 http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN.htm
both having chatted for 3 to 4 minutes, http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN-10MAY.htm http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JEREMY-WILKINS-ROGATORY.htm
Somewhere I have seen 15 minutes from Jez, but I am not wading thru pages of scriopt to find it.
Three to five minutes is plenty enough time for it to have haoppened. For someone to have entered the apartment via the front door with a key, walked into the childrens bedroom , opened the window and shutters, picked up Madeleine, walked out closing the front door with the key takes me under 50 seconds and I am nearly 80 and mobility impaired.
Then passing Madeleine from the lifter to Tannerman over the walkway wall .... + him walking with Madeleine the short distance to Tannerman corner takes less than 30 seconds.
Total time from entering the apartment to Jane Tanner sighting = 1 min 20 seconds.
3 to 5 minutes is plenty enough time for it to have happened.
Measure out the distances and try it yourself
All this is my theory and included in that theory is the fact that i think it highly likely that the whole procedure was monitored and directed by an accomplice on the middle or upper balcony of block 6 immediately across the raod. He signalled with a pencil beam torch or flicking a lighter on and off IMO.
From the balcony viewpoint, he could see the area outside the front door and Madeleines window, to signal to any intruder there. He could also see the patio area and the bottom of the steps up to the patio window, to see family and friends arriving and leaving thru the patio door to check the children.
Additionally he could look straight into the sitting room and see anything going on
This is my mini theory (part of) ... and I am happy for anyone to constructively pull it apart ... if they can.
Title: Re: australian article by Mark Saunokonoko who supports amaral discussion
Post by: G-Unit on June 08, 2017, 12:06:58 PM
There is no evidence that anyone has ever identified Murat as Tannerman. If a positive identification existed it would have been recorded in the prosecutor's Final report as a reason (in fact probably the most important reason) why he was made an Arguido. It wasn't mentioned - because it doesn't exist.
AIMHO
Jane did the surveillance on Sunday 13th. On Monday 14th Murat's house was searched and later he was taken to be interviewed. This was seen on Sky by Rachael and she recognised him from 3rd. He was made arguido on 15th, possibly at his own request.
“Erm well I think it’s when I’d done the, well I did the surveillance and then the next day after that, I think it came on Sky News about whether they were searching, what the MURAT’s house, so that’s Rachel sort of came running down at that point http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JANE_TANNER_RIGATORY.htm
and this is on Monday the erm the fourteenth, the day that he was arrested or whatever....and I switched on the TV and he was there you know, being taken off to the Police Station..... that surveillance thing she'd done, erm I think it was on the Sunday http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RACHAEL-OLDFIELD-ROGATORY.htm
Title: Re: australian article by Mark Saunokonoko who supports amaral discussion
Post by: G-Unit on June 08, 2017, 12:21:20 PM
Somewhere I have seen 15 minutes from Jez, but I am not wading thru pages of scriopt to find it.
Three to five minutes is plenty enough time for it to have haoppened. For someone to have entered the apartment via the front door with a key, walked into the childrens bedroom , opened the window and shutters, picked up Madeleine, walked out closing the front door with the key takes me under 50 seconds and I am nearly 80 and mobility impaired.
Then passing Madeleine from the lifter to Tannerman over the walkway wall .... + him walking with Madeleine the short distance to Tannerman corner takes less than 30 seconds.
Total time from entering the apartment to Jane Tanner sighting = 1 min 20 seconds.
3 to 5 minutes is plenty enough time for it to have happened.
Measure out the distances and try it yourself
All this is my theory and included in that theory is the fact that i think it highly likely that the whole procedure was monitored and directed by an accomplice on the middle or upper balcony of block 6 immediately across the raod. He signalled with a pencil beam torch or flicking a lighter on and off IMO.
From the balcony viewpoint, he could see the area outside the front door and Madeleines window, to signal to any intruder there. He could also see the patio area and the bottom of the steps up to the patio window, to see family and friends arriving and leaving thru the patio door to check the children.
Additionally he could look straight into the sitting room and see anything going on
This is my mini theory (part of) ... and I am happy for anyone to constructively pull it apart ... if they can.
I think that posting details which can't be supported by cites is misleading, whether deliberately or not.
Theories are OK but I think they should be based on evidence.
There is no evidence of entry by using a key. There is no evidence of anyone being in the apartment. There is no evidence of anyone except Kate McCann touching the bedroom window. There is no evidence of a watcher. I would like evidence that the front door and window of 5A could be seen from the balcony of block 6. I would like to know what kind of idiots would go ahead and carry a child away while her father was in the vicinity. If he had seen them the game would have been up.
Title: Re: australian article by Mark Saunokonoko who supports amaral discussion
Post by: sadie on June 08, 2017, 12:22:38 PM
Jane did the surveillance on Sunday 13th. On Monday 14th Murat's house was searched and later he was taken to be interviewed. This was seen on Sky by Rachael and she recognised him from 3rd. He was made arguido on 15th, possibly at his own request.
“Erm well I think it’s when I’d done the, well I did the surveillance and then the next day after that, I think it came on Sky News about whether they were searching, what the MURAT’s house, so that’s Rachel sort of came running down at that point http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JANE_TANNER_RIGATORY.htm
and this is on Monday the erm the fourteenth, the day that he was arrested or whatever....and I switched on the TV and he was there you know, being taken off to the Police Station..... that surveillance thing she'd done, erm I think it was on the Sunday http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RACHAEL-OLDFIELD-ROGATORY.htm
Nothing in those quotes to indicate that Jane had identified Robert Murat when the PJ showed him surreptitiously to her. There are other quotes that confirm that she did not identify Murat.
Why dont you find those Gunit?
Title: Re: australian article by Mark Saunokonoko who supports amaral discussion
Post by: G-Unit on June 08, 2017, 12:53:10 PM
Nothing in those quotes to indicate that Jane had identified Robert Murat when Amaral showed him surreptitiously to her. There are other quotes that confirm that she did not identify Murat.
Why dont you find those Gunit?
I was demonstrating the timeline of events, Sadie, not what was said during them. Was Amaral present at the surveillance? Cite?
Title: Re: australian article by Mark Saunokonoko who supports amaral discussion
Post by: Benice on June 08, 2017, 01:08:37 PM
Jane did the surveillance on Sunday 13th. On Monday 14th Murat's house was searched and later he was taken to be interviewed. This was seen on Sky by Rachael and she recognised him from 3rd. He was made arguido on 15th, possibly at his own request.
“Erm well I think it’s when I’d done the, well I did the surveillance and then the next day after that, I think it came on Sky News about whether they were searching, what the MURAT’s house, so that’s Rachel sort of came running down at that point http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JANE_TANNER_RIGATORY.htm
and this is on Monday the erm the fourteenth, the day that he was arrested or whatever....and I switched on the TV and he was there you know, being taken off to the Police Station..... that surveillance thing she'd done, erm I think it was on the Sunday http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RACHAEL-OLDFIELD-ROGATORY.htm
I'm not sure what your point is G.
The first time JT (and the others ) say anything to the police about Murat is AFTER they saw him on TV - when he was an Arguido. At no time did she or anyone else say they recognised him as Tannerman by the way he walked - or even mention him before he was made an arguido - or before his face was shown on TV.
IMO
Title: Re: australian article by Mark Saunokonoko who supports amaral discussion
Post by: sadie on June 08, 2017, 02:18:47 PM
I was demonstrating the timeline of events, Sadie, not what was said during them. Was Amaral present at the surveillance? Cite?
Well can you put it right please. TY
I have amended my post to say PJ because I am not sure Amaral was there./ He was noticeable by his absence from the scene of the crime, come to think of it !
ETA: Altho as Head Honcho he would have directed that Jane be shown Murat. He was pulling the strings, wasn't he ?
Title: Re: australian article by Mark Saunokonoko who supports amaral discussion
Post by: sadie on June 08, 2017, 02:27:08 PM
The first time JT (and the others ) say anything to the police about Murat is AFTER they saw him on TV - when he was an Arguido. At no time did she or anyone else say they recognised him as Tannerman by the way he walked - or even mention him before he was made an arguido - or before his face was shown on TV.
IMO
I noticed exactly the same thing Benice.
At no time did Jane or anyone say that they recognised Tannerman by the way he walked.
Where are you getting all this incorrect stuff from, Gunit?
Title: Re: australian article by Mark Saunokonoko who supports amaral discussion
Post by: ShiningInLuz on June 08, 2017, 02:46:06 PM
I think that posting details which can't be supported by cites is misleading, whether deliberately or not.
Theories are OK but I think they should be based on evidence.
There is no evidence of entry by using a key. There is no evidence of anyone being in the apartment. There is no evidence of anyone except Kate McCann touching the bedroom window. There is no evidence of a watcher. I would like evidence that the front door and window of 5A could be seen from the balcony of block 6. I would like to know what kind of idiots would go ahead and carry a child away while her father was in the vicinity. If he had seen them the game would have been up.
See bold. There is a 'safe' escape route a few metres on from that point. By 'safe', I mean it is hidden re block 5. And if pursued, the simple act of dumping the child gives safety i.e. the father stops to look after the child, leaving the perpetrator free to flee.
I tried it one 3rd of May to see if it made Tannerman fit with Smithman, but that failed. 8((()*/
Title: Re: australian article by Mark Saunokonoko who supports amaral discussion
Post by: G-Unit on June 08, 2017, 03:37:13 PM
The first time JT (and the others ) say anything to the police about Murat is AFTER they saw him on TV - when he was an Arguido. At no time did she or anyone else say they recognised him as Tannerman by the way he walked - or even mention him before he was made an arguido - or before his face was shown on TV.
IMO
I was just pointing out that the surveillance happened two days before Murat became arguido.
I think it's strange that there's no mention of Jane Tanner's surveillance in the PJ files. There are many reports of 'external diligences' in the files so why not this one? We have no information about the officers involved and no statements from them.
Jane says she was telephoned by Bob Small saying he wanted to pick her up but she mustn't tell anyone. She thinks she checked with Stewart before agreeing. I assume that's Stewart Prior. Was he in Portugal or the UK I wonder? Anyway, she agrees to meet Small 'in a car park' at 7.30 pm. She and Russell walked past the press pack 'at the top of the road' towards Murat's house. He stopped his car to speak to them, then they went to meet Small who ferried Jane to the 'team'. They drove her in a 'pretend' refrigerated van to the spot where she had seen the man and child on 3rd. http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JANE_TANNER_RIGATORY.htm
Why did Bob Small offer to pick her up and then meet her in a car park? Why did he not know which Police force he was working with? Why should it be a secret? Where were the 'team' waiting with their 'pretend' refrigerated van? How did whoever get Murat into position? He was last seen near his house, but he must have ended up on foot in front of 5A. Why did Amaral think Jane was in an unmarked car with tinted windows?
Title: Re: australian article by Mark Saunokonoko who supports amaral discussion
Post by: G-Unit on June 08, 2017, 03:43:58 PM
See bold. There is a 'safe' escape route a few metres on from that point. By 'safe', I mean it is hidden re block 5. And if pursued, the simple act of dumping the child gives safety i.e. the father stops to look after the child, leaving the perpetrator free to flee.
I tried it one 3rd of May to see if it made Tannerman fit with Smithman, but that failed. 8((()*/
You think people might watch the group, make a plan, get the child and then risk losing her by marching past her Dad with her? What a waste of time.
Title: Re: australian article by Mark Saunokonoko who supports amaral discussion
Post by: sadie on June 08, 2017, 04:08:52 PM
I think that posting details which can't be supported by cites is misleading, whether deliberately or not.
Theories are OK but I think they should be based on evidence.
There is no evidence of entry by using a key. There is no evidence of anyone being in the apartment. There is no evidence of anyone except Kate McCann touching the bedroom window. There is no evidence of a watcher. I would like evidence that the front door and window of 5A could be seen from the balcony of block 6. I would like to know what kind of idiots would go ahead and carry a child away while her father was in the vicinity. If he had seen them the game would have been up.
I proved that your assertions about there not being time to take Madeleine were completely wrong
To show how your opinions above appear incorrect:
Evidence of entry by using a key = There would be no evidence if the door was opened using the key, then pulled to again using the key. Using a key = NO fingerprints ... brilliant!
Evidence of someone being in the apartment = not exactly evidence, but the bedroom door angle was changed and the shtters were up. Easier to raise the shutters from inside, dont you agree?
NO evidence of anyone except Kate McCann touching the bedroom window. = The fact that there are no other fingerprints is what is so suspicious. Someone was very careful not to leave any IMO.
NO evidence of a watcher. = What about the pile of fag ends on the balcony (mentioned by another OC Guest) Also the man who was observed by three different groups of people watching 5A
I would like evidence that the front door and window of 5A could be seen from the balcony of block 6. I am not sure I have the correct block name, but the balconies are in the block immediately across the road from the side of 5A. That is block 6 or maybe block 4.
The balcony is a perfect spot to watch the windows of 5A sitting room window, kitchen window, steps up and and patio area. This photo is taken from the top balcony. Sitting room window is above the policeman
http://gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/church/195.jpg (http://gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/church/195.jpg) Madeleines window is the larger one behind the wall. As I have repeated stated the front door is deeply recessed and out of sight ... as such it doesn’t show on here, but it is to the left of Madeleines window.
So this gives a view of the balconies similar to that from the front door area and outside the window to Madeleines bedroom. You will see two balconies at the left of the image
The middle balcony is likely to be the viewing balcony IMO, it looks straight into the sitting room of 5A and has splendid views of both back and front entrances and exit areas as well as the area outside Madeleines window Dont forget the fag ends.
There is a better photograph but I cant find it atm
I would like to know what kind of idiots would go ahead and carry a child away while her father was in the vicinity. = IMO, the idiot on the balcony saw Gerry leave, start down the steps and immediately signalled the go ahaed To an abductor standing by the front door with a lifter. The idiot then left via the internal staircase and back garden of the balcony block to a parked pick up vehicle on the little area opposite the Tapas reception. This is adjoining the gate to the garden of the balcony block.
At the same time the front door was opened using a key and the abduction started.
Tannerman with Madeleine wasn't picked up because the idiot driving the vehicle took fright upon seeing Gerry then seeing Jane witnessing Madeleine being carried away ... and wetting his pants, he drove off in the opposite direction
OK Gunit I think I have answered everything. Please do me the honour of at least reading it carefully and giving me a fair and considered answer.
This is not my main theory, just a little one.
AIMHO, but it is only a theory and it stands waiting to see if it can sensibly be shot down
Title: Re: australian article by Mark Saunokonoko who supports amaral discussion
Post by: ShiningInLuz on June 08, 2017, 04:15:23 PM
You think people might watch the group, make a plan, get the child and then risk losing her by marching past her Dad with her? What a waste of time.
Excuse me, but hadn't you noticed there are three directions that Tannerman carrying Madeleine could have taken, had he known Gerry then Jane would be in the. Some of these directions have branches off them very quickly after leaving the front of 5A.
Go round two corners and you are HIDDEN IN PLAIN SIGHT. That expressiion is one frequently used by the people I am interested in.
Title: Re: australian article by Mark Saunokonoko who supports amaral discussion
Post by: G-Unit on June 08, 2017, 05:52:13 PM
I proved that your assertions about there not being time to take Madeleine were completely wrong
To show how your opinions above appear incorrect:
Evidence of entry by using a key = There would be no evidence if the door was opened using the key, then pulled to again using the key. Using a key = NO fingerprints ... brilliant!
Evidence of someone being in the apartment = not exactly evidence, but the bedroom door angle was changed and the shtters were up. Easier to raise the shutters from inside, dont you agree?
NO evidence of anyone except Kate McCann touching the bedroom window. = The fact that there are no other fingerprints is what is so suspicious. Someone was very careful not to leave any IMO.
NO evidence of a watcher. = What about the pile of fag ends on the balcony (mentioned by another OC Guest) Also the man who was observed by three different groups of people watching 5A
I would like evidence that the front door and window of 5A could be seen from the balcony of block 6. I am not sure I have the correct block name, but the balconies are in the block immediately across the road from the side of 5A. That is block 6 or maybe block 4.
The balcony is a perfect spot to watch the windows of 5A sitting room window, kitchen window, steps up and and patio area. This photo is taken from the top balcony. Sitting room window is above the policeman
http://gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/church/195.jpg (http://gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/church/195.jpg) Madeleines window is the larger one behind the wall. As I have repeated stated the front door is deeply recessed and out of sight ... as such it doesn’t show on here, but it is to the left of Madeleines window.
So this gives a view of the balconies similar to that from the front door area and outside the window to Madeleines bedroom. You will see two balconies at the left of the image
The middle balcony is likely to be the viewing balcony IMO, it looks straight into the sitting room of 5A and has splendid views of both back and front entrances and exit areas as well as the area outside Madeleines window Dont forget the fag ends.
There is a better photograph but I cant find it atm
I would like to know what kind of idiots would go ahead and carry a child away while her father was in the vicinity. = IMO, the idiot on the balcony saw Gerry leave, start down the steps and immediately signalled the go ahaed To an abductor standing by the front door with a lifter. The idiot then left via the internal staircase and back garden of the balcony block to a parked pick up vehicle on the little area opposite the Tapas reception. This is adjoining the gate to the garden of the balcony block.
At the same time the front door was opened using a key and the abduction started.
Tannerman with Madeleine wasn't picked up because the idiot driving the vehicle took fright upon seeing Gerry then seeing Jane witnessing Madeleine being carried away ... and wetting his pants, he drove off in the opposite direction
OK Gunit I think I have answered everything. Please do me the honour of at least reading it carefully and giving me a fair and considered answer.
This is not my main theory, just a little one.
AIMHO, but it is only a theory and it stands waiting to see if it can sensibly be shot down
It's very difficult to disprove a theory which isn't based on evidence.
Title: Re: australian article by Mark Saunokonoko who supports amaral discussion
Post by: G-Unit on June 08, 2017, 05:55:02 PM
Wrong word. Suitable words are observations and theory based on facts
Try and address some of them please
I have worked hard at addressing yours.
Your turn
OK.
There are at least three ways an intruder could have entered the apartment. You have chosen to suggest a front door key was used but there's nothing which points to that being true. As you say, there's no evidence of it happening.
There's very little evidence that the window and shutters were open, and none to suggest who may have done it or how. There's no way to verify if the door position changed.
There is evidence of Kate McCann touching the window. There's no evidence that anyone else did.
Cigarette ends on a balcony are not evidence of a watcher'. The PJ had an operations base in block 6 and they could have used the balcony for smoking.
A man standing in a street looking in a certain direction? it's not against the law and it doesn't mean he was planning any wrong-doing.
On 3rd May there was a lot of vegetation near 5A which isn't on your photo, so it's not a fact that the door and window could be seen from block 6.
So what 'facts' do we end up with?
It was said that a door moved and that a shutter and window were open. The fact is 'it was said'. Kate McCann touched the window. A man was seen in the street looking in the direction of 5A. Some cigarette ends were seen on a balcony.
There are at least three ways an intruder could have entered the apartment. You have chosen to suggest a front door key was used but there's nothing which points to that being true. As you say, there's no evidence of it happening.
The reason for that is it is so hidden way from sight, virtually pitch black and nobody passes it. So easy to get in using a key and so many ways of getting a key. Also no finger prints if a key is used to enter and exit ... no need to touch the door. also other apartments had been entered by mysterious means. Keys are so useful to go in and out ... but windows need opening to escape in an emergency (Mrs Fenns apartment)
There's very little evidence that the window and shutters were open, and none to suggest who may have done it or how. There's no way to verify if the door position changed.
If kate thinks the door position changed and Gerry too, that is good enough for me. How come youi believe every word that Amaral says when he is a Court proven liar = Perjurer. We dont know who used that window and maybe it was open for escaping in emergency, but also maybe for instructions to the lifter from Tannerman. TYhere are several reasons why the window could be open. I have listed them elsewhere
There is evidence of Kate McCann touching the window. There's no evidence that anyone else did.
It would be amazing if there were no fingerprints from Kate on that window. Seems someone wiped all the prints off, knowing that Kate and family would likely touch them as they inevitably, IMO, looked out to try and spot Madeleine outside.
A man standing in a street looking in a certain direction? it's not against the law and it doesn't mean he was planning any wrong-doing.
Three different groups of people NOTICED him and observed that he appeared to be watching 5A. Ignore that if you wish, but by ignoring it you are showing yourself to be NOT very discerning.
On 3rd May there was a lot of vegetation near 5A which isn't on your photo, so it's not a fact that the door and window could be seen from block 6.
There was a gap between the trees and 5A in the right place and plenty wide enouigh for a watcher on the balcony to see and direct an abductor on the pathway outside the front door and Madeleines bedroom window
It was said that a door moved and that a shutter and window were open. The fact is 'it was said'.
Well you can disbelieve everything the Mccanns and tapas group said if that rocks your boat, but none of them have a record for dishonesty as Amaral does. Yet you believe everything he says. I wonder why?
Kate McCann touched the window. A man was seen in the street looking in the direction of 5A. Some cigarette ends were seen on a balcony.
Why do you have a need to demean these things? Dismissing everything that goes against your agenda. How about taking them seriously for a change? Think a little deeper Gunit. We might make a good detective of you yet !
Now I wonder how come you didn't see this photo ? http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/bw/img_0152_small.jpg (http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/bw/img_0152_small.jpg)
Shows the balconies clearly doesn't it ? And your photo shows that there was a gap through at the time, cos you can see the conifer tree, but the balconies are just off the picture in your image.
Time to concede, Gunit ?
Title: Re: australian article by Mark Saunokonoko who supports amaral discussion
Post by: G-Unit on June 09, 2017, 08:13:55 AM
I have not insulted you Sadie so why do you feel the need to question my judgement, my work rate,and my intellectual capacity? You may feel you're superior in all those departments, but that's a matter of opinion.
There's no need to wonder why I believe everything Amaral says because I've never said I do. I'm under no obligation to believe everything the McCanns have said either. Unlike some, I have no agenda.
In my opinion you have taken some unrelated facts, added some inventions of your own and created a theory from them. The photo of 5A you insist on using does not show the overgrown vegetation around the car park on 3rd May, so it doesn't give an accurate representation of what could be seen.
If you want me to provide a cite for the PJ being based in block 6 you might like to provide cites for 3 groups of people seeing the same man watching 5A first.
The reason for that is it is so hidden way from sight, virtually pitch black and nobody passes it. So easy to get in using a key and so many ways of getting a key. Also no finger prints if a key is used to enter and exit ... no need to touch the door. also other apartments had been entered by mysterious means. Keys are so useful to go in and out ... but windows need opening to escape in an emergency (Mrs Fenns apartment) If kate thinks the door position changed and Gerry too, that is good enough for me. How come youi believe every word that Amaral says when he is a Court proven liar = Perjurer. We dont know who used that window and maybe it was open for escaping in emergency, but also maybe for instructions to the lifter from Tannerman. TYhere are several reasons why the window could be open. I have listed them elsewhere It would be amazing if there were no fingerprints from Kate on that window. Seems someone wiped all the prints off, knowing that Kate and family would likely touch them as they inevitably, IMO, looked out to try and spot Madeleine outside. Is that so? Cite please. Another guest at OC thought that the pile of cigarette ends was significant.
Three different groups of people NOTICED him and observed that he appeared to be watching 5A. Ignore that if you wish, but by ignoring it you are showing yourself to be NOT very discerning. There was a gap between the trees and 5A in the right place and plenty wide enouigh for a watcher on the balcony to see and direct an abductor on the pathway outside the front door and Madeleines bedroom window
Lots for you to chose from in my posts. Suggest you do a bit of work yourself and save me typing unnecessarily.
Well you can disbelieve everything the Mccanns and tapas group said if that rocks your boat, but none of them have a record for dishonesty as Amaral does. Yet you believe everything he says. I wonder why? Why do you have a need to demean these things? Dismissing everything that goes against your agenda. How about taking them seriously for a change? Think a little deeper Gunit. We might make a good detective of you yet !
Now I wonder how come you didn't see this photo ? http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/bw/img_0152_small.jpg (http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/bw/img_0152_small.jpg)
Shows the balconies clearly doesn't it ? And your photo shows that there was a gap through at the time, cos you can see the conifer tree, but the balconies are just off the picture in your image.
Time to concede, Gunit ?
I suggest you rephrase your post Sadie, before it is done for you.
You are implying other people views, intelligence and observational skills are less than your own. That is not on.
All you have is your opinions.
Title: Re: australian article by Mark Saunokonoko who supports amaral discussion
Post by: sadie on June 09, 2017, 11:15:55 PM
I suggest you rephrase your post Sadie, before it is done for you.
You are implying other people views, intelligence and observational skills are less than your own. That is not on.
All you have is your opinions.
In the past couple of posts, I have given a list of facts that Gunit prefers not to acknowledege. They are facts and she will not acknowledge them. Why?
I have proved that a man watching /directing on the middle balcony had direct vision into the lounge and kitchen of 5A. He also had direct vision of the patio balcony where the rear entrance and exit is ... and partly of the steps up and down. A watcher on that balcony can also see the area immediately in front of the front door and Madeleines window at a fairly close distance. Gunit, herself has put up two photographs that prove there is a gap between 5A and the trees through which these areas can be seen by the watcher.
Of course this means that an abductor could see the watcher and receive signals from him. These things are FACT and can be seen by all on the photographs in previous posts
I have also pointed out that there was a pile of cigarette butts on that balcony that was noticed by a fellow guest at OC . And that three people/groups of people noticed a man staring at 5A and have mentioned it [Cutting Edge Video IIRC.] Tasmin Silence noticed a man actually leaning on the back wall of 5A garden and peering into the place. Yet Gunit choses to ignore all these facts/pointers.
Is she ignoring because it cuts across what she is trying to promote .... or can she not understand? I have never found Gunit uinintelligent so I am forced to believe it is the later.
Hows about if she had the good grace to acknowledge that i am correct. A man on that balcony could see and communicate with someone both near the front door and Madeleines window ... and could also see someone coming and going, up the steps and over the balcony to the patio door. So back and front entrances, both, could have been watched
Furthermore a watcher could see straight into the apartment sitting room and kitchen, [even possibly see Gerry at the loo]
If Gunit could not see the possible revelance of these things then I would think that I am justified in thinking that she wasn't thinking very deeply. However, it seems that she is more keen to deny these facts that are staring her in the face ... and this makes me wonder if she has an agenda of some sort. Have you Gunit ?
I have explained just how hidden the front door is and how dark it was around that area ... with additional points illustrating that the best route in and out would be via the front door with a key. With a key, it would be possible to get in and out without touching the door or surround.
There were a number of other points that I made but Gunit has not acknowledged any of them. Why? Is she frightened to, because it increases the chances of there being an abduction? And for some reason she doesn't want that to be the case?
Finally Gunits question, "why do you feel the need to question my judgement, my work rate,and my intellectual capacity? " is simply a diversionary tactic. That is becos she must know that most of what I am saying is fact. I have proved it. The rest is logical deduction on my part and as I have stated has helped form part of my mini theory.
Where have i questioned any of these things she, and You stephen, accuse me of? Where? Many is the time that you have talked down to me and others in a very strong manner.
The only way that I would consider myself superior to Gunit is in my observation skills, but then I am trained in those and have practiced them all my life. And i am extemely keen for Justice to prevail, which is something that not everyone seems to care about.
Title: Re: australian article by Mark Saunokonoko who supports amaral discussion
Post by: stephen25000 on June 10, 2017, 01:37:17 AM
In the past couple of posts, I have given a list of facts that Gunit prefers not to acknowledege. They are facts and she will not acknowledge them. Why?
I have proved that a man watching /directing on the middle balcony had direct vision into the lounge and kitchen of 5A. He also had direct vision of the patio balcony where the rear entrance and exit is ... and partly of the steps up and down. A watcher on that balcony can also see the area immediately in front of the front door and Madeleines window at a fairly close distance. Gunit, herself has put up two photographs that prove there is a gap between 5A and the trees through which these areas can be seen by the watcher.
Of course this means that an abductor could see the watcher and receive signals from him. These things are FACT and can be seen by all on the photographs in previous posts
I have also pointed out that there was a pile of cigarette butts on that balcony that was noticed by a fellow guest at OC . And that three people/groups of people noticed a man staring at 5A and have mentioned it [Cutting Edge Video IIRC.] Tasmin Silence noticed a man actually leaning on the back wall of 5A garden and peering into the place. Yet Gunit choses to ignore all these facts/pointers.
Is she ignoring because it cuts across what she is trying to promote .... or can she not understand? I have never found Gunit uinintelligent so I am forced to believe it is the later.
Hows about if she had the good grace to acknowledge that i am correct. A man on that balcony could see and communicate with someone both near the front door and Madeleines window ... and could also see someone coming and going, up the steps and over the balcony to the patio door. So back and front entrances, both, could have been watched
Furthermore a watcher could see straight into the apartment sitting room and kitchen, [even possibly see Gerry at the loo]
If Gunit could not see the possible revelance of these things then I would think that I am justified in thinking that she wasn't thinking very deeply. However, it seems that she is more keen to deny these facts that are staring her in the face ... and this makes me wonder if she has an agenda of some sort. Have you Gunit ?
I have explained just how hidden the front door is and how dark it was around that area ... with additional points illustrating that the best route in and out would be via the front door with a key. With a key, it would be possible to get in and out without touching the door or surround.
There were a number of other points that I made but Gunit has not acknowledged any of them. Why? Is she frightened to, because it increases the chances of there being an abduction? And for some reason she doesn't want that to be the case?
Finally Gunits question, "why do you feel the need to question my judgement, my work rate,and my intellectual capacity? " is simply a diversionary tactic. That is becos she must know that most of what I am saying is fact. I have proved it. The rest is logical deduction on my part and as I have stated has helped form part of my mini theory.
Where have i questioned any of these things she, and You stephen, accuse me of? Where? Many is the time that you have talked down to me and others in a very strong manner.
The only way that I would consider myself superior to Gunit is in my observation skills, but then I am trained in those and have practiced them all my life. And i am extemely keen for Justice to prevail, which is something that not everyone seems to care about.
You are only giving your views Sadie.
Never forget that.
You have often stated you have theories and/or evidence, that you cannot place on here.
There is no onus on here for people to believe you.
By the way Sadie, you have proved nothing.
The case remains unsolved.
Title: Re: australian article by Mark Saunokonoko who supports amaral discussion
Post by: G-Unit on June 10, 2017, 07:46:19 AM
In the past couple of posts, I have given a list of facts that Gunit prefers not to acknowledege. They are facts and she will not acknowledge them. Why?
I have proved that a man watching /directing on the middle balcony had direct vision into the lounge and kitchen of 5A. He also had direct vision of the patio balcony where the rear entrance and exit is ... and partly of the steps up and down. A watcher on that balcony can also see the area immediately in front of the front door and Madeleines window at a fairly close distance. Gunit, herself has put up two photographs that prove there is a gap between 5A and the trees through which these areas can be seen by the watcher.
Of course this means that an abductor could see the watcher and receive signals from him. These things are FACT and can be seen by all on the photographs in previous posts
I have also pointed out that there was a pile of cigarette butts on that balcony that was noticed by a fellow guest at OC . And that three people/groups of people noticed a man staring at 5A and have mentioned it [Cutting Edge Video IIRC.] Tasmin Silence noticed a man actually leaning on the back wall of 5A garden and peering into the place. Yet Gunit choses to ignore all these facts/pointers.
Is she ignoring because it cuts across what she is trying to promote .... or can she not understand? I have never found Gunit uinintelligent so I am forced to believe it is the later.
Hows about if she had the good grace to acknowledge that i am correct. A man on that balcony could see and communicate with someone both near the front door and Madeleines window ... and could also see someone coming and going, up the steps and over the balcony to the patio door. So back and front entrances, both, could have been watched
Furthermore a watcher could see straight into the apartment sitting room and kitchen, [even possibly see Gerry at the loo]
If Gunit could not see the possible revelance of these things then I would think that I am justified in thinking that she wasn't thinking very deeply. However, it seems that she is more keen to deny these facts that are staring her in the face ... and this makes me wonder if she has an agenda of some sort. Have you Gunit ?
I have explained just how hidden the front door is and how dark it was around that area ... with additional points illustrating that the best route in and out would be via the front door with a key. With a key, it would be possible to get in and out without touching the door or surround.
There were a number of other points that I made but Gunit has not acknowledged any of them. Why? Is she frightened to, because it increases the chances of there being an abduction? And for some reason she doesn't want that to be the case?
Finally Gunits question, "why do you feel the need to question my judgement, my work rate,and my intellectual capacity? " is simply a diversionary tactic. That is becos she must know that most of what I am saying is fact. I have proved it. The rest is logical deduction on my part and as I have stated has helped form part of my mini theory.
Where have i questioned any of these things she, and You stephen, accuse me of? Where? Many is the time that you have talked down to me and others in a very strong manner.
The only way that I would consider myself superior to Gunit is in my observation skills, but then I am trained in those and have practiced them all my life. And i am extemely keen for Justice to prevail, which is something that not everyone seems to care about.
I think you have a different opinion than I about facts.
Someone using a front door key is not a fact. People taking M from the bedroom is not a fact. Someone watching from the balcony of Block 6 is not a fact. There could be a perfectly innocent reason why men appeared to be watching 5A before M disappeared.
Once again the insults are appearing.
I am promoting nothing, unlike some. I have no agenda, unlike some. I do not use diversionary tactics, unlike some.
You have proved nothing, Sadie. You have woven a story which pleases you but the facts you based your story on either don't exist or have other possible interpretations.
You say you care about justice and suggest that others don't. Justice is handed down by the courts and is sometimes wrong. I care about truth whatever it is. I suspect you would be very unhappy if the truth didn't fit with your theories.
It is you who refuses to accept that your facts can be interpreted in other ways.
Title: Re: australian article by Mark Saunokonoko who supports amaral discussion
Post by: jassi on June 10, 2017, 09:09:06 AM
I think you have a different opinion than I about facts.
Someone using a front door key is not a fact. People taking M from the bedroom is not a fact. Someone watching from the balcony of Block 6 is not a fact. There could be a perfectly innocent reason why men appeared to be watching 5A before M disappeared.
Once again the insults are appearing.
I am promoting nothing, unlike some. I have no agenda, unlike some. I do not use diversionary tactics, unlike some.
You have proved nothing, Sadie. You have woven a story which pleases you but the facts you based your story on either don't exist or have other possible interpretations.
You say you care about justice and suggest that others don't. Justice is handed down by the courts and is sometimes wrong. I care about truth whatever it is. I suspect you would be very unhappy if the truth didn't fit with your theories.
It is you who refuses to accept that your facts can be interpreted in other ways.
8@??)( 8@??)( 8@??)(
Title: Re: australian article by Mark Saunokonoko who supports amaral discussion
Post by: stephen25000 on June 10, 2017, 09:11:43 AM
Posters are reminded, not to post their opinions as fact.
Title: Re: australian article by Mark Saunokonoko who supports amaral discussion
Post by: Robittybob1 on June 10, 2017, 10:52:22 AM
A question isn't a fact.
Title: Re: australian article by Mark Saunokonoko who supports amaral discussion
Post by: slartibartfast on June 10, 2017, 05:19:40 PM
I think you have a different opinion than I about facts.
Someone using a front door key is not a fact. People taking M from the bedroom is not a fact. Someone watching from the balcony of Block 6 is not a fact. There could be a perfectly innocent reason why men appeared to be watching 5A before M disappeared.
Once again the insults are appearing.
I am promoting nothing, unlike some. I have no agenda, unlike some. I do not use diversionary tactics, unlike some.
You have proved nothing, Sadie. You have woven a story which pleases you but the facts you based your story on either don't exist or have other possible interpretations.
You say you care about justice and suggest that others don't. Justice is handed down by the courts and is sometimes wrong. I care about truth whatever it is. I suspect you would be very unhappy if the truth didn't fit with your theories.
It is you who refuses to accept that your facts can be interpreted in other ways.
I have never claimed that the actual abduction happened as i believe likely ... so please do not put words in my mouth.
However, with that balcony so perfectly sited, it is very possible it did happen the way i am suggesting. FACT: From that middle balcony immediately opposite a watcher director could see
1) anyone walking up or down that street like Jane and Matt and Russel etc checking the children
2) Anyone going into or out of 5A via the patio door at the back. The gate of the steps up and the patio area which had to be crossed were in full view
3) Anyone going into or out of the front door of 5A, or anyone standing close to Madeleines window.
Additionally, by leaning out of the balcony or moving to its northern end he could also see anyone leaving the Tapas restaurant and up and down much of the western side of Rua Dr Francisco Gentil martins (Dr FGM).
However with the balcony being set back and the building blocking his view, even leaning out, it was impossible to see Jez arriving on the eastern footpath of Dr FGM, opposite the Tapas reception.
The balcony was perfect for someone watching 5A . FACT. Full stop
I have presented a theory to you with many pointers to its likely possibility
You have scorned everything Gunit ... and I wonder why?
You haven't yet acknowledged that everywhere of importance to a man directing an abduction was visible from that middle balcony.
Why are you avoiding it? You asked the questions way back and I answered them. why haven't you acknowledged that I am correct?
Title: Re: australian article by Mark Saunokonoko who supports amaral discussion
Post by: sadie on June 11, 2017, 12:49:28 AM
Seems some people cant read and dont like facts if they prove what they are saying is wrong.
I have looked at Mackenzie's official statement. He saw cigarette butts but there's no mention of him telling anyone until 2012 when, according to the media, OG interviewed him.
Now he tells us how many cigarette butts; four of them and that he told the police. It was indeed hours after MBM disappeared; about 36 hours by my calculation because he didn't go into block 6 until mid-morning on 5th;
He identified a first-floor stairway balcony opposite the apartment to Portuguese police hours after Madeleine disappeared and even asked officers to pick up four cigarette butts that could have been left by someone watching the apartment.
However, the officers let cleaners sweep away the butts, which could have held crucial samples of DNA from saliva. http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/347692/Maddie-McCann-may-have-been-watched-from-balcony-witness-tells-Yard
Where did all this occur? Inside block 6? Well the cleaners were cleaning in and around the stairwell. If the police 'let them' that suggests they were nearby too. The police operations base was in Block 6 apartment 6 and they were there on 5th. http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/DEREK_FLACK.htm
Apartment 606 was occupied all week by Neil Berry. It's on the same level as the balcony referred to and the Berrys and Balus were sitting on the apartment's large balcony overlooking the car park behind block 6 all evening on 3rd. Berry was due to leave on 5th, so I assume the police took over the apartment after he vacated it.
According to Mackenzie he was given an apartment in block 6 to use in the daytime on 5th until his flight left. He doesn't say why he received this preferential treatment, but I assume he used the stairwell to reach that apartment and that's when he noticed the cigarette butts.
So were the four butts left by a watcher or by the police nipping out from apartment 6 for a smoke?
Title: Re: australian article by Mark Saunokonoko who supports amaral discussion
Post by: sadie on June 11, 2017, 12:59:00 PM
I have looked at Mackenzie's official statement. He saw cigarette butts but there's no mention of him telling anyone until 2012 when, according to the media, OG interviewed him.
Now he tells us how many cigarette butts; four of them and that he told the police. It was indeed hours after MBM disappeared; about 36 hours by my calculation because he didn't go into block 6 until mid-morning on 5th;
He identified a first-floor stairway balcony opposite the apartment to Portuguese police hours after Madeleine disappeared and even asked officers to pick up four cigarette butts that could have been left by someone watching the apartment.
However, the officers let cleaners sweep away the butts, which could have held crucial samples of DNA from saliva. http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/347692/Maddie-McCann-may-have-been-watched-from-balcony-witness-tells-Yard
Where did all this occur? Inside block 6? Well the cleaners were cleaning in and around the stairwell. If the police 'let them' that suggests they were nearby too. The police operations base was in Block 6 apartment 6 and they were there on 5th. http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/DEREK_FLACK.htm
Apartment 606 was occupied all week by Neil Berry. It's on the same level as the balcony referred to and the Berrys and Balus were sitting on the apartment's large balcony overlooking the car park behind block 6 all evening on 3rd. Berry was due to leave on 5th, so I assume the police took over the apartment after he vacated it.
According to Mackenzie he was given an apartment in block 6 to use in the daytime on 5th until his flight left. He doesn't say why he received this preferential treatment, but I assume he used the stairwell to reach that apartment and that's when he noticed the cigarette butts.
So were the four butts left by a watcher or by the police nipping out from apartment 6 for a smoke?
OK First of all apartment 606 was at the eastern end of block 6, not at the western end where the balcony that overlooked 5A was situated. It was over 30 metres away crow flies. Apartment 606 has a magnificent huge curved balcony to it. So why would the PJ go for a fag that required going downstairs, walking maybe 50 metres and up stairs again?
SIL has a magnificent photo of it on his website. Thank you SIL. Unfortunately I am unable to post it but you can see it on https://shininginluz.wordpress.com/tag/ocean-club-night-creche/. scroll down over half the page.
Secondly, Gunit, it appears that you didn't read the article properly despite cherry picking the next paragraph, cos it says Back in the UK, he contacted Crimestoppers after reading a story in the Sunday Express and gave a statement to Leicestershire Police in December 2007.
Thirdly, Gunit. There is no mystery about the Mackenzies being moved into block 6 whilst awaiting a late flight home. I can assure you that if room is available this is a common occurence at reasonable hotels (including, i imagine, decent aparthotels). Sometimes hotels charge for this service, but often it is free gratis. One has to ask the day before departure, and usually it is granted.
Why so much mis/disinformation Gunit?
PS When are you going to acknowledge that the areas immediately in front of 5A front door and The patio (rear) door +++ where visible to a watcher, if there was one, on that western balcony in block 6
Please note +++ = these other areas were visible too = 1) the street that the parents walked when checking their children 2) The area outside Madeleines window 3) The gate and part steps that Gerry, kate and Matt went up and down when checking the children 4) By leaning out a little, the tapas restaurant
However, no matter how far a watcher might have leaned out he would not have been able to see Jez leaving the little car park opposite the Tapas Reception. This is because the balcony is recessed behind the building at its southern end. This blocks the view of Jez as he left that little car park
Title: Re: australian article by Mark Saunokonoko who supports amaral discussion
Post by: Miss Taken Identity on June 11, 2017, 02:32:42 PM
If there was indeed a 'watcher' the best chance of not being caught would be just after the parents left the children alone and alseep. &%+((£ all that coming and going woulld be too risky unless the alledged watcher was a complete idiot, and one would question what was he watching for... erm the best time to snatch? Going back to the first sentence, if being watched the best time to snatch would be just after parents left. way too long time those children not being physically checked, the 'watcher' would have known this DUH!.
Title: Re: australian article by Mark Saunokonoko who supports amaral discussion
Post by: G-Unit on June 11, 2017, 03:05:03 PM
OK First of all apartment 606 was at the eastern end of block 6, not at the western end where the balcony that overlooked 5A was situated. It was over 30 metres away crow flies. Apartment 606 has a magnificent huge curved balcony to it. So why would the PJ go for a fag that required going downstairs, walking maybe 50 metres and up stairs again?
SIL has a magnificent photo of it on his website. Thank you SIL. Unfortunately I am unable to post it but you can see it on https://shininginluz.wordpress.com/tag/ocean-club-night-creche/. scroll down over half the page.
Secondly, Gunit, it appears that you didn't read the article properly despite cherry picking the next paragraph, cos it says Back in the UK, he contacted Crimestoppers after reading a story in the Sunday Express and gave a statement to Leicestershire Police in December 2007.
Thirdly, Gunit. There is no mystery about the Mackenzies being moved into block 6 whilst awaiting a late flight home. I can assure you that if room is available this is a common occurence at reasonable hotels (including, i imagine, decent aparthotels). Sometimes hotels charge for this service, but often it is free gratis. One has to ask the day before departure, and usually it is granted.
Why so much mis/disinformation Gunit?
PS When are you going to acknowledge that the areas immediately in front of 5A front door and The patio (rear) door +++ where visible to a watcher, if there was one, on that western balcony in block 6
Please note +++ = these other areas were visible too = 1) the street that the parents walked when checking their children 2) The area outside Madeleines window 3) The gate and part steps that Gerry, kate and Matt went up and down when checking the children 4) By leaning out a little, the tapas restaurant
However, no matter how far a watcher might have leaned out he would not have been able to see Jez leaving the little car park opposite the Tapas Reception. This is because the balcony is recessed behind the building at its southern end. This blocks the view of Jez as he left that little car park
I apologise if I have the wrong apartment, but would just ask why apartment 6 is assumed to be at the other end of the block? I know the ground floor flat opposite the McCann's is number 5.
The story was that Mackenzie had been interviewed again by OG. His original call was to tell what he heard Gerry saying on his phone on 3rd May about paedophiles.
I do not acknowledge that the front of 5A could be seen from that balcony.
Title: Re: australian article by Mark Saunokonoko who supports amaral discussion
Post by: sadie on June 11, 2017, 03:48:35 PM
I apologise if I have the wrong apartment, but would just ask why apartment 6 is assumed to be at the other end of the block? I know the ground floor flat opposite the McCann's is number 5.
I have already pointed out SIL's excellent photo to you. That clearly shows that Neil Berrys apartment 606 is a long way away from the balcony on the west end of block 6, where a watcher might have been directing operations. You tell us that the PJ used that apartment as their base. No reason for them to go for a fag on the balcony at the other end of the building; the balcony where the fag ends were and withy superb views of all the necessary watching points. Why didn't the PJ act when MacKenzie pointed the fag ends out to them? Was it because Amaral had already decided on the morning after Madeleine vanished that the parents were responsible?
The story was that Mackenzie had been interviewed again by OG. His original call was to tell what he heard Gerry saying on his phone on 3rd May about paedophiles.
I cant think why you are denying that Mackensie notified the Police in Dec 2007
From the statements, it is quite clear that he contacted the police in Leicestershire in Dec 2007
3907 to 3908 Witness statement of Graham McKenzie 2007.12.06 (in English)
15-Processos Volume XV Pages 3907 - 3908
snip- On the day of our departure we had to move out of our apartment and Mark Warner gave us another to use during the day until we left.
It was across the road from the McCann's apartment and the public balcony overlooked the side of their building and the road. You could actually see the front and back of the building from that view point. I noticed on the balcony that there was a pile of cigarette butts as if there had been someone stood there for some time smoking. I thought that was odd , and it could have been someone watching the McCann's apartment to monitor their comings and goings. -snip-
I dont know how you could miss this. It was immediately below the statement that you quoted from ! £5%4%
I do not acknowledge that the front of 5A could be seen from that balcony.
As you yourself have shown with photographs there was a gap through the foliage which originally you said was overgrown (words to that effect). For a signal from the watcher/director to be seen from outside 5A front door all the perp had to do was stand in the area immediately in front of the front door. Perfect viewpoint in either direction.
Any one leaving or entering 5A would have been seen by someone watching . My photographs illustrated how the north end of the balcony had clear visibility of that area. And the area in front of the front door and in front of Madeleines bedroom had a clear view of the balcony over the road. Signals could be passed between the two places.
Please acknowledge. that the front of 5A could be seen from the 'watchers balcony' and vice versa. You must by now know that it is true
Title: Re: australian article by Mark Saunokonoko who supports amaral discussion
Post by: G-Unit on June 11, 2017, 07:29:58 PM
I have already pointed out SIL's excellent photo to you. That clearly shows that Neil Berrys apartment 606 is a long way away from the balcony on the west end of block 6, where a watcher might have been directing operations. You tell us that the PJ used that apartment as their base. No reason for them to go for a fag on the balcony at the other end of the building; the balcony where the fag ends were and withy superb views of all the necessary watching points. Why didn't the PJ act when MacKenzie pointed the fag ends out to them? Was it because Amaral had already decided on the morning after Madeleine vanished that the parents were responsible?
What a let down to Madeleine and the family. I cant think why you are denying that Mackensie notified the Police in Dec 2007
From the statements, it is quite clear that he contacted the police in Leicestershire in Dec 2007
3907 to 3908 Witness statement of Graham McKenzie 2007.12.06 (in English)
15-Processos Volume XV Pages 3907 - 3908
snip- On the day of our departure we had to move out of our apartment and Mark Warner gave us another to use during the day until we left.
It was across the road from the McCann's apartment and the public balcony overlooked the side of their building and the road. You could actually see the front and back of the building from that view point. I noticed on the balcony that there was a pile of cigarette butts as if there had been someone stood there for some time smoking. I thought that was odd , and it could have been someone watching the McCann's apartment to monitor their comings and goings. -snip-
I dont know how you could miss this. It was immediately below the statement that you quoted from ! £5%4% As you yourself have shown with photographs there was a gap through the foliage which originally you said was overgrown (words to that effect). For a signal from the watcher/director to be seen from outside 5A front door all the perp had to do was stand in the area immediately in front of the front door. Perfect viewpoint in either direction.
Any one leaving or entering 5A would have been seen by someone watching . My photographs illustrated how the north end of the balcony had clear visibility of that area. And the area in front of the front door and in front of Madeleines bedroom had a clear view of the balcony over the road. Signals could be passed between the two places.
Please acknowledge. that the front of 5A could be seen from the 'watchers balcony' and vice versa. You must by now know that it is true
I know where SIL says 606 is, I don't know if it's verified.
What I said was that Mackenzie doesn't mention telling the police about the cigarette butts until 2012.
You have not convinced me that the view from that balcony is as you describe it and you won't without providing evidence following the line of sight.
Title: Re: australian article by Mark Saunokonoko who supports amaral discussion
Post by: sadie on June 12, 2017, 12:16:28 AM
I know where SIL says 606 is, I don't know if it's verified.
I have seen another photograph of that apartment and that was before SILs time on here. Maybe it was Heris photo, I dont remember now. But it identified exactly the same apartment. I am happy to trust SIL on this and doubly so because of the previous photo
You have not convinced me that the view from that balcony is as you describe it and you won't without providing evidence following the line of sight.
I have always thought you as quiite intelligent gunit, but seems that you dont undertand that if someone outside the front door of 5A, Madeleines bedroom and the patio door can see the possible watcher on the balcony of block 6, then he can see those places too.
I am looking for you to confirm this, not out of rubbing your nose in it, but because when this topic comes up again in say 9 or 15 months time, I dont want you spouting the same old rubbish ... and then i will have to go thru all the same finding of photos etc and the huge typing chore, which for me isn't easy.
Please do the honourable thing and confirm that the areas immediately in front of the front door, Madeleines window and the patio door were visible to anyone who might hav e been watching / directing operations from that balcony on block t6
Title: Re: australian article by Mark Saunokonoko who supports amaral discussion
Post by: G-Unit on June 12, 2017, 08:06:50 AM
I have seen another photograph of that apartment and that was before SILs time on here. Maybe it was Heris photo, I dont remember now. But it identified exactly the same apartment. I am happy to trust SIL on this and doubly so because of the previous photo . Read the newspaper report again Gunit. It confirms that Mackenzie reported it in his statement of December 2007
I have always thought you as quiite intelligent gunit, but seems that you dont undertand that if someone outside the front door of 5A, Madeleines bedroom and the patio door can see the possible watcher on the balcony of block 6, then he can see those places too.
I am looking for you to confirm this, not out of rubbing your nose in it, but because when this topic comes up again in say 9 or 15 months time, I dont want you spouting the same old rubbish ... and then i will have to go thru all the same finding of photos etc and the huge typing chore, which for me isn't easy.
Please do the honourable thing and confirm that the areas immediately in front of the front door, Madeleines window and the patio door were visible to anyone who might hav e been watching / directing operations from that balcony on block t6
Mackenzie contacted Crimestoppers on 16th September 'after reading about the McCann's telephone records being checked, in the Sunday Express dated 16/09/2007'.
The reason?
'He saw Mr Gerry McCann standing alone in the doorway at the rear of the apartment talking on his mobile telephone'.
Leicestershire police took his statement on 5th December at the request of the PJ.
In it Mackenzie mentioned seeing cigarette butts. He did not mention asking the Portuguese police to pick them up. http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GRAHAM-MCKENZIE.htm
The police weren't mentioned until the newspaper article written in 2012.
You appeal to my honour, but you are happy to post photos on here which give the wrong impression because your photo has no vegetation so isn't a true picture of 5A on 3rd May 2007.
Title: Re: australian article by Mark Saunokonoko who supports amaral discussion
Post by: Alice Purjorick on June 12, 2017, 10:10:51 AM
If one is doing something surreptitious the best schools teach no smoking. Not only can the glow be seen but the smell travels a long way thus giving away ones presence and'or drawing the attention you were trying avoid. Just saying like. You don't have to believe it if it suits not to.
Title: Re: australian article by Mark Saunokonoko who supports amaral discussion
Post by: G-Unit on June 12, 2017, 02:36:50 PM
If one is doing something surreptitious the best schools teach no smoking. Not only can the glow be seen but the smell travels a long way thus giving away ones presence and'or drawing the attention you were trying avoid. Just saying like. You don't have to believe it if it suits not to.
Two very good points.
Title: Re: australian article by Mark Saunokonoko who supports amaral discussion
Post by: sadie on June 13, 2017, 06:03:30 PM
Mackenzie contacted Crimestoppers on 16th September 'after reading about the McCann's telephone records being checked, in the Sunday Express dated 16/09/2007'.
The reason?
'He saw Mr Gerry McCann standing alone in the doorway at the rear of the apartment talking on his mobile telephone'.
Leicestershire police took his statement on 5th December at the request of the PJ.
In it Mackenzie mentioned seeing cigarette butts. He did not mention asking the Portuguese police to pick them up. http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GRAHAM-MCKENZIE.htm
The police weren't mentioned until the newspaper article written in 2012.
You appeal to my honour, but you are happy to post photos on here which give the wrong impression because your photo has no vegetation so isn't a true picture of 5A on 3rd May 2007.
You posted two photos gunit, of which one certainly was immediately after the time Madeleine vanished, because the Police fingerprint girl, was there. The other photo was in the dark but it also clearly showed the gap between 5A and the trees. The gap thru which it would have been possible for a watcher on that balcony opposite to signal to someone standing outside the front door recess or Madeleines window.
I cant understand why you are unable to concede this when you have actually posted the images. Surely you can see the facts staring you in the eyes?
Title: Re: australian article by Mark Saunokonoko who supports amaral discussion
Post by: G-Unit on June 13, 2017, 06:51:58 PM
You posted two photos gunit, of which one certainly was immediately after the time Madeleine vanished, because the Police fingerprint girl, was there. The other photo was in the dark but it also clearly showed the gap between 5A and the trees. The gap thru which it would have been possible for a watcher on that balcony opposite to signal to someone standing outside the front door recess or Madeleines window.
I cant understand why you are unable to concede this when you have actually posted the images. Surely you can see the facts staring you in the eyes?
I only wish I could but I don't know if someone on that balcony could see the front of 5A or vice versa so I can't.
Title: Re: australian article by Mark Saunokonoko who supports amaral discussion
Post by: ShiningInLuz on June 13, 2017, 07:35:58 PM
Are you talking at cross purposes here?
From the private balcony of 606, one cannot see the entrance to the Tapas zone, let alone the front or rear of 5A.
Mr Mackenzie does not say private balcony, he says public balcony, which is the access balcony at the front of block 6 (the car park end).
Now that balcony I have been up, twice from memory, because it is public, not private.
I did a revisit because we were debating whether or not one could see the front and rear of block 5 from there. I was able to see both. I cannot remember with certainty if I could see the front door of 5A, but from memory, I think I could.
This proved a limited amount because all of the time I have been interested in the case, the trees at the east end of block 5 car park had been removed. So I do not have a view through the trees. If one exists, Heri and the newspapers are potential sources.
I don't remember being able to see the Tapas Restaurant, short of doing a Tarzan over the balcony ledge.
The block is numbered 601 at the east end ground floor to 605 at the west end. Then it is 606 on the 1st floor east end to 609 (from memory) at the west end. I did check how it was numbered above at the west end, and from memory it was 613.
I can re-check all of this if it is critical, but I can't see how it is, given I cannot put the trees back in place.
Presumably Mr Mackenzie noticed the butts because he was close to them, but I have no certainty as to which apartment he was relocated to.
A year after the disappearance, Neil Berry thought he might have been in apartment 4G. He was actually booked into 606. Luckily his statement has enough information to confirm he was in block 6, 1 floor up.
Title: Re: australian article by Mark Saunokonoko who supports amaral discussion
Post by: misty on June 13, 2017, 08:50:59 PM
I only wish I could but I don't know if someone on that balcony could see the front of 5A or vice versa so I can't.
Hope this helps. https://youtu.be/Zqoj-pfBUnY?t=3003 (filmed by Jon Corner?)
View of foliage & balcony at 51s http://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/video/exterior-shots-around-the-ocean-club-apartments-in-pria-news-footage/487715118
606, used by the PJ is at the eastern end of Block 6 - Pegasus confirmed this.
Title: Re: australian article by Mark Saunokonoko who supports amaral discussion
Post by: John on June 13, 2017, 09:04:39 PM
You posted two photos gunit, of which one certainly was immediately after the time Madeleine vanished, because the Police fingerprint girl, was there. The other photo was in the dark but it also clearly showed the gap between 5A and the trees. The gap thru which it would have been possible for a watcher on that balcony opposite to signal to someone standing outside the front door recess or Madeleines window.
I cant understand why you are unable to concede this when you have actually posted the images. Surely you can see the facts staring you in the eyes?
Is this what you are looking for Sadie? Anyone standing outside 5a can be seen from this vantage.
(http://i.imgur.com/VQIKUHf.jpg)
Title: Re: australian article by Mark Saunokonoko who supports amaral discussion
Post by: G-Unit on June 13, 2017, 09:38:07 PM
Hope this helps. https://youtu.be/Zqoj-pfBUnY?t=3003 (filmed by Jon Corner?)
View of foliage & balcony at 51s http://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/video/exterior-shots-around-the-ocean-club-apartments-in-pria-news-footage/487715118
606, used by the PJ is at the eastern end of Block 6 - Pegasus confirmed this.
Thanks, misty.
I think I've frozen the video of the finger print lady but if not the image at 1:34/2:20 suggests to me that unless someone was standing next to the wall they would not be able to see anyone on the middle balcony. Anyone on the middle balcony would not be able to see the lady.
I think I've frozen the video of the finger print lady but if not the image at 1:34/2:20 suggests to me that unless someone was standing next to the wall they would not be able to see anyone on the middle balcony. Anyone on the middle balcony would not be able to see the lady.
I think it would be very risky for someone to be watching on that balcony. At least 4 apartments on the first floor were occupied that week - if G610 is the one at the McCann end then that was occupied. (http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/T/03_VOLUME_IIIa_Page_616.jpg) I'll have a look a GE in a while & see if it's possible to work out how many apartments are on the first floor.
Title: Re: australian article by Mark Saunokonoko who supports amaral discussion
Post by: G-Unit on June 13, 2017, 10:54:34 PM
I think it would be very risky for someone to be watching on that balcony. At least 4 apartments on the first floor were occupied that week - if G610 is the one at the McCann end then that was occupied. (http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/T/03_VOLUME_IIIa_Page_616.jpg) I'll have a look a GE in a while & see if it's possible to work out how many apartments are on the first floor.