CMTV Gonçalo Amaral - O Enigma - with English subtitles

[Brietta]

The interviewer asked Amaral to explain in detail what his theory was for the disposal of Madeleine's body. Amaral denied having one despite having just watched himself on video outlining his latest thesis.

So it seems fine to denigrate people with the foulest possible accusations while refusing to explain how they achieved the impossible.

We say ... "A big boy done it and ran away".  Which in Amaral's world seems to have worked out very well indeed as he continues with with the smear campaign while denying it.
You really could not make it up.

[Robittybob1]

He suggested she had fallen over the patio balcony and broke her neck. He never said she fell off a sofa.

Was that in the video or elsewhere?  Which part of the patio balcony would this be?  Would that allow Madeleine to fall into the garden or not?

[Robittybob1]

He implied that could have happened as the dog alerted in the garden below the balcony.  If I recall he suggested that Madeleine could have pursued her father after hearing him speaking outside.

Am I right in thinking that garden into which she could have fallen is still part of apartment 5A property?  She would still be contained within the boundary wall?

[Robittybob1]

Gerry was in the tapas restaurant at the time of the Smith sighting.

Jane saw a man carrying a child and the Smiths saw a man carrying a child.

PJ Inspector Joao Carlos ruled out 'woke and wandered'.

That'll do.

Where is this recorded "PJ Inspector Joao Carlos ruled out 'woke and wandered'"?  I didn't see it in the file called http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JOAO_CARLOS.htm

[Robittybob1]

Just so and what's more both Gerry McCann and Jeremy Wilkins agree.  According to Amaral, Tanner went up the footpath behind the apartments and entered her apartment using the patio door.  He claims it was from her front corridor that she saw a man carrying a child, a man identified by Redwood as probably being an innocent tourist.  Jez Wilkins later recalled seeing a woman dressed in purple standing there at 5d smoking.

She drew a diagram of the situation and it is nothing like what you describe.  Is Amaral putting words into the witness' mouth?

[Robittybob1]

Mark was involved with the searches but one explanation is his wife was a business partner of Bridget O'Donnell (wife of Jez) who knew of the McCanns child checking arrangements on the Wednesday night.
http://portugalresident.com/making-property-purchase-an-enjoyable-experience

Good point "How did he know the door was open when everyone else thought it was locked?"

‘ Praia da Luz resident Mark McCarrick said the girl might have simply walked out of her room. “The parents left the door ajar so they could keep going over and looking at her.”
this is the first and last mention of Mark McCarrick in the UK press – so how did he know the door was open when everyone else was still claiming it was locked?"  http://fakeologist.com/blog/2013/10/20/madeleine-mccann-a-european-jon-benet-ramsey/#ixzz4sM5yyGUI

[Robittybob1]

Absolutely, I have experienced so-called consular assistance in Spain in 2003 and it can in no way be compared to what occurred in Praia da Luz in 2007.  The British police were told to shadow the McCanns and be there every time they had contact with the PJ.  It isn't rocket science to work out why,

It would have made it a bit more difficult for the PJ to plant evidence against the McCanns.  Is that what you mean?

[Robittybob1]

Another of Amaral's facts is that JT managed to pass two people without either of them seeing her. JW said;

I can affirm that it was a quiet street and it was very unlikely that someone could have passed by be in this way
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JEREMY-WILKINS-ROGATORY.htm

Once again, this fact has been hotly discussed. Various excuses and explanations have been offered, but the fact remains that JT wasn't seen by either of the men. One of them found that very unlikely.

It isn't Jane's fault that no one say they saw her.

[G-Unit]

It isn't Jane's fault that no one say they saw her.

Who said it was? It seems reasonable to me for the police to wonder why though.

[faithlilly]

I too would be 'wondering why'  - if it was true that JT had had to virtually move sideways and squeeze around Gerry and Jez, both of whom Amaral has standing in the middle of the pavement and directly in JT's path in his first video.     If you think that is a fair depiction of what happened, then I am amazed G.

IMO That blatant and preposterous distortion of the facts would be risible if it were not so dishonest.

It seems to me that Gerry and Jez's position was deliberately changed to ensure that people watching the video - and who didn't know any better -  could come to no other conclusion than JT must have lied about seeing them talking in the street.     What other reason could there be?

Disgraceful.

AIMHO

So do you find Gerry changing his talk with Jez to a totally different side of the street despite two other witnesses claiming otherwise disgraceful too ?

[G-Unit]

I think Amaral was pretty close to Wilkins' cross.

[pathfinder73]

The tapas bar was on his apartment side. Jez had to cross the road to get back to his apartment. Gerry did not have to cross the road. It could explain not seeing Tannerman crossing and Jane walking through you LOL.

[Brietta]

Jane Tanner saw a man carrying a barefoot child in his arms crossing the road ahead of her.  The child was wearing pyjamas.

She also saw Gerry and Jez in conversation ... neither of whom saw her ... neither did they see the man crossing the road behind them.

In my opinion there was a chain of evidence here with Jane Tanner at the centre. Might that be why she had to be discredited ... who knows? but I'm sure somebody does.

• Jane's statement confirms Jeremy's statement
• Jane's statement confirms Gerry's statement.
• The fact that she saw the chance encounter which she could not have known about otherwise, confirms her statement

In my opinion it is immaterial what the men failed to see.  What is of importance is what Jane did see.

The stranger she witnessed carrying a child is a link in the chain of evidence.  I am of the opinion that as important as maintaining the search for Madeleine, was finding the man carrying the child who might have been Madeleine, to eliminate him from the inquiry ... or if that failed, to throw more resources at finding him and the child.

[stephen25000]

Jane Tanner saw a man carrying a barefoot child in his arms crossing the road ahead of her.  The child was wearing pyjamas.

She also saw Gerry and Jez in conversation ... neither of whom saw her ... neither did they see the man crossing the road behind them.

In my opinion there was a chain of evidence here with Jane Tanner at the centre. Might that be why she had to be discredited ... who knows? but I'm sure somebody does.

• Jane's statement confirms Jeremy's statement
• Jane's statement confirms Gerry's statement.
• The fact that she saw the chance encounter which she could not have known about otherwise, confirms her statement

In my opinion it is immaterial what the men failed to see.  What is of importance is what Jane did see.

The stranger she witnessed carrying a child is a link in the chain of evidence.  I am of the opinion that as important as maintaining the search for Madeleine, was finding the man carrying the child who might have been Madeleine, to eliminate him from the inquiry ... or if that failed, to throw more resources at finding him and the child.

Sounds like clutching at an ever decreasing number of straws to me.

Haven't SY done this already ?

[Miss Taken Identity]

It has been established that Jane Tanner did not see an abductor.

Jane Tanner only mentioned this after Maddie disappeared- she didn't shout it out at the time. why not?
Kate said she knew right away that Maddie was abducted, but didn't say right away.
What is wrong with these people?