Strange Witness Statements

[misty]

"The careful and critical analysis of the timeline has been absolutely key. Primarily, we are focused on the area between 8.30pm and 10pm." (DCI Redwood)

The timeline is key in Evil under the Sun.

The area is a place, not a time.

[pathfinder73]

The area is a place, not a time.

You don't know if all witnesses are telling you the truth about the time and where they were so anomalies are investigated.

[misty]

You don't know if all witnesses are telling you the truth about the time and where they were so anomalies are investigated.

I agree again. Hence SY re-interviewing individuals late last year who definitely stated they weren't in the area at the time Madeleine went missing.

[pathfinder73]

I agree again. Hence SY re-interviewing individuals late last year who definitely stated they weren't in the area at the time Madeleine went missing.

Yes and all anomalies will be investigated because who ever did it lied to the police.

[G-Unit]

Gerald McCann made an initial statement on 4th May and a more detailed one on 10th May. His later statement includes two interesting details;

That, between Monday and Wednesday, not knowing the precise date, when they left the residence by the main door, to place the children in the respective creches, MADELEINE left [went] running to the left to the extreme opposite of the residential blocks where they were lodged, playing with the twins. That they had gone down to the furthest point away from those blocks, not knowing exactly how, the three children got into the gardens at the rear [of the blocks]. Then they followed the inside corridor [pathway] at the rear, next to the hedges [fences] up to the street that led to the secondary reception.

After going through the side gate, and while on his way to the secondary reception entrance, less than 10 metres from the gate, he saw JEZ coming up the street on the opposite pavement bring with him a baby carriage with his youngest child. He crossed the road in JEZ's direction who would come up on the right-hand side [when viewed] from the ascending direction, both having chatted for 3 to 4 minutes, about tennis, holidays and children.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN-10MAY.htm

The comment about Madeleine and the twins running away and going along the pathway between the apartments and the Tapas enclosure was probably his answer when asked why he thought the sniffer dogs both went that way when tracking Madeleine's scent. Without Gerald's explanation there was no reason for the dogs to go that way. They should have come out of the front door of G5A and turned right, tracking the person seen by Jane Tanner. Thanks to DCI Redwood, of course, we now 'know' that the person seen by Jane wasn't carrying Madeleine, so the dogs would have no reason to track him. It's possible therefore that the dogs were right and the trail they followed was the correct one. Unfortunately Gerald's explanation supported the Tanner sighting and the other route was ignored.

The other strange thing is Gerald's insistence that he crossed the road to speak to Jeremy Wilkins, although Jeremy and Jane Tanner were quite sure that he was next to the entrance to the path. He was so insistent that he made Jane cry during their reconstruction. Why was it so important, I wonder, that he stuck to his version and refused to accept that of the other two? It shouldn't have mattered where they spoke, what difference could it make? Why not just accept that he could have been mistaken? I can only assume that it was important to him.

My conclusion is that Gerald McCann didn't want either himself or his daughter to be associated with that pathway on the evening of 3rd May.

[Benice]

Gerald McCann made an initial statement on 4th May and a more detailed one on 10th May. His later statement includes two interesting details;

That, between Monday and Wednesday, not knowing the precise date, when they left the residence by the main door, to place the children in the respective creches, MADELEINE left [went] running to the left to the extreme opposite of the residential blocks where they were lodged, playing with the twins. That they had gone down to the furthest point away from those blocks, not knowing exactly how, the three children got into the gardens at the rear [of the blocks]. Then they followed the inside corridor [pathway] at the rear, next to the hedges [fences] up to the street that led to the secondary reception.

After going through the side gate, and while on his way to the secondary reception entrance, less than 10 metres from the gate, he saw JEZ coming up the street on the opposite pavement bring with him a baby carriage with his youngest child. He crossed the road in JEZ's direction who would come up on the right-hand side [when viewed] from the ascending direction, both having chatted for 3 to 4 minutes, about tennis, holidays and children.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN-10MAY.htm

The comment about Madeleine and the twins running away and going along the pathway between the apartments and the Tapas enclosure was probably his answer when asked why he thought the sniffer dogs both went that way when tracking Madeleine's scent. Without Gerald's explanation there was no reason for the dogs to go that way. They should have come out of the front door of G5A and turned right, tracking the person seen by Jane Tanner. Thanks to DCI Redwood, of course, we now 'know' that the person seen by Jane wasn't carrying Madeleine, so the dogs would have no reason to track him. It's possible therefore that the dogs were right and the trail they followed was the correct one. Unfortunately Gerald's explanation supported the Tanner sighting and the other route was ignored.

The other strange thing is Gerald's insistence that he crossed the road to speak to Jeremy Wilkins, although Jeremy and Jane Tanner were quite sure that he was next to the entrance to the path. He was so insistent that he made Jane cry during their reconstruction. Why was it so important, I wonder, that he stuck to his version and refused to accept that of the other two? It shouldn't have mattered where they spoke, what difference could it make? Why not just accept that he could have been mistaken? I can only assume that it was important to him.

My conclusion is that Gerald McCann didn't want either himself or his daughter to be associated with that pathway on the evening of 3rd May.

Why would you assume that Gerry made JT cry?    She already knew that his recollection of where they stood was different to hers - so it would come as no surprise at all to her to hear him repeat it.

On the other hand she was having to re-live what was undoubtedly one of the most horrendous nights of her life. A situation far more likely to upset her than hearing something which she already knew IMO.

 

[faithlilly]

Why would you assume that Gerry made JT cry?    She already knew that his recollection of where they stood was different to hers - so it would come as no surprise at all to her to hear him repeat it.

On the other hand she was having to re-live what was undoubtedly one of the most horrendous nights of her life. A situation far more likely to upset her than hearing something which she already knew IMO.

So why do you think Gerry was so insistent on where the chat with Jez took place, even to discrediting his own witnesses's credibility ?

[misty]

Gerald McCann made an initial statement on 4th May and a more detailed one on 10th May. His later statement includes two interesting details;

That, between Monday and Wednesday, not knowing the precise date, when they left the residence by the main door, to place the children in the respective creches, MADELEINE left [went] running to the left to the extreme opposite of the residential blocks where they were lodged, playing with the twins. That they had gone down to the furthest point away from those blocks, not knowing exactly how, the three children got into the gardens at the rear [of the blocks]. Then they followed the inside corridor [pathway] at the rear, next to the hedges [fences] up to the street that led to the secondary reception.

After going through the side gate, and while on his way to the secondary reception entrance, less than 10 metres from the gate, he saw JEZ coming up the street on the opposite pavement bring with him a baby carriage with his youngest child. He crossed the road in JEZ's direction who would come up on the right-hand side [when viewed] from the ascending direction, both having chatted for 3 to 4 minutes, about tennis, holidays and children.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN-10MAY.htm

The comment about Madeleine and the twins running away and going along the pathway between the apartments and the Tapas enclosure was probably his answer when asked why he thought the sniffer dogs both went that way when tracking Madeleine's scent. Without Gerald's explanation there was no reason for the dogs to go that way. They should have come out of the front door of G5A and turned right, tracking the person seen by Jane Tanner. Thanks to DCI Redwood, of course, we now 'know' that the person seen by Jane wasn't carrying Madeleine, so the dogs would have no reason to track him. It's possible therefore that the dogs were right and the trail they followed was the correct one. Unfortunately Gerald's explanation supported the Tanner sighting and the other route was ignored.

The other strange thing is Gerald's insistence that he crossed the road to speak to Jeremy Wilkins, although Jeremy and Jane Tanner were quite sure that he was next to the entrance to the path. He was so insistent that he made Jane cry during their reconstruction. Why was it so important, I wonder, that he stuck to his version and refused to accept that of the other two? It shouldn't have mattered where they spoke, what difference could it make? Why not just accept that he could have been mistaken? I can only assume that it was important to him.

My conclusion is that Gerald McCann didn't want either himself or his daughter to be associated with that pathway on the evening of 3rd May.

The search & rescue dogs lost Madeleine's scent outside block 6. Why were they not taken inside block 6? Their handlers only took them inside Blocks 4 & 5.

[G-Unit]

It seems the PJ did specifically ask about the route taken by the sniffer dogs;

Confronted with the information that the [tracker] dog teams had followed/followed the scent trails in which, purportedly, MBM had not passed the intersection where she indicated a man carried a child, she affirmed, immediately, that she was not lying, maintaining the honesty of her initial version.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JANE-TANNER-10MAY.htm

[misty]

It seems the PJ did specifically ask about the route taken by the sniffer dogs;

Confronted with the information that the [tracker] dog teams had followed/followed the scent trails in which, purportedly, MBM had not passed the intersection where she indicated a man carried a child, she affirmed, immediately, that she was not lying, maintaining the honesty of her initial version.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JANE-TANNER-10MAY.htm

That doesn't address the issue. Tannerman walked towards the front of block 6. The search & rescue dogs followed scent to the car park at the rear of block 6 (a route we know she walked along to the crèche). Why weren't the dogs taken inside Block 6?

[G-Unit]

That doesn't address the issue. Tannerman walked towards the front of block 6. The search & rescue dogs followed scent to the car park at the rear of block 6 (a route we know she walked along to the crèche). Why weren't the dogs taken inside Block 6?

That's your issue, not mine. My question is why did Gerald McCann insist that he crossed the road to speak to Jeremy Wilkins when two other witnesses say he didn't? Why was it so important? Is he just a control freak who's always right or is there possibly another reason?

[misty]

That's your issue, not mine. My question is why did Gerald McCann insist that he crossed the road to speak to Jeremy Wilkins when two other witnesses say he didn't? Why was it so important? Is he just a control freak who's always right or is there possibly another reason?

Sometimes it's hard to accept your memory may be playing tricks on you. To me, the most important issue is that Jez, an independent witness, puts himself & Gerry in the street where JT says she passed by them. IF JT is lying about seeing Tannerman, that's not Gerry's issue.

[G-Unit]

Sometimes it's hard to accept your memory may be playing tricks on you. To me, the most important issue is that Jez, an independent witness, puts himself & Gerry in the street where JT says she passed by them. IF JT is lying about seeing Tannerman, that's not Gerry's issue.

I agree with you that people may not have correct recall and that the important thing is that they were there. In that case why didn't Gerald McCann accept that he could have been wrong? Surely the exact place where they spoke wasn't important? His insistence suggests that he attaches some importance to where they stood.

The PJ responded to Gerald McCann's 4th May statement in which he mentioned speaking to Jeremy Wilkins very quickly. They faxed Leicester police on 7th May asking for Jeremy Wilkins to be interviewed. In response, Wembley police were phoned by Leicester police and they faxed Jeremy Wilkin's statement to Leicester police  on 7th May at 21.16; it was passed back to the PJ the same day.

Did Gerald McCann know what Jeremy Wilkins said in his statement? This is a possibility IMO as Leicester police seem to have been happy to share information with them. If he did have knowledge of it, then he had a problem.

Jeremy said he didn't see Jane Tanner pass by. Jeremy's statement was important to Gerald because it confirmed the checking of the children. Jane's sighting was important as it upheld the abduction thesis. If Gerald said he didn't see Jane either he would have diminished her sighting. If he said he did see her he diminished Jeremy's evidence.

Perhaps his solution was to move the meeting across the road, so that he could agree with Jeremy and it was then more believable that they didn't see Jane. This suggests to me that Jane didn't pass the two men when they were talking next to the passageway. I believe Jeremy Wilkins. He spoke to Gerald McCann next to the entrance to the passageway and Jane Tanner didn't pass them in my opinion.

[Alfred R Jones]

I agree with you that people may not have correct recall and that the important thing is that they were there. In that case why didn't Gerald McCann accept that he could have been wrong? Surely the exact place where they spoke wasn't important? His insistence suggests that he attaches some importance to where they stood.

The PJ responded to Gerald McCann's 4th May statement in which he mentioned speaking to Jeremy Wilkins very quickly. They faxed Leicester police on 7th May asking for Jeremy Wilkins to be interviewed. In response, Wembley police were phoned by Leicester police and they faxed Jeremy Wilkin's statement to Leicester police  on 7th May at 21.16; it was passed back to the PJ the same day.

Did Gerald McCann know what Jeremy Wilkins said in his statement? This is a possibility IMO as Leicester police seem to have been happy to share information with them. If he did have knowledge of it, then he had a problem.

Jeremy said he didn't see Jane Tanner pass by. Jeremy's statement was important to Gerald because it confirmed the checking of the children. Jane's sighting was important as it upheld the abduction thesis. If Gerald said he didn't see Jane either he would have diminished her sighting. If he said he did see her he diminished Jeremy's evidence.

Perhaps his solution was to move the meeting across the road, so that he could agree with Jeremy and it was then more believable that they didn't see Jane. This suggests to me that Jane didn't pass the two men when they were talking next to the passageway. I believe Jeremy Wilkins. He spoke to Gerald McCann next to the entrance to the passageway and Jane Tanner didn't pass them in my opinion.

What convoluted logic is this?  Can you please explain what Gerry stood to lose by saying he did see JT as far as JW's testimony is concerned...?

[G-Unit]

What convoluted logic is this?  Can you please explain what Gerry stood to lose by saying he did see JT as far as JW's testimony is concerned...?

I did.